" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107TH CONGRESS

2nd Session

REPORT

107–436

BOB STUMP

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 4546

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

MAY 3, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed

BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

79–403

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107TH CONGRESS

2nd Session

REPORT

2003

107–436

BOB STUMP

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 4546

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

MAY 3, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

BOB STUMP, Arizona, Chairman

DUNCAN HUNTER, California

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California

J.C. WATTS, JR., Oklahoma

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina

JIM RYUN, Kansas

BOB RILEY, Alabama

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

KEN CALVERT, California

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

ANDER CREHSHAW, Florida

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

ED SCHROCK, Virginia

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JEFF MILLER, Florida

JOE WILSON, South Carolina

IKE SKELTON, Missouri

JOHN SPRATT, JR., South Carolina

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

LANE EVANS, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

JIM TURNER, Texas

ADAM SMITH, Washington

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

MIKE THOMPSON, California

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island

RICK LARSEN, Washington

ROBERT S. RANGEL, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

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

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

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

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

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

Rationale for the Committee Bill ........................................................................... 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 21

AH–64 modifications ................................................................................. 21

Airborne communications ......................................................................... 21

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) ................................................... 22

Aircrew integrated systems ...................................................................... 22

Avionics support equipment ..................................................................... 23

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications ..................................................... 23

Helicopter new training ............................................................................ 23

UH–60 Blackhawk .................................................................................... 24

UH–60 modifications ................................................................................. 24

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 25

Overview ........................................................................................................ 25

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

Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) summary/ATACMS block

II system summary ................................................................................ 28

Hellfire system summary .......................................................................... 29

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ............................................. 29

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 32

Bradley base sustaimnent ........................................................................ 32

Improved recovery vehicle (IRV) .............................................................. 32

M113 carrier modifications ....................................................................... 32

M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW) .................................................... 33

Ammunition Procurement, Army .................................................................... 33

Overview ........................................................................................................ 33

Items of Special Interest ........................................................................... 37

Army ammunition procurement ............................................................... 37

Army ammunition production and load, assemble, and pack (LAP)

capacity ................................................................................................... 37

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 38

Overview ........................................................................................................ 38

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

Automated data processing equipment (ADPE) ..................................... 47

Combat support medical ........................................................................... 47

Family of heavy tactical vehicles ............................................................. 48

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

Information system security program (ISSP) ......................................... 49

Items less than $5.0 million (construction equipment) .......................... 49

Joint tactical area command systems ...................................................... 49

Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME) ............................................ 49

Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS) family ............................................................................................................ 50

Page

IV

Small tug .................................................................................................... 50

Stamis tactical computers (STACOMP) .................................................. 51

Striker family ............................................................................................ 51

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army ..................................... 52

Overview ........................................................................................................ 52

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 54

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 54

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 54

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 59

AV–8B series modifications ...................................................................... 59

E–2 modifications ...................................................................................... 59

EA–6B modifications ................................................................................. 59

H–1 series modifications ........................................................................... 60

H–60 series modifications ......................................................................... 60

Joint primary air training system (JPATS) ............................................ 61

MH–60S ..................................................................................................... 61

P–3 series modifications ........................................................................... 61

T–45 training system (TS) ........................................................................ 62

UC–35 ......................................................................................................... 63

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 63

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 67

AIM–9X missile ......................................................................................... 67

Hellfire II missile ...................................................................................... 67

Tomahawk missile ..................................................................................... 67

Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps ............................................ 68

Overview ........................................................................................................ 68

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 71

Marine Corps ammunition procurement ................................................. 71

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 71

Overview ........................................................................................................ 71

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

Carrier replacement program advance procurement ............................. 75

CVN–69 refueling complex overhaul (RCOH) ......................................... 75

Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program

(SLEP) .................................................................................................... 75

Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) boats ............. 75

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 76

Overview ........................................................................................................ 76

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

Advanced integrated electronic warfare system (AIEWS) ..................... 84

Environmental support equipment .......................................................... 84

Gun fire control equipment ...................................................................... 84

Operating forces industrial plant equipment .......................................... 84

Other aviation support equipment ........................................................... 85

Other supply support equipment ............................................................. 85

Other training equipment ......................................................................... 85

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 86

Overview ........................................................................................................ 86

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

Family of construction equipment ........................................................... 91

Night vision equipment ............................................................................. 91

Radio systems ............................................................................................ 91

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 92

Overview ........................................................................................................ 92

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 98

B–2 modifications ...................................................................................... 98

C–130H ....................................................................................................... 99

C–130J ........................................................................................................ 99

C–130 modifications .................................................................................. 100

F–15 modifications .................................................................................... 100

F–16 modifications .................................................................................... 101

Fixed aircrew standardized seats ............................................................ 102

HH–60G pave hawk upgrades .................................................................. 102

Miscellaneous production charges ............................................................ 102

Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) ........................................... 103

Page

V

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force .............................................................. 103

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 106

Air Force Ammunition Procurement ....................................................... 106

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 106

Overview ........................................................................................................ 106

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 109

Advanced extremely high frequency satellite ......................................... 109

AGM–65 modifications .............................................................................. 109

Minuteman III modifications .................................................................... 109

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 110

Overview ........................................................................................................ 110

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 116

Combat arms training system (CATS) .................................................... 116

Combat training ranges ............................................................................ 116

Eagle vision ................................................................................................ 116

General information technology ............................................................... 116

GeoBase centralized geographic information system (GIS) ................... 117

Point of maintenance initiative ................................................................ 117

Thinpack parachutes ................................................................................. 118

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 118

Overview ........................................................................................................ 118

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 123

Army special operations aviation (ARSOA) avionics re-capitalization

and enhanced situational awareness ................................................... 123

Chemical/biological defense procurement program ................................ 123

Computer assisted medical diagnostics ................................................... 123

Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC) ............... 124

Special operations forces (SOF) small arms and weapons ..................... 124

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense ................................. 124

Overview ........................................................................................................ 124

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 126

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 126

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 127

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 127

Sections 101–107—Authorization of Appropriations ................................. 127

Subtitle B—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 127

Section 111—Shipbuilding Initiative ........................................................... 127

Subtitle C—Air Force Programs ...................................................................... 128

Section 121—Multiyear Procurement Authority for C–130J Aircraft

Program ...................................................................................................... 128

Subtitle D—Other Programs ........................................................................... 128

Section 141—Revisions to Multiyear Contracting Authority Relating

to Structuring of Contracts ....................................................................... 128

Section 142—Transfer of Technology Items and Equipment in Support

of Homeland Security ................................................................................ 128

Section 143—Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical

Agents and Munitions ............................................................................... 129

Section 144—Report on Department of Defense Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems ................................................................................................ 129

Section 145—Report on Impact of Army Aviation Modernization Plan

on the Army National Guard ................................................................... 129

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 130

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 130

Army RDT&E ................................................................................................... 132

Overview ........................................................................................................ 132

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 141

155mm extended-range guided projectile ................................................ 141

Advanced Army composite bridge ............................................................ 141

Advanced battery technology demonstration and validation program . 141

Advanced fuel cell technology ................................................................... 141

Advanced threat infrared countermeasures/common missile warning

system ..................................................................................................... 142

Aircrew coordination training .................................................................. 142

Applied communications and information networking (ACIN) program ........................................................................................................ 142

Anti-material sniper rifle .......................................................................... 143

Page

VI

Asbestos pilot project ................................................................................ 143

Automated document conversion ............................................................. 143

Bipolar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery ..................................... 143

Clothing and equipment technology ........................................................ 143

Crusader ..................................................................................................... 144

Digital glue technology ............................................................................. 144

Dismounted situation awareness system ................................................ 145

Distance Learning ..................................................................................... 145

Eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease ..................................... 145

Energy and sustainability research ......................................................... 145

Enhanced area air defense system short range air defense integrated

kinetic energy system ............................................................................ 146

Explosively formed penetrators ................................................................ 146

Eye-safe laser ............................................................................................. 146

Family of systems simulator .................................................................... 146

Fuel catalyst research and evaluation ..................................................... 147

Global combat support system ................................................................. 147

Helmet mounted thermal imaging system .............................................. 147

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

Human factors engineering technology ................................................... 148

Hyperspectral long-wave imager for the tactical environment ............. 148

Intelligence command global information portal .................................... 148

Javelin ........................................................................................................ 149

Landmine warfare/barrier engineering development ............................. 149

Lightweight x-band radar ......................................................................... 149

M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner projectile ................. 150

Metabolically engineered tissues for trauma .......................................... 150

Metallic particles in defense applications obscurant smokes ................ 150

Metrology ................................................................................................... 150

Micro electro-mechanical systems inertial measurement unit/global

positioning system ................................................................................. 151

Mini-backpack unmanned aerial vehicle ................................................. 151

Mobile tactical high energy laser ............................................................. 151

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

Non-traditional intelligence analysis toolset ........................................... 152

Nuclear biological, and chemical agent removal ..................................... 152

P3 micro-power devices for missile defense applications ....................... 152

Rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power unit ................................................... 152

Stable hemostat ......................................................................................... 153

Textile electronic garments for combat casualty care ............................ 153

Thermionic technology .............................................................................. 153

Unmanned aerial vehicle/unmanned ground vehicle demonstration

program .................................................................................................. 153

Volumetrically controlled manufacturing ................................................ 154

Weapons and munitions engineering development ................................ 154

Shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon-disposable (confined space) ......................................................................................... 154

Common remotely operated weapon system ........................................ 154

Wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters .............. 155

Navy RDT&E .................................................................................................... 155

Overview ........................................................................................................ 155

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

Acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology insertion ................ 166

Adanced cable design for mine/submarine warfare ................................ 166

Advanced camouflage coating demonstration ......................................... 166

Advanced composite radome materials ................................................... 166

Advanced composite sail ........................................................................... 167

Advanced deployable system burial capability ....................................... 167

Advanced ducted electric propulsion pod ................................................ 167

Advanced extended echo-ranging sonobuoy development ...................... 168

Advanced land attack missile ................................................................... 168

Advanced light strike vehicle ................................................................... 169

Advanced smart propulsor product model ............................................... 169

Advanced stealth ship radar .................................................................... 169

Advanced variable speed drive systems .................................................. 170

AEGIS baseline 7 phase II open architecture ......................................... 170

Affordable towed array construction ........................................................ 170

Page

VII

Affordable weapon ..................................................................................... 170

Anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship self-defense initiative ....................................................................................... 171

Anti-submarine warfare synthetic training environment ...................... 172

Autonomous maritime navigation ............................................................ 172

Aviation integrated life support system .................................................. 172

Aviation-shipboard information technology initiative ............................ 172

Biomedical research imaging .................................................................... 173

Chemical agent warning network demonstration ................................... 173

Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) carbon fiber qualification .................. 173

Compatible processor upgrade ................................................................. 173

DP–2 thrust vectoring system .................................................................. 174

Electric propulsion/ship power system distributed test bed .................. 174

Electronic interconnection research and development program ............ 174

Electronic warfare development ............................................................... 175

Airborne electronic attack follow-on ..................................................... 175

Location of global positioning system interferers ............................... 175

Electro-optical framing sensor .................................................................. 175

Extended range guided munitions ........................................................... 176

Fibrous monolithic materials insertion ................................................... 176

Formable aligned carbon thermosets ....................................................... 176

Hawk AN/TPS–59 radar service life extension program ....................... 176

High brightness electron source program ............................................... 177

High temperature superconducting AC synchronous Navy propulsion

motor and generator .............................................................................. 177

Human factors and improved performance integration tool .................. 177

Hybrid fiber optic/wireless communications ........................................... 178

Integrated maritime picture system of systems ..................................... 178

Interrogator for high-speed retro reflectometer communications .......... 178

Joint mission high-speed vessel ............................................................... 178

Joint operational test bed ......................................................................... 179

Knowledge projection for fleet maintenance ........................................... 179

Laser aim scoring system ......................................................................... 180

Laser welding and cutting ........................................................................ 180

Littoral support craft—experimental ....................................................... 180

Low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle program ............................... 181

Marine mammal research program ......................................................... 181

Mark–48 advanced capability torpedo improvements ............................ 181

Medical threat detection system .............................................................. 182

Mine countermeasures mine sweep mid-life assessment and upgrade . 182

Mobile fire support system ....................................................................... 182

Modeling and simulation of surgical procedures for battlefield trauma ........................................................................................................... 183

Multi-purpose sensor ................................................................................. 183

National shipbuilding research program ................................................. 183

Naval collaboration tool set ...................................................................... 184

Navy common command and decision system ........................................ 184

Navy support of research in oceanography ............................................. 185

Navy tactical unmanned aerial vehicle ................................................... 185

Nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance ............................................... 186

Ocean modeling for mine and expeditionary warfare ............................ 186

Organ transfer technology ........................................................................ 186

Photovoltaic energy park .......................................................................... 187

Portable digital precision location system ............................................... 187

Portable sterile water production device ................................................. 187

Rapid deployment fortification wall ......................................................... 188

Rapid retargeting ...................................................................................... 188

Real-time heart rate variability monitor ................................................. 188

Real-time precision tracking radar .......................................................... 189

SEALS Mark 5 patrol craft modification ................................................. 189

Shipboard integrated data environment ................................................. 189

Ship self defense electronic warfare systems .......................................... 190

Ship service fuel cell ................................................................................. 190

Small combatant craft ............................................................................... 190

Sniper rifle improvements ........................................................................ 190

Stationary lighter than air platform ........................................................ 191

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

Page

VIII

Submarine tactical warfare system ......................................................... 191

Superconducting DC homopolar motor .................................................... 191

Supply chain best practices ...................................................................... 192

Surface navy integrated undersea tactical technology ........................... 192

Target location designated handoff system ............................................. 192

Vacuum electronics ................................................................................... 193

Water purifications-expeditionary warfare ............................................. 193

Wide bandgap semiconductor materials .................................................. 193

Air Force RDT&E ............................................................................................. 194

Overview ........................................................................................................ 194

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 204

Advanced aluminum aerostructures ........................................................ 204

Advanced concept ejection seat II improvement ..................................... 204

Advanced thermal protection systems ..................................................... 204

Aging landing gear life extension program ............................................. 204

Air combat training ranges ...................................................................... 205

Air Force manufacturing technology program ........................................ 205

Air Force/national systems cooperation ................................................... 206

Ceramic matrix composites ...................................................................... 206

Compass Call upgrades ............................................................................. 206

Electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic radar target

generator ................................................................................................ 206

Electronic warfare development ............................................................... 207

Precision location and identification .................................................... 207

Comet infra-red countermeasures system ........................................... 207

Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle .......... 207

Air Force .................................................................................................... 207

Navy ........................................................................................................... 208

GPS–II program adjustment .................................................................... 209

Guidance, propulsion, and re-entry vehicle demonstration/validation . 209

High-accuracy network determination system ....................................... 209

Identification of time critical programs ................................................... 210

Information operation technology and fusion initiative ......................... 210

Information security and intrusion detection development ................... 210

Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology ............................. 211

Joint air to surface standoff missile ........................................................ 211

Joint integrated satellite communications technology ........................... 211

Joint services work station ....................................................................... 211

Laser induced surface improvement technology ..................................... 212

Lithium ion battery development ............................................................ 212

Low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling truck propulsion ....... 212

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

Missile technology demonstration ............................................................ 213

Network centric collaborative targeting .................................................. 213

Pulse detonation engine ............................................................................ 213

Rapid attack support system .................................................................... 213

Scorpius ...................................................................................................... 213

Space Technology ...................................................................................... 214

Streaker small launch vehicle .................................................................. 214

Super wideband compressive receiver ..................................................... 214

Synthetic theatre operations research model .......................................... 214

Texas regional institute for environmental studies ................................ 215

Thermal management for space structures ............................................. 215

Thrust vector control and infrared signature reduction ........................ 215

Upper atmospheric and astronomical training ....................................... 215

Vacuum pump ............................................................................................ 216

Wind-corrected munitions dispenser development ................................. 216

Defense Wide RDT&E ...................................................................................... 216

Overview ........................................................................................................ 216

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 225

Advanced sensor applications program ................................................... 225

Aircraft affordability initiative ................................................................. 225

Backscatter mobile truck system ............................................................. 225

Ballistic Missile Defense ........................................................................... 225

Silicon carbide based widebandgap technology ................................... 226

Ballistic Missile Defense System .......................................................... 226

Terminal Defense Segment ................................................................... 227

Page

IX

Midcourse Defense Segment ................................................................. 227

Boost Defense Segment ......................................................................... 228

Sensors Segment .................................................................................... 229

THAAD and PAC–3 ............................................................................... 229

Cooperative Programs ........................................................................... 229

Exploration of Alternative Approaches ................................................ 230

Ballistic missile defense baseline reports ............................................ 230

Cobra blue force tracking equipment ...................................................... 231

Chemical/biological defense research, development, test and evaluation program ........................................................................................... 231

Engineered pathogen identification and countermeasures program . 231

Rapid antibody-based biological countermeasures .............................. 232

Multi-wavelength surface scanning biological sensor ......................... 232

Chemical-biological regenerative air filters ......................................... 232

Chemical-biological mass spectrometer II ........................................... 232

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense enhancement ................ 233

Mustard gas prophylactic ...................................................................... 233

Biological defense homeland security test bed .................................... 233

C3I intelligence programs ......................................................................... 234

Combat Sent data distribution upgrade .................................................. 234

Combating terrorism technology support ................................................ 235

Lightweight biological detectors ........................................................... 235

Chemical-biological electrostatic decontamination system ................. 235

Facial recognition technology ................................................................ 235

Magnetic quadrupole resonance explosives detection ......................... 235

Commercial imagery to support military requirements ......................... 236

Complex systems engineering .................................................................. 236

Computer science and internet security degree program ...................... 236

Defense agency science and technology funding ..................................... 237

Defense counterintelligence programs ..................................................... 238

Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research ....... 238

Defense imagery and mapping program ................................................. 238

Defense manufacturing supply chain management ............................... 238

Defense travel system ............................................................................... 239

Enhance techniques for the detection of explosives ............................... 239

Environmental security technical certification program ........................ 239

Integrated optoelectronics technology ...................................................... 239

Interdisciplinary bilogical nanoscience research .................................... 239

Joint technology office ............................................................................... 240

Kinetic energy-anti satellite system ........................................................ 240

Medical free electron laser .................................................................... 240

Multi-function self-aligned gate ............................................................ 241

Multi-link antenna system .................................................................... 241

National collaborative environment ..................................................... 241

‘‘Smart’’ fuzing ........................................................................................ 241

Spike urban warfare system ................................................................. 242

Strategic environmental research and development program ........... 242

Tactical missile recycling ...................................................................... 242

Thermobaric warhead development ..................................................... 242

Unmanned aerial vehicles major acquisition programs ..................... 243

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 243

Overview ........................................................................................................ 243

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 245

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 245

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 245

Section 202—Amount for basic and applied research ................................ 245

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 245

Section 211—RAH–66 Comanche Aircraft Program .................................. 245

Section 212—Management Responsibility for Navy Mine Countermeasures Programs ................................................................................... 245

Section 213—Extension of Authority to Carry Out Pilot Program for

Revitalizing the Laboratories and Test and Evaluation Centers of

the Department of Defense ....................................................................... 246

Section 214—Revised Requirements for Plan for Manufacturing Technology Program .......................................................................................... 246

Section 215—Technology Transition Initiative .......................................... 246

Section 216—Defense Acquisition Challenge Program .............................. 247

Page

X

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense ............................................................. 248

Section 231—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Procurement of

(PAC–3) Missiles Pending Submission of Required Certification ......... 248

Section 232—Responsibility of Missile Defense Agency for Research,

Development, Test, and Evaluation Related to System Improvements

of Programs Transferred to Military Departments ................................ 248

Section 233—Amendments to Reflect Change in Name of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to Missile Defense Agency ............................ 248

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 248

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 248

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 280

Budget Request Adjustments .......................................................................... 280

Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions ....................................................... 281

Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises ..................................................... 281

Budget Request Display Issues ....................................................................... 281

Accrual Accounting for Civil Service Retirement and Health Programs . 281

Defense Emergency Response Fund ............................................................ 282

Information Technology (IT) Issues ................................................................ 282

Overview ........................................................................................................ 282

Requirements ............................................................................................. 283

Budget Reviews ......................................................................................... 283

Performance-based contracting ................................................................ 284

Program management ............................................................................... 284

Defense Messaging System (DMS) .......................................................... 284

Defense Integrated Military Human Resources Systems ...................... 285

Global Command Support System-Army ................................................ 285

Supply Maintenance Aviation Reengineering Team .............................. 286

Warfighters Simulation System ............................................................... 286

Wireless Priority Service .......................................................................... 286

Environmental Issues ...................................................................................... 286

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues ......................................................... 289

Appropriated Fund Support for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs .......................................................................................................... 289

Defense Commissary Agency Funding and Staffing .................................. 289

Force Protection for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities .............. 290

Support of Privatized Housing Areas .......................................................... 290

Other Issues ...................................................................................................... 290

Automatic Identification Technology/Radio Frequency Identification ...... 290

Cold Weather Clothing ................................................................................. 291

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

Industrial Mobilization Capacity/Unutilized Plant Capacity .................... 292

Fuel Savings Technology .............................................................................. 292

Energy Savings Performance Contracts ...................................................... 293

Long Tenn Depot Strategy ........................................................................... 293

National Defense Sealift Fund Issues ......................................................... 294

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 294

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 294

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 294

Section 302—Working Capital Funds ......................................................... 294

Section 303—Armed Forces Retirement Home .......................................... 294

Subtitle B—Environmental Issues .................................................................. 294

Section 311—Incidental Taking of Migratory Birds During Military

Readiness Activity ..................................................................................... 294

Section 312—Military Readiness and the Conservation of Protected

Species ........................................................................................................ 295

Section 313—Single Point of Contact for Policy and Budgeting Issues

Regarding Unexploded Ordnance, Discarded Military Munitions, and

Munitions Constituents ............................................................................ 295

Subtitle C—Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities . 295

Section 321—Authority for Each Military Department to Provide Base

Operating Support to Fisher Houses ....................................................... 295

Section 322—Use of Commissary Stores and MWR Retail Facilities

by Members of National Guard Serving in National Emergency .......... 295

Section 323—Uniform Funding and Management of Morale, Welfare,

and Recreation Programs ......................................................................... 296

Subtitle D—Workplace and Depot Issues ....................................................... 296

Page

XI

Section 331—Notification Requirements in Connection with Required

Studies for Conversion of Commercial or Industrial Type Functions

to Contractor Performance ....................................................................... 296

Section 332—Waiver Authority Regarding Prohibition on Contracts for

Performance of Security-Guard Functions .............................................. 296

Section 333—Exclusion of Certain Expenditures from Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance

and Repair Workloads ............................................................................... 296

Section 334—Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding Depot-Level

Maintenance and Repair Workloads That Were Performed at Closed

or Realigned Military Installations .......................................................... 297

Section 335—Clarification of Required Core Logistics Capabilities ......... 297

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents Education .................................................. 297

Section 341—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit

Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of

Defense Civilian Employees ..................................................................... 297

Section 342—Availability of Quarters Allowance for Unaccompanied

Defense Department Teacher Required to Reside on Overseas Military Installation ........................................................................................ 297

Section 343—Provision of Summer School Programs for Students Who

Attend Defense Dependents’ Education System ..................................... 297

Subtitle F—Information Technology ............................................................... 298

Section 351—Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract ................................. 298

Section 352—Annual Submission of Information on National Security

and Information Technology Capital Assets ........................................... 298

Section 353—Implementation of Policy Regarding Certain Commercial

Off-the-Shelf Information Technology Products ...................................... 299

Section 354—Installation and Connection Policy and Procedures Regarding Defense Switch Network ............................................................. 299

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 299

Section 361—Distribution of Monthly Reports on Allocation of Funds

Within Operation and Maintenance Budget Subactivities .................... 299

Section 362—Minimum Deduction From Pay of Certain Members of

the Armed Forces to Support Armed Forces Retirement Home ............ 299

Section 363—Condition on Conversion of Defense Security Service to

a Working Capital Funded Entity ........................................................... 300

Section 364—Continuation of Arsenal Support Program Initiative ......... 300

Section 365—Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of Resources and Training System, and Training Range Inventory .............. 300

Section 366—Amendments to Certain Education and Nutrition Laws

Relating to Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing ............ 300

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 301

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 301

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 302

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 302

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 302

Section 402—Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels ..... 302

Section 403—Authority for Military Department Secretaries to Increase

Active-Duty End Strengths By Up to One Percent ................................ 303

Section 404—General and Flag Officer Management ................................ 303

Section 405—Extension of Certain Authorities Relating to Management

of Numbers of General and Flag Officers in Certain Grades ................ 303

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 304

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 304

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

of the Reserves ........................................................................................... 304

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ....... 304

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2003 Limitation on Non-Dual Status Technicians ............................................................................................................ 305

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 305

Section 421—Authorization of appropriations for Military Personnel ..... 305

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 306

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 306

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 306

Absentee Voting for Military Members ....................................................... 306

Compensation and Benefits for Reserve Component Members ................ 307

Consideration of Innovative Readiness Training Initiatives ..................... 307

Page

XII

Review and Report on Increased Participation of U.S. Navy Officers

in Intermediary and Senior War Colleges ............................................... 308

Uniting Through Reading ............................................................................ 308

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 308

Subtitle A—General Personnel Management Authorities ............................ 308

Section 501—Increase in Number of Deputy Commandants of the Marine Corps .................................................................................................. 308

Section 502—Extension of Good-of-the-Service Waiver Authority for Officers Appointed to a Reserve Chief or Guard Director Position ........... 308

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 309

Section 511—Reviews of National Guard Strength Accounting and

Management and Other Issues ................................................................ 309

Section 512—Courts-Martial for the National Guard When not in Federal Service ................................................................................................ 309

Section 513—Matching Funds Requirements Under National Guard

Youth Challenge Program ........................................................................ 310

Subtitle C—Reserve Component Officer Personnel Policy ............................ 310

Section 521—Exemption from Active Status Strength Limitation for

Reserve Component General and Flag Officers Serving on Active

Duty in Certain Joint Duty Assignments Designated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ............................................................... 310

Section 522—Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion to Grade of

Major General for Certain Reserve Component Brigadier Generals

Who do not Otherwise Qualify for Consideration for Promotion Under

the One-Year Rule ..................................................................................... 310

Section 523—Retention of Promotion Eligibility for Reserve Component

General and Flag Officers Transferred to an Inactive Status ............... 311

Section 524—Authority for Limited Extension of Medical Deferment

of Mandatory Retirement or Separation for Reserve Officers ............... 311

Subtitle D—Education and Training .............................................................. 311

Section 531—Authority for Phased Increase to 4,400 in Authorized

Strengths for the Service Academies ....................................................... 311

Section 532—Enhancement of Reserve Component Delayed Training

Program ...................................................................................................... 312

Subtitle E—Decorations and Awards ............................................................. 312

Section 541—Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain Decorations to Certain Persons ........................................................................... 312

Section 542—Option to Convert Award of Armed Forces Expeditionary

Medal Awarded for Operation Frequent Wind to Vietnam Service

Medal .......................................................................................................... 312

Subtitle F—Administrative Matters ............................................................... 312

Section 551—Staffing and Funding of the Defense Prisoner of War/

Missing Personnel Office .......................................................................... 312

Section 552—Three-Year Freeze on Reductions of Personnel of Agencies

Responsible for Review and Correction of Military Records .................. 312

Section 553—Department of Defense Support for Persons Participating

in Military Funeral Honors Details ......................................................... 313

Section 554—Authority for Use of Volunteers as Proctors for Administration of Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Test ................ 313

Section 555—Annual Report on Status of Female Members of the

Armed Forces ............................................................................................. 313

Subtitle G—Benefits ......................................................................................... 313

Section 561—Voluntary Leave Sharing Program for Members of the

Armed Forces ............................................................................................. 313

Section 562—Enhanced Flexibility in Medical Loan Repayment Program ........................................................................................................... 313

Section 563—Expansion of Overseas Tour Extension Benefits ................ 314

Section 564—Vehicle Storage in Lieu of Transportation When Member

is Ordered to a Nonforeign Duty Station Outside Continental United

States .......................................................................................................... 314

Subtitle H—Military Justice Matters ............................................................. 314

Section 571—Right of Convicted Accused to Request Sentencing by

Military Judge ........................................................................................... 314

Section 572—Report on Desirability and Feasibility of Consolidating

Separate Courses of Basic Instruction for Judge Advocates .................. 315

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 315

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 315

Page

XIII

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 316

Integrating Basic Allowance for Subsistence into Basic Pay .................... 316

Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve ..................... 316

Reducing the Gap Between Military and Private Sector Pay Increases .. 317

Use of the Critical Skills Retention Bonus for Linguists .......................... 317

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 318

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 318

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2003 ......................... 318

Section 602—Expansion of Basic Allowance for Housing Low-Cost or

No-Cost Moves Authority to Members Assigned to Duty Outside

United States ............................................................................................. 318

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 318

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

Authorities for Reserve Forces ................................................................. 318

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

Authorities for Certain Health Care Professionals ................................ 318

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

for Nuclear Officers ................................................................................... 319

Section 614—One-Year Extension of Other Bonus and Special Pay Authorities ...................................................................................................... 319

Section 615—Minimum Levels of Hardship Duty Pay for Duty on the

Ground in Antarctica or on Arctic Icepack .............................................. 319

Section 616—Increase in Maximum Rates for Prior Service Enlistment

Bonus .......................................................................................................... 319

Section 617—Retention Incentives for Health Care Providers Qualified

in a Critical Military Skill ........................................................................ 319

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 320

Section 631—Extension of Leave Travel Deferral Period for Members

Performing Consecutive Overseas Tours of Duty ................................... 320

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits ........................................... 320

Section 641—Phase-in of Full Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired

Pay and Veterans Disability Compensation for Military Retirees with

Disabilities Rated at 60 Percent or Higher ............................................. 320

Section 642—Change in Service Requirements for Eligibility for Retired

Pay for Non-Regular Service .................................................................... 321

Section 643—Elimination of Possible Inversion in Retired Pay Costof-Living Adjustment for Initial COLA Computation ............................ 321

Section 644—Technical Revisions to So-Called ‘‘Forgotten Widows’’ Annuity Program ............................................................................................ 321

Subtitle E—Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill .................................. 321

Section 651—Extension of Montgomery G.I. Bill-Selected Reserve Eligibility Period ............................................................................................... 321

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 321

Section 661—Addition of Definition of Continental United States in

Title 37 ....................................................................................................... 321

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE MATTERS .............................................................. 321

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 321

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 323

Claims Processing for Under-65 Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries ................ 323

Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System Improvements .................................................................................................... 323

Force Health Protection ................................................................................... 324

Military Health Care System Information Management .............................. 324

TRICARE Access Standards for Appointments ............................................. 325

Waiver of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Deductible for Beneficiaries in

Nursing Homes ............................................................................................. 325

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 325

Subtitle A—Health Care Program Improvements ......................................... 325

Section 701—Elimination of Requirement for TRICARE

Preauthorization of Inpatient Mental Health Care for Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries ........................................................................................ 325

Section 702—Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for Certain Dependents ..................................................................................................... 326

Section 703—Enabling Dependents of Certain Members Who Died

While on Active Duty to Enroll in the TRICARE Dental Program ....... 326

Section 704—Improvements Regarding the Department of Defense

Medicare—Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund ....................................... 326

Page

XIV

Section 705—Certification of Institutional Non-Institutional Providers

Under the TRICARE Program ................................................................. 327

Section 706—Technical Correction Regarding Transitional Health Care 327

Subtitle B—Reports .......................................................................................... 327

Section 711—Comptroller General Report on TRICARE Claims Processing .......................................................................................................... 327

Section 712—Comptroller General Report on Provision of Care Under

the TRICARE Program ............................................................................. 328

Section 713—Repeal of Report Requirement .............................................. 328

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND

RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................................... 329

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

Acqusition program and management ........................................................ 329

Defense Logistics Agency’s Best Value Contracting .................................. 330

Report on Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by Women .. 330

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 330

Section 801—Plan for Acquisition Management Professional Exchange

Pilot Program ............................................................................................. 330

Section 802—Evaluation of Training, Knowledge, and Resources Regarding Negotiation of Intellectual Property Arrangements ................. 331

Section 803—Limitation Period for Task and Delivery Order Contracts . 331

Section 804—One-Year Extension of Program Applying Simplified Procedure to Certain Commercial items; Report .......................................... 331

Section 805—Authority to Make Inflation Adjustment to Simplified

Acquisition Threshold ............................................................................... 332

Section 806—Improvement of Personnel Management Policies and Procedures Applicable to the Civilian Acquisition Workforce ..................... 332

Section 807—Modification of Scope of Ball and Roller Bearings Covered

for Purposes of Procurement Limitation ................................................. 332

Section 808—Rapid Acquisition and Deployment Procedures .................. 332

Section 809—Quick-Reaction Special Projects Acquisition Team ............. 332

Section 810—Report on Development of Anti-Cyberterrorism Technology ......................................................................................................... 333

Section 811—Contracting with Federal Prison Industries ........................ 333

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 333

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 333

Regional Centers for Security Studies ........................................................ 333

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 333

Section 901—Change in Title the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps ..................................................... 333

Section 902—Report on Implementation of United States Northern

Command ................................................................................................... 333

Section 903—National Defense Mission of Coast Guard to be Included

in Future Quadrennial Defense Reviews ................................................ 334

Section 904—Change in Year for Submission of Quadrennial Defense

Review ........................................................................................................ 334

Section 905—Report on Effect of Noncombat Operations on Combat

Readiness of the Armed Forces ................................................................ 334

Section 906—Conforming Amendment to Reflect Disestablishment of

Department of Defense Consequence Management Program Integration Office ................................................................................................... 335

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 335

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

Chartering of Special Purpose Vessels ........................................................... 335

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 335

Overview ........................................................................................................ 335

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 336

DEA Support .............................................................................................. 336

Mexico Information Analysis Center ....................................................... 337

National Guard C–26 Aircraft .................................................................. 337

Riverine Training Deployments ............................................................... 337

Southwest border fence ............................................................................. 337

Tethered Aerosat Radar System .............................................................. 337

Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft .................................................... 337

Principles of Federal Appropriation ................................................................ 337

Security Requirements for Contractor Employees ......................................... 338

Page

XV

Strategic Force Structure Plan ........................................................................ 338

U.S. Strategic Deterrent .................................................................................. 339

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

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 339

Section 1001—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 339

Section 1002—Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal

Year 2002 ................................................................................................... 339

Section 1003—Uniform Standards Throughout Department of Defense

for Exposure of Personnel to Pecuniary Liability for Loss of Government Property ............................................................................................ 339

Section 1004—Accountable Officials In the Department of Defense ........ 340

Section 1005—Improvements in Purchase Card Management ................. 340

Section 1006—Authority to Transfer Funds Within a Major Acquisition

Program from Procurement to RDT&E ................................................... 340

Section 1007—Development and Procurement of Financial and Nonfinancial Management Systems ............................................................... 340

Subtitle B—Reports .......................................................................................... 341

Section 1011—After-Action Reports on the Conduct of Military Operations Conducted as Part of Operation Enduring Freedom ................... 341

Section 1012—Report on Biological Weapons Defense and Counter-Proliferation ..................................................................................................... 342

Section 1013—Requirement That Department of Defense Reports to

Congress Be Accompanied by Electronic Version ................................... 342

Section 1014—Strategic Force Structure Plan for Nuclear Weapons and

Delivery Systems ....................................................................................... 342

Section 1015—Report on Establishment of a Joint National Training

Complex and Joint Opposing Forces ........................................................ 343

Section 1016—Repeal of Various Reports Required of the Department

of Defense ................................................................................................... 343

Section 1017—Report on the Role of the Department of Defense in

Supporting Homeland Security ................................................................ 343

Section 1018—Report by the National Academy of Sciences on Effects

of Nuclear Earth Penetrators and Other Weapons ................................ 343

Section 1019—Report by the National Academy of Sciences on Effects

of Nuclear Interceptors ............................................................................. 344

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 344

Section 1021—Sense of Congress on Maintenance of a Reliable, Flexible, and Robust Strategic Deterrent ........................................................ 344

Section 1022—Time for Transmittal of Annual Defense Authorization

Legislative Proposal .................................................................................. 344

Section 1023—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 344

Section 1024—War Risk Insurance for Vessels in Support of NATOApproved Operations ................................................................................. 344

Section 1025—Conveyance, Navy drydock, Portland, Oregon .................. 345

Section 1026—Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support

Teams ......................................................................................................... 345

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ............... 345

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 345

Section 1101—Eligibility of Department of Defense Nonappropriated

Fund Employees For Long-Tenn Care Insurance ................................... 345

Section 1102—Extension of Department of Defense Authority to Make

Lump-Sum Severance Payments ............................................................. 345

Section 1103—Common Occupational and Health Standards for Differential Payments as a Consequence of Exposure To Asbestos ........... 345

Section 1104—Continuation of Federal Employee Health Benefits Program Eligibility .......................................................................................... 345

Section 1105—Triennial Full-Scale Federal Wage System Wage Surveys ............................................................................................................. 346

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS .............................. 346

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 346

Section 1201—Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts to Inspect

and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities ..................................................... 346

Section 1202—Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan ................................ 346

Section 1203—Administrative Services and Support for Foreign Liaison

Officers ....................................................................................................... 347

Section 1204—Additional Countries Covered by Loan Guarantee Program ........................................................................................................... 347

Page

XVI

Section 1205—Limitation on Funding for Joint Data Exchange Center .. 348

Section 1206—Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in Colombia ............................................................................................................... 348

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF

THE FORMER SOVIET UNION ........................................................................ 349

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 349

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

Arms Elimination Projects in Russia .......................................................... 351

Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention ............................................. 351

Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia .................................................. 351

Defense and Military Contacts .................................................................... 352

Fissile Material Storage Facility ................................................................. 352

Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia ............................................ 353

Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security ................................................. 353

Other Assessments and Administrative Support ....................................... 353

Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination of

Kazakhstan ................................................................................................ 353

Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination of Ukraine .... 354

Russian Proliferation to Iran ....................................................................... 354

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

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

and Funds .................................................................................................. 355

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 355

Section 1303—Prohibition Against Use of Funds Until Submission of

Reports ....................................................................................................... 355

Section 1304—Report on Use of Revenue Generated by Activities Carried Out Under Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs ..................... 355

Section 1305—Prohibition Against Use of Funds for Second Wing of

Fissile Material Storage Facility .............................................................. 356

Section 1306—Sense of Congress and Report Requirement Regarding

Russian Proliferation to Iran ................................................................... 356

Section 1307—Prohibition Against Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction

Funds Outside the States of the Former Soviet Union .......................... 356

Section 1308—Limited Waiver of Restriction on Use of Funds ................ 356

Section 1309—Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of Report

on Defense and Military Contacts Activities ........................................... 356

TITLE XIV—UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE .......................................... 357

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 357

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

Section 1401—Definition of Utah Test and Training Range ..................... 357

Section 1402—Military Operations and Overflights at Utah Test and

Training Range .......................................................................................... 358

Section 1403—Designation and Management of Lands in Utah Test

and Training Range .................................................................................. 358

Section 1404—Designation of Pilot Range Wilderness .............................. 358

Section 1405—Designation of Cedar Mountain Wilderness ...................... 358

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 358

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 358

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW ...................................................... 358

TITLE XXI—ARMY ................................................................................................. 375

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 375

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 375

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 375

Unspecified Minor Construction .................................................................. 375

Water Tanks, Fort Bliss, Texas ................................................................... 375

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 375

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ....................................................................................................... 375

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 375

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 375

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 376

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal

Year 2002 Projects ..................................................................................... 376

TITLE XXII—NAVY ................................................................................................ 376

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 376

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 376

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System Land Based Test Site .............. 376

Page

XVII

North Chicago Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center And

Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois ...................................................... 376

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 377

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

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ....................................................................................................... 377

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 377

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 377

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 377

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal

Year 2002 Project ...................................................................................... 378

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE .................................................................................... 378

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 378

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

C–17 Assault Strips ...................................................................................... 378

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 378

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 378

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 378

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 379

Section 2303—Improvements of Military Family Housing Units ............. 379

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 379

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES .................................................................. 379

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 379

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 379

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 379

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 379

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ....................................................................................... 379

Section 2402—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 379

Section 2403—Energy Conservation Projects ............................................. 379

Section 2404—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies .......... 380

Section 2405—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal

Year 2000 Project ...................................................................................... 380

Section 2406—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal

Year 1999 Project ...................................................................................... 380

Section 2407—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal

Year 1997 Project ...................................................................................... 380

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................ 380

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

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ....................................................................................................... 380

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ............................ 381

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 381

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 381

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 381

Dual Use Reserve Facilities ......................................................................... 381

Joint Army Reserve and National Guard Reserve Center ........................ 381

Planning and Design, Air National Guard ................................................. 381

Planning and Design, Army National Guard ............................................. 381

Unspecified Minor Construction .................................................................. 382

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 382

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 382

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS ..... 382

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 382

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to

Be Specified by Law .................................................................................. 382

Section 2702—Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2000

Projects ....................................................................................................... 382

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1999

Projects ....................................................................................................... 383

Section 2704—Effective Date ....................................................................... 383

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................... 383

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 383

Impact of Privatized Housing on Local School Systems ............................ 383

Page

XVIII

Integrated Water Management System on Guam ..................................... 383

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 384

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing

Changes ......................................................................................................... 384

Section 2801—Changes to Alternative Authority for Acquisition and

Improvement of Military Housing ........................................................... 384

Section 2802—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Construction

Projects as Part of Environmental Response Action .............................. 384

Section 2803—Leasing of Military Family Housing in Korea ................... 384

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 384

Section 2811—Agreements with Private Entities to Limit Encroach

ments and Other Constraints on Military Training, Testing, and

Operations .................................................................................................. 384

Section 2812—Conveyance of Surplus Real Property for Natural Resource Conservation Purposes .................................................................. 385

Section 2813—National Emergency Exemption from Screening and

Other Requirements of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act for

Property Used in Support of Response Activities ................................... 385

Section 2814—Demonstration Program on Reduction in Long-Term Facility Maintenance Costs ........................................................................... 385

Section 2815—Expanded Authority to Transfer Property at Military

Installations to Be Closed to Persons Who Construct or Provide Military Family Housing ................................................................................. 385

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 386

Part I—Army Conveyances .............................................................................. 386

Section 2821—Land Conveyances, Lands in Alaska No Longer Required

for National Guard Purposes .................................................................... 386

Section 2822—Land Conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky .................... 386

Section 2823—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Training Center, Buffalo, Minnesota .......................................................................................... 386

Section 2824—Land Conveyance, Fort Bliss, Texas .................................. 386

Section 2825—Land Conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas .................................. 386

Part II—Navy Conveyances ............................................................................. 387

Section 2831—Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar,

San Diego, California ................................................................................ 387

Section 2832—Boundary Adjustments, Marine Corps Base, Quantico,

and Prince William Forest Park, Virginia .............................................. 387

Part III—Air Force Conveyances .................................................................... 387

Section 2841—Land Conveyance, Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary

Field, Nevada ............................................................................................. 387

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 387

Section 2861—Easement for Construction of Roads or Highways, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California ........................................ 387

Section 2862—Sale of Excess Treated Water and Wastewater Treatment Capacity, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina ... 388

Section 2863—Ratification of Agreement Regarding Adak Naval Complex, Alaska, and Related Land Conveyances ......................................... 388

Section 2864—Special Requirements for Adding Military Installations

to Closure List ........................................................................................... 388

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 388

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 388

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 388

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 406

Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request 406

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ............................... 406

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 406

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 407

Adjustments to the Budget Request ............................................................ 407

Reductions .................................................................................................. 407

Increases .................................................................................................... 407

Federal Workforce Restructuring ................................................................ 408

Foster Panel Assessment of NNSA Reform Efforts ................................... 409

Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign ......................................... 409

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator ............................................................... 411

Stockpile Certification .................................................................................. 411

Page

XIX

Test Readiness .............................................................................................. 411

Tritium Readiness Campaign ...................................................................... 412

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .......................... 412

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 412

Adjustments to the Budget Request ............................................................ 412

Environmental Management Cleanup Reform Program ........................... 413

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 414

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 414

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 414

Section 3102—Environmental and Other Defense Activities .................... 414

Subtitle B—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations General Provisions ............................................................................................... 414

Section 3120—Short Title; Definitions ........................................................ 414

Section 3121—Reprogramming .................................................................... 414

Section 3122—Minor Construction Projects ............................................... 415

Section 3123—Limits on Construction Projects ......................................... 415

Section 3124—Fund Transfer Authority ..................................................... 415

Section 3125—Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design .......... 415

Section 3126—Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and Construction Activities .................................................................................... 415

Section 3127—Funds Available for All National Security Programs of

the Department of Energy ........................................................................ 415

Section 3128—Availability of Funds ........................................................... 415

Section 3129—Transfer of Defense Environmental Management Funds . 416

Section 3130—Transfer of Weapons Activities Funds ............................... 416

Section 3131—Scope of Authority to Carry Out Plant Projects ................ 416

Subtitle C—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 416

Section 3141—One-Year Extension of Panel to Assess the Reliability,

Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ................ 416

Section 3142—Transfer to National Nuclear Security Administration

of the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Relating to Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium in Russia ............................................................................................................... 416

Section 3143—Repeal of Requirement for Reports on Obligations of

Funds for Programs on Fissile Materials in Russia ............................... 417

Section 3144—Annual Certification to the President and Congress on

the Condition of the United States Nuclear Weapons Stockpile ........... 417

Section 3145—Plan for Achieving One-Year Readiness for Resumption

by the United States of Underground Nuclear Weapons Tests ............. 417

Subtitle D—Provisions Relating to Defense Environmental Management . 417

Section 3151—Defense Environmental Management Cleanup Reform

Program ...................................................................................................... 417

Section 3152—Report on Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War .......................................... 418

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 418

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 418

Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request 418

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 419

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 419

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE ........................................ 419

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 419

Section 3301—Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds .................................. 419

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ........................................... 419

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 419

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 419

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 419

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 419

Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget .............. 419

Blanket Approval of Vessel Time Charters ................................................ 420

Financial Assistance to States to Prepare Vessels for Use as Artificial

Fish Reefs .................................................................................................. 420

Loan Guarantee Program ............................................................................. 421

Marketing Efforts to Reduce Potential Losses ........................................... 421

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 422

Section 3501—Authoirization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 ..... 422

Section 3502—Authorization of Transfer the USS Sphinx ........................ 422

Page

XX

Section 3503—Financial Assistance to States for Preparation of Obsolete Vessels for Use as Artificial Reefs .................................................... 422

Section 3504—Independent Analysis of Title XI Insurance Guarantee

Applications ............................................................................................... 422

Departmental Data .................................................................................................. 422

Department of Defense Authorization Request ................................................. 422

Military Construction Authorization Request ................................................... 423

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 424

Communications From Other Committees ............................................................ 424

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 430

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................................................... 430

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ...................................................... 430

Committee Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 448

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 448

General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 449

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 450

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 450

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 451

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 460

Additional views of Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie,

Marty Meehan, Thomas H. Allen, Loretta Sanchez, Ellen O. Tauscher,

Robert A. Brady, Robert E. Andrews, Baron P. Hill, James R. Langevin,

Rick Larsen, Adam Smith, Robert A. Underwood ............................................. 580

Additional views of Ike Skelton, Robert E. Andrews, Lane Evans, Ellen O.

Tauscher, Marty Meehan, Vic Snyder, John Spratt, Susan A. Davis, Rick

Larsen, Silvestre Reyes, James H. Maloney, John B. Larson, Loretta

Sanchez, Baron P. Hill, Thomas H. Allen, Robert A. Brady, Cynthia A.

McKinney, Adam Smith, James R. Langevin, Ciro D. Rodriguez .................... 582

Additional views of W. Todd Akin .......................................................................... 585

Dissenting views of Cynthia A. McKinney ............................................................ 586

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 107–436

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2003

MAY 3, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the

Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. STUMP, from the Committee on Armed Services,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 4546]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 4546) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for

military activities of the Department of Defense, and for military

construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal

year 2003, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the

bill as amended do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause off the bill

and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported

bill.

The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the

text of the bill.

EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 4546. The title of the bill

is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The

remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended.

2

PURPOSE

The bill would—(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003

for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation

(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3)

Authorize for fiscal year 2003: (a) the personnel strength for each

active duty component of the military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed forces; (c) the military training student loads for

each of the active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military

personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for military construction and family

housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for the

Department of Energy national security programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (8) Authorize

appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for the Maritime Administration.

RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS

The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts provide

budget authority. The bill addresses the following categories in the

Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance; working

capital funds, military personnel; and military construction and

family housing. The bill also addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and the Maritime Administration.

Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in this

bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel

determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization

of specific dollar amounts for personnel.

SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL

The President requested budget authority of $396.8 billion for

the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2003. Of this

amount, the President requested $378.3 billion for the Department

of Defense, including $9.0 billion for military construction and family housing. Of this amount requested for the Department of Defense, $10.0 billion has been designated as a reserve fund and will

receive separate treatment pending submission of a detailed budget

request. The defense budget request for fiscal year 2003 also included $16.4 billion for Department of Energy national security

programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

The committee recommends an overall level of $382.8 billion in

budget authority. This amount represents an increase of approximately $39.5 billion from the amount authorized for appropriation

by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

(Public Law 107–107).

3

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

The following table provides a summary of the amounts requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the bill

(in the column labeled ‘‘Budget Authority Implication of Committee

Recommendation’’) and the committee’s estimate of how the committee’s recommendations relate to the budget totals for the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the budget authority implications of committee action, the table reflects the numbers contained in the President’s budget for proposals not in the

committee’s legislative jurisdiction.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003

(H.R. 4546) demonstrates the committee’s continuing responsibility

and commitment to the national security of the United States in

the wake of September 11th—a date that now marks the most lethal single attack on the United States in our nation’s history.

H.R. 4546 is the first defense authorization bill in decades that

was drafted with our country at war. Accordingly, this bill sends

an important signal of unwavering support for the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are fighting the global war

against terrorism. This commitment is evident by the fact that

H.R. 4546 would authorize—

• The largest relative increase in defense spending since

1966;

• The largest defense budget (in inflation-adjusted terms)

since fiscal year 1990;

• The fifth straight year of real increases in defense spending, after 13 consecutive years of real cuts to defense budgets;

and

• The largest increase in military manpower since 1986.

The committee is convinced that the U.S. military is finally on

the road to recovery, as the coming fiscal year will set a modern

day high-water mark for the U.S. defense program. This bill would

ensure that the Armed Forces are fully capable and ready to execute their assigned missions while transforming themselves to

meet future threats; enhance the nation’s ability to deter and defend against strategic threats, and to counter the proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction; advance efforts to protect our homeland from a variety of threats; and support the President’s campaign to defeat international terrorism.

The unconventional nature of the military campaign against terrorism required that Congress accordingly adjust its traditional

budget process to allow for greater flexibility in financing the significant costs of these operations. In keeping with this approach,

the committee divided the annual defense authorization bill into

two separate components.

H.R. 4546 would authorize $383.4 billion for defense activities

during fiscal year 2003. This bill provides for the base defense

budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and largely covers the costs associated with the normal rate of investment and operations of the

Department of Defense. The second bill, H.R. 4547, the Cost of War

on Terrorism Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, will supplement H.R. 4546 by covering the known costs of continuing Operations NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM, as well as

miscellaneous DOD incremental costs directly associated with the

war on terrorism. In addition, H.R. 4547 would serve as the legislative vehicle for further authorization action once the Administration submits a detailed budget proposal for the $10 billion contingency fund identified in the budget request.

The committee believes this approach—dividing the annual defense bill into two discrete components—represents the most workable implementation of the flexible budgeting proposal contained in

both the President’s budget request and the House-passed Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. Equally important, this approach

11

would facilitate appropriate Congressional oversight of this remaining portion of the proposed defense budget by ensuring regularorder consideration and action.

In keeping with this approach, the committee carefully scrutinized the base defense budget and identified a discrete category of

items that, due to their direct relationship to the conduct of the

war against terrorism, are more appropriately funded through this

second bill, H.R. 4547. These items, which total $3.4 billion of the

$10 billion expected to be authorized by H.R. 4547, would cover the

following war-related costs: replacement weapons and equipment

used or lost in the war; one-time upgrades or special operational

costs; and personnel costs.

When combined, the core defense authorization bill, H.R. 4546,

which is funded at $383.4 billion, and the second defense authorization bill, H.R. 4547, which is expected to be funded at $10 billion, would fully support the President’s budget request of $393.4

billion for the national defense function. The committee is pleased

with the Administration’s overall request for defense, but believes

that even greater spending will be required to ensure that the military is properly manned, trained, equipped, and organized to deal

not only with today’s threats, but with emerging, unforeseen, and

asymmetric ones as well.

Strategic Defense, Deterrence, and Forces

H.R. 4546 would promote U.S. national security and strategic

readiness by moving forward with research and development of

multi-tiered missile defense systems, and implementing several of

the findings and conclusions of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

Recent reports by the Intelligence Community state that the ballistic missile threat to the United States continues to grow. A December, 2001, National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that

‘‘The probability that a missile with a weapon of mass destruction

will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than

most of the Cold War, and it will continue to grow as the capabilities of potential adversaries mature.’’ The NIE added that short

and medium range ballistic missiles already pose a significant

threat overseas to U.S. interests, military forces, and allies.

North Korean missiles under development are capable of striking

the United States, and Iran could attempt to launch an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) by 2005. Both countries also have

active nuclear weapons programs designed to develop nuclear warheads for their missiles. And were it not for international sanctions

and prohibitions, Iraq would have similar capabilities—which have

only been delayed by a few years because of Iraq’s continuing, covert efforts.

Russia maintains the most robust ballistic missile force capable

of reaching the United States, but resource problems, force structure decisions, and expected agreements with the United States

will force a significant reduction in Russia’s strategic forces over

the next several years. Conversely, China continues its multi-year

effort to modernize and expand its strategic forces, including the

development of new road-mobile missiles and submarine-launched

missiles.

As a result of these disturbing threat reports, and the urgent

need to eliminate the United States vulnerability to ballistic misVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
12

siles, the committee endorses the President’s ballistic missile defense program, and supports the proposed layered defense system

and realistic testing program. Therefore, the bill fully supports and

marginally increases the President’s $7.8 billion budget request for

missile defenses.

Beyond the constitutional and moral obligation to defend the nation, the committee believes that missile defenses are critical to deterring enemies from attacking the United States or its interests.

Missile defenses also prevent adversaries from attempting to intimidate or blackmail the United States from acting in its interests

by removing the enemy’s missile trump card and changing their

strategic calculus. Finally, missile defenses promote stability by

dissuading other nations from building ballistic missiles in the first

place, given that such endeavors become too costly and too risky if

their missiles can be defeated.

The other component to effective strategic defenses and deterrence is robust, flexible, and capable nuclear forces. The Bush Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of January 2002 provided a comprehensive road map to achieving the capabilities necessary for today’s strategic environment, and to deal with future,

unforeseen threats. The NPR calls for a new triad of offensive

forces, defensive capabilities, and a reinvigorated nuclear industry/

infrastructure. The committee held hearings and received briefings

from senior government officials, and other experts, on the need to

revitalize the United States nuclear weapons industry, and to enhance our nuclear weapons infrastructure. As a result, the bill

would, among other things, endorse the President’s Nuclear Posture Review and task the Administration to develop a plan for enhanced nuclear test readiness.

Combating Terrorism

Recently, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) appeared before Congress and stated that the al Qaeda terrorist network is the

most immediate and serious threat that the country faces, that it

will continue to attack the United States and our interests abroad,

and that its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is particularly

alarming. The DCI added that American military facilities around

the world are at particular risk. This is not surprising given the

attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, the 1996 attack

on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the fact that the U.S.

military is the most visible symbol of American strength and values.

Given these threats, both here in the United States and abroad,

the committee bill endorses the President’s efforts to combat terrorism by supporting the Department of Defense’s request of $7.3

billion for combating terrorism activities. This request includes

$6.0 billion for antiterrorism, $676.0 million for counterterrorism,

$360.0 million for terrorism consequence management, and $223.0

million for counterintelligence efforts.

The antiterrorism measures proposed by the Department include

increased security and vigilance for key personnel, installations,

and equipment. These activities will complement the actions of

other federal agencies and friendly nations.

The committee supports the Department’s plans for terrorism

consequence management, which are focused on two major areas:

13

the preparedness of installation emergency responders to mitigate

the effects of an attack involving chemical, biological, radiological,

nuclear, or high-yield explosives; and the support provided to a

lead federal agency when foreign, state, and local governments request assistance.

The Department defines counterterrorism as ‘‘offensive measures

taken to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism.’’ The committee

endorses this definition, recognizes the Department’s exceptional

history with regard to counterterrorism operations; applauds the

military’s current efforts in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere; and supports the Department’s efforts to ensure U.S. Special Operations Forces are the best manned, trained, armed,

equipped, and supported in the world.

Good intelligence is the first line of defense against terrorism. As

such, the committee supports the Department’s efforts to improve

intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination to commanders

in a timely manner.

Putting People First

The committee believes that the key to capable and flexible

armed forces is the people—military and civilian alike, and the

families that stand with them—who have dedicated themselves to

the defense of the country. As such, the committee believes that the

Department of Defense must take special care to ensure that their

readiness, morale and quality of life are enhanced.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003

would not only ensure that our military personnel are well trained

and equipped, but also reflects the committee’s concern about the

impact that the war on terrorism is having on service members and

their families. Despite years of overuse and budgetary neglect, the

Armed Forces have performed magnificently in the wake of the

September 11th attacks on the nation. Notwithstanding their exceptional successes in Afghanistan, and their deployments to the

Philippines, Georgia, and Central Asia, the committee believes that

wartime operations have exacerbated the same debilitating stresses

of high operations and personnel tempos that existed before the

global war on terrorism.

The Committee fully supports the Secretary’s efforts to reduce

operational and mission requirements, and to free up force structure to reduce the ‘‘tooth to tail’’ ratio. Accordingly, the committee

bill would increase active duty end strength by 12,600 from the requested levels, and provide an additional $550.0 million to support

this increase.

Because ‘‘people’’ are the key to a great military force, this bill

gives the Department the resources it needs to recruit and retain

quality people at all levels, improve the quality of life for service

members and their families, and to take better care of military retirees and veterans. As in the past, the committee bill would provide a pay raise that combines both across-the-board and targeted

increases for mid-grade noncommissioned officers and officers. The

bill would also reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for military

personnel, authorize concurrent receipt of military retired pay and

disability payments for the most severely disabled military retirees,

and implement several changes to improve health care for military

personnel.

14

Finally, taking care of our military personnel also means providing them with the best equipment, weapons, resources, and

technology available to do their jobs and accomplish their missions.

But given the billions of dollars of unfunded requirements, coupled

with the need to fight a war abroad and protect the homeland from

terrorism, adequate military readiness will be difficult to sustain

over the long term. Many of the military’s weapons systems and

platforms are long past their initial design lifespan, so maintenance problems and costs will continue to degrade mission capability. That said, the committee enhanced the President’s budget

request by providing the additional investments in the technology

and weapons that will give our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines the advantages on the modern battlefield that will help guarantee success. The committee remains committed to making even

larger investments in the future to ensure that our service members remain the best armed, equipped, and capable in the world.

Conclusion

In H.R. 4546, the committee has focused its efforts on improving

military readiness, taking care of DOD personnel and their families, strengthening our strategic defenses and forces, combating terrorism, stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,

and preparing for an extended war against terrorism. As a result,

the committee believes its message is clear—that the House Armed

Services Committee is completely committed to defending the

United States, the American people, and our interests by restoring

the strength and improving the capabilities of our nation’s Armed

Forces.

HEARINGS

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2003 results from hearings that began on February 6, 2002 and that were completed on April 11, 2002. The full

committee conducted 8 sessions. In addition, a total of 22 sessions

were conducted by five different subcommittees and two panels of

the committee on various titles of the bill.

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

OVERVIEW

The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense (DOD) procurement

request subject to authorization was $68,637.2 million, $6,430.3

million higher than the fiscal year 2002 authorization.

The budget request also included $3,382.4 million in procurement-related equipment and items, as part of the Defense Emergency Response Fund request, resulting in a $9,812.7 million budget request increase over the fiscal year 2002 authorized level.

The committee increased the authorization for procurement by

$2,933.3 million and transferred $1,793.2 million from procurement

15

to H.R. 4547, for a net increase to the budget request of $4,522.5

million, and a total procurement authorization of $73,440.5 million.

16

17

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $2,061.0 million for Aircraft Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends

authorization of $2,300.3 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

18

19

20

21

Items of Special Interest

AH–64 modifications

The budget request contained $93.6 million for AH–64 modifications, but included no funds to procure the digital source collector

(DSC) health usage monitoring system (HUMS); nor the oil debris

detection system (ODDS); nor combination ammunition storage

magazine and crashworthy ballistically, self-sealing, internal auxiliary fuel tanks; nor a tactical engagement simulation system

(TESS) for the Army National Guard (ARNG).

The DSC-HUMS, a pre-planned product improvement for the vibration management enhancement program, is an on-board, crashsurvivable memory unit that records voice, flight data, and electronic diagnostic data from the 1533 multiplex data bus. The system aids post mishap investigations and troubleshooting field

maintenance failures.

The ODDS is an on-board detection system that alerts aircrews

to the presence of metal chips in engines and propeller gear boxes,

which allows flights to be terminated prior to catastrophic failure

of critical components. The system also permits the clearing of

smaller particles that routinely accumulate in engine oil and cause

false impending engine failure alarms resulting in unnecessary termination of aircraft missions and costly engine diagnostics.

The committee notes that requirements for additional combination ammunition storage magazine and crashworthy ballistically,

self-sealing, internal auxiliary fuel tanks exist for both AH–64A

Apache and AH–64D Apache Longbow aircraft. These tanks replace

externally-mounted, non-crashworthy, non self-sealing fuel tanks

and are currently installed in 101st Airborne Division (Air Assualt)

Apaches operating in Operation Enduring Freedom and provide a

26 percent increase in additional fuel capacity while preserving the

capability to carry 300 rounds of 30 millimeter ammunition.

The TESS is an advanced imbedded training system to enhance

combat training and readiness for Apache aircrews and provides

communications, decentralized engagement tracking and prosecution, and real time casualty assessment, which enables aircrews to

conduct collective training at their home stations. The committee

believes that the TESS would allow ARNG pilots to train more proficiently and help maintain similar proficiency levels of active component AH–64 aircrews.

The committee recommends $132.6 million for AH–64 modifications, an increase of $8.0 million to procure DSC-HUMS; an increase of $8.0 million in PE 64746A for continued development of

DSC-HUMS for the Apache Longbow; an increase of $5.0 million to

procure ODDS; an increase of $18.0 million to procure combination

ammunition storage magazine and crashworthy ballistically, selfsealing, internal auxiliary fuel tanks; and $8.0 million for one

TESS for the ARNG, for a total increase of $39.0 million for procurement upgrades for the AH–64 Apache fleet.

Airborne communications

The budget request contained $44.5 million for the procurement

of 10 AN/ARC–220 aviation non-line-of-sight (NLOS) high frequency (HF) radios, 262 AN/VRC–100 NLOS HF ground radios and

22

associated A-kits for installation of AN/ARC–220 radios into AH– 64 Apache attack helicopters.

The AN/ARC–220 aviation NLOS HF radio provides secure voice

and data communications between Army helicopters flying nap-ofthe-earth missions and beyond-line-of-sight tactical operations centers. The committee notes that the Task Force Hawk after action

report identified the lack of such capability in AH–64 Apache attack helicopters as a major deficiency for conducting long-range

strike missions. Further, the committee understands that the Army

has recently increased its basis of issue of the AN/ARC–220 radio

to one per AH–64 Apache versus the earlier basis of issue of one

per every two aircraft.

Based on the Task Force Hawk shortfalls, the increased requirement, and the committee’s belief that this communications requirement is essential to effectively employ Apache aircraft for deep

strike missions and ground offensives, the committee recommends

$53.0 million, an increase of $8.5 million, to procure an additional

375 AN/ARC–220 aviation NLOS HF radios.

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)

The budget request contained no funds to procure ASE.

The AN/AVR–2A laser detecting set (LDS) is the only device in

the Army capable of providing warning to helicopter crews when

they have been illuminated by a laser-targeted weapon. It detects,

identifies, and characterizes threats 360-degrees-around and plusor-minus 45 degrees above-and-below an aircraft.

The committee continues to be concerned with the growing laser

threat to helicopter aircrews and notes the limited fielding of this

system to force package one aircraft only. The committee understands that the Army plans to budget for LDS beginning in fiscal

year 2004 to complete LDS kit installation on the AH–64D Apache

Longbow and UH–60M Blackhawk helicopters. Based on a growing

laser threat to Army helicopters and consistent with prior year actions, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to accelerate procurement and fielding of AN/AVR–2A LDS kits.

Aircrew integrated systems

The budget request contained $15.2 million for the procurement

of aircrew integrated systems, but included no funds to either procure cockpit airbag systems (CABS) or HGU–56P, AH–64 Apache

helicopter integrated helmet and display sight subsystems

(IHADSS) for the Army National Guard (ARNG).

The CABS is a crash-activated, inflatable protection system,

which provides head and body supplemental restraint for helicopter

aviators, reducing death and injury caused by the body and head

impacting against cockpit structures in the event of a crash or hard

landing. The committee is highly supportive of technological advances that contribute to improved aircraft crashworthiness and

aircrew safety, and, also notes that the Army Chief of Staff has

identified $26.1 million for the procurement of CABS as a top fiscal

year 2003 unfunded priority. The IHADSS is comprised of an AH–

64A Apache helicopter flight helmet, which provides crash protection and noise attenuation and a small monocular display which

provides line-of-sight as well as flight critical video and symbology

information to the pilot. The committee believes these helmets proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
23

vide aviators with better situational awareness and safety of flight

information and note that not all ARNG Apache units have these

helmets.

The committee recommends $42.6 million for aircrew integrated systems, an increase of $26.1 million to procure CABS and $1.3

million for the procurement of 64 IHADSS for the ARNG.

Avionics support equipment

The budget request contained $7.5 million to procure AN/AVS– 6(V)3 aviator’s night vision imaging systems (ANVIS) and AN/

AVS–7 heads-up displays.

The AN/AVS–6(V)3 ANVIS is a helmet-mounted, twin-tube,

image-intensified (I2), generation IV, night vision system that significantly enhances night flight operations in conditions that vary

from overcast starlight to strong urban lighting. Currently fielded

systems comprise older generation II or generation III night vision

technology. AN/AVS–6(V)3 ANVIS generation IV technology provides a 200 percent improvement in visual acuity and range performance in high light levels and a 65 percent improvement in visual acuity and range performance in low light levels over current

technology, fielded from fiscal years 1985 through 1993.

The committee believes that improved safety of flight operations

would result from this enhanced generation IV technology and recommends $15.5 million, an increase of $8.0 million, to accelerate

the procurement of AN/AVS–6(V)3 ANVIS.

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications

The budget request contained $382.1 million for MH–47/CH–47F

special operations and cargo helicopter modifications, but included

no funds for crashworthy crew seats.

While existing pilot and co-pilot seats offer some protection in

the event of a hard impact landing or a crash, crew chiefs and load

master personnel do not have crashworthy crew seats to provide increased protection from the acceleration forces created by such a

landing or crash, thereby avoiding serious injuries or, in extreme

cases, fatalities to soldiers. The committee notes that the Army

Chief of Staff has identified a fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement to accelerate procurement of crashworthy crew seats into the

CH–47 Chinook helicopter.

The committee recommends $395.6 million, an increase of $13.5

million, to procure crashworthy crew seats for CH–47 cargo helicopters.

Helicopter new training

The budget request contained no funds to procure TH–67 Creek

training helicopters.

The committee notes the continued shortfall in visual flight, instrument flight, and basic combat skills training helicopters which

will occur with the anticipated retirement of Vietnam-era UH–1

and OH–58 A/C aircraft as outlined in the fiscal year 2000 Army

Aviation Modernization Plan. The committee understands that the

Army does not intend to replace these retiring aircraft due to affordability.

Based on the need to replace the aging Huey and OH–58 A/C

training fleet as soon as possible and the need to provide quality

24

training for Army aviators, the committee recommends an increase

of $9.6 million for six TH–67 helicopters.

UH–60 Blackhawk

The budget request contained $153.4 million for the procurement

of 12 UH–60L Blackhawk utility helicopters for the Army National

Guard (ARNG), but included no funds for HH–60L enhanced medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) helicopters for the ARNG or for a UH–

60L full motion simulator.

The Blackhawk is the Army’s primary utility helicopter for air

assault, general support and aero medical evacuation missions. The

HH–60L MEDEVAC helicopter provides enhanced medical evacuation and treatment of six litter or seven ambulatory patients in

a state-of-the-art medical treatment cabin interior.

The committee is aware that the national command authority’s

rapid reaction force 18th Airborne Corps has a requirement for one

additional UH–60L Blackhawk full motion simulator and that this

simulator is not planned to be budgeted for until fiscal year 2005.

However, aviation units from this corps are currently deployed in

combat operations in Operation Enduring Freedom and must maintain the highest levels of readiness and training as a rotational

alert force.

The committee recommends $268.7 million, an increase of $52.6

million to procure five additional UH–60L Blackhawks for the

ARNG and $47.7 million to procure three HH–60L MEDEVAC

variants for the ARNG, and an increase of $15.0 million for one

UH–60L Blackhawk full motion simulator for the 18th Airborne

Corps, for a total increase of $115.3 million.

UH–60 modifications

The budget request contained $41.9 million for UH–60 modifications, of which $10.3 million was for crashworthy external fuel systems, but no funds were included for this system for Army National

Guard (ARNG) UH–60 combat search and rescue aircraft or for

UH–60 deicing system upgrades.

UH–60 crashworthy external fuel systems are self-sealing,

ballistically-tolerant tanks that replace existing 230 gallon noncrashworthy external fuel tanks originally intended only for ferry

flights. However, expanding Army aviation missions have increasingly required these non-crashworthy tanks to be used to extend

UH–60 tactical mission ranges, which create safety risks to flight

crews, passengers, and aircraft that require individual mission

waivers by individual commands.

The committee understands that the original UH–60 series aircraft were built with a marginally capable deicing system and that

an upgrade is underway to improve its performance.

As a result of potential safety risks created by existing systems,

the committee recommends $49.9 million for UH–60 modifications,

an increase of $6.0 million, for crashworthy external fuel systems

for both ARNG combat search and rescue aircraft and active Army

UH–60s, and an increase of $2.0 million for UH–60 series aircraft

deicing system upgrades, for a total increase of $8.0 million.

25

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,642.3 million for Missile Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,693.9 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

26

27

28

Items of Special Interest

Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) summary/ATACMS block

II system summary

The budget request contained $9.1 million for the fielding of prior

year procured missiles, but included no funds to procure ATACMS

quick reaction program (QRP) unitary warhead missiles. The budget request also included $49.7 million for engineering services, production engineering support and related activities for ATACMS

block II missiles, however, no block II missiles are planned to be

produced in fiscal year 2003.

The ATACMS is a surface-to-surface, global positioning systemguided missile for deep-strike attacks against tactical surface-tosurface and surface-to-air missile sites; logistics elements; and command, control, communications complexes.

The committee is aware of the ATACMS QRP upgrade that will

incorporate Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response warheads into ATACMS Block IA missiles. This warhead upgrade is

designed to limit collateral damage when used against targets in

urban environments and is a direct outgrowth of the Army’s inability to conduct deep strike missions against such targets with its existing ATACMS missile inventory during Operation Allied Force.

The committee also notes that the Army received $38.0 million in

fiscal year 2002 Defense Emergency Response Fund supplemental

funding to accelerate this conversion initiative. The committee notes that $5.0 million and $6.1 million was appropriated for engineering services and production engineering support, respectively, in fiscal year 2002 for the production of 6

ATACMS block II missiles and 83 brilliant antitank submunitions

(BAT). However, $25.3 million and $12.0 million is requested for

engineering services and production engineering support, respectively, in fiscal year 2003, yet no missile or submunition production

is planned. The committee is concerned about the fiscal year 2003

request including a five-fold increase for engineering services and

just under twice the amount for production engineering support

over the amounts appropriated for these fiscal year 2002 production requirements. The committee also notes that the Army is currently reviewing and restructuring the ATACMS block II and BAT

program and considering arming unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)

with BAT pre-planned product improved (P3I) submunitions instead of expending BAT P3I submunitions from missiles.

The committee believes that the Army should have the capability

to provide joint force commanders with a surface-to-surface deep

strike option, which creates limited collateral damage in urban environments. Also, the committee is supportive of expanding UAV

capability with weapons, which have been effectively demonstrated

in Operation Enduring Freedom.

The committee recommends $47.1 for ATACMS missile system

summary, an increase of $38.0 million, to upgrade ATACMS Block

IA missiles to the QRP configuration. Also, the committee recommends $23.3 million for ATACMS block II system summary, a

decrease of $20.3 million and $6.1 million from engineering services and production engineering support, respectively, for a total

decrease of $26.4 million, since no production is planned in fiscal

year 2003 for ATACMS block II missiles or BAT P3I submunitions.

29

Hellfire system summary

The budget request contained $184.4 million for the procurement

of Longbow Hellfire missiles, but included no funds to procure laser

Hellfire II missiles.

The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified

a fiscal year 2003, $80.2 million unfunded requirement for laser

Hellfire II missiles.

The committee recommends $224.4 million for Hellfire system

summary, a $40.0 million increase, for laser Hellfire II missiles.

WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $2,248.6 million for procurement of

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends authorization of $2,373.0 million for

fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

30

31

32

Items of Special Interest

Bradley base sustainment

The budget request contained $397.1 million for the procurement

of Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, including $3.5 million for

fielding Army National Guard (ARNG) A2 Operation Desert Storm

(ODS) variants.

The Bradley A2ODS is an upgraded first-generation Bradley A0,

which enhances its lethality, survivability, and mobility, as well as

the situational awareness of its crew. Modifications include installation of a laser range finder, Global Positioning System navigation

capability, a combat identification system, a driver’s thermal viewer and a missile countermeasure device.

When the Army completes all of its planned upgrades to the

Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most advanced

A3 variant, along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The committee understands that beginning in fiscal year 2003, approximately 400

ARNG Bradley A0s will remain unmodified since this upgrade program was initiated. Because of major survivability deficiencies,

Bradley A0s were not mobilized during the Persian Gulf War. However, as part of the new ARNG enhanced brigades, the committee

notes that some of these A0 vehicles will be required to deploy with

active Army forces.

Because ARNG enhanced brigades will comprise an increasing

percentage of the Army’s warfighting capability in the future, the

committee recommends $457.1 million for Bradley base

sustainment, an increase of $60.0 million, to upgrade an additional

45 Bradley A0 vehicles to the A2ODS variant for the ARNG.

Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)

The budget request contained $50.3 million for the procurement

of 16 M88A2 IRVs, but included no funds for the procurement of

these vehicles for the Army National Guard (ARNG).

The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles weighing

less than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are required to safely

tow an Abrams tank if it becomes immobile due to combat damage

or mechanical failure. The M88A2 IRV upgrade is a jointly procured system for both the Army and Marine Corps and includes increased engine horsepower, as well as braking, steering, winch, lift,

and suspension capabilities required to safely recover Abrams

tanks and other heavy combat systems. The committee understands that the Army will terminate this program in fiscal year

2006 as one of its 18 programs it identified for termination through

the future years defense program to reprioritize funds for transformation, however, these upgrades will be procured to fulfill heavy

counter attack corps requirements. The committee also notes that

the ARNG has a shortfall of IRVs in its enhanced separate brigade

force structure.

The committee recommends $96.1 million, an increase of $45.8

million, for 15 additional M88A2 IRV upgrades for the ARNG.

M113 carrier modifications

The budget request contained $60.3 million for M113 carrier

modifications, of which $14.9 million was for M113 ‘‘A3’’ upgrades,

33

and $45.4 million was for new T–150 track for the United Statesbased Counter Attack Corps.

The M113A3 upgrade program, forecast to add an additional 20

years of service life to the vehicle, includes installation of a new engine, transmission, external armored fuel tanks, driver controls,

and internal Kevlar spall liners. The committee notes, however,

that the M113A3 upgrade program is one of 11 programs to be terminated by the Army in fiscal year 2003 in order to afford higher

transformation priorities.

While the committee is supportive of transformation and understands the need to reallocate resources to accelerate improved

transformational technologies, in this instance it believes that the

Army’s decision to not upgrade the remaining forward deployed

112, 2nd Infantry Division M113A2s in the Republic of Korea, and

the 185, 1st Armored Division and 167, 1st Infantry Division

M113A2s in Europe, will at a minimum, leave the soldiers in these

front line units vulnerable and lacking increased maneuver capability in the potentially unstable and high threat environments

they are required to operate in. Unless the Secretary of the Army

can present the committee with a valid plan as to why the Army

would not complete these particular unit vehicle upgrades prior to

terminating the ‘‘A3’’ upgrade program after fiscal year 2003, the

committee recommends that the entire $60.3 million requested for

fiscal year 2003 be only for M113A3 upgrades for these units.

M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of

the M249 SAW. The M249 SAW is a lightweight machine gun capable of delivering a sustained volume of automatic, accurate, and

highly lethal fire up to ranges of 800 meters. It is being widely

fielded throughout the Army to airborne, artillery, light and mechanized infantry, and aviation units. The committee notes that this

has been one of the infantry’s critical weapon systems in the

Army’s deployment to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. As a result of a review and increased requirements, the committee understands that the Army Chief of Staff has identified an

$18.6 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement for an additional 9,580 guns, which will fulfill the service’s total procurement

objective of 89,428 guns.

The committee recommends an increase of $18.6 million for this

purpose to complete the procurement objective of M249 SAWs.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,159.4 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $1,320.0 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

34

35

36

37

Items of Special Interest

Army ammunition procurement

The budget request contained $1,159.4 million for procurement of

ammunition and production base support. The committee recommends an additional $133.6 million, for the following types of

ammunition programs, of which ammunition production is among

the top unfunded requirements identified by the Army Chief of

Staff in fiscal year 2003:

[In millions of dollars]

Small/Medium Caliber Ammunition:

CTG 5.56mm, all types (production line upgrade) ......................... 5.0

CTG 25mm, APFSDS–T M919 ......................................................... 23.0

Mortar Ammunition:

81mm M816 .............................................................................................. 2.8

CTG 120mm M934A1 ............................................................................... 7.8

CTG 120mm IR Illum M983 .................................................................... 3.0

Pine Bluff Arsenal production line upgrade ........................................... 3.0

Artillery Ammunition:

Projectile, Artillery 155mm Illum M110 ................................................ 10.0

Projectile, Artillery 155mm HE M795 .................................................... 24.0

Modular Artillery Charge System ........................................................... 20.0

Rockets: Bunker Defeating Munition ............................................................. 10.0

Demolition Munitions, All Types: Modernization Demolition Initiators ..... 5.0

Production Base Support: ARMS Initiative ................................................... 20.0

Army ammunition production and load, assemble, and pack (LAP)

capacity

The committee understands that the Department of the Army

has issued a request for information with regard to consolidation

of its four government owned, contractor operated, ammunition

LAP facilities beginning in fiscal year 2003. However, it also understands that the necessary funds to execute a contract related to

consolidation are not included in the future years defense program.

The committee notes that the Army has identified a $544.0 million

fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement for conventional ammunition, its largest annual unfunded requirement over the past five fiscal years, as a result of growing shortfalls in war reserve ammunition and increased marksmanship training requirements identified

by the Army Chief of Staff to fight the war on terrorism. While the

committee is a proponent of streamlining and eliminating excess

capacity within the ammunition industrial base, it is aware that

unique job skills exist in these production facilities and that the

correct industrial production and LAP capacity and related skills

must be maintained to meet surge production requirements.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2003,

which outlines the conventional ammunition industrial base requirements, including LAP capacity, to fulfill the ammunition requirements for the Department’s new capabilities-based strategy

and Army Chief of Staff unfunded requirements.

38

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $5,168.5 million for Other Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $6,119.4 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Items of Special Interest

Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)

The budget request contained $156.5 million for procurement of ADPE, of which $13.5 million was included for automatic identification technology (AIT)/radio frequency-identification (RFID) devices.

AIT/RFID devices, which consist of various radio frequency, bar

code scanning, and data carrier devices, are components of automated logistics systems that expedite receiving, storage, distribution, and inventory management of new and repairable items as

well as afloat and ashore pre-positioned stockpile items and equipment. These devices are also used to automate manufacturing process controls for repair parts and to track other types of ground support equipment at various military depots. The committee believes

that substantial savings and efficiencies can continue to be

achieved from further implementation of these devices in automated inventory and repair processes. The committee urges the

Secretary of the Army to review the opportunities to reduce manpower requirements in Army industrial facilities as a result of increased efficiencies that may be achieved from the continued installation of this technology. The committee recommends $174.0 million, an increase of $12.3

million for maintenance AIT/RFID implementation in Army industrial facilities, and an increase of $5.2 million for AIT/RFID implementation in pre-positioned stocks, for a total increase of $17.5 million.

Combat support medical

The budget request contained $21.0 million to procure deployable

medical systems and field medical equipment, but included no

funds for rapid intravenous (IV) infusion pumps, or Life Support

for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) units, or the Army Medical

Support Group Telemedicine Instrumentation Pack (TIP). The

budget request also contained $12.6 million in PE 64807A, but included no funds for LSTAT spiral development.

The Rapid IV infusion pump is a Food and Drug Administration

approved miniature, portable, lightweight pump specifically designed for life-saving intravenous fluid resuscitation by a medic in

the field to restore blood pressure and prevent shock and death of

victims with severe blood loss or dehydration. The committee understands that it is estimated that up to 15 percent of the soldiers

that died in Vietnam who were not immediate battlefield casualties

would have survived their wounds if rapid infusion of fluids had

been a possibility during that conflict.

The LSTAT integrates a set of commercially available, FDA-approved medical devices in a self-contained mini-intensive care,

medical evacuation platform, which provides advanced life-support,

on-board ventilation, suction, environmental control, oxygen generation, and patient monitoring to stabilize wounded soldiers near

the battlefront as they are evacuated. LSTAT is configured on a

NATO-standard litter, is broadly interoperable with other medical

systems and compatible with most evacuation platforms including

UH–60s, UH–1s, C–130s, and High Mobility Multi-purpose

Wheeled Vehicles.

48

The TIP is a portable electronic patient record and diagnostic device, which allows medical personnel to acquire and update a patient’s health information and treatment history from statistics

gathered by numerous patient health monitoring and diagnostic instruments. A patient’s medical treatment history and statistics are

automatically recorded into the electronic patient chart for later review during a patient’s treatment or can be transmitted online for

other medical expert’s assistance.

The committee is supportive of the potential life saving capability that these devices offer, and, therefore, recommends $38.0 million,

an increase of $5.0 million to procure rapid IV infusion pumps; an

increase of $10.0 million to continue procurement of LSTAT units,

and an increase of $2.0 million to procure TIPs. The committee also

recommends $17.6 million in PE 64807A, and increase of $5.0 million, for spiral development of expanded LSTAT capabilities.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles

The budget request contained $242.8 million to procure palletized

load systems, heavy equipment transporter systems, heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks and other related equipment of

which $34.3 million was included to procure 2,324 movement tracking systems (MTS). However, no MTS were requested for the Army

Reserve.

The MTS is a satellite-based tracking, communication system

providing both active and reserve component combat service support units with global positioning system vehicle location and

tracking and two-way text messaging between stationary base locations and vehicles.

The committee understands the MTS significantly enhances the

Army’s ability to strategically position, monitor, and track re-supply items, while providing near real-time command and control of

in-theater logistical requirements. As Army Reserve unit deployments increase, the committee believes there is an increasing need

for better communications interoperability between active and mobilized reserve combat service support units.

The committee also notes the Chief of the Army Reserve has

identified a fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement for MTS and,

recommends an increase of $9.0 million to accelerate procurement

of MTS for the Army Reserve.

High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs)

The budget request contained $196.8 million for 2,064

HMMWVs, of which $54.0 million was included to procure 360 of

the M1114 Up-Armor variant.

The Up-Armor HMMWV is a multi-service, four wheel drive utility vehicle that provides proven ballistic protection for soldiers from

anti-personnel and anti-tank mines and armored piercing munitions. The committee notes the Army Chief of Staff has identified

a $31.1 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement for an additional 180 Up-Armored HMMWVs. The committee understands

these additional vehicles will be fielded to deployed active and reserve units to enhance combat support missions.

Recognizing the ongoing importance of force protection and in

light of lessons learned from previous urban and combat operations, the committee recommends $227.9 million, an increase of

49

$31.1 million, to fulfill the unfunded requirement for an additional

180 M1114 Up-Armor HMMWVs.

Information system security program (ISSP)

The budget request contained $39.1 million and $13.4 million to

procure secure voice and data equipment for the Army and Air

Force respectively.

The committee strongly supports upgrading critical secure telecommunications by replacing older secure voice and data systems

with modern secure digital communications equipment. These upgrades will help reduce the exploitation of classified and sensitive

information due to growing information security threats. The committee also notes that this is a top fiscal year 2003 unfunded priority of the Air Force Chief of Staff.

To accelerate the replacement of older secure voice and data terminals, the committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million for

Army ISSP and $10.0 million for Air Force Command, Control, and

Communications Countermeasures to procure additional secure terminal equipment.

Items less than $5.0 million (construction equipment)

The budget request contained $12.9 million to procure construction equipment support items, of which $784 thousand was for two

water distributors for airborne units, but no funds were requested

for the Army Reserve.

These water distributors provide water distribution for rapid construction requirements in the deployed locations. The committee

notes that the Chief of the Army Reserve has identified a $4.0 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement for 12 water distributors.

The committee recommends an increase of $16.9 million for construction equipment items less than $5.0 million, an increase of

$4.0 million, to accelerate procurement and fielding of 12 water distributors to the Army Reserve.

Joint tactical area command systems

The budget request contained $900 thousand for management of

joint tactical area command systems, but included no funds to upgrade AN/ARS–6 (V) personnel locator communications systems.

The AN/ARS–6 (V) personnel locator communications system is

an airborne electronic locator, which can precisely locate survivors

on the ground equipped with AN/PRC–112 survival radios. The

committee understands that this commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)

upgrade will include a global positioning system waveform for currently fielded systems and believes that this capability may aid in

the rescue and recovery of personnel and survivors in extremis situations.

The committee recommends $6.9 million for joint tactical area

command systems, an increase of $6.0 million, for AN/ARS–6 (V)

COTS insertion upgrades.

Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)

The budget request contained $7.7 million to procure LMEs, of

which $1.9 million was for the Army National Guard (ARNG).

50

The LME is a lightweight, frame-supported tent designed to provide forward deployed maintenance units a quick setup-and-takedown enclosed shelter in which to perform field maintenance operations across the battlefield in all climatic conditions.

The committee notes that mobility will be the hallmark of the

Army’s future medium brigades as well as ARNG units and that

they must therefore be capable of rapidly repairing and maintaining equipment while deployed.

The committee recommends $17.7 million, an increase of $10.0

million, for the procurement of additional LMEs: $5.0 million for

the Army and $5.0 million for the ARNG.

Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS)

family

The budget request contained $30.1 million to procure

SINCGARS for high priority Army National Guard (ARNG) units

and interim brigade combat teams. The budget request also included $22.1 million to procure improved high frequency radios

(IHFR) for ARNG weapons of mass destruction civil support teams,

but included no funds for IHFRs for the Army Reserve.

The IHFR is the primary means of communications for maneuver

battalions, combat support and combat service support units, the

latter of which are comprised primarily of Army Reserve forces.

The IHFR provides a versatile capability for short- and long-range

communications, particularly important for highly mobile and geographically dispersed units not supported by active component communications units. The IHFR is also the only tactical radio that

possesses a long-range communications capability independent of

terrestrial or satellite relays and exceeds the range of the line-ofsight SINCGARS. To date, limited fielding has occurred to the

Army Reserve due to budget constraints; however, as a result of

newly expanded missions in support of the war on terrorism, the

Chief of the Army Reserve has identified a $61.1 million fiscal year

2003 unfunded requirement for 1,750 IHFRs.

The committee recommends an increase of $61.1 million to procure IHFRs for the Army Reserve.

Small tug

The budget request contained no funds to procure small tugs.

The small tug is a 60-foot, steel hull, twin propeller vessel designed to tow general cargo barges in harbors, inland waterways,

and along coastlines. It is also capable of assisting larger tugs in

mooring ships of all sizes at piers and in restricted navigation waterways, moving floating cranes and machine shops, and performing line-handling duties.

The committee is aware that the Army has procured 12 of these

tugs, has two under contract, and has recently increased its requirement to 16 vessels. The small tug replaces the Army’s obsolete

40-year-old small tugs that were used in Operations Desert Shield

and Desert Storm.

Consistent with prior years, and to complete the requirement for

two additional tugs, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0

million to accelerate procurement of 2 additional vessels towards

completion of the requirement for 16 small tugs.

51

Stamis tactical computers (STACOMP)

The budget request contained $61.3 million for STACOMP, of

which $47.2 million was for global combat support system (GCSS)-

Army hardware and fielding.

The GCSS-Army will be the business and tactical information

system for Army combat service support to manage supply property, maintenance, ammunition, and supply support. In fiscal year

1997, the Army began development of GCSS–A to transform the

Army’s information technology support systems, which included replacing 16 legacy systems with 5 modules. However, the Army is

still attempting to implement the first, and admittedly easiest,

module to more than support supply property requirements. Despite spending $320 million on GCSS-Army over 5 years, nothing

has been fielded to date and no legacy information systems have

been replaced. The Army intends to initially field the first module

in fiscal year 2002. The committee is concerned about the amount

of funds that have been expended, the lack of success, and amount

of time required for initial fielding of the first and easiest module.

The committee has learned that the Army has now changed its

acquisition strategy for the second module, which will cover maintenance logistics requirements and intends to use a commercial

based enterprise resourcing plan versus continuing development of

the second module. This is a significant change in strategy, which

will affect the acquisition approach, funding requirements, and

testing and implementation schedule.

Because of the Army’s adoption of a commercial system acquisition strategy, the committee believes the system will require less

funds to field the additional modules and recommends $51.3 million for STACOMP, a decrease of $10.0 million for GCSS–A.

Striker family

The budget request contained $28.5 million for the procurement

of 54 Striker command and control vehicles, but included no funds

for Strikers for the Army National Guard (ARNG).

The Striker vehicle is a high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle mounted system, which incorporates a Bradley fire support

vehicle mission equipment package of a laser rangefinder/designator, thermal sight, handheld computer, and both inertial navigation and global positioning systems. The Striker is operated by

combat observation lasing teams (COLTs) as an integral part of

heavy and light division and ARNG enhanced separate brigade reconnaissance teams to locate and designate targets for laser-guided

ordnance.

The committee understands that funds appropriated in fiscal

year 2001 for the ARNG Strikers enabled the fielding of only 50

percent of the required systems for an ARNG separate enhanced

brigade and the full requirement is not expected to be budgeted for

until fiscal year 2006.

The committee recommends $33.0 million, an increase of $4.5

million for six Striker systems to accelerate and complete fielding

to an ARNG separate enhanced brigade.

52

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,490.2 million for Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, for fiscal year 2003. The

committee recommends no funds for fiscal year 2003.

53

54

Items of Special Interest

Chemical agents and munitions destruction

The budget requests contained $1,490.2 million for Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.

The committee notes that section 1412 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for fiscal year 1986 (Public Law 99–145), as

amended, requires that funds for the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions, including funds for

military construction projects necessary to carry out the demilitarization program, shall only be authorized and appropriated in

the budget of the Department of Defense (DOD) as a separate program and shall not be included in the budget accounts for any of

the military departments. The committee notes that for the fourth

year in a row, the Department’s budget request contains authorization and appropriation of funds for the chemical demilitarization

program in a budget account of the Department of the Army in

contravention of direction provided by the law.

The committee believes that the original 1986 legislation, which

mandated that funds for the chemical demilitarization program be

authorized and appropriated in a defense-wide budget account in

order to emphasize that destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile was a national issue affecting all of the Department and not

just a single military service, was appropriate. In 1986, the estimated cost of the chemical stockpile demilitarization program was

approximately $1,500.0 million. Today, the potential estimated cost

of the program has grown to $24,000.0 million and reinforces the

committee’s earlier position.

The committee recommends no funds for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of $1,490.2 million. The

committee recommends an increase of $1,490.2 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, as described elsewhere in this report. The committee also recommends a provision,

section 143, that would require the Under Secretary of Defense

(Comptroller) to certify in subsequent annual budget requests that

the request is in accordance with the law.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $8,203.9 million for Aircraft Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends

authorization of $8,971.6 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

55

56

57

58

59

Items of Special Interest

AV–8B series modifications

The budget request contained $32.2 million for AV–8B series

modifications, but included no funds for the AV–8B engine life

management program (ELMP) or for Litening advanced airborne

targeting and navigation (AT) pods.

The ELMP was developed by the Marine Corps to address the

safety and reliability of the AV–8B’s engine. The committee understands that increased ELMP funds for fiscal year 2003 would provide more efficient foreign object damage repair capability, improved oil analysis systems, and fuel metering unit revitalization,

and recommends an increase of $5.8 million for the AV–8B ELMP.

The Litening AT pod is the next generation Litening pod system

that will incorporate an advanced forward-looking infra-red radar

and other enhancements to the existing multi-sensor and precision

strike capability. The committee understands that the Marine

Corps has a requirement for 98 Litening targeting pods but has

thus far only procured 66, for a shortfall of 32, and, recommends

an increase of $55.0 million for 32 Litening AT pods. The committee recommends $93.0 million for AV–8B series modifications, an increase of $60.8 million, and notes that both of the

recommended AV–8B series modification increases are included

among the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ unfunded priorities

for fiscal year 2003.

E–2 modifications

The budget request contained $17.2 million for E–2 modifications, but included no funds to upgrade E–2C aircraft to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

The Hawkeye 2000 configuration is an upgrade to older-model E– 2C aircraft that integrates satellite communications, a commercialoff-the-shelf, high-capacity mission computer and associated

workstations, and cooperative engagement capability equipment.

The committee understands that the Navy’s E–2C aircraft inventory includes at least two older-model E–2C aircraft, which are not

configured to meet current operational fleet requirements, and can

be economically upgraded to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

The committee recommends $81.2 million for E–2 modifications,

an increase of $64.0 million, to the upgrade two older-model E–2C

aircraft to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

EA–6B modifications

The budget request contained $223.5 million for EA–6B modifications, of which $45.8 million was included for 15 EA–6B wing center sections (WCSs), but included no funds for the outer wing panel

(OWP), the USQ–113 communications jammer, or for band 9/10

transmitters. The Department of the Navy’s fleet of 122 EA–6B aircraft are the Department of Defense’s only aircraft configured to

provide the electronic-jamming capability to deny and degrade the

acquisition of friendly forces by enemy air defense systems.

The committee understands that recent EA–6B fatigue life inspections have revealed that both existing WCSs and OWPs are

aging more rapidly than expected due to fatigue cracking, and that

this situation has prompted the Navy to ground eight of its EA–

60

6Bs and restrict EA–6B flight operations in 51 aircraft to less than

three times the force of gravity, or ‘‘g’s,’’ rather than its full operating envelope of 5.5 g’s. To restore these aircraft to their full operating envelope, WCSs and OWPs must be replaced and the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million to procure and install an additional four WCSs and five OWPs.

The USQ–113 communications jammer provides upgraded veryhigh and ultra-high frequency jamming capability. The committee

understands that procurement of this system not only improves

equipment maintainability and operational capability, but also improves the availability of this system for deployed aircraft. The

committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million for the USQ– 113 communications jammer.

The band 9/10 transmitter provides the EA–6B with expanded

jamming capability against target tracking and fire control radars

of modern integrated air defense systems. Since the committee understands that 214 of the Department of the Navy’s 263–inventory

objective for band 9/10 transmitters have been procured thus far,

it recommends an increase of $29.0 million to procure 43 additional

band 9/10 transmitters.

The committee recommends $327.5 million for EA–6B modifications, an increase of $104.0 million, and notes that each of the EA– 6B modification increases recommended are included among both

the Chief of Naval Operation’s and Commandant of the Marine

Corps’ top unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003.

H–1 series modifications

The budget request contained $1.8 million for H–1 series modifications, of which $1.0 million was included for three AN/AAQ–22

night thermal imaging system (NTIS) product improvement program (PIP) upgrades.

The AN/AAQ–22 NTIS provides the Marine Corps’ UH–1N helicopter fleet with a capability to operate in both day and night conditions, as well as in a smoke, dust or haze environment, and the

PIP upgrade improves the AN/AAQ–22 NTIS by increasing resolution by greater than 20 percent, improving system stability and

control, upgrading target detection and obstacle avoidance capability, and adding a laser designator to guide precision munitions.

The committee understands that the UH–1Ns equipped with the

AN/AAQ–22 NTIS PIP upgrade have performed superbly in Operation Enduring Freedom in their mission to identify targets of opportunity and to provide rapid alerting of threats to Allied forces.

To enhance the UH–1N’s mission effectiveness and to improve its

flight safety, the committee recommends $16.8 million, an increase

of $15.0 million to accelerate procurement of the AN/AAQ–22 NTIS

PIP upgrade.

H–60 series modifications

The budget request contained $15.4 million for H–60 series modifications, but included no funds for the H–60 link 16 upgrade.

The committee understands that the link 16 upgrade is required

in the Navy’s H–60 series helicopters to provide situational awareness to the aircraft and the warfare commander of crucial and time

critical information for strike operations and defense within an

area of responsibility, and notes that the Chief of Naval Operations

61

has included the H–60 link 16 upgrade among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003. Consequently, the committee recommends $70.4 million for H–60

series modifications, an increase of $55.0 million, for the H–60 link

16 upgrade.

Joint primary air training system (JPATS)

The budget request contained no funds for the Navy JPATS.

The JPATS, consisting of both the T–6A aircraft and a groundbased training system, will be used by the Navy and Air Force for

primary pilot training. The T–6A will replace both the Navy’s T– 34 and Air Force’s T–37B fleets, providing safer, more economical

and more effective training for future student pilots.

Despite the fact that the Department of the Navy does not plan

to continue JPATS procurement until fiscal year 2007, the committee continues to believe that its procurement for the Navy

would not only reduce procurement costs for both the Navy and the

Air Force but would also reduce operations and maintenance costs,

and notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has included JPATS

procurement among his top unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million and expects that this amount will procure ten T–6A aircraft and associated ground-based training systems.

MH–60S

The budget request contained $284.2 million for 15 MH–60S helicopters and $88.0 million for advance procurement of 13 MH–60S

helicopters in fiscal year 2004. The MH–60S helicopter’s primary

mission will be organic airborne mine countermeasures; however, it

will also replace the H–46D for the Navy’s helicopter combat support missions including vertical replenishment, cargo and personnel transfer, and search and rescue.

The committee understands that the aging H–46D helicopter is

increasingly expensive to operate, and that, because of its diminished availability, the Navy’s inventory of combat support helicopters is 24 less than required to sustain its battle group combat

support needs. The committee also notes that the Chief of Naval

Operations has identified additional MH–60S helicopters among

his top four unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003.

The committee believes that the aging H–46D fleet should be retired as soon as practical, and recommends $372.2 million, an increase of $88.0 million for four additional MH–60S helicopters and

for advance procurement of long-lead components for five additional helicopters in fiscal year 2004.

P–3 series modifications

The budget request contained $102.7 million for P–3 series modifications, of which $84.0 million was included for four anti-surface

warfare improvement program (AIP) kits, but included no funds for

procurement of the advance multiband optical surveillance system

(AMOSS) or for communications, navigation, and surveillance global air traffic management (CNS/ATM) modifications for VP- and

UP–3A aircraft.

The AIP improves the P–3’s communications, survivability, and

over-the-horizon targeting capabilities through the installation of

62

commercial-off-the-shelf components. The committee understands

that the Commanders-In-Chief (CINCs) require 146 AIP-configured

aircraft, but notes that the Department of the Navy has budgeted

for a total of only 83 in its future years defense program. The committee also notes that the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has included additional AIP kits among his unfunded priorities for fiscal

year 2003. The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million to procure two additional AIP kits. Additionally, the committee understands that some AIP-configured P–3 aircraft have also been

equipped with the tactical common data link (TCDL), which provides real-time imagery downlink to commanders, weapons delivery

platforms and other end-users, and that these aircraft have been

primary surveillance and intelligence contributors during Operation Enduring Freedom. Since the committee believes that future

conflicts are likely to require the increased capabilities that the

TCDL provides, it urges the Department of the Navy to include the

TCDL in all its AIP-configured P–3 aircraft.

The AMOSS is an electro-optical, multi-spectral surveillance

camera system designed for use in the Navy’s six special project P– 3 aircraft to detect the presence of substances used in the development and production of weapons from standoff ranges in both day

and nighttime conditions. The AMOSS would replace the special

project P–3’s existing electro-optical surveillance camera system,

which is limited to day-only operations and cannot be used from

standoff ranges. The committee understands that funds appropriated for fiscal year 2002 are being used to deliver a prototype

AMOSS and that production of the first three AMOSSs can begin

in fiscal year 2003 so that all six special project P–3 aircraft could

be equipped with this capability by fiscal year 2005. To provide improved weapons development and production reconnaissance capabilities to the special project P–3 aircraft, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to procure three AMOSSs.

VP– and UP–3A aircraft are configured to support the travel requirements of senior naval commanders and theater CINCs. The

committee understands that the majority of these aircraft are not

configured with the CNS/ATM requirements for preferred air traffic routing, nor are they configured with the appropriate communications systems required for senior naval commander and CINC

connectivity. To address these deficiencies in the Navy’s VP– and

UP–3A fleets, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for the CNS/ATM modification, and notes that the CNO has

also included this upgrade among his unfunded priorities for fiscal

year 2003.

The committee recommends $144.7 million for P–3 series modifications, an increase of $42.0 million.

T–45 training system (TS)

The budget request contained no funds for the advance procurement of T–45C aircraft. The T–45TS is an integrated training system that combines the T–45 aircraft, simulators, and computerbased training for the Navy’s intermediate-level undergraduate

pilot training.

The committee notes that, while the Navy requires 234 T–45 aircraft, its inventory will be only 181 aircraft after eight T–45C’s are

63

produced in fiscal year 2003, and that T–45 production is not

planned for years beyond fiscal year 2003.

Since the committee believes that T–45 production should continue in order to meet the requirement for 234 T–45 aircraft, it recommends an increase of $10.0 million for advance procurement of

T–45C aircraft in fiscal year 2004.

UC–35

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of UC– 35 aircraft.

The UC–35 is a medium-range, medium-lift operational support

aircraft. The committee understands that the Marine Corps conducts the operational support airlift mission with the short-range

C–12 aircraft, which is increasingly expensive to operate, and does

not meet payload, range, or avionics requirements. The committee

notes the Commandant of the Marine Corps has included the procurement of UC–35s among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year

2003.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million for one

UC–35 aircraft for the Marine Corps.

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,832.6 million for Weapons Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,916.6 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

64

65

66

67

Items of Special Interest

AIM–9X missile

The budget request for the Department of the Navy contained $53.3 million for 295 AIM–9X missiles and the budget request for the Department of the Air Force contained $57.0 million for 286

AIM–9X missiles. The AIM–9X missile is a fifth generation,

launch-and-leave, infrared-guided air-to-air missile.

The committee notes that the AIM–9X missile is superior to all

fielded short-range air-to-air missiles, is pleased that both the Departments of the Navy and the Air Force have included its procurement in the fiscal year 2003 budget request and restored its procurement in their future years defense programs, and understands

that cost improvement initiatives have been, and continue to be,

underway to achieve lower future unit costs.

The committee strongly encourages the Departments of the Navy

and the Air Force to take the necessary actions to leverage cost improvement initiatives and to maximize economies of scale in order

to procure the most AIM–9X missiles possible in the future years

defense programs within the programmed budget.

Hellfire II missile

The budget request contained no funds for Hellfire II missiles.

The Hellfire II missile is a laser-guided, anti-armor and anti-ship

weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH–1W helicopter and

by the Navy on the SH–60B helicopter as their primary precisionguided munition. The committee notes that, despite increased funding provided by Congress in fiscal years 1998, 2000 and 2001, the

Navy is currently at only 54 percent of its inventory requirement

for these missiles. The committee further notes that, as a result of

this situation, both the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have identified procurement of

Hellfire II missiles among their unfunded requirements in fiscal

year 2003.

Consistent with its prior actions, the committee recommends an

increase of $40.0 million to procure additional Hellfire II missiles.

Tomahawk missile

The budget request contained $145.8 million for 106 block IV

low-rate initial production tactical tomahawk (TACTOM) missiles

but included no funds for special tooling and test equipment to increase the production rate of the block IV TACTOM missile from

450 to 600 missiles per year.

The Tomahawk missile is a long-range, precision strike cruise

missile launched from surface ships or submarines, and the block

IV TACTOM missile will provide improved performance at a lower

unit cost than previous missile versions. The committee understands that existing special tooling and test equipment will provide

a capacity to produce 450 TACTOM missiles per year, but believes

that the ability to produce 600 TACTOM missiles per year would

be critical in a time of national emergency.

The committee recommends $167.8 million for the Tomahawk

missile, an increase of $22.0 million, to procure the special tooling

and test equipment necessary to increase the production of block

IV TACTOMs from 450 to 600 per year.

68

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, NAVY/MARINE CORPS

Overview

The budget request contained $1,015.2 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $1,104.5 million for fiscal year

2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

69

70

71

Items of Special Interest

Marine corps ammunition procurement

The budget request contained $276.3 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends an increase of $38.9 million for the following types of ammunition, which are among the

top unfunded requirements identified by the Commandant of the

Marine Corps in fiscal year 2003:

[In millions of dollars]

Cartridge, 7.62mm, linked .............................................................................. 1.3

Cartridge, .50 caliber, linked .......................................................................... 2.3

Cartridge, 120mm HEAT–MP–T .................................................................... 10.0

Cartridge & Lnchr., 84mm AT–4 M136 ......................................................... 10.0

Projectile, 155mm HE M795 ........................................................................... 9.0

Non-lethal Ammunition .................................................................................. 6.3

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $8,191.2 million for Shipbuilding

and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $9,279.5 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

72

73

74

75

Items of Special Interest

Carrier replacement program advance procurement

The budget request contained $243.7 million for advance procurement of plans, nuclear components, materials and equipment for

CVN(X)–1. The CVN(X)–1, the first of a new class of Navy aircraft

carriers, is currently scheduled for contract award in fiscal year

2007 with delivery to the fleet in fiscal year 2014.

The committee notes that fiscal year 2003 CVN(X)–1 program of

record delays its contract award and delivery schedule by one year

compared to the plan provided to the Congress for fiscal year 2002,

and believes that this delay will increase long-term construction

costs due to disruption in the supplier base and higher labor costs.

The committee recommends $472.7 million, an increase of $229.0

million, for carrier replacement program advance procurement and

encourages the Navy to budget its future years defense program so

that the CVN(X)–1 contract award will occur in fiscal year 2006

and be delivered in fiscal year 2013.

CVN–69 refueling complex overhaul (RCOH)

The budget request contained no funds for the CVN–69 RCOH.

The CVN–69, one of 12 Navy aircraft carriers and also known as

the U.S.S. Eisenhower, is undergoing a prior-year funded mid-life

RCOH that refuels its reactors, upgrades its main propulsion components, modernizes its warfighting combat systems, and repairs

the ship’s infrastructure to meet continued service life requirements.

The committee understands that procurement of deferred and

high priority habitability work could most efficiently be accomplished while the CVN–69 is undergoing its mid-life RCOH, and

notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has included the CVN–

69 RCOH among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million for the

CVN–69 RCOH.

Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program

(SLEP)

The budget request contained $67.6 million for three LCAC

SLEPs, but included no funds for an additional buoyancy box.

The LCAC is the only surface platform that can provide highspeed, heavy lift for Marine Corps amphibious operations from

over-the-horizon. The SLEP would extend the LCAC’s service life

from twenty years to thirty years, and the buoyancy box, part of

the LCAC SLEP, is the hull section component enabling the LCAC

to be properly buoyant in the water. The committee understands

that, while only three buoyancy boxes are planned for production

in fiscal year 2003, four is the minimum rate of production necessary to preclude a termination of the buoyancy box production

line.

The committee believes that uninterrupted buoyancy box production is critical to continuation of the LCAC SLEP, and recommends

$78.6 million, an increase of $11.0 million for the procurement of

one additional buoyancy box for the LCAC SLEP.

76

Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) boats

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of

Minehunter SWATH boats or for their associated mine countermeasures equipment suites.

The Minehunter SWATH boat is a 40-foot, twin hull vessel that

can operate in very shallow water with increased stability in rough

seas compared to a similar size mono hull ship. The Navy’s

minehunting fleet includes one Minehunter SWATH boat, which is

its only surface mine warfare vessel capable of operating in very

shallow water or capable of transport by C–5 aircraft for operational deployment within 24 hours. The committee understands

that the Minehunter SWATH boat has completed highly successful

testing and notes that senior naval officers support increased procurement to meet shallow water minehunting requirements.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million for the

procurement of two Minehunter SWATH boats and their associated

mine countermeasures equipment suites.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $4,347.0 million for Other Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $4,527.8 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

Items of Special Interest

Advanced integrated electronic warfare system (AIEWS)

The budget request contained $15.8 million to procure the

AIEWS.

Subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Department of the Navy notified the committee that it

had terminated the AIEWS program due to cost overruns and continued schedule delays, which has adversely impacted the Navy’s

ability to field urgently needed surface electronic warfare improvements. Therefore, the committee recommends denial of funds for

this program.

Environmental support equipment

The budget request contained $20.0 million for the procurement

of environmental support equipment, but no funds were included

for the procurement of high resolution, side scanning, bottom mapping sonars.

High resolution, side scanning, bottom mapping sonars, temporarily on loan to the Naval Oceanographic Office from the Naval

Mine Countermeasures Command (MCM), are currently being used

by T–AGS class ships to map underwater features and terrain of

ports in support of homeland security requirements. Only three of

these sonars are currently available to perform this mission. The

shortfall of available sonars for this mission will greatly delay the

data collection required for port security and may degrade MCM

mission fulfillment.

Understanding the critical need for dedicated, permanent mapping equipment for homeland security requirements and continued

MCM operations, the committee recommends $27.5 million for environmental support equipment, an increase of $7.5 million, to procure high resolution, side scanning, bottom mapping sonars for T–

AGS class ships.

Gun fire control equipment

The budget request contained $27.1 million to procure gun fire

control equipment, of which $17.6 million was for the procurement

of three AN/SPQ–9B radars.

The AN/SPQ–9B radar provides early and reliable detection and

tracking of very low radar cross-section, sea skimming missiles in

natural and man-made clutter increasing the time for ship self defense systems to potentially counter them. The committee notes

that by increasing fiscal year 2003 funds, this system can be accelerated from its planned fiscal year 2005 initial procurement for

DDG–51 class destroyers.

Because the committee is keenly aware of the increasing proliferation of sea skimming cruise missiles, it recommends $46.8

million, an increase of $19.7 million, to accelerate procurement of

three additional AN/SPQ–9B radars for DDG–51 class destroyers.

Operating forces industrial plant equipment

The budget request contained $17.1 million for operating forces

industrial plant equipment, but included no funds for expeditionary

maintenance facilities (EMF).

85

The committee is aware that the Navy is continuing to decommission its repair tenders, thereby limiting its ability to rapidly deploy a ship and equipment repair capability to support forward deployed forces. However, the committee is also aware that EMF,

which are surface and air transportable, self-contained facilities,

can be operational within 72 hours of deployment, and can meet

the service’s needs for a rapidly deployable repair and maintenance

capability.

The committee believes the EMF concept may enhance forward deployed repair requirements, and recommends $22.1 million for

operating forces industrial plant equipment, an increase of $5.0

million, for procurement of one EMF.

Other aviation support equipment

The budget request contained $12.4 million to procure aviation

support equipment, but included no funds to expand the resource

allocation management plan (RAMP) data base for naval aviation

requirements.

The RAMP is a resource planning software-based system fielded

to fixed wing Naval Aviation Depots (NADEP) that provides planning, scheduling, and financial assessments for aircraft maintenance requirements. The committee understands that this system

is not incorporated into Department of the Navy rotary wing

NADEPs and may enhance the efficiency of those facilities. Therefore the committee recommends $15.4 million for other

aviation support equipment, an increase of $3.0 million, for the expansion of the RAMP into rotary wing NADEPs.

Other supply support equipment

The budget request contained $11.0 million for the procurement

of other supply support equipment, but no funds were included for

automatic identification technology (AIT) in support of the serial

number tracking system (SNTS).

The SNTS uses commercial AIT to provide web-based, cradle-tograve, total asset visibility of individual components throughout

the supply, maintenance, and transportation transfer process within Naval and Marine Corps aviation depots and will enhance the

maintenance, remanufacture, and rebuild process of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. The committee believes that streamlined business processes, such as SNTS, can be accelerated by implementing

AIT and has recommended increases for this technology for this

purpose in the Navy in fiscal year 2002, and for maintenance and

ammunition tracking systems for other services in prior fiscal

years.

The committee recommends $19.0 million for other supply support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million, for the SNTS.

Other training equipment

The budget request contained $15.4 million for other training

equipment, of which $32.5 million was for the procurement to support the battle force tactical training (BFTT) program.

The BFTT system allows surface combatants and aircraft carriers to conduct realistic coordinated training scenarios using

ownship equipment instead of shore-based training simulators. The

committee notes that Congress has provided funds in fiscal years

86

2000, 2001, and 2002 to upgrade the BFTT system in order to provide an air traffic control (ATC) training capability for aircraft carrier battle groups and amphibious readiness groups. However, the

committee understands that AEGIS combat training systems on

both CG–47 Ticonderoga class cruisers and DDG–51 Arleigh Burke

class destroyers require BFTT upgrades to enable SPY–1 radar operators to also receive advanced radar on-board training within carrier battle groups via BFTT. Because of the enhanced benefits to

ships’ crews from integrated battle group training, the committee recommends $21.4 million for other training equipment, an increase of $6.0 million, to procure BFTT advanced radar on-board

training systems for AEGIS class ships.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview

The budget request contained $1,288.4 million for Procurement,

Marine Corps in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $1,352.0 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

87

88

89

90

91

Items of Special Interest

Family of construction equipment

The budget request contained $14.7 million to remanufacture or

product improve D–7G dozers, 621B scrapers, and 130G graders.

The dozer/scraper/grader fleet is used by Marine Corps combat engineer and support units for airfield construction, as well as combat

clearing and debris excavation.

The committee notes that the service’s dozer, scraper and grader

fleet is over 15 years old and that the Commandant of the Marine

Corps has identified a fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement to accelerate remanufacture of this equipment. The committee also

notes that the remanufacturing/product improvement program will

extend the life of this equipment for an additional 10 years.

Consistent with its actions in prior years, the committee rec- ommends $21.2 million for the family of construction equipment,

an increase of $6.5 million, to remanufacture/product improve D– 7G dozers, scrapers, and graders.

Night vision equipment

The budget request contained $23.2 million to procure night vision equipment, but included no funds to procure AN/PVS–17 night

vision sights.

The AN/PVS–17 is a lightweight, rifle-mounted, generation III

image intensification night vision sight that replaces obsolete, postVietnam era AN/PVS–4 sights. The committee notes that the Com- mandant of the Marine Corps has identified a $12.7 million fiscal

year 2003 unfunded requirement to procure additional AN/PVS–17

night vision sights, which would complete this system’s acquisition

objective. Consistent with prior year actions, the committee continues to recognize the increased benefits of generation III technology, and recommends $36.0 million for night vision equipment,

an increase of $12.8 million, for AN/PVS–17 night vision sights.

Radio systems

The budget request contained $25.5 million to procure radio systems, but no funds were included to procure Tactical Hand Held

Radios (THHR), and $1.0 million was included for the Lightweight

Multiband Satellite Terminal (LMST).

The THHR is a military-ready, multi-band, secure voice and data

radio that will provide Marine reconnaissance teams, and squad-/

platoon-size units with a lightweight, standardized, maintainable

communications capability that is interoperable with numerous Department of Defense legacy communications radios.

The LMST is a joint mobile military tri-band satellite communications terminal deployed in transit cases, which allow rapid set

up and tear down required in rugged, tactical and expeditionary

operations. The LMST provides enhanced long-haul communications for forward deployed forces.

The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps

has identified a $5.0 million unfunded requirement for THHRs and

a $20.0 million unfunded requirement for LMSTs in fiscal year

2003. Because the committee believes that the services must have

interoperable communications to successfully operate in joint military deployments and supports the need for greater communicaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
92

tions capability within small units, the committee recommends

$50.5 million for radio systems, an increase $5.0 million to complete the acquisition objective for THHRs, and an increase of $20.0

million to begin procurement of LMSTs.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $12,067.4 million for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $12,522.8 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

93

94

95

96

97

98

Items of Special Interest

B–2 modifications

The procurement budget request contained $72.1 million for various B–2 modifications, of which $9.9 million was included to upgrade two B–2 aircraft with satellite communications (SATCOM),

but included no funds for the B–2’s windshield tape alternative

(WTA) modification. Additionally, the research, development test

and evaluation (RDTE) budget request contained $225.3 million in

PE 64240F for B–2 system development, but included no funds for

low observability (LO) maintenance improvements. The B–2 is the

Department of Defense’s most advanced long-range strike aircraft,

capable of global force projection in a highly defended target environment.

The B–2 SATCOM provides beyond-line-of-sight secure voice and

data communications that will ensure global command and control

of this aircraft. The committee notes that only nine B–2s are budgeted to receive SATCOM, and believes that the entire fleet of 21

B–2 aircraft should be upgraded with this critical modification. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $25.2 million to configure the remaining B–2s with SATCOM.

The WTA modification would replace the current tape around the

exterior of the B–2’s windshield which is rapidly deteriorating due

to vibration and cabin pressurization cycles. The committee understands that this modification would improve the B–2 mission capable rate by 1.75 percent, reduce operations and support costs by

$24.5 million, save 25,000 maintenance man-hours per year, and

reduce the aircraft’s signature to enemy radar. The committee rec- ommends an increase of $6.8 million to modify 16 B–2 aircraft with

the WTA and encourages the Air Force to budget funds to complete

the WTA modification for the remaining aircraft in fiscal year

2004.

The committee understands that B–2 LO maintenance improvement development is required in three parts of the aircraft: door

seals, engine exhaust area coatings, and tailpipe coatings. The B–

2’s current door seals, which are prone to damage causing decreased signature performance, could be repaired by the development of alternate door edge treatment (ADET) that would simplify

maintenance procedures and reduce radar signature degradation.

Secondly, the B–2’s engine exhaust environment, which causes existing hot trailing edge coatings to degrade and delaminate resulting in costly repairs, could be improved with the development of

the advanced hot trailing edge (AHTE) which would retrofit new

high-temperature composite coatings in the engine exhaust area,

improving the B–2’s availability. Thirdly, the B–2’s current tailpipe

coating, which requires time-consuming repairs resulting from ablation during routine engine operating conditions, could be improved by the development of new materials and processes that

would decrease the expenditure of maintenance man-hours and improve the B–2’s mission capable rate. The committee recommends

an increase of $17.0 million in PE 64270F for the ADET, AHTE,

and new tailpipe coating development.

The committee recommends $104.1 million for B–2 procurement

modifications, an increase of $32.0 million, and $242.3 million in

RDTE PE 64240F, an increase of $17.0 million.

99

C–130H

The budget request contained $18.7 million for C–130H procurement, but included no funds for the conversion of an Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) C–130H3 unit level trainer (ULT) to the

C–130H2 configuration.

The committee understands that the AFRC’s C–130H2 formal

training unit (FTU) currently possesses a C–130H3 ULT that requires conversion to the C–130H2 configuration to property train

C–130H2 FTU students, and believes that, without the conversion

of the ULT, projected student throughput will not be achievable. The committee recommends $23.7 million for C–130H procure- ment, an increase of $5.0 million for the conversion of the AFRC’s

C–130H3 ULT to the C–130H2 configuration.

C–130J

The Department of the Air Force budget request contained $175.9 million for program management, logistics, and training

support for the fleet of 37 Air Force C–130J aircraft. Additionally,

The Department of the Navy Defense Emergency Response Fund

(DERF) budget request contained $334.0 million for four KC–130J

aircraft. The committee notes that the Air Force budget request includes a proposal to begin a five-year, 40–aircraft C–130J

multiyear procurement, and understands that funds that would be

provided to the Department of the Navy for the Marine Corps’ KC– 130J program in the DERF for fiscal years 2003 through 2008

would add 24 KC–130J aircraft throughout the five-year period and

be included in the Air Force C–130J multiyear procurement for a

total of 64 aircraft to be procured under the Air Force C–130J

multiyear proposal.

In past years, the committee has strongly supported both the Air

Force’s C–130J and the Marine Corps’ KC–130J aircraft variants

to modernize these fleets. While the committee continues to support procurement of both variants, it is concerned that the Air

Force C–130J is experiencing difficulty in meeting established operational effectiveness and suitability parameters. However, the committee believes that continued senior management attention to the

achievement of its operational effectiveness and suitability goals

will result in a successful initial operational test and evaluation,

and that the multiyear procurement contract should proceed subsequent to the Secretary of Defense’s certification to the congressional defense committees that satisfactory progress is being made

towards a successful operational test and evaluation. The committee views satisfactory progress to include, but not be limited to,

the aircraft’s ability to conduct worldwide airland operations, assault operations, and the completion of both software block 5.3 installation and its associated hardware components.

Additionally, despite the fact that over two months have elapsed

since the committee received the budget request and its associated

budget justification documents, the Department of the Air Force

has still not provided the committee the necessary findings outlined in section 2306b(a) of title 10, United States Code, for the

committee to fully understand and evaluate the savings that would

be achieved by the proposed C–130J multiyear procurement contract. The committee recommends a provision (Section 121) that

would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a multiyear

100

procurement contract for Air Force C–130J and Marine Corps KC– 130J aircraft beginning with the fiscal year 2003 program year,

subject to a certification to the congressional defense committees

that satisfactory progress is being made towards a successful operational test and evaluation, and that each of the conditions specified in section 2306b(a) of title 10, United States Code, have been

satisfied with respect to that contract.

C–130 modifications

The budget request contained $138.5 million for C–130 modifications, but included no funds for the fourth-generation terrain

awareness and warning system (TAWS) or for the MC–130P universal aerial refueling receptacle slipway (UARRSI) modification.

The fourth-generation TAWS, the most advanced TAWS version,

projects an aircraft’s position relative to the ground and improves

pilot situational awareness by warning of potential ground impact,

thus preventing controlled flight into terrain. The committee understands that the Air Force has directed that all passenger and

troop carrying aircraft be equipped with a fourth-generation TAWS

by fiscal year 2005, but also understands that the C–130 avionics

modernization program, which provides avionics upgrades for the

C–130 fleet, does not schedule the installation of a fourth-generation TAWS until fiscal years 2006 to 2014. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $31.0 million to procure and install the fourth-generation TAWS on the Air Force fleet of C–130

aircraft.

The MC–130P UARRSI modification, which allows the MC–130P

to be refueled in flight, has been installed on all but two of the Air

Force’s operational MC–130P fleet, but the committee understands

that it has not been installed on the four aircraft used to train new

MC–130P pilots. Since the committee believes that in-flight air refueling training is critical for new MC–130P pilots, it recommends an increase of $11.6 million to procure and install the MC–130P

UARRSI modification on the four aircraft used to train new MC–

130P pilots.

The committee recommends $181.1 million, an increase of $42.6

million for C–130 modifications.

F–15 modifications

The budget request contained $232.5 million for F–15 modifications, of which $33.0 million was included for six ALQ–135 band

1.5 countermeasures system modifications, but included no funds to

convert the Air National Guard’s (ANG) F100 engines in their F–

15 aircraft to the F100–220E configuration.

The ALQ–135 band 1.5 countermeasures system modification

provides a self-protection jamming capability against modern surface-to-air enemy missiles and is integrated with the F–15E’s existing internal countermeasure set and its ALR–56C radar warning

receiver to provide full threat coverage. The committee believes

that improved self-protection capability such as the ALQ–135 band

1.5 countermeasures system modification addresses critical deficiencies identified subsequent to Operation Allied Force in 1999,

and that the ALQ–135 band 1.5 countermeasures system should be

produced at the most efficient rates and installed in F–15E aircraft

as rapidly as possible.

101

The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to procure 20 additional ALQ–135 band 1.5 countermeasures systems,

and strongly encourages the Air Force to establish a consistent

funding approach for the ALQ–135 band 1.5 countermeasures system that will complete production and installation of this modification on all F–15E aircraft by fiscal year 2005.

Conversion kits for the F–15’s F100 engine, also known as ‘‘Ekits,’’ provide increased thrust, greater reliability, better fuel efficiency, and reduced operations and maintenance costs. The committee notes that the ANG’s F–15 aircraft make a critical contribution to the Air Force’s Air Expeditionary Forces, and believes that

engine conversion kits for the ANG’s F–15 aircraft should be accelerated. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $34.0

million for engine conversion kits for the ANG’s F–15 aircraft.

The committee recommends $291.5 million for F–15 modifications, an increase of $59.0 million.

F–16 modifications

The budget request contained $265.0 million for various F–16

modifications, but included no funds for Litening advanced airborne targeting and navigation (AT) pods for the Air Force Reserve

Command (AFRC), for the Air National Guard’s (ANG) Theater

Airborne Reconnaissance System (TARS) pods, or for F100–229 reengine kits for the ANG’s block 42 F–16 aircraft. Additionally, the

research, development test and evaluation (RDTE) budget request

contained $66.8 million in PE 35206F for airborne reconnaissance

systems, but also included no funds for the TARS.

The Litening AT pod is the next generation Litening pod system

that will incorporate an advanced forward-looking infra-red radar

and other enhancements to the existing multi-sensor and precision

strike capability. Since the committee understands that Litening

AT pods are among the Air Force Reserve Commander’s top unfunded modernization priorities, it recommends an increase of

$14.4 million for eight Litening AT pods for the AFRC.

The two ANG F–16 units equipped with TARS pods provide a responsive under-the-weather reconnaissance capability to support

the intelligence and targeting requirements of military users. The

committee understands that current TARS pods require a data link

system upgrade to connect with the joint force air component commander’s command and control (JFACC C2) structure and a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to enable night and all-weather reconnaissance capability. Since the committee believes that night and

all-weather reconnaissance operations and the ability to data link

to the JFACC C2 structure are essential to identify and engage

time-critical targets, it recommends an increase of $11.1 million in

PE 35206F to complete the development of the data link and SAR

integration into the TARS, and a procurement increase of $6.6 million for upgraded TARS pods.

The committee notes that the ANG’s F–16 block 42 aircraft are

underpowered compared to F–16 block 40, block 50, and block 52

aircraft, and believes that this limitation does not provide sufficient

power to adequately defend against opposition air defense systems

in likely theaters of operation. To provide increased thrust for the

ANG’s F–16 block 42 aircraft, the committee recommends an inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
102

crease of $62.0 million to re-engine ten F–16 block 42 aircraft with

the F100–229 re-engine kit. In total, the committee recommends $348.0 million for F–16 pro- curement modifications, an increase of $83.0 million, and $77.9

million in RDTE PE 35206F, an increase of $11.1 million.

Fixed aircrew standardized seats

The budget request contained $54.7 million for other modifications, but included no funds for fixed aircrew standardized seats

(FASS).

FASS would provide crewmembers and passengers on C–130, C– 135, C–141, C–5, E–3, KC–10, C–17, and E–8 aircraft protection

against aircraft crash loads up to 16 times the force of gravity. In

prior years, the committee has supported the development of the

FASS, understands that it is now ready for production, and continues to believe that its implementation will not only increase

safety but also reduce supply and maintenance costs through the

commonality and interchangeability of its parts. The committee recommends $59.5 million for other modifications,

an increase of $4.8 million, for procurement of FASS.

HH–60G pave hawk upgrades

The budget request contained $40.6 million for H–60 modifications, but included no funds to upgrade the 13 student training

HH–60G Pave Hawk helicopters.

The committee understands that the HH–60G Pave Hawk helicopters used for student training are not configured with 701C engines, forward looking infra-red (FLIR) systems or helicopter infrared suppression systems (HIRSS), which are configurations used in

the combat air force (CAF) HH–60G Pave Hawk fleet. The committee further understands that, as a result of these deficiencies,

pilots who complete training in those HH–60G Pave Hawk helicopters not configured with the 701C engine, FLIR systems or the

HIRSS are not proficient in the use of these systems when they arrive at their operational units.

Since the committee believes that student training in operational

HH–60G Pave Hawk CAF configurations is critical to mission readiness, it recommends an increase of $29.5 million to procure and

install 701C engines, FLIR systems, and the HIRSS on the 13 HH–

60G Pave Hawk helicopters used for student training.

Miscellaneous production charges

The budget request contained $349.5 million for miscellaneous

production charges, of which $14.2 million was included for the P4

refurbishment contract (P4RC), but included no funds for the P4RC

for the Air National Guard (ANG) or for the comet infra-red (IR)

countermeasures pod.

The P4 is an airborne instrumentation subsystem pod used by

fighter and attack aircraft which provides the capability to conduct

air-to-air, air-to-surface, and electronic warfare combat training

while providing real-time aircraft monitoring and recording events

for post-mission debrief and analysis. While the P4 pods can only

be used at ranges equipped with ground-station instrumentation,

the P4RC upgrades the P4 pods with global positioning receivers,

data recorders, and on-board weapons simulations so that training

103

can occur at locations without ground-station instrumentation.

Since ANG units and aircraft have experienced increased operations tempo and may not have the opportunity to conduct training

at ranges equipped with ground-station instrumentation, the committee believes that ANG units should also be included in the

P4RC. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to

upgrade 150 ANG P4 pods to the P4RC configuration.

The comet IR countermeasures pod is designed for use on military fighter and transport aircraft to provide preemptive and extended duration protection from man-portable surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) by dispensing a continuous stream of pyrophoric material that oxidizes on contact with the atmosphere producing a decoy

IR signature. The committee notes that both instances of battle

damage to an A–10 aircraft during Operation Allied Force occurred

due to IR SAMs that were not seen by the pilot, or other aircraft

in the formation, because of the SAM’s small size, high speed, and

short engagement range, and understands that the comet IR countermeasures pod could provide the long-duration self-protection

necessary for an A–10 aircraft to accomplish its mission while operating in the target area. Due to its importance in protecting both

combat and mobility aircraft, the committee also notes that the Air

Force Chief of Staff has included the comet IR countermeasures

pod among his top unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003. In addition to the research and development increase described elsewhere

in this report, the committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million to procure 48 comet IR countermeasures pods and 576 decoy

cartridges for use in A–10 aircraft.

The committee recommends $379.5 million for miscellaneous production charges, an increase of $48.0 million for miscellaneous production charges.

Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

The budget request contained $23.1 million for procurement of

seven Predator UAV systems but included no funds for the turbo

prop-powered Predator B, a larger, faster variant with increased

payload capacity.

The Predator UAV system provides long-dwell, real-time intelligence information to Joint Task Force Commanders. The committee notes that following the accomplishments of the Predator

UAV system in its reconnaissance role in Operation Enduring Freedom, the system has also successfully demonstrated its capability

to be weaponized to deliver Hellfire missiles. As missions for the

Predator UAV system expand, the committee believes that the improved speed and payload capacity of the turbo prop-powered Predator B UAV is critical to future combat operations. The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million for six

turbo prop-powered Predator B UAV systems and associated spare

parts.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $1,133.9 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $1,176.9 million for fiscal year 2003.

104

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

105

106

Items of Special Interest

Air Force Ammunition Procurement

The budget request contained $1,129.5 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends an increase of $29.9 million, for the following types of ammunition programs:

[In millions of dollars]

Practice Bombs: Cast Ductile Iron (BDU–56) ............................................... 3.0

General Purpose Bombs: Cast Ductile Iron (MK–84) ................................... 3.0

Sensor Fuzed Weapon ..................................................................................... 20.0

Flares:

MJU–52 Training Flares ......................................................................... 2.0

MJU–52 War Reserve Flares .................................................................. 1.9

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $3,575.2 million for Missile Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $3,482.6 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

107

108

109

Items of Special Interest

Advanced extremely high frequency satellite

The budget request contained $94.5 million in missile procurement Air Force, budget activity 05, Item 19, for advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF) satellite advanced procurement.

The committee is aware that the AEHF satellite program has

been restructured, and therefore cannot execute the $94.5 million

funds requested for advanced procurement.

The committee recommends no funds in missile procurement Air

Force for AEHF satellite advanced procurement, a decrease of

$94.5million.

AGM–65 modifications

The budget request contained $300 thousand for AGM–65 modifications, but included no funds for conversion of AGM–65 missiles

to an upgraded configuration.

Two configurations of the AGM–65, a precision guided tactical

missile employed on the F–16, F–15E and A–10 aircraft, are currently undergoing conversion to be upgraded for improved capability. The ‘‘G’’ configuration, with an infrared target seeker is

being upgraded to the ‘‘K’’ configuration, which uses an updated

electro-optical (EO) seeker. The ‘‘B’’ configuration, with an obsolete

EO target seeker, is being upgraded to the ‘‘H’’ configuration, which

also uses an updated EO seeker. The committee understands that

planned production of AGM–65H and AGM–65K missiles in fiscal

year 2003 will not occur at economic rates, and also will not provide sufficient training missiles for Air Force Reserve Command

(AFRC) or Air National Guard (ANG) pilot proficiency training.

The committee recommends $5.3 million, an increase of $5.0 million to upgrade an additional 160 AGM–65 missiles to the ‘‘H’’ or

‘‘K’’ configuration, of which 100 missiles are for pilot proficiency

training in the AFRC and ANG.

Minuteman III modifications

The budget request contained $580.7 million for Minuteman III

(MM III) modifications, of which $237.5 million was for the guidance replacement program (GRP) and $290.3 million was for the

propulsion replacement program (PRP). The MM III is a strategic

ballistic missile capable of delivering special weapons against

enemy targets at very long range.

The GRP replaces the MM III’s guidance system with updated

and more reliable components and the PRP refurbishes the MM

III’s booster to provide extended service life. The committee notes

that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included MM III modifications

contract cost growth and renewal among his unfunded priorities for

fiscal year 2003 due to contract rate increases and higher than

planned consumption of government furnished equipment in both

the GRP and PRP. The committee also notes that the Air Force

Chief of Staff has included the procurement of additional warhead

shipping containers in this unfunded priority because the Nuclear

Posture Review-directed warhead download options were revealed

only after the fiscal year 2003 budget request had been submitted.

110

The committee recommends $603.9 million for MM III modifications, an increase of $23.2 million to address GRP and PRP deficiencies and to procure warhead shipping containers.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $10,523.9 million for Other Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $10,907.7 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

111

112

113

114

115

116

Items of Special Interest

Combat arms training system (CATS)

The budget request contained $11.3 million for base procured

equipment, but included no funds for CATS. CATS is a computerbased simulation system that provides marksmanship training for

security force personnel as well as training to manage less-than-lethal judgmental scenarios.

The committee understands that since September 11, 2001, Air

National Guard (ANG) bases, which are each equipped with one

CATS, are used daily to train security force personnel, and that, as

a result of this daily use, a second CATS is required at each ANG

base leaving a shortfall off 117 systems. With limited access to firing ranges and training munitions, the committee believes that the

CATS is proving to be an essential asset to meet the marksmanship and weapons certification training, and situational scenario

readiness requirements, of ANG personnel.

The committee recommends $25.3 million for base procured

equipment, an increase of $14.0 million, for the CATS.

Combat training ranges

The budget request contained $17.2 million for combat training

ranges, but included no funds for the unmanned threat emitter

(UMTE) program.

The committee understands that both the Nellis and Eielson air

combat training ranges are not configured with training systems

which emulate the most advanced adversary surface-to-air missile

and anti-aircraft artillery systems, and believes that the UMTE

program will address this requirement.

Consequently, the committee recommends $53.2 million for combat training ranges, an increase of $36.0 million for the UMTE program.

Eagle vision

The budget request contained $9.0 million for intelligence communication equipment, but included no funds for procurement of

the eagle vision system.

Eagle vision is a mobile off-the-shelf downlink and processing

system that utilizes commercial satellites for imagery. The committee understands that the eagle vision system will incorporate

the ability to overlay high-resolution national imagery over unclassified commercial data, and will also provide a capability to transmit this data to warfighters in the field within minutes. The committee notes its past support for the eagle vision system and believes that it should be continued to provide the warfighter with

imagery support capability that is not available by other means.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for procurement of the eagle vision system.

General information technology

The budget request contained $55.8 million for general information technologies, but included no funds for procurement of the

parts and repair item support (PARIS) program or for the science

and engineering lab data integration (SELDI) program.

117

The PARIS program is a computer-based system that facilitates

the management of technical data related to source qualification

and outsourced repairs for use by the Air Force’s Air Logistics Centers. The committee understands that the PARIS program has

demonstrated the ability to accurately and rapidly identify both defective parts and their vendors, so that the those parts, identified

as defective, could be quickly removed from service and the applicable vendors could be removed as the approved supplier of those

parts. Additionally, the committee understands that use of the

PARIS program has already saved an estimated $15.0 million in

fiscal year 2001, and believes that its increased use will result in

future parts, repair and labor cost savings. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million for the PARIS program.

The Air Force Material Command’s science and engineering lab

captures, analyzes and disseminates lab test data to the Air Force’s

engineering and system overhaul operations, and the committee

understands that the SELDI program would facilitate this mission

by providing more rapid lab data access affecting overhaul operations, providing accident investigators with immediate access to

lab results of failed components, enabling component failure trend

analysis, and implementing new acoustic signature sensors to ensure the proper chemical composition of materials and equipment.

Since the committee further understands that the SELDI would

improve operational aircraft readiness, increase flight safety and

reduce support costs, it recommends an increase of $9.5 million, for

procurement of the SELDI program. The committee recommends a total increase of $18.5 million for

general information technologies.

GeoBase centralized geographic information system (GIS)

The budget request contained $202.9 million for base communications infrastructure, but included no funds for procurement of

the GeoBase centralized GIS.

The GeoBase centralized GIS would link all aspects of a base’s

infrastructure information to a computer-generated map display so

relationships between people and processes can be displayed in a

geographical context. The committee understands that the Air

Force’s major and minor installations currently use disparate and

outdated systems and processes that do not facilitate the visibility

of assets, requirements, and processes in a geographic context to

allow enhanced management efficiency, and believes that the

GeoBase centralized GIS would standardize base management

functions in a more accessible, easily-understood, and effective

manner.

The committee recommends $217.9 million for base communications infrastructure, an increase of $15.0 million for procurement

of the GeoBase centralized GIS.

Point of maintenance initiative

The budget request contained $25.6 million for mechanized material handling equipment, but included no funds for procurement of

the point of maintenance initiative (POMX).

The POMX is a maintenance data collection program that was

designed and developed by the Logistics Systems Office of the Air

Force Materiel Command. The committee notes that the POMX obVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
118

jective is to increase the timeliness and accuracy of maintenance

data collection while reducing the administrative burden on maintenance technicians, and understands that its use has already been

validated at one Air Force base.

To ensure the efficiency and accuracy of maintenance-related data, the committee recommends $33.6 million for mechanized material handling equipment, an increase of $8.0 million, for the

POMX.

Thinpack parachutes

The budget request contained $9.3 million for personal and safe- ty items of less than a $5.0 million value, but included no funds

for procurement of thinpack parachutes.

Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life, the committee believes that replacement of existing parachutes with the

thinpack parachute would result in substantial life cycle cost savings as it has in the Navy’s P–3 and E–2C aircraft programs. For

this reason, the committee has strongly supported thinpack parachutes, previously known as the lightweight environmentally

sealed parachute assembly, and understands that both the Air

Force Special Operations Command and Air Mobility Command are

developing the thinpack parachute in fiscal year 2002 so that production can commence in early 2003.

Consistent with its previous actions, the committee recommends $4.0 million to procure thinpack parachutes for use in Air Force

aircraft.

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview

The budget request contained $2,688.5 million for Procurement,

Defense-Wide in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $2,621.0 million for fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

119

120

121

122

123

Items of Special Interest

Army special operations aviation (ARSOA) avionics re-capitalization and enhanced situational awareness

The budget request contained $289.8 million for special operations forces (SOF) rotary wing upgrades, but included no funds for

the ARSOA avionics re-capitalization and enhanced situational

awareness program.

The committee understands that the ARSOA avionics re-capitalization and enhanced situational awareness program would replace

obsolete avionics with mission processors, multifunction displays

and intelligence broadcast receivers for 13 helicopters in the

Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, and would

preclude time-sensitive parts obsolescence problems beginning in

fiscal year 2004.

Since the committee notes that the Commander-in-Chief of the

Special Operations Command has included the ARSOA avionics recapitalization and enhanced situational awareness program as his

highest unfunded priority for fiscal year 2003, it recommends

$309.0 million for SOF rotary wing upgrades, an increase of $19.2

million, for the ARSOA avionics re-capitalization and enhanced situational awareness program.

Chemical/biological defense procurement program

The budget request contained a total of $435.7 million for chemical/biological defense (CBD) procurement, including $125.3 million

for procurement of individual protection equipment, $15.6 million

for decontamination equipment, $143.2 million for the joint biological defense program, $34.7 million for collective protection equipment, and $116.9 million for contamination avoidance equipment.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for procurement of automatic chemical agent alarms (ACADA) for the

Army National Guard and Army Reserve, an increase of $13.4 million for procurement of the biological integrated detection system

for newly organized Army Reserve biological detection units, and a

total of $49.6 million for collective protection equipment, including

an increase of $14.9 million for procurement of chemical-biological

protective shelters for Army medical companies and Marine Corps

forward surgical teams.

Computer assisted medical diagnostics

The committee is aware that off-the-shelf medical diagnostic

technology is available that could significantly improve the ability

of health care professionals to more quickly and accurately diagnose diseases, using a digital clinical library and decision support

software. This technology could enable clinicians to rapidly sort

and review thousands of medical photographs, match them to the

patient’s symptoms and other relevant factors, and quickly develop

a priority list of potential diagnoses. The committee understands

that the surgeons general of the Army and the Air Force are evaluating such technology, and urges the Secretary of Defense to closely

evaluate this technology for procurement by all the services.

124

Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC)

The budget request contained $8.2 million for special operations

forces (SOF) intelligence systems but included no funds for PICRC

systems.

The PICRC system integrates commercial-off-the-shelf, full-dimensional mapping and display software; desktop computers;

hand-held computing devices; and wireless communications to provide SOF operators with high-resolution imagery for precision navigation, annotation of real-time visual observations, and a capability

to relay information to command elements. The committee understands that this system would significantly enhance SOF capabilities to accurately collect, quickly report, and promptly act upon

real-time intelligence data.

The committee recommends $14.2 million for SOF intelligence

systems, an increase of $6.0 million, for procurement of PICRC systems.

Special operations forces (SOF) small arms and weapons

The budget request contained $4.8 million to procure SOF small

arms and weapons, of which $3.7 million was to procure the advanced lightweight grenade launcher (ALGL), but included no

funds to procure the AT4-confined space (CS) anti-armor and bunker defeat and breeching weapon.

The committee notes the Commander-in-Chief of the Special Operations Command has identified fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirements of $4.4 million for accelerated procurement of ALGLs,

and $10.5 million to accelerate and field the first production lot of

4,000 AT4–CS special operations insensitive munition weapons.

The committee recommends $19.7 million for SOF small arms

and weapons, an increase of $4.4 million for additional ALGLs, and

an increase of $10.5 million for additional AT4–CS weapons, for a

total increase of $14.9 million.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE

Overview

As described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends

transferring the budget request of $1,490.2 million for Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army (CAMD, A) to Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD, D), and recommends a total of $1,490.2 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, including $974.2 million for research,

development, test, and evaluation, $302.7 million for procurement,

and $213.2 million for operations and maintenance. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability consideration.

125

126

Items of Special Interest

Chemical agents and munitions destruction

The committee notes that chemical demilitarization for 90 percent of the stockpile at eight stockpile storage sites in the continental United States is under contract. To date, more than 8,000

tons of chemical agent, over 25 percent of the total U.S. stockpile,

have been safely destroyed in operational demilitarization facilities

at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah, using the baseline incineration

process. Stockpile demilitarization operations at the Johnston Atoll

facility have been completed and shutdown of that facility begun.

Construction of demilitarization facilities at Anniston, Alabama,

and Umatilla, Oregon, has been completed and systematization operations are in progress at those locations, while construction of the

Pine Bluff, Arkansas, facility is over 75 percent complete. Mustard

agent in bulk storage at Aberdeen, Maryland, and VX nerve agent

in bulk storage at Newport, Indiana, will be destroyed using neutralization, rather than the baseline incineration process. In September 2001, the Defense Acquisition Executive completed a comprehensive review of the chemical demilitarization program that

resulted in new schedule milestones (completion of stockpile destruction in 2011 vice 2007 as required under the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty) and a new life cycle cost estimate:

$24,000.0 million, an increase of $9,000.0 million over the previous

estimate. The review provided the basis for the selection of neutralization as the technology to be used for destruction of mustardfilled munitions and bulk agent at Pueblo, Colorado, and the yetto-be-designated technology to be used for destruction of assembled

chemical weapons at Blue Grass, Kentucky. The committee understands that the Defense Acquisition Executive directed the Army to

propose alternatives for accelerating the destruction of the stockpile and reducing the overall life cycle costs.

The committee is aware of actions being taken in the aftermath

of the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York and against

the Pentagon, to increase the safety and security of the stockpile

against potential terrorist attack. A decision has been made to accelerate the destruction of bulk mustard at Aberdeen and acceleration of the destruction of bulk VX at Newport is under consideration. The committee notes that funding for accelerated destruction

of bulk agent was not included in the fiscal year 2003 budget request or in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental request. Should additional funds for the accelerated destruction of bulk agent not be included in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriation, the committee strongly recommends that they be included in the President’s subsequent budget request for authorization and appropriation of the Defense Emergency Fund.

The committee notes the shift in program management oversight

responsibility within the Army Secretariat from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to the

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment).

The committee believes that the cost, complexity, and importance

of the program require that it continue to be managed as a major

defense acquisition program, and elsewhere in this report has recommended a provision (section 143) to that effect.

127

The committee notes on-going efforts in the chemical stockpile

emergency preparedness program (CSEPP) to insure the readiness

of the military installations on which the chemical demilitarization

facilities are located and of the surrounding local civilian jurisdictions to respond to a chemical accident or incident involving the

stockpile. The committee believes that close working relationships

between the Department of the Army and the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) and its regional activities, state and

local emergency management activities, and local government and

the Army installations are absolutely essential to ensuring that the

Army’s chemical stockpile storage and destruction mission are capable of being carried out so as to ensure the maximum protection

for the environment, the general public, and the personnel who are

involved in the storage and destruction of the stockpile. The committee expects both the Secretary of the Army and the Director,

FEMA to carry out their respective responsibilities with regard to

the CSEPP program in accordance with the memorandum of agreement between the two agencies.

In the report that accompanied H.R. 2586 (H. Rept. 107–194),

the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to update the assessment required by Section 141(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) by March

1, 2002, in order to identify those actions taken or planned by the

Secretary to significantly reduce the cost of the program and ensure its completion in accordance with the obligation of the United

States under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The committee

has not yet received this report, but plans to hold hearings on the

chemical stockpile destruction program later this year to address

these and other program issues.

Finally, the committee directs the Comptroller General to review

and assess the status and management of the chemical stockpile

destruction program and to report the results of that assessment

to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1,

2003.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sections 101–107—Authorization of Appropriations

These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year

2003 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

SUBTITLE B—NAVY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Shipbuilding Initiative

This section would authorize $810.0 million for one additional

Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, or DDG–51, in fiscal year 2003 if

the Secretary of the Navy certifies to the congressional defense

committees on, or before the date of the enactment of this Act, that

the prime contractor for the Virginia Class submarine program has

committed to expend from its own funds an amount not less than

$385.0 million for economic order quantity procurement of nuclear

and non-nuclear components for Virginia Class submarines beginning in fiscal year 2003. If this certification is not provided, then

128

$810.0 million shall be allocated as follows: $415.0 million for Virginia Class submarine advance procurement, $210.0 million for

cruiser conversion advance procurement, and $185.0 million for nuclear attack submarine engineered refueling overhaul.

Additionally, if the terms of the agreement between the prime

contractor for the Virginia Class submarine program and the

United States include a requirement for the Secretary of the Navy

to seek to acquire Virginia Class submarines through a multiyear

procurement contract, the Secretary of the Navy may, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, enter into

a multiyear contract for the procurement of Virginia Class submarines beginning in the fiscal year 2003 program year, subsequent to his certification that the conditions in subsection (a) of

that section have been satisfied with respect to that contract and

a period of thirty days has elapsed after the date of transmission

of such certification to the congressional defense committees.

SUBTITLE C—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Section 121—Multiyear Procurement Authority for C–130J Aircraft

Program

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter

into a multiyear procurement contract for Air Force CC–130J and

Marine Corps KC–130J aircraft beginning with the fiscal year 2003

program year, subject to a certification to the congressional defense

committees that satisfactory progress is being made towards a successful operational test and evaluation, and that each of the conditions specified in section 2306b(a) of title 10, United States Code,

have been satisfied with respect to that contract.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER PROGRAMS

Section 141—Revisions to Multiyear Contracting Authority

Relating to Structuring of Contracts

This section would change section 2306b(i) of title 10, United

States Code to require the Department of Defense to structure

multiyear procurement contracts so that complete end items are

procured through yearly appropriated amounts, and would restrict

advance procurement to those long-lead items necessary in order to

meet the planned delivery schedule for complete major end items

programmed under the contract to be acquired with funds appropriated in a subsequent fiscal year.

Section 142—Transfer of Technology Items and Equipment in

Support of Homeland Security

This provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter

into an agreement with an independent, non-profit, technology-oriented entity, which has demonstrated a proven ability to facilitate

technology transfer of promising defense technologies developed by

both the private and public sectors that will aid federal, state and

local law enforcement, fire fighting, and emergency medical ‘‘first

responders’’. The entity would develop and deploy items and equipment through coordination between government agencies and private sector, commercial developers and suppliers of technology that

129

would enhance public safety and emergency response. The entity

would also work in coordination with the InterAgency Board (IAB)

for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability to develop

items and equipment that meet the standardization requirements

established by the IAB. The entity would evaluate the equipment

items that have been identified through the standards development

process accomplished to date by the IAB and other state-of-the-art

items and equipment that may benefit first responders. An increase

of $1.0 million is included in PE 65384BP to facilitate this agreement and establish an InterAgency Consequence Management

Equipment Transfer program.

Section 143—Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical

Agents and Munitions

This section would require that the Secretary of Defense ensure

that the program for destruction of the United States stockpile of

lethal chemical agents and munitions is managed as a major defense acquisition program in accordance with the essential elements of such programs as may be determined by the Secretary.

The provision would also require the Under Secretary of Defense

(Comptroller) to certify annually to the congressional defense committees that the budget request for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program has been submitted in accordance with

the requirements of applicable federal laws. As noted elsewhere in

this report, the committee cites section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99–145),

as amended.

Section 144—Report on Department of Defense Unmanned Aerial

Vehicle Systems

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report to the Congress no later than January 1, 2003 for each unmanned aerial vehicle system to include: (1) a description of the

system infrastructure, (2) the system Operational Requirements

Document, (3) a description of the system training and basing infrastructure, (4) a description of the how the department acquires

unmanned aerial vehicle systems, (5) the system acquisition plan

and (6) recommended changes in law that would facilitate unmanned vehicle acquisition.

Section 145—Report on Impact of Army Aviation Modernization

Plan on the Army National Guard

This section would require the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to submit a report to both the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services no later

than February 1, 2003, regarding the impact of the Army Aviation

Modernization Plan on the Army National Guard to conduct its

aviation missions, the plan and timeline outlined within the Army

Aviation Modernization Plan to transfer aircraft from the active

Army to the Army reserve components, and the suitability of existing, commercial off-the-shelf, light-twin engine helicopters to perform Army National Guard aviation missions. The provision would

also allow for the Chief of Staff of the Army to submit views on the

report.

130

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND

EVALUATION

Overview

The budget request contained $53,924.2 million for research, de- velopment, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), including $67.2 million

for the Defense Health Program. The committee recommends

$56,491.5 million, an increase of $2,567.4 million to the budget request.

The committee strongly supports this much needed increase and

notes that the Department of Defense and the military services

have all initiated major efforts to transform military warfighting

capabilities to better prepare for future threats and challenges. The

committee notes that the largest portion of the total RDT&E request is contained in the fielded system development category, the

area primarily dedicated to upgrades of existing systems. The committee remains concerned that the Department will not be able to

budget for sufficient funds to sustain all of the planned system upgrades and also adequately fund priority transformation efforts.

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to outline clearly

the overall Department priorities for RDT&E investment strategies

for both transformation efforts and existing system upgrades and

sustainment.

131

132

ARMY RDT&E

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $6,918.5 million for Army RDT&E.

The committee recommends authorization of $6,933.3 million, an

increase of $283.4 million and a transfer of $268.6 million for missile defense programs from Army RDT&E to Defense-wide RDT&E.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Army

RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes

to the Army request are discussed following the table.

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

Items of Special Interest

155mm extended-range guided projectile

The budget request contained $70.9 million in PE 64814A for artillery munitions.

The committee notes that the Army is merging the trajectory correctable munitions (TCM) program and the Excalibur (XM–982)

guided munition program into a single extended-range guided munition program. The committee is aware that combining these programs has the potential to reduce cost, improve performance and

accelerate fielding of a 155mm extended-range guided projectile for

our ground forces.

The committee strongly supports merging TCM and Excalibur

and recommends the budget request in PE 64814A.

Advanced Army composite bridge

The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but included

no funds for the development of the Advanced Army Composite

Bridge.

The committee is aware that the Army has evaluated a composite bridge technology demonstrating a capacity to carry military

loads in excess of 110 tons. The committee understands the potential benefits composite materials offer, especially in terms of weight

savings, corrosion resistance, and battle damage tolerance. As a result, the committee urges further development of this initiative to

facilitate a full-scale demonstration and complete design and fabrication.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63005A to mature the full-scale demonstration of the Advanced

Composite Bridge.

Advanced battery technology demonstration and validation program

The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A for

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funds

for the advanced battery technology demonstration and validation

program.

The committee is aware that the advanced battery technology

demonstration and validation program has produced notable successes such as a new thermal battery for the Patriot PAC–3 missile

and a prototype battery for the compact kinetic energy missile. He

committee supports continuation of the program to: (1) continue development of a thermal battery simulation and modeling tool, (2)

develop advanced electrochemical batteries to support the missile

technology sector, and (3) provide the government with a second

source for critical-use thermal batteries.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

63308A for the advanced battery technology demonstration and

validation program.

Advanced fuel cell technology

The budget request contained $27.5 million in PE 62705A for

electronics and electronic devices, but included no funding for advanced fuel cell technology.

142

The committee notes that the military is becoming increasingly

dependent on electrical power for its personal warfighting systems,

and supports development of advanced fuel cell technology to meet

those requirements. The committee recommends $32.5 million for PE 62705A, an increase of $5.0 million for advanced fuel cell technology.

Advanced threat infrared countermeasures/common missile warning system

The budget request contained $22.8 million in PE 64270A for the

development of EW equipment, but included no funds to complete

an Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common Missile

Warning System (ATIRCM/CMWS) installed test facility upgrade.

The ATIRCM system integrates defensive infrared (IR) countermeasures into currently fielded aircraft for more effective protection against a greater number of IR-guided missiles than is provided by currently fielded technology. The CMWS provides warning

of a threat IR-guided missile on a variety of tactical aircraft and

helicopters. While the committee notes the transfer of this system

to the United States Special Operations Command for continued

development and initial fielding, the committee is aware of a critical requirement to upgrade Army test facilities in order to perform

effective tests on helicopter self-protection systems installed and integrated on aircraft against multi-mode missile seekers.

To complete this test facility system upgrade, the committee rec- ommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 64270A, for this purpose.

Aircrew coordination training

The budget request contained $3.5 million in PE 63007A for

manpower, personnel, and training technology but included no

funds for aircrew coordination training (ACT).

The committee notes that ACT has almost completed development. The committee is aware that ACT has demonstrated the

ability to improve aircrew safety and efficiency, which is especially

critical in combat operations.

The committee recommends $5.6 million in PE 63007A, an increase of $2.1 million for aircrew coordination training.

Applied communications and information networking (ACIN) program

The budget request contained no funds in PE 64805A for the

ACIN program.

The committee understands that the ACIN program includes

projects intended to integrate commercial off-the-shelf components

and adapt commercial technologies to fulfill military communications applications for 21st century warfare. The committee notes

that the Army has implemented the ACIN program and recommends that the Secretary of the Army coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications,

and Intelligence) to expand applicable aspects of the ACIN program

within the Department of Defense. Consistent with its prior year

actions to promote increased partnering with commercial industry,

the committee recommends an increase of $17.0 million in PE

64805A for ACIN.

143

Anti-material sniper rifle

The budget request contained $6.0 million in PE 63607A for the

joint service small arm program, but included no funding for the

anti-material sniper rifle.

The committee is aware that the Army unfunded requirements

list contains a requirement for improvements to the long-range

sniper rifle. The anti-material sniper rifle offers the potential to reduce weight and improve reliability of the existing sniper rifle. The committee recommends $15.8 million in PE 63607A, an increase of $9.8 million for the anti-material sniper rifle.

Asbestos pilot project

The budget request contained $9.3 million in PE 63779A for environmental quality technology, but included no funds for an asbestos pilot project.

The committee is aware that asbestos is an environmental hazard and supports research and development to improve hazardous

waste reduction, and reduce the cost of disposal. The committee recommends $11.3 million in PE 63779A, an increase of $2.0 million for an asbestos pilot project.

Automated document conversion

The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but included

no funds for advanced data conversion.

The committee notes that only a small portion of the Tank and

Automotive Command’s legacy product data is in computer aided

design formats. The committee is aware that CAD-based technical

data is recognized as an enabler for cost effective recapitalization. The committee recommends an increase of $750 thousand in PE

63005A for development and evaluation of existing and emerging

technologies for conversion of paper/raster to 2-dimensional and 3-

dimensional CAD along with advanced formats.

Bipolar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery

The budget request contained $61.0 million in PE 78045A for end

item industrial preparedness, but included no funds for the bi-polar

wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery.

The committee is aware that the future military will be increasingly dependent on portable electric power, and notes that bi-polar

wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery technology has the potential

to meet some of these needs.

The committee recommends $63.0 million in PE 78045A, an increase of $2.0 million for bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride

battery.

Clothing and equipment technology

The budget included $25.5 million in PE 62786A for clothing and

equipment technology, but included no funding to improve the affordability and reliability of inflatable textile-based structures for

deployable shelters.

The committee is supportive of the Army’s Transformational

Campaign Plan, and particularly of development of technologies to

improve soldier survivability and performance. The committee

notes that the Army’s logistics development plan appears to be inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
144

consistent with all Objective Force requirements, particularly with

regard to achieving rapid rates of deployment into areas with likely

chemical or biological weapons threats. The committee is aware

that advanced shelter development incorporating innovative weaving technologies may simultaneously facilitate deployments and improve soldier survivability and urges the Army to pursue further

development of this initiative. The committee recommends $27.5 million in PE 62786A, an increase of $2.0 million, for advanced development in deployable shelters.

Crusader

The committee is aware that the Crusader advanced field artillery system is the Army’s next generation self-propelled howitzer

that has increased lethality, mobility, and survivability. The committee notes that the requirement for Crusader directly addresses

the shortfalls in mobility and range of U.S. artillery systems that

were evident during the Gulf War. Crusader capitalizes on mature,

state-of-the-art technologies to improve range and volume of fire,

responsiveness, re-supply, command and control and sustainability.

The committee notes that the Army proposes to transition Crusader from program definition and risk reduction (PDRR) to systems development and demonstration (SDD) in fiscal year 2003. A

milestone B decision is scheduled in the 3rd quarter of fiscal year

2003 to support this transition.

The committee notes Crusader’s continuing progress in development and is aware that Crusader has already met all of its milestone B firing performance requirements in government testing at

Yuma Proving Ground. The government-industry team contract

performance continues to be on schedule and budget. The Assistant

Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) and

the Director of the Army’s Objective Force Task Force have testified before this committee regarding the need for Crusader and the

capabilities it brings to the battlefield.

The committee is concerned that the transformational war-fighting potential of Crusader has not been fully recognized by the Department of Defense and cannot be properly assessed until the

Army completes its comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)

for the Crusader Milestone B decision. The committee believes that

alternatives to Crusader’s capabilities suggested by the Department of Defense should be included in the AOA and assessed on

an equal basis.

Therefore, the Committee directs that there be no change to the

Crusader development schedule, funding or procurement requirements, to include termination, until the completion of the Army’s

Milestone B Analysis of Alternatives. The Secretary of the Army

shall present a report of the completed analysis to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2003. The committees will

respond to that analysis within 30 days so that the scheduled Milestone B review can be completed in April 2003.

Digital glue technology

The budget request contained $31.9 million in PE 62303A for

missile technology, but included no funds for digital glue technology.

145

The committee is informed that digital glue technology can reduce the number of lines required to integrate systems by as much

as a factor of 10.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million in PE

62303A for digital glue technology.

Dismounted situation awareness system

The budget request contained $28.9 million in PE 23758A for

digitization, but included no funds for the dismounted situation

awareness system (DISM).

The committee endorses the use of commercial-of-the-shelf

(COTS) technology to meet warfighting requirements while reducing costs and schedules. The committee notes that the dismounted

situation awareness system (DISM) map has successfully demonstrated its ability to significantly improve combat unit situational awareness during a night live fire exercise with paratroops.

The committee is also aware that this system was developed using

small business innovative research program funding. The committee recommends $32.9 million in PE 23758A, an increase of $4.0 million for DISM.

Distance learning

The budget request contained $14.3 million in PE 62785A for

manpower/personnel/training technology, but included no funds for

distance learning.

The committee notes that education is essential both for career

advancement and to support a well-educated work force, and further notes that distance learning is a new and innovative means

to provide such required education. The committee recommends $15.8 million in PE 62785A, an increase of $1.5 million for distance learning.

Eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease

The budget request contained $67.5 million in PE 62787A for

medical technology, but included no funds for eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease.

The committee is aware that arthropod-borne infectious disease

represents a significant health problem over a growing portion of

the United States, with potential to infect members of our military.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

62787A for eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease

Energy and sustainability research

The budget request included $2.9 million in PE 63734A for military engineering and advanced technology, but included no funding

for energy and sustainability research.

The committee supports initiatives designed to improve infrastructure life cycle operations and cost effectiveness, as well as enhancing the overall quality of life on military installations. The

committee further supports those efforts aimed at achieving efficiencies in energy-consumption while concurrently experiencing reductions in overall pollution levels and waste-streams. The committee understands that innovative technologies can be brought to

bear on these issues in a collaborative environment involving both

academia and government resources. The committee notes that enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
146

ergy and sustainability audits of Department of Defense facilities

have produced numerous operational efficiencies. The committee

encourages further development in this initiative. The committee recommends $5.9 million in PE 63734A, an increase of $3.0 million, for energy and sustainability research.

Enhanced area air defense system short range air defense integrated

kinetic energy system

The budget request contained $31.9 million in PE 62303A for

missile technology, but included no funds for the Army enhanced

area air defense system (EAADS) short range air defense integrated kinetic energy (E-STRIKE) system.

The committee is aware that the Army’s SWORD program, a

component of E-STRIKE, is scheduled to complete science and technology efforts at the end of fiscal year 2002, and will be without

funding until the E-STRIKE program begins in fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62303A for SWORD.

Explosively formed penetrators

The budget request included $3.0 million in PE 62624A for research on smaller, more lethal Explosively Formed Penetrators

(EFPs).

The committee strongly endorses the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) and supports initiatives aimed at fielding a lighter, faster, more survivable, and more lethal combat force. The committee

recognizes that warhead requirements and technologies must consequently adapt to FCS characteristics and is concerned that the

present level of EFP investment may prove insufficient to meet

both existing and future requirements. The committee further recognizes that the eventual FCS combat vehicles may involve a variety of smaller caliber guns and rocket launchers requiring smaller

and more lethal warheads to defeat, among other things, active

protection systems. Indeed, a next-generation warhead technology

could benefit mortars, artillery, rockets, missiles, and hand-emplaced munitions. The committee encourages the Army to place

greater emphasis on such an effort.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62624A for smaller, more lethal, next-generation Explosively

Formed Penetrators.

Eye-safe laser

The budget request contained $22.3 million in PE 62709A for

night vision technology, but included no funds for eye-safe lasers.

The committee is aware that eye-safe laser technology is applicable to detection and identification of diverse objects, such as wires,

vehicles, and chemical/biological clouds.

The committee recommends $25.3 million in PE 62709, an increase of $3.0 million for combustion driven eye-safe laser technology.

Family of systems simulator

The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A for

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funds

for the family of systems simulator (FoSSim).

147

The committee is aware that FoSSim integration capability can

be used to evaluate and improve new operational concepts, and

analyze interfaces for missile defense capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

63308A for FoSSim.

Fuel catalyst research and evaluation

The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but included

no funds for fuel catalyst research and evaluation.

The committee is aware that a fuel catalyst technology has been

developed that causes hydrocarbon fuels to combust more completely, leading to reduced emissions and better fuel economy. The

committee notes that a demonstration of this catalyst technology

could validate its potential for significant operational savings for

military vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63005A for fuels catalyst research and evaluation.

Global combat support system

The budget request contained $71.9 million in PE 33141A for

global combat support system-Army (GCSS–A).

The committee is aware that the Army initiated an information

systems program in 1997 that was intended to transform the

Army’s information technology support systems. The committee

notes that the Army is still attempting to implement the first, and

generally accepted easiest of five modules intended to replace 16

legacy systems. The committee additionally notes that the Army is

changing its acquisition strategy for subsequent modules, and questions the requirement for research and development until the revised strategy is clear. The committee recommends $51.9 million in PE 33140A, a decrease of $20.0 million for GCSS–A

Helmet mounted thermal imaging system

The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63710A for

night vision advanced technology, but included no funds for the

helmet-mounted thermal imaging system.

The committee is aware that thermal imaging offers potential for

improved detection of personnel involved in casualties where emergency crews, be they military or civilian, must work in environments where visibility is obscured.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE

63710A for the helmet mounted thermal imaging system.

Hemoglobin based oxygen carrier

The budget request contained $67.5 million in PE 62787A for

medical technology, but included no funds for the hemoglobin-based

oxygen carrier.

The committee is aware of a 2001 Department of Defense (DOD)

Inspector General audit of the DOD Blood Program that highlights

programmatic shortfalls in the Department’s ability to meet its

stated requirements. The committee is aware of a promising hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier technology that would minimize, and in

some cases eliminate, the storage and transportation problems

148

identified in the report. A hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier has extended life and innovative health benefits due to its ability to deliver oxygen directly to human tissue. The committee supports this

innovation and urges the Department of the Army to move expeditiously in a manner that will soon field this capability. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

62787A specifically for the hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier.

Human factors engineering technology

The budget request included $17.4 million in PE 62716A for

Human Factors Engineering Technology, but included no funding

for the Army’s manpower and personnel integration (MANPRINT)

modeling technologies.

The committee supports efforts to maximize soldier performance

and to match soldier effectiveness with the technological advances

imbedded in the Army’s Objective Force concept. The committee endorses efforts of the Army Research Laboratory to conduct field

studies and collect performance data on the capabilities and limitations of soldiers, particularly in the area of soldier-equipment interaction. Further, the committee recognizes and fully encourages the

cross-service integration of tools and methodologies in an effort to

minimize total ownership costs of future weapons systems through

improvements in design, operations, and maintenance. The committee recommends $20.4 million in PE 62716A, an increase of $3.0 million, for development of MANPRINT modeling

and related technologies.

Hyperspectral long-wave imager for the tactical environment

The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 305206A for Airborne Reconnaissance Operational Systems Development.

The committee remains supportive of long-wave infrared (LWIR)

hyperspectral imagery technology as a means for providing a

unique, next-generation, all-terrain, day/night detection capability

for camouflaged or concealed targets. The committee notes that the

Army’s planned efforts in this program include the development of

greater integration of a variety of imaging techniques. The committee supports these initiatives yet remains particularly concerned with the need to integrate the stabilization of the LWIR

sensor for ensuring enhanced target detection algorithms in pursuit

of a full system capability.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million in PE

35206A for hyperspectral long-wave imager.

Intelligence command global information portal

The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 33028A for Security and Intelligence Activities, but included no funding for the

Army intelligence and security command (INSCOM) global information portal.

The committee notes that INSCOM is developing the global information portal to provide intelligence analysts with timely information and to provide software applications that improve analysis.

The committee is aware that INSCOM is using commercial-off-theshelf software to continue to develop the global information portal.

The committee recommends $10.4 million in PE 33028A, an increase of $5.0 million for the INSCOM global information portal.

149

Javelin

The budget request contained $489 thousand in PE 64611A for

Javelin missile upgrades; however, no funds were included for upgrades to defeat advanced active protection systems (APS).

The Javelin missile system is a fire-and-forget antitank weapon

designed to defeat the most current armored systems fielded today.

However, the committee understands some armored vehicles use

APS to detect incoming missiles and defeat them by interfering

with the missile guidance system.

The committee is aware of an ongoing technology insertion program to overcome this problem that uses current off-the-shelf technologies to develop counter APS (CAPS) for Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided and Hellfire missiles to defeat existing

generation I and II APS. The committee notes that the Army Chief

of Staff has identified a $13.1 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2003 for future generation III CAPS development, integration and testing for the Javelin.

Based on increased threats and the need to develop CAPS for

generation III APS threats to the Army’s antitank missiles, the

committee recommends $13.6 million, an increase of $13.1 million,

in PE 64611A for this purpose and strongly urges the Army to include funds in its fiscal year 2004 budget to accelerate this program.

Landmine warfare/barrier engineering development

The budget request contained $129.0 million in PE 64808A for landmine warfare/barrier engineering development, of which $28.3

million was for non-self-destruct anti-personnel landmine alternatives (NSD–A).

The committee understands that the Army has used a portion of the $37.2 million of fiscal year 2001 NSD–A funds as a reprogram- ming source and that $13.0 million of the funds remain withheld

by the Department of Defense Comptroller. Since a portion of fiscal

year 2001 funds have not been obligated for their intended purpose, additional funds remain on withhold, and the program is delayed, the committee believes that the remainder of these funds

can be used to meet fiscal years 2002 and 2003 requirements until

the Department of Defense determines its course of action on this

initiative.

The committee recommends $101.7 million in PE 64808A for fiscal year 2003, a decrease of $27.3 million.

Lightweight x-band radar

The budget request included $29.1 million in PE 12419A for

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missiles Defense, but included no funding for lightweight x-band radar technology.

The committee is aware of efforts to improve the discrimination

capability of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) to better address the increased cruise missile threat. The committee understands the challenge of maintaining an advanced, cost-effective, long endurance,

precision-tracking defensive system. According to justification documents provided to the committee, JLENS has a requirement to develop, test, and provide a contingency-deployable Fire Control

radar demonstration prototype to address this challenge. The comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
150

mittee understands that a lightweight electronically-steerable Xband antenna may be ideal. Therefore, the committee urges the

Army to pursue further development of such technology. The committee recommends $31.1 million in PE 12419A, an increase of $2.0 million, for lightweight x-band radar technology.

M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner projectile

The budget request contained $38.1 million in PE 62624A for

weapons and munitions technology, but included no funds for the

M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner projectile.

The committee notes that modern warfare requires greater artillery range and is aware that the M795 extended range baseburner

projectile offers the potential to enhance conventional field artillery

capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 in PE 62624A

million for the M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner

projectile.

Metabolically engineered tissues for trauma

The budget request contained $67.5 million in PE 62787A for

medical technology, but included no funds for metabolically engineered tissues for trauma care.

The committee notes that technologies are being developed to

permit long-term storage of cells and tissues in an ordinary environment that would allow better treatment of battlefield casualties.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62787A for metabolically engineered tissues for trauma.

Metallic particles in defense applications obscurant smokes

The budget request contained $3.7 million in PE 62622A for

chemical, smoke and equipment defeating technology, but included

no funds for metallic particles in defense applications obscurant

smokes.

The committee notes that metallic particles in defense applications obscurant smokes may have potential benefits for the

warfighter.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62622A for metallic particles in defense applications obscurant

smokes.

Metrology

The budget request contained $50.3 million in PE 63001A for

warfighter advanced technology development, $37.8 million in PE

64215N for Navy standards development, and $1.3 million in PE

72207F for precision maintenance and calibration.

The Department of Defense’s metrology research and development program develops new measurement standards and capabilities to support the development, test, evaluation, and maintenance

of emerging military systems. The committee understands that

shortfalls in the metrology budget of all the military departments

have led to the erosion of critical calibration standards development and measurement services to the detriment of the development and support of new weapons systems.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE

63001A for the Army’s metrology research and development proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
151

gram, an increase of $5.2 million in PE 64215N for the Navy program, and an increase of $1.5 million in PE 72207F for the Air

Force metrology research and development program.

Micro electro-mechanical systems inertial measurement unit/global

positioning system

The budget request contained $31.9 million in PE 62303A for

missile technology, and included $10.0 million for micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) inertial measurement units (IMU).

The committee is aware that MEMS integrated inertial measurement unit-global positioning systems (IMU–GPS) offer the potential

to provide affordable precision navigation capability for a family of

platforms and weapons. The committee notes that the Army has

been designated as the lead service for this program.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

62303A for MEMS IMU–GPS.

Mini-backpack unmanned aerial vehicle

The budget request contained $46.5 million in PE 35204A for

night vision advanced technology, and included $9.6 million for

night vision airborne systems.

The committee is aware that an advanced mini-backpack unmanned air vehicle (UAV) with day/night sensor capability has

been developed and is ready for testing. The committee notes that

this UAV has potential applications both with existing forces and

as part of the future combat system.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

35204A for mini-backpack UAV.

Mobile tactical high energy laser

The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A, including $3.5 million for the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser

(MTHEL), a mobile version of an existing high energy chemical

laser system jointly developed by the United States and Israel to

demonstrate the feasibility of defeating short range rockets using

directed energy.

The committee is aware of promising results with the current

THEL, but believes that much work remains to be accomplished

before the technology develops to a lethal and militarily useful capability.

The committee recommends an increase of $25 million in PE

3308A for MTHEL.

Night vision fusion

The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63710A for

night vision technology, but included no funds for night vision fusion.

The committee is aware that the ability to see significantly better

at night and under conditions of obscured visibility than an adversary is critical to the success of the military. The committee notes

that digital pixel-level fusion has demonstrated the potential to

greatly enhance night vision.

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE

63710A for night vision fusion.

152

Non-traditional intelligence analysis toolset

The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 64321A for

support of the All Source Analysis System (ASAS), but included no

funds for the continued development of the non-traditional intelligence analysis toolset (NTIAT).

The committee strongly supports the Army’s objective force concept, yet remains concerned with the Department’s lack of commitment to develop an open-architecture, information-exchange capability as part of the more mobile, ASAS-Light alternative. The committee strongly supports the ASAS-Light modernization initiative

as a means for maintaining situational awareness, battle-management interoperability, and targeting advantages at all echelons of

command and in all deployment environments. The committee supports further investment in this multi-source fusion and processing

effort.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

64321A to continue NTIAT development.

Nuclear biological, and chemical agent removal

The budget request contained $11.4 million in PE 63804A for logistics and engineering equipment, and included $7.9 million to develop and demonstrate prototype petroleum and water distribution

technologies.

The committee strongly supports Army efforts to protect against

potential contamination of water supply systems and recognizes the

shortcomings of current analytical methods. The committee is particularly supportive of proposals designed to improve the real-time

detection and removal of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC)

contamination and is aware of promising analytical approaches in

this field.

The committee recommends $16.4 million in PE 63804A, an increase of $5.0 million, specifically for evaluating technologies and

analyzing concepts for applicability to NBC contamination detection and removal.

P3 micro-power devices for missile defense applications

The budget request included $7.4 million in PE 63308A for Army

missile defense systems integration, but included no funding for

the P3 micro-power device.

The committee endorses the development work at the Army

Space and Missile Defense Command aimed at producing a micropower device suitable for applications in autonomous and remote

conditions. The committee notes the infinite number of applications

for such a technology, particularly in intelligence, battle management, and missile defense systems. The committee understands the

need for such technological weight and volume efficiencies and supports additional development.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63308A for further development of the P3 micro-power device.

Rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power unit

The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, and included

$39.2 million for combat vehicle mobility.

153

The committee is aware that rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power

unit (APU) technology may offer a reduced cost alternative to existing turbine APUs. The committee notes that rotary multi-fuel technology may also offer weight advantages suitable for a broad range

of applications. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63005A for the rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power unit.

Stable hemostat

The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63002A for

medical technology, but included no funds for the stable hemostat.

The committee is informed that 50 percent of combat deaths are

due to uncontrollable blood loss. The committee is aware that a hemostat has been developed that promotes blood clotting and has

the potential to reduce the death rate on the battlefield. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE

63002A for stable hemostat.

Textile electronic garments for combat casualty care

The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63002A, in- cluding $4.4 million for combat injury management, but included

no funding for rugged textile electronic garments for combat casualty care.

The committee is aware of advances in sensor technology, textile

electronics, information management and medical science that have

opened up the potential for remote diagnosis, monitoring, and

treatment of a range of medical conditions. The committee notes

positive results from combat casualty care and electronic textiles

research strongly suggesting that major improvements can be made

in wounded soldier survival. To benefit from these advances, the

committee urges the Secretary of the Army to institute a program

to develop, implement, and assess rugged textile electronic garments for combat casualty care. The committee expects the proposed effort to develop, implement and assess advanced textile electronic garments in an integrated system.

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63002A to develop rugged textile garments for combat

casualty care.

Thermionic technology

The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A for

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding

for thermionics technology.

The committee notes that progress is being made in advanced

thermionics technology to make it a more viable power option for

space applications.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63308A for thermionics technology.

Unmanned aerial vehicle/unmanned ground vehicle demonstration

program

The budget request contained $4.8 million in PE 63006A for command, control, communications advanced technology, but included

no funds for an unmanned aerial vehicle /unmanned ground vehicle

(UAV/UGV) demonstration program.

154

The committee notes that integrated operations of unmanned

aerial and ground vehicles may provide means to reduce personnel

vulnerability especially while fighting in a complex urban environment.

The committee recommends $7.2 million in PE 63006A, an increase of $2.4 million for the UAV/UGV demonstration program.

Volumetrically controlled manufacturing

The budget request contained $87.9 million in PE 63313A for

missile and rocket advanced technology, but included no funding

for volumetrically controlled manufacturing (VCM).

The committee is aware that the Army Medical Research and

Material Command successfully conducted a research program for

biomaterial application using an innovative process, VCM. The

committee notes that VCM is a precision synthetic manufacturing

process that precisely calculates the 3D material matrix coefficients, in discrete volumes, and then replicates the properties within a manufacturing process. The material matrix has the capability

to vary, based on loading tolerances, and is scalable to macro,

micro and the nano level, and could lead to new and higher performance materials for aerospace applications.

The committee recommends an increase of $11.5 million in PE

63313A for volumetrically controlled manufacturing.

Weapons and munitions engineering development

The budget request contained $41.8 million in PE 64802A for

weapons and munitions engineering development, but no funds

were included to complete development of the shoulder-launched

multipurpose assault weapon-disposable (confined space) (SMAW–

D(CS)) or the common remotely operated weapon system (CROWS).

Shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon-disposable

(confined space)

The SMAW–D(CS) will enable soldiers to fire this single-shot,

disposable launcher weapon against earthen, timber bunkers and

light armored vehicles and breech masonry walls from and an enclosed space, which is not possible with the current SMAW–D. This

requirement is necessary due to the termination of the multipurpose individualized munition, which provided soldiers with a confined space launch capability. Due to the increased urban terrain

engagements that soldiers are training for and operating in and the

need for this confined space, launch and breeching requirement,

the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

64802A to complete development of the SMAW–D(CS).

Common remotely operated weapon system

The CROWS provides armored and light armored vehicles with

remotely operated machine guns, allowing crewmembers to fire

from and remain within the protection of their vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million in PE 64802A to

continue development of the CROWS.

155

Wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters

The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63710A for

night vision advanced technology, but included no funds for a wire

detection and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters.

The committee is aware that helicopter combat operations are increasingly conducted at low level and at night. The committee

notes that wire and other obstacle detection and avoidance is more

difficult under those conditions.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63710A for a wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters.

NAVY RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $12,501.6 million for Navy

RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $13,274.5

million, an increase of $772.9 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Navy

RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes

to the Navy request are discussed following the table.

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

Items of Special Interest

Acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology insertion

The budget request contained $98.5 million in PE 64503N for submarine system equipment development, including $64.6 million

for acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology insertion

(ARCI) of submarine sonars.

The ARCI program upgrades current submarine sonar systems

with open architecture commercial-off-the-shelf computer technology allowing continued upgrades as technology develops. Full

implementation is currently planned for fiscal year 2008, but conversion of all submarines can be accelerated with additional funds.

The committee believes that this technology upgrade is essential

for the submarine fleet, and recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 64503N to continue the research and development necessary for the insertion of multi-purpose processor technology into

submarine and other naval sonar systems.

Advanced cable design for mine/submarine warfare

The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 64212N for

anti-submarine warfare and other helicopter development. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

64212N for the development and evaluation of improvements in the

cables used for towing mine and submarine warfare sensors and

countermeasures.

Advanced camouflage coating demonstration

The budget request contained $78.2 million in PE 63114N for power projection advanced technology development, including $16.3

million for advanced development of autonomous operations technology. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63114N for development and flight demonstration of an integrated

set of advanced camouflage coatings and treatments for unmanned

aerial vehicles that will dramatically decrease the detection range

of threat sensors.

Advanced composite radome materials

The budget request contained $60.8 million in PE 25601N for

operational systems development of the high-speed, anti-radiation

missile (HARM), including $48.7 million for continued development

of the advanced anti-radiation guided missile (AARGM).

The committee notes the progress in the AARGM program, a

Phase III Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) follow-on

program designed to demonstrate an advanced multi-mode seeker

on an existing high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) airframe.

Successful controlled, captive flight, and guided vehicle test flights

in the AARGM advanced technology demonstration and success in

phase I of the Quick Bolt advanced concept technology demonstration have resulted in the Navy’s decision to transition AARGM

technology into the system development and demonstration phase.

The committee notes that use of AARGM technology in the highspeed anti-radiation demonstration requires a new radome. The

committee also notes that the speed of next-generation missiles for

the suppression of improved enemy air defense and other time critVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
167

ical targets will require materials for radomes and conformal antennas that withstand higher temperatures and permit the use of

higher frequency radars. The committee further notes the identification of several new material systems that have the potential for

meeting both needs.

The committee recommends $62.3 million in PE 25601N, an increase of $1.5 million to develop and qualify new composite materials for next-generation high-speed missile system applications.

Advanced composite sail

The budget request contained $107.4 million in PE 63561N for

advanced submarine system development.

The committee notes that the Navy’s technology insertion plan

for the Virginia class submarine includes installation of an advanced sail on the seventh Virginia class submarine. The advanced

composite sail program is intended to provide substantial additional payload capacity and stealth improvements over conventional submarine sails. Phase II of the program addresses the incorporation of full-scale design features and the complete spectrum

of full-scale load specifications that would be encountered by operational submarines, including damage assessment and repair.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63561N for development, demonstration, and validation of technologies and techniques for advanced monitoring of the operational

condition of composite sails, repair procedures, and procedures for

enabling future payloads to be inserted into a composite sail without major redesign of the sail structure.

Advanced deployable system burial capability

The budget request contained $35.9 million in PE 64784N to continue development of the advanced deployable system (ADS).

ADS is an undersea surveillance system that is designed to detect and track modern diesel electric and nuclear submarines, as

well as provide the capability for tracking surface ships and detecting sea mine laying. ADS is composed of distributed sensors that

can be rapidly and unobtrusively deployed in regional contingency

areas for use against enemy submarines and in support of littoral

warfare. The committee notes that in fiscal year 2002 Congress

added $4.0 million to the ADS program to accelerate the development of improvements in the ADS cable burial capability to enhance ADS cable survivability and installation of cable trunk extensions. Congress also added $4.0 million to the program to reduce

risk in the development of remotely powered all optical array technology for the ADS.

The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE

64784N for the ADS program, including $6.0 million to accelerate

development of the ADS cable burial capability, $4.0 million for the

development of ADS off board sensors, and $6.0 million to continue

the program for development of remotely powered, all optical array

technology for application in the ADS program.

Advanced ducted electric propulsion pod

The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for

force protection advanced technology development, including $14.9

168

million for surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical advanced technology development.

The committee notes the Navy’s development of an advanced

podded propulsion module that will demonstrate an advanced,

hydrodynamically efficient, externally mounted electric ship propulsion module that reduces fuel consumption; eliminates the need for

large and costly reduction gears, propeller shafts and hull penetrations; and offers quieter operation and higher power in a smaller

diameter package, compared to other propulsor options. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

63123N to accelerate the development and demonstration of the advanced ducted electric propulsion pod.

Advanced extended echo-ranging sonobuoy development

The budget request contained $13.9 million in PE 64261N for de- velopment of acoustic search sensors, including $8.3 million for advanced extended echo ranging (AEER) development.

The committee notes the role of multi-static active acoustic sonar

systems in the Navy’s airborne anti-submarine warfare capability

and on-going programs to improve the capabilities of extended echo

ranging (EER) sensors for undersea warfare in the shallow waters

of the littoral.

The committee recommends $33.9 million in PE 64261N for the

development of acoustic search sensors, including $20.0 million to

continue the program for development of the AEER sensor system.

Advanced land attack missile

The budget request contained $108.7 million in PE 63795N for

land attack technology demonstration and validation. No funds

were requested for the advanced land attack missile program.

The committee notes that Navy programs for development of the

extended range guided munition (ERGM), land attack standard

missile (LASM), and advanced land attack missile (ALAM) have focused on addressing the operational requirements for naval surface

fire support for land forces operating in the littoral and the shortcomings in current naval surface fire support capabilities.

In the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 4205 (H. Rept. 106–945), the conferees placed a high

priority on completing the analysis of alternatives to determine the

appropriate course of action for providing Naval fire support and

directed the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional

defense committees recommended revisions to the ALAM program

with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

In April 2002, the Comptroller of the Navy executed a belowthreshold reprogramming which redirected funds authorized and

appropriated for ALAM and effectively halted the ALAM program.

The Navy completed an ALAM analysis of alternatives in May

2001, which determined that a boost glide missile system was the

most cost effective system, supersonic cruise missiles showed merit,

and additional detailed design studies were warranted. In November 2002, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research Development, and Acquisition terminated the LASM program. Section

211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2002 (Public Law

107–107) required the Secretary of Defense to carry out an assessment of the requirements for naval surface fire support of ground

169

forces operating in the littoral environment, including the role of

an advanced fire support missile system for navy combatant vessels

and to submit a report of the result of that assessment to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2002. The committee

has not yet received the Secretary’s report.

In the Navy’s unfunded requirements list that was submitted to

the committee following submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget

request, the Chief of Naval Operations identified the program as a

high priority unfunded requirement.

The committee has consistently supported the requirement for

improvements in naval surface fire support to land forces operating

in the littoral and believes that the Navy should proceed promptly

to reestablish the program for development and demonstration of

an advanced land attack missile.

The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in PE

63795N for the ALAM program.

Advanced light strike vehicle

The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M for

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration, but included no

funds for the advanced light strike vehicle.

The committee is aware that an advanced light strike vehicle is

needed to give Marines on ground mobility and lethality.

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

63640M for advanced light strike vehicle.

Advanced smart propulsor product model

The budget request contained $89.4 million in PE 62123N for

force protection applied research, including $46.0 million in surface

ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical applied research.

The committee notes prior efforts by the Navy in the development of smart propulsor product models that use advanced computational analysis, modeling, and simulation in the design, performance modeling, and analysis of ship propulsors. Integration of

advanced hydromechanical, hydroacoustic, and mechanical analysis

tools in the product models would permit tighter coupling of performance modeling and simulation to analyze and make tradeoffs

in the design and manufacture of propulsors that could improve

performance, yet reduce manufacturing and life cycle costs.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

62123N for the development of an advanced smart propulsor product model that would incorporate advanced hydromechanical,

hydroacoustic, and mechanical analysis tools to permit tighter coupling of performance.

Advanced stealth ship radar

The budget request contained $65.1 million in PE 63271N for

radio frequency systems advanced technology demonstration.

The committee notes that Sea Lion is a small combatant craft

that has been used as a baseline platform to design, build and test

advanced high-speed craft for U.S. Special Operations Forces. The

committee also notes that for small combatant craft operating in

the littoral the capabilities for covert detection and avoidance of

170

other forces are highly desirable for enhanced self and force protection.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.8 million in PE

63271N for demonstration and evaluation of low probability of

intercept and low observable radars on small combatant craft such

as the Sea Lion technology demonstration platform.

Advanced variable speed drive systems

The budget request contained $243.1 million in PE 63513N for

shipboard system component development, but included no funds

for the advanced variable speed drive (VSD) system.

The committee is aware that the development of the advanced

VSD system will enable fleet-wide implementation of state of the

art variable speed motor controls, without the size and weight restrictions of existing VSD.

The committee recommends $245.1 million in PE 63513N, an increase of $2.0 million for the advanced variable speed drive system.

AEGIS baseline 7 phase II open architecture

The budget request contained $300.7 million in PE 64307N for

AEGIS combat systems engineering, of which $13.2 million was included for continued development of the AEGIS baseline 7 phase

II open architecture effort on AEGIS combat systems.

The AEGIS baseline 7 phase II open architecture effort provides

upgraded computer programs for sensor improvements and to reduce life cycle costs, as well as development of a solid state replacement for the SPY–1 radar, aimed at providing increased sensitivity

and bandwidth required for long range ballistic missile defense.

The committee recommends $310.7 million in PE 64307N, an increase of $10.0 million, to accelerate AEGIS baseline 7 phase II

open architecture efforts.

Affordable towed array construction

The budget request contained $98.5 million in PE 64503N for

submarine system equipment development, including $5.2 million

in the submarine sonar improvement program to continue development of affordable towed array technology initiatives.

The submarine sonar improvement program delivers block updates to sonar systems installed on SSN 688, 688I, 21 and TRIDENT class submarines to maintain clear acoustic, tactical and

operational superiority over submarine and surface combatants in

all scenarios through detection, classification, localization and contact following. The TB–29, TB–21A and TB–16 towed array sonar

systems support these requirements. The committee notes that the

Navy initiated the affordable towed array technology program to

develop fiber optic technology for more cost effective, more reliable

towed arrays.

The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE

64503N to accelerate the Navy’s affordable towed array technology

development program.

Affordable weapon

The budget request contained $78.2 million in PE 63114N for

Power Projection Advanced Technology development.

171

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) Affordable Weapon program

is an advanced technology demonstration to design, develop, and

build a 600–mile range, 200 lbs-payload, precision strike missile

with global positioning system/inertial navigation system guidance

and control and a data link. The committee notes the significant

progress made in the Affordable Weapon development and flight

test program to date, including launch and flight test. The committee has been advised that key to ONR’s success has been the

effective use and modification for military applications of commercially available equipment. The success of the program indicates

that the demonstration program should continue with the development and integration of the seeker, data link, special survivability

measures, ground station, and improved performance propulsion.

The committee recommends an increase of $15.4 million in PE

63114N for continuation of the Affordable Weapon demonstration

project.

Anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship self-defense initiative

The committee notes the Navy’s capabilities for anti-submarine

warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship self-defense are key

enablers for the ability of the Navy to operate in the littoral regions of the world. For the last six years, the General Accounting

Office (GAO) at the committee’s request has conducted a series of

assessments regarding the Navy’s capabilities for mine countermeasures, antisubmarine warfare and ship self-defense, and completed a comprehensive update of the assessments in May 2001.

In responding to the GAO assessments, the Department of the

Navy has acknowledged that it lacks or has degraded capabilities

in a number of key warfighting areas needed for operations in littoral regions: breaching enemy sea mines in the surf zone, detecting and neutralizing enemy submarines in shallow water, and defending naval ships against cruise missiles. The committee notes

that the Navy has had programs under way to improve its capabilities in each of these areas for several years. However, even though

mine countermeasures, anti-submarine warfare, and ship self-defense are regarded as essential core naval capabilities, progress has

been slow. During committee hearings on the fiscal year 2002

budget request, the Chief of Naval Operations cited the continuing

existence of shortfalls in these essential core naval capabilities.

To address these shortfalls, the committee has recommended the

following increases for the Navy’s anti-submarine warfare, mine

countermeasures, and ship self-defense programs. These recommendations are discussed further in the classified annex to this

report:

RDT&E Procurement

Anti-submarine warfare ............................................................................................................... $126.1 $82.0

Mine countermeasures ................................................................................................................. 18.0 0.0

Ship self-defense ......................................................................................................................... 61.4 24.7

The committee intends to review the Navy’s response to these

initiatives and actions taken to improve its capabilities for antisubmarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship self-defense in

hearings on the fiscal year 2004 budget request.

172

Anti-submarine warfare synthetic training environment

The budget request contained $31.4 million in PE 24571N for

consolidated training systems development.

The committee is aware that the anti-submarine warfare (ASW)

capability of the fleet is directly tied to the proficiency and level of

training of the ASW component of the naval battle force. The committee also understands that, like most combat operations, ASW is

a perishable skill that requires frequent practice of complex tasks

on both the individual and the team level.

The committee notes that the limitations of current ASW training facilities and systems inhibit the ability for integrated training

and result in most integrated training being done at sea. The committee further notes that the Navy’s ASW community has affirmed

the need for a common, integrated ASW training environment that

could link real and synthetic ASW forces in realistic operational

training situations for training, mission planning, and mission rehearsal. The committee believes that such a capability can probably not be achieved by a simple integration of existing incompatible training systems and that an incremental migration to an integrated, interactive ASW training system will be required. The committee also believes that the first step toward realizing such a capability in the fleet should be the linking of air ASW simulators

to the existing Battle Force Teams Trainers.

The committee recommends $41.4 million in PE 24571N, an increase of $10.0 million to initiate a program for integration of fixed

and rotary wing air ASW and other simulators into the Battle

Force Tactical Trainer to establish an ASW synthetic training environment.

Autonomous maritime navigation

The budget request contained $5.8 million in PE 63563N for advanced ship design, but included no funds for autonomous maritime navigation.

The committee notes that autonomous maritime navigation will

allow unmanned surface vessels to operate alone, or in a coordinated group without the need for continuous control from a remote

operator, even near shore or other vessels.

The committee recommends $10.8 million in PE 63563N, an increase of $5.0 million for the autonomous maritime navigation.

Aviation integrated life support system

The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for

aviation survivability, but included no funds for the aviation integrated life support system (AILSS).

The committee is aware that the AILSS effort, which commenced

in 1996, is ready to transition into a tactical variant for the F–18.

The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million in PE

63216N for aviation integrated life support system.

Aviation-shipboard information technology initiative

The budget request contained $24.6 million in PE 64512N for

shipboard aviation systems development, but included no funds for

development of the aviation-shipboard information technology initiative (AS/ITI), which would upgrade and integrate aircraft carrier

173

information systems to reduce cost and improve the effectiveness of

carrier aircraft launch and recovery operations.

The committee notes that the Navy views the AS/ITI as a promising technology for both its next-generation aircraft carriers and

those currently in service, which can enhance accuracy and minimize latency of information; distribute information where required;

improve shipboard aircraft sortie rates and safety; and reduce carrier operating costs. The committee recommends $32.8 million in PE 64512N, an increase of $8.2 million, for development of the AS/ITI.

Biomedical research imaging

The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63729N for

warfighter protection advanced technology development.

The committee notes the progress being made in the use of advanced imaging technology in biomedical research. New imaging

technology has allowed the observation of tumors as small as 1mm

in diameter and has allowed scientist to observe critical biochemical changes associated with tumor, strokes, and other disease

states. These findings have important implication for advances in

real-time medical diagnosis and treatment. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63729N to continue research in the application of advanced imaging technology to biomedical research.

Chemical agent warning network demonstration

The budget request contained $12.2 million in PE 65873M for

Marine Corps program-wide support, but included no funding for

the chemical agent warning network demonstration. The committee recommends $15.2 million in PE 65873M, an increase of $3.0 million to continue the development of the chemical

agent warning network for use by the Marine Corps Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force.

Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) carbon fiber qualification

The budget request included $68.9 million in PE 62236N for

warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funding

for COTS carbon fiber qualification.

The committee is supportive of efforts to transition new materials and processes for use on present and future aircraft and missile systems. The committee notes that the Department of Defense

is currently required to use high-priced single-source fiber to reinforce composite structure. The committee is encouraged with efforts

to establish a second source for intermediate modules fiber to ensure more competitive practices and supports further efforts in this

regard.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62236N to qualify COTS fibers for further applications to Navy

weapons platforms.

Compatible processor upgrade

The budget request contained $13.0 million in PE 63739N for

Navy logistics productivity demonstration and validation. No funds

were provided for continuation of the compatible processor upgrade

program (CPUP).

174

The committee notes that CPUP system-on-a-chip processor products are used to modernize existing computer systems while preserving legacy software and infrastructure, adapt commercial designs for high radiation environments, and optimize system designs. Congress provided funds in fiscal year 2001 to initiate a program for the development of application-specific CPUP processors

to upgrade the capability of the Navy’s AN/AYK–14, AN/AYK–44,

and AN/UYK–20 computers at a fraction of the cost and time required to reengineer legacy software for new computer systems,

and provided an additional $2.5 million to continue the program in

fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

63739N to complete the CPUP program.

DP–2 thrust vectoring system

The budget request contained $78.3 million in PE 63114N for

power projection advanced technology development, but included no

funding for the DP–2 thrust vectoring system demonstration

project.

DP–2 is a proof-of-concept program to demonstrate the use of

thrust vector control to achieve vertical takeoff and conventional

takeoff capabilities in a one-half scale flight test vehicle. The technology offers the potential for a low cost, medium range aircraft of

advanced composite construction.

The committee notes the progress to date in the DP–2 program

and the initial hover test of the one-half scale test vehicle in January 2002. The committee believes that test progress and the potential of the DP–2 proof-of-concept justify continuation of the program. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

63114N to continue development and demonstration of the DP–2

thrust vector system concept.

Electric propulsion/ship power system distributed test bed

The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for

Force Protection Advanced Technology development.

As a part of the Navy’s program leading to the development of

an all-electric ship, the committee continues to support the development of a virtual, distributed test bed which will provide the software and hardware modeling tools for shipboard machinery design

and allow government and industry ship designers and engineers

to evaluate machinery alternatives in a virtual prototype before

committing to full-scale development.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63123N to continue the program for advanced development of a distributed test bed for electric propulsion and ship power systems.

Electronic interconnection research and development program

The budget request contained $82.5 million in PE 63236N for

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development.

The committee notes that printed circuit boards (PCB) are fundamental to the operation of military navigation, guidance and control, electronic warfare, missile, and surveillance and communication equipment. High density, highly ruggedized, highly reliable

interconnection technology is essential to the performance of many

175

PCB used in military systems. The committee notes that industry

PCB focuses on high-volume, low-cost boards rather than the high

performance, reliability, and extreme environmental requirements

of PCB for use in military systems and at the same time the

United States has lost much of its PCB manufacturing capability

to overseas sources. The committee recognizes the need to enhance

the U.S. capability for development and production of high density,

high reliability PCB for use in military systems.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63236N to accelerate improvements in PCB technology to meet

military requirements now and in the future.

Electronic warfare development

The budget request contained $74.7 million in PE 64270N for

electronic warfare (EW) development, but included no funds for

risk reduction activities to develop an EA–6B electronic jamming

aircraft replacement or to evaluate the location of global positioning system interferers (LOCO GPSI) system in fleet operations.

Airborne electronic attack follow-on

The committee notes that the December 2001 Airborne Electronic

Attack Analysis of Alternatives recommended 27 options to replace

the EA–6B aircraft and that a final decision on its replacement is

planned for fiscal year 2002. Consistent with the fiscal year 2002

decision, the committee further notes that the Department of the

Navy has included funds in its future years defense program to develop an airborne electronic attack follow-on beginning in fiscal

year 2004 and that the Chief of Naval Operations has included development funding for an EA–6B follow-on aircraft among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003. To accelerate the development of the EA–6B successor, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 64270N for pre-engineering and manufacturing development risk reduction activities.

Location of global positioning system interferers

Location of global positioning system interferers (LOCO GPSI) is

a state-of-the-art precision surveillance and targeting system for location of global positioning systems interferers that is designed to

protect global positioning system-guided weapons against jamming

and interference. The committee understands that Naval operational fleet commanders continue to request deployment of the

LOCO GPSI system in fleet exercises to demonstrate and evaluate

the military utility of this system. The committee recommends an

increase of $3.0 million in PE 64270N to continue to evaluate

LOCO GPSI capabilities in fleet operations in fiscal year 2003.

Electro-optical framing sensor

The budget request contained $5.5 million in PE 35206N for airborne reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for electro-optical framing.

The committee is aware that additional improvement is required

for SHARP sensors.

The committee recommends $11.5 million in PE 35206N, an increase of $6.0 million for continued development of an integrated

176

electronic shutter to upgrade SHARP sensors and prototype development of a cellular neural network airborne processor.

Extended range guided munitions

The budget request contained $108.7 million in PE 63795N for

land attack technology demonstration and validation, including

$44.8 million for naval surface fire support and development of the

Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM).

The committee notes the progress in the ERGM program as it

completes the controlled test flight phase of the development program and prepares to begin full-scale firings. The committee notes

that the schedule for program risk reduction is being reviewed as

a result of the decision to adopt a unitary warhead for the projectile. The committee also notes that both the Navy and the prime

contractor have funded the development of low cost guidance electrical units to reduce the production cost of the projectile. The committee also notes that the Navy is also evaluating the ANSR projectile, not as a replacement for ERGM, but as a complementary capability to ERGM with the possible application of being fired from

both current 5-inch, 54 caliber and 5-inch, 62 caliber gun systems.

The committee recommends an increase of $14.5 million in PE

63795N for risk reduction in the ERGM program, acceleration of

guidance and control system redesign and test, and continued evaluation of the ANSR projectile.

Fibrous monolithic materials insertion

The budget request contained $68.9 million in PE 62236N for

warfighter sustainment, but included no funds for fibrous monolithic materials insertion

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

62236N for fibrous monolithic materials insertion.

Formable aligned carbon thermosets

The budget request contained $68.9 million in PE 62236N for

warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funds for

formable aligned carbon thermosets (FACTS).

The committee is aware that development of FACTS will allow

increased use of advance fibers in tactical aircraft with the attendant benefits of such materials.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE

62236N for FACTS.

Hawk AN/TPS–59 radar service life extension program

The budget request contained $174.7 million in PE 26313M for

Marine Corps communications systems, and included $2.6 million

for the Hawk AN/TPS–59 radar service life extension program.

The committee is aware that operational experience and engineering analysis has shown that the Hawk AN/TPS–59 radar requires an automatic false alarm reduction mode as part of the service life extension program. The Hawk radar has been continually

upgraded and is still a high priority asset for rapid deployment

forces.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

26313M for the AN/TPS–59 radar service life extension program.

177

High brightness electron source program

The budget request contained $56.3 million in PE 62271N for RF

systems applied research, but included no funds for the high

brightness electron source program.

The committee is aware that the high brightness electron source

program is vital to maintenance of the microwave vacuum tube

electronics for high power applications

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62271N for the high brightness electron source program.

High temperature superconducting AC synchronous Navy propulsion motor and generator

The budget request included $57.6 million in PE 63123N for

Force Protection Advanced Technology and included no funding for

the High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) AC Synchronous

Navy Propulsion Motor and Generator.

The committee supports the Future Naval Capabilities (FNC)

program and recognizes that its success depends heavily on innovative scientific breakthroughs in areas such as electronics, sensor

development, and propulsion. The committee understands the importance of component miniaturization to achieving FNC goals. In

the area of propulsion development in particular, the committee is

aware of engineering analyses and tests that have illuminated the

potential benefits offered by HTS motors and generators, particularly in the areas of weight, cost, and noise reduction. The committee supports development in this field and encourages greater

investment.

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

63123N for the HTS AC Synchronous Navy Propulsion Motor and

Generator development.

Human factors and improved performance integration tool

The budget request included $6.6 million in PE 62236N for Manpower, Personnel, and Human Factors, but included no funding for

the Improved Performance Integration Tool and related methodologies.

The committee supports the development of modeling tools that

optimize sailor job performance as a means for fulfilling the requirements of the Navy’s Future Naval Capabilities. The committee is aware of several Navy force management initiatives and

not only encourages a continuation in these areas, but also urges

further sailor/unit performance optimization through the use of

non-Navy methodologies found elsewhere in the Department of Defense. The committee is particularly interested in the potential benefit of the Improved Performance Integration Tool (IMPRINT) and

the Army’s manpower and personnel integration (MANPRINT) initiative. The committee urges the Navy to adopt IMPRINT and

MANPRINT methodologies in an effort to minimize the total ownership costs of future acquisition programs.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62236N for the Improved Performance Integration Tool and related

modeling applications.

178

Hybrid fiber optic/wireless communications

The budget request contained $76.6 million in PE 62114N for

common picture applied research.

The committee notes progress being made in applied research for

hybrid fiber optic/wireless communications that are characterized

by having very high bandwidth, mobility, and low probability of

intercept. The overall goal of the program is to develop the technology for versatile, mobile, secure communications systems for

military and commercial use that will combine the most desirable

features of fiber optic and wireless communications. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62114N to continue the program for applied research in hybrid

fiber optic/wireless communications.

Integrated maritime picture system of systems

The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 63235N, in- cluding $17.5 million for development of advanced technology for

knowledge superiority and assurance.

The committee notes ongoing activities in the Navy and in the

other military departments to improve situational awareness and

develop an integrated common operational picture for air, land, and

sea commanders and their staffs. The committee also notes that

the emphasis on increasing force protection for the fleet both in

port and at sea will require the integration of information about

sea ports, harbors, anchorages, and the maritime operational environment in the integrated maritime operational picture. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in

PE63235N for advanced development of an integrated maritime

common operational picture that will include both force protection

and seaport security information and systems.

Interrogator for high-speed retro reflectometer communications

The budget request included $76.6 million in PE 62114N for

power projection applied research, but included no funding for a

high-speed retro-reflectometer communication interrogator.

The committee strongly supports advanced sensor, processor, and

data-link exchange technologies as a means to support, among

other things, a greater reliance on unmanned aerial vehicles. Highspeed data links are especially needed to rapidly download high

resolution imagery from airborne sensors. The committee is aware

of a ground-based interrogator technology with the potential for developing fleet-deployable exploitation algorithms and processes for

large-bandwidth applications. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62114N for developing a laser interrogator for high-speed covert

retro-reflectometer communication.

Joint mission high-speed vessel

The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M, but

included no funding for the joint mission high-speed vessel.

The committee notes that the Army, Navy and Marine Corps

have been conducting very successful exploration of concepts and

capabilities with commercially available advanced hull and propulsion capabilities. The committee also notes the desire to continue

concept-based experimentation to enable networked sea-basing as a

179

future joint force expeditionary capability. The committee notes

that the objective is to identify a transformational capability enabling high-speed, sustained, sea-based joint operations.

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE

63640M for the joint mission high-speed vessel.

Joint operational test bed

The budget request contained $206.4 million in PE 35204N for

tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funds for the

joint operational test bed system (JOTBS).

The committee is aware that as a result of the revised unified

command plan, the Joint Forces Command will focus on its responsibilities of helping transform the military, including improving

joint interoperability and innovation. The committee notes that the

JOTBS is fundamental to these responsibilities and vital to future

joint use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The committee also

notes that the JOTBS is vital, not only to complete tactical control

system (TCS) development for Predator, but also use by multiple

UAVs such as Shadow, Marine Shadow, and other UAVs.

The committee directs the Commander in Chief (CINC), Joint

Forces Command to competitively contract for the new Government

Flight Activity support contract as follows:

(1) Preparation of the contract solicitation, analysis of responses

to the solicitation, and contract award must be conducted in accordance with Department of Defense regulations by an established

government contracting organization/office with previous extensive

experience in writing GFA support contracts.

(2) The solicitation must be open to all commercial vendors certified in the flight activities covered by the solicitation.

Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy

and the CINC Joint Forces Command to robustly fund the JOTBS

in future years to remove any dependency on congressional increases for its viability. The committee strongly recommends that

the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Naval Warfare (N7/N78),

which sponsors both unmanned aerial vehicles and tactical control

system development be designated as the Navy program sponsor

for the JOTBS.

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

35204N for JOTBS.

Knowledge projection for fleet maintenance

The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for

force protection advanced technology development, but included no

funds to continue the ‘‘Knowledge Projection for Fleet Maintenance’’ project.

Congress provided $2.5 million in fiscal year 2002 to support the

initiation by the Navy of a collaborative program for the development of a new system to remotely monitor Navy ships and enable

off-board technical experts to assist on-board technicians who are

part of the ship’s crew in ship maintenance and repair. The committee believes that the successful development and implementation of this approach to knowledge-based system diagnosis and repair could be increasingly important as the Navy makes the transition to ships with reduced numbers of personnel and as electronic

180

equipment and other ships systems continues to be more complex

and powerful. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63123N to continue the Knowledge Projection for Fleet Maintenance project.

Laser aim scoring system

The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 64212N for

anti-submarine warfare and other helicopter development, but included no funds for the sea-target laser aim scoring system (LASS).

The LASS provides real-time quantitative feedback on critical aspects of laser-guided weapon employment not currently available

from existing Navy laser scoring systems, and is being adapted to

existing Navy seaborne targets to support Navy H–60 armed helicopter training and readiness events that require laser scoring capability. Since the committee continues to believe that the sea-target LASS could address a Navy training deficiency by allowing inflight laser designation practice against a moving at-sea target

while also providing immediate laser aiming result feedback to the

pilot, it recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 64212N to

develop the sea-target LASS.

Laser welding and cutting

The budget request included $89.4 million in PE 62123N for

force protection applied research, but included no funding for the

laser welding and cutting program.

The committee supports efforts to improve ship design processes

and performance while simultaneously lowering overall construction costs. The committee is aware of laser welding and cutting as

a means for design and fabrication enhancements. The committee

supports further efforts in this area. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62123N for the laser welding and cutting program.

Littoral support craft—experimental

The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for

Force Protection Advanced Technology development, but included

no funding to continue the development of the Littoral Support

Craft—Experimental (LSC–X).

The committee notes the continued progress by the Office of

Naval Research (ONR) in the development of designs and operational concepts for a littoral support craft: a fast (above 40 knots),

high performance, low cost platform that could be an effective adjunct to the major surface combatant and carrier battle group operating in the littoral. The committee strongly supports ONR proposals for a phased program for development of an experimental

littoral support craft demonstrator (LSC–X) that would provide the

basis for operational experiments on the contribution that such a

craft and its variants could make to naval operations in the littoral.

The committee understands that the LSC–X design will include development of a modular payload capability to allow the use of different technology demonstrators and warfare mission modules. As

such, the committee believes that LSC–X could be an effective experimental test bed for many of the technologies that might be chosen for use on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The committee also

181

notes that among combat related features linked to the LSC–X program is continued development of the Affordable Weapon that is

discussed elsewhere in this report.

The committee notes that the ONR has made significant progress

on the LSC–X, culminating recently in comprehensive and successful tow tank tests that have resulted in the authorization to proceed with fabrication of the LSC–X full scale prototype in fiscal

year 2002. The committee recommends an increase of $13.7 million in PE

63123N to continue development of the LSC–X.

Low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle program

The budget request contained $76.6 million in PE 62114N for

power projection applied research, but included no funds for the

low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

The committee is aware that cost reduction is important to make

UAVs affordable at the small unit level. The committee notes that

the swarm UAV has achieved significant cost reduction while

maintaining meaningful performance, and has the potential to costeffectively meet close-in surveillance requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62114N for low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle.

Marine mammal research program

The budget request included $393.6 million in PE 61153N for defense research sciences.

The committee supports the efforts of the Office of Naval Research (ONR) to research marine mammals’ behavior and the broad

aspects of the underwater environment. The committee is aware of

a heightened public concern about underwater acoustic effects on

these animals. To address these concerns and better understand

the potential contributions of marine mammals to Department of

Defense priorities, the committee encourages additional behavioral

and acoustics research.

The committee recommends $395.7 million in PE 61153N an increase of $2.1 million for marine mammal research.

Mark-48 advanced capability torpedo improvements

The budget request contained $107.4 million in PE 63561N for

Advanced Submarine System Development.

The committee notes that the advanced rapid COTS insertion

(A–RCI) program, which uses advanced processing builds (APB)

and a multi-purpose processor (MPP) hardware architecture (developed under a small business innovative research (SBIR) phase III

project) to achieve rapid, cost-effective advances in signal processing, has successfully and improved the performance of submarine sonar systems in the most cost-effective manner. In fiscal

year 2002 Congress provided funds to establish a similar A–RCI

program for the MK-48 torpedo, leveraging the experience gained

in the submarine sonar program. If successful, the MK-48, A–RCI

program could have significant potential to cost effectively improve

performance of the MK–48 torpedo in the demanding littoral waters sonar environment.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

63561N to continue the program for application of the advanced

182

processing build/multipurpose processor technology insertion process to the MK–48 ADCAP torpedo.

Medical threat detection system

The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 64771N for

medical systems engineering development, but included no funds to

develop a real-time medical threat detection system.

The committee is aware of a medical surveillance and informatics

system which would use advanced signal processing methods to

routinely collect data and identify deviations for normal patterns of

illness and detect potential health and medical threats. This system would augment existing Navy medical surveillance and information capabilities to provide real-time surveillance and clinical

data for early medical threat detection of both naval force and civilian populations in support homeland security requirements.

The committee is supportive of technologies enhancements for

medical safety of personnel and recommends $10.3 million in PE

64771N, an increase of $3.1 million, to establish a real-time medical threat detection system.

Mine countermeasures mine sweep mid-life assessment and upgrade

The budget request contained $155.0 million in PE 63502N for

surface and shallow water mine countermeasures demonstration

and validation.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63502N to conduct a mid-life assessment of the MCM class Mine

Sweeping suite and to evaluate potential upgrades to the system.

This recommendation is a part of the committee’s mine countermeasures initiative that is discussed in the classified annex to this

report.

Mobile fire support system

The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M for

Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstrations and included

$3.2 million for emerging fires and targeting technologies.

The committee is aware of ongoing efforts at the Marine Corps

Warfighting Lab to develop innovative medium-caliber indirect fire

support technology to support rapid mobility on the battlefield.

Known as Mobile Fire Support System (MFSS), the 120mm rifled

mortar program has exhibited unparalleled accuracy, automation,

and advanced fire control technology. Additional development is required to further lighten the system and incorporate other design

improvements, such as an innovative breach loading capability for

extreme firing angles. As a result, the committee is encouraged

with the potential applications of this program.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63604M, specifically for the acceleration of MFSS development.

Furthermore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Army to

conduct a comprehensive assessment of MFSS to determine potential applications in accordance with transformational objectives.

The committee recommends $1.0 million in PE 63004A for this purpose, as reflected elsewhere in this report.

183

Modeling and simulation of surgical procedures for battlefield trauma

The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63729N for

warfighter protection advanced technology development, including

$7.6 million for development of advanced technology for casualty

care and management.

The committee notes advances in the use of modeling and simulation for the development of advanced surgical procedures for

battlefield trauma and the utility of such simulations for the training of field medical personnel. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE

63729N for the development of new protocols for modeling surgical

procedures applicable to battlefield trauma.

Multi-purpose sensor

The budget request included $65.1 million in PE 63271N for

radio-frequency (RF) systems advanced development, but no funding for the multi-purpose power sensor.

The committee is aware of a promising new surveillance radar

detection capability managed by the Office of Naval Research. During initial concept of operation validation, the sensor demonstrated

a capability for detecting the presence and intensity of radio frequency energy across a broad spectrum of frequencies. Additional

field-testing and development is necessary to deliver a prototype

capable of measuring RF exposure with consistent accuracy. The

committee supports this initiative and recognizes the importance of

this type of technology for meeting the Navy’s future naval capabilities.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.4 million in PE

63271N for the multi-purpose sensor.

National shipbuilding research program

The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 78730N for the

Navy’s National Shipbuilding Research Project Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP ASE).

The committee recognizes this innovative Navy-industry collaboration as a credible, cost-effective high-leverage focal point for productivity improvements across all navy ship construction programs.

The projects in lean manufacturing, process re-engineering, and

other new construction and ship repair technologies funded

through the NSRP ASE address both prior year shipbuilding cost

growth and the cost of future ships. Adequately funding this investment now helps to ensure that the resultant efficiencies are in

place before the pending increase in naval ship construction rates

needed to re-capitalize the fleet. This program is a key imperative

that enables significant reductions in the cost and time required for

affordable naval ship construction, conversion, and repair. The committee recommends $9.9 million in PE 78730N for the

NSRP ASE and recommends that all funds in this program element be focused only on those critical elements of the NSRP ASE

program that identify and adopt improved business practices which

maximize actual U.S. Navy ship production within available Navy

shipbuilding and construction funding. The committee strongly

urges the Secretary of the Navy to continue to place a high priority

on the NSRP ASE program by funding it in future budget requests

184

at an annual amount equal to or greater than the fiscal year 2002

level of $22.4 million.

Naval collaboration tool set

The budget request contained $43.2 million in PE 65013N for

Navy information technology development and modernization.

The committee notes the development and application of emerging network centric information systems and collaboration tools

that use basic web technology and commercial-off-the-shelf computer and software products to enable operational commanders and

their staffs to rapidly share battlespace information and situational

awareness and achieve greater mission effectiveness and speed of

command and operations. The accelerating proliferation and application of information sharing and collaboration tools create the opportunity for the Navy to capitalize on the experience gained in

prototype web-based information systems being used in the fleet in

various warfare areas and develop a ‘‘best of breed’’, web-based set

of collaboration tools that will enhance the ability of naval commanders and their staffs to operate in a common, integrated data

environment.

The committee recommends $48.2 million in PE 65013N, an increase of $5.0 million to accelerate the development of a naval collaboration toolset that can be used in all warfare areas and domains, including building a common undersea picture and facilitating collaboration in homeland security and counterterrorism.

Navy common command and decision system

The budget request contained $40.5 million in PE 63582N for the

Navy’s combat systems integration demonstration and validation

program.

The common command and decision (CC&D) program is a preplanned product improvement (P3I) to the AEGIS Weapons System

and the Ship Self Defense System MK 2 that replaces the command and decision capability presently in these systems with a

common set of application computer programs and associated supporting software infrastructure which will perform selected command and decision functions in an identical manner across multiple Navy ships.

The committee notes that the Navy has established a collaborative program for development of the CC&D that will build on the

Multi-purpose Processor/Advanced Processor Build techniques developed and proven in the submarine Acoustic Rapid Commercialoff-the-shelf Insertion (A–RCI) program. The program of record

would result in initial introduction of the CC&D system in the fleet

in 2010; however, the committee notes that the Navy has indicated

that with appropriate funding the CC&D capability could be fielded

as early as 2005.

The committee strongly believes that the Navy should accelerate

the program for upgrade and insertion of advanced technology in

combat systems of legacy surface ships of the battle fleet. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 63582N to

accelerate development of the CC&D system.

185

Navy support of research in oceanography

The budget request contained $55.2 million in PE 62435N for

ocean warfighting environment applied research.

The committee believes that scientific knowledge of the oceans

and ocean environments makes a critical contribution to U.S. national security and commercial vitality. The committee notes, that

in large part, U.S. scientific expertise in oceanography and ocean

sciences is sustained by the Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation partnership that provides oversight of

the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System

(UNOLS) fleet.

The committee recognizes the age of the UNOLS fleet and the

need for a rational plan for renewal of the fleet over the next ten

years. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy

to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House

Committee on Armed Services no later than February 1, 2003, a report detailing specific requirements and outlining a specific plan

for UNOLS fleet renewal. The report should include specific recommendations on the numbers of each class of ship to be maintained in the UNOLS fleet, their geographic distribution, the

schedule for their replacement, and estimates of ship construction

costs.

In the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162), the

committee noted the finding of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council’s Ocean Research Advisory Panel that one of the

most pressing concerns in oceanography is the need for integrated

ocean observation systems. The committee notes recommendations

that have been made for what it believes to be a piecemeal commitment to establishing regional coastal ocean observing systems without a clear concept or plan for how these regional systems will fit

into a national integrated ocean and coastal observation system.

The committee requests that the Secretary of the Navy as in his

role as a member of the National Ocean Research Leadership

Council encourage the Council to develop standards and plans for

the establishment and administration of an integrated ocean and

coastal observing system that provides for long-term, continuous,

and real-time observations of the coastal oceans of the United

States and to report those plans to Congress in the Council’s next

annual report on the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.

The committee recommends $60.2 million in PE 62435N, an increase of $5.0 million for the coastal ocean observation system. The

committee directs that the increase for the coastal ocean observation system may not be obligated until 30 days after the Council’s

report detailing the standards and plans for the establishment and

administration of an integrated ocean and coastal observation system is received by the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services.

Navy tactical unmanned aerial vehicle

The budget request contained $206.4 million in PE 35204N for

tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV), and included $43.6 million for vertical TUAV (VTUAV), and $9.1 million for the tactical

control system (TCS).

186

The committee is aware that the Navy terminated the Fire Scout

VTUAV program and has requested funds for developing the Air

Force Global Hawk endurance UAV for broad area maritime surveillance. The committee notes that though the Navy, which is the

lead service for the joint tactical control system (TCS) development,

no longer has a TUAV program, its responsibilities for program

management for TCS remain. The committee further notes that

both the Army and Marine Corps are fielding variants of the Shadow UAV, are committed to TCS for Shadow, and are critically dependent on successful Navy program management of TCS. The committee recommends a decrease of $43.6 million in PE

35204N for the Fire Scout VTUAV.

Nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance

The budget request contained $13.2 million in PE 63254N for

anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems development, for the continued development and evaluation of nonlinear dynamics and

stochastic resonance (NDSR) for acoustic, magnetic, and other ASW

sensor and signal processing applications.

The NDSR program was initiated in 1999 to apply the principles

and results from the emerging science of nonlinear dynamics towards critical problems in shallow water anti-submarine warfare

(ASW) with the goal of producing dramatic improvements in ASW

system capability. The committee notes that the research conducted to date has demonstrated that there is a strong potential for

greatly increased ASW system performance resulting from significantly extended electromagnetic detection ranges, enhanced sonar

target discrimination and improved noise reduction. The committee recommends $18.2 million in PE 63254N, an increase of $5.0 million to continue the development, demonstration,

and evaluation of NDSR technology for ASW applications.

Ocean modeling for mine and expeditionary warfare

The budget request contained $43.7 million in PE 63782N for

mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology development,

including $19.3 million for advanced surveillance and reconnaissance.

The committee notes the Navy’s need for improved tactical and

strategic information for the littoral battlespace environment, improved detection of submarine and mines in turbid littoral regions,

development of predictive models for the littoral environment, and

development of improved sensor technologies.

The committee recommends $46.7 million in PE 63782N, an increase of $3.0 million for advanced technology development of

ocean modeling for mine and expeditionary warfare.

Organ transfer technology

The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63729N for

warfighter protection advanced technology development. No funds

were requested for continuation of the organ transfer technology

program.

The committee notes continued progress in the development of

immune therapies by investigators at the Naval Medical Research

Center that have been shown to prevent the rejection of tissue and

organ transplants without the need for continuous use of immunoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
187

suppressive drugs. In fiscal year 2001, the Chief of Naval Research

initiated a program to capitalize on these newly developed methods

of treatment. Congress provided $3.0 million to initiate a clinical

trials program in fiscal year 2001 and $2.0 million to continue the

program in fiscal year 2002.

The committee notes the initial progress in the clinical trials program and plans to bring additional patients into the program to

broaden the program base. The committee believes that the ability

to transplant massive tissue segments without rejection could revolutionize the treatment of combat casualties who suffer significant

tissue loss or organ damage from blast, missile fragments or burns. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63729N to continue the organ transfer technology clinical trials

program.

Photovoltaic energy park

The budget request contained $2.1 million in PE 63725N for

demonstration and validation of improvements in naval facilities.

The committee notes that rising energy costs, the availability

and reliability of traditional sources of fossil fuels, and increased

concerns about the effect of gaseous emissions on the environment

and fossil fuel pollution have fostered great interest in developing

renewable energy sources such as solar power, hydrogen, and fuel

cells. The committee is aware of ongoing discussions for the development of prototype large-scale solar powered electrical generating

systems and also understands that public/private partnerships

have been established for development and evaluation of advanced

fuel cells. The committee believes that renewable energy from electricity generated using solar power and from advanced fuel cells

could meet the need for reliable and secure sources of non-polluting

electric power and energy for military forces. The committee recommends $4.6 million in PE 63725N, including an increase of $2.5 million for development and demonstration of

renewable energy sources, including solar-powered electrical generation plants, hydrogen, and fuel cells.

Portable digital precision location system

The budget request contained $76.6 million in PE 62114N for

power projection applied research, but included no funds for the

portable digital precision location system.

The committee is aware that many shipboard functions are being

automated, in order to reduce crew size. The committee notes that

in order to maintain vigilance and combat effectiveness under reduced manning, personnel identification and location technologies

are required.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in PE

62114N for the portable digital precision location system.

Portable sterile water production device

The budget request included $19.0 million in PE 63729N for

warfighter protection advanced technology, but included no funds

for the portable sterile water production device.

The committee supports efforts by the Office of Naval Research

to leverage ongoing research in the field of sterile water production

and managed by the Army’s Medical Research and Development

188

Command. The committee understands this research promises to

produce a lightweight portable remote water-for-injection purification system for combat casualty care. The committee supports additional research on this project to facilitate testing of potential

military applications.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.6 million in PE

63729N for the portable sterile water production device.

Rapid deployment fortification wall

The budget request included $51.6 million in PE 63640M for Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations, but included no

funding for the rapid deployment fortification wall.

The committee is aware of a potentially innovative technology for

improving ground forces barrier defense. The Rapid Deployment

Fortification Wall is an expandable, stackable, modular wall made

of tough, lightweight, environmentally responsible plastic that can

possibly serve as a replacement for sandbags. The committee believes that the technology can serve to rapidly construct field fortifications for bunkers, standoff blast and ballistic protection units,

and other hardened shelters, and may prove more easily transportable and re-usable. The committee urges additional testing of this

technology, with a particular focus given to transport (ground and

aerial), manning, live-fire, and recycling requirements and capabilities.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE

63640M million for the rapid deployment fortification wall.

Rapid retargeting

The budget request contained $13.0 million in PE 63739N for

Navy Logistic Productivity demonstration and validation, including

$4.9 million for rapid retargeting. The committee notes that, within

the logistics productivity program, the Navy has implemented a

rapid retargeting project to address obsolete designs in electronic

systems.

The project provides the technology to eliminate obsolete components and reduce multiple electronic modules to single programmable designs. The committee understands that the rapid retargeting process is also being employed to replace different types of

standard electronic modules with programmable commercial-offthe-shelf components, thereby reducing the requirements for spare

parts on board naval vessels.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63739N for the Navy’s rapid retargeting project.

Real-time heart rate variability monitor

The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for

aviation survivability, but included no funds for real-time heart

rate variability monitor.

The committee notes that real time heart rate variability monitor

technology can be used to automate protective systems, aid in survivor identification and remotely determine physiological status.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

63216N for real-time heart rate variability monitor.

189

Real-time precision tracking radar

The budget request contained $78.3 million in PE 63114N for

power projection technology, but included no funds for real-time

precision tracking radar.

The committee is aware that real-time precision tracking radar

will provide the warfighter with a lightweight, low-cost, high-resolution synthetic aperture radar with moving target detection capability. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE

63114N for real-time precision tracking radar.

SEALs Mark 5 patrol craft modification

The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for

force protection advanced technology development.

The committee notes the progress in the Office of Naval Research

(ONR) program to evaluate the ability of Project M technology to

mitigate the high shock and vibration experienced by the Navy

SEALs Mark V patrol craft crew and passengers in high-speed special operations. Project M is an active noise and vibration cancellation system that was developed in the Navy’s advanced submarine

technology program. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

63123N to continue the ONR program for application of Project M

technology to mitigate physical shock to crew and passengers in the

Mark V patrol craft.

Shipboard integrated data environment

The budget request contained $82.5 million in PE 63236N for

war fighter sustainment advance technology development, including $17.0 million for expeditionary development and demonstration.

The committee notes that the installation of fiber optic and

Ethernet local area networks on ships makes possible not only the

use of web-based communications and data sharing among the various elements in the network on board the ship, but also provides

the capability for a fully interactive, ship-wide integration of physical plant and support operations, maintenance, logistics, training,

and financial data systems. The committee believes that such a capability, coupled to other ships of the fleet and the Navy’s shore establishment through the Navy’s Information Technology 21, the

Navy-Marine Corps Intranet, or the Global Combat Support System could provide a fully, integrated operations support and logistics network that would significantly improve maintenance and

logistical support of the ships of the fleet and of forward-deployed

shore activities, while potentially reducing Navy manpower requirements. The committee also notes that various naval operational support, engineering, and logistical activities are pursuing

individual solutions for creating a capability for real-time in-service

engineering, logistical, and life cycle support to the deployed ships

of the fleet

The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE

63236N to initiate a program for development and demonstration

of a prototype shipboard integrated data environment. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to establish a common

program among the various elements of the supporting shore estabVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
190

lishment for development of the capability for providing real-time

operational and logistical support to the deployed ships of the fleet.

Ship self defense electronic warfare systems

The budget request contained $28.1 million in PE 64757N for the

development of engagement and soft kill capabilities of ship self defense, of which $25.9 million was for continued development of the

advanced integrated electronic warfare system (AIEWS).

Subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Department of the Navy notified the committee that it

had terminated the AIEWS program due to cost overruns and continued schedule delays, which have adversely impacted the Navy’s

ability to field urgently needed surface electronic warfare improvements, and requested that the all funding for AIEWS research, development, test, and evaluation be transferred to the AN/SLQ–32,

shipboard electronic warfare system, to initiate a product improvement program.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million in PE

64757N, including a decrease of $25.9 million to reflect the Navy’s

decision to terminate the AIEWS project and an increase of $27.5

for the development of AN/SLQ–32 shipboard electronic warfare

system improvements.

Ship service fuel cell

The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for

force protection advanced technology development.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63123N to continue the development of a direct ship service fuel

cell technology demonstrator for technology validation and training

of ship systems engineers, designers, system integrators, operators

and engineering students.

Small combatant craft

The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for

force protection advanced technology.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63123N for acquisition, test, and evaluation of a high-speed, shallow draft, off-shore capable assault boat for assault and troop

transport insertion and extraction operations. The committee believes that this small combatant craft research will provide Marine

Corps and Special Operations Forces with potential assault craft

options by examining trade-offs between weight, payload, fuel efficiency and range, durability, and tactical survivability.

Sniper rifle improvements

The budget request included $36.0 million in PE 26623M for Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems.

The committee is aware that rifle accuracy is critical for long

range snipers, and urges that platoon long-range sniper rifle capability be improved for maximum accuracy.

Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $750 thousand in PE 26623M for the weapons training battalion product improvement of sniper rifles and sniper rifle manufacturing capability.

191

Stationary lighter than air platform

The budget request contained $174.7 million in PE 26313M for

Marine Corps communications systems.

The committee is aware that the Marine Corps stationary lighter

than air platform (MCSLaP) would provide a means for the Marine

Corps expeditionary forces to rapidly extend voice and data beyond

the line-of-sight. The committee notes that the Marine Corps is investigating commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) sensor and payload

packages to combine with COTS aerostat technology to provide this

over-the-horizon capability. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

26313A for MCSLaP.

Submarine payloads and sensors program

The budget request contained $107.4 million in PE 63561N for

development, demonstration, and validation of advanced submarine

systems

The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency/Navy submarine payloads and sensors program resulted in the development of a number of innovative, but realistic

payload, sensor and platform concepts that would enable a revolutionary expansion of capabilities and allow the submarine to play

a more decisive role in Joint Force operations, especially in the

ability to exert greater influence over events on shore. The concepts

provide a potential roadmap to the future through successive implementations that would use the Virginia class nuclear attack submarine as a baseline point of departure. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

63561N for follow-on studies and demonstration of advanced submarine payloads and sensors capabilities.

Submarine tactical warfare system

The budget request contained $14.0 million in PE 64562N for

submarine combat control system (CCS) upgrades to the Mark two

(MK2) variant.

These upgrades replace obsolete equipment and converge multiple submarine CCSs into a single program, which provides component commonality, incorporates Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile

launch capability, and reduces life cycle costs with an open architecture for future system enhancements.

The committee believes that this system would increase the warfighting capability of submarines, and recommends $28.3 million for PE 64562N, an increase of $14.3 million, to accelerate development of CCS MK2 upgrades.

Superconducting DC homopolar motor

The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology development, including $14.9

million for surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical and electrical advanced technology, but included no funding to continue the

program for development and demonstration of a superconducting

direct current homopolar motor.

The committee notes the progress being made in the Office of

Naval Research project for development of a 5000 shaft-horsepower

superconducting, direct current, homopolar motor that may be used

192

in the experimental littoral support craft program and could provide a prototype for a full-scale motor in the 25,000 to 50,000 shaft

horsepower range which could be a primary power source for a

major combatant or other class ship. The committee notes that

completion of the program in fiscal year 2003 should provide information for the Navy to determine if development should continue

on this motor for use in future integrated electric drive ships.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63123N to complete development and at-sea testing of the DC

homopolar motor.

Supply chain best practices

The budget request contained $929 thousand in PE 65804N for

technical information services that support cooperative advanced

technology initiatives between the Navy and U.S. industry with the

goals of improving affordability, and reducing the life cycle costs of

new and modernized Navy systems.

The committee recommends $6.9 million in PE 65804N, an increase of $6.0 million to continue the program for development and

adoption of industrial and logistical best business and management

practices among government and industry in support of defense

systems. The committee encourages the Office of Naval Research to

include funding for this program in future Navy budgets.

Surface navy integrated undersea tactical technology

The budget request contained $155.0 million in PE 63502N for

demonstration and validation of surface and shallow water mine

countermeasures.

The committee notes that in order to effectively conduct the antisubmarine warfare (ASW) and mine warfare (MIW) missions, naval

forces must be able to reliably detect, locate, and target enemy

mines and submarines, respond rapidly and decisively to these hostile contacts, employ integrated ASW and MIW systems with very

high probability of neutralizing the target and provide all commanders with a common under sea picture of the undersea battle

space. This requirement places a premium on development of a

common undersea picture that includes threat and environmental

characterization along with the undersea warfare platforms and

sensors.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

63502N for development of the common undersea picture.

Target location designated handoff system

The budget request contained $36.0 million in PE 26623M for

Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems, and included $14.6 million for the Marine Corps ground weaponry product improvement program, but included no funds for the target location designated handoff system.

The committee is aware that it is imperative to continue to upgrade existing targeting capabilities to ensure interoperability with

the emerging joint and Marine Corps tactical command, control,

communications and computer architecture.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in PE

26623M for the target location designated handoff system.

193

Vacuum electronics

The budget request contained $56.3 million in PE 62271N for ap- plied research in radio frequency technology, including $4.5 million

for applied research in radio frequency vacuum electronics power

amplifiers.

The committee report on H.R. 1402 (H. Rept. 106–162) noted the

committee’s support for a robust vacuum electronics research and

development program in the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. The committee has reviewed the results of the Secretary of the Navy’s report to Congress on the DOD vacuum electronics program and the DOD’s April 2001 Technology Area Review

and Assessment (TARA) on creating a balanced tri-service investment strategy for RF vacuum electronics and solid state power

technologies. The committee endorses the TARA views on the criticality of support for both vacuum electronics and solid-state power

technologies. The committee notes the TARA review’s recommendations for increased funding in the tri-service vacuum electronics

program and for establishment of a combined tri-service initiative

to rapidly advance wide bandgap semiconductor device technology

to enable advanced military radar and other systems requiring

power electronics in the mid-to-long term. The committee is disappointed that the Department of Defense has not implemented

the recommendations from the TARA review.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

62271N for applied research in vacuum electronics, an increase of

$8.0 million. The committee expects the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) through the Director

of Defense Research and Engineering to ensure a balanced investment strategy for vacuum electronics and solid state power technologies that will meet DOD requirements for current and future

systems that use radio frequency power electronics.

Water purification-expeditionary warfare

The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M for

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration, but included no

funds for water purification-expeditionary warfare.

The committee is aware that providing an adequate supply of

water to deployed forces represents the number one logistical problem of expeditionary warfare. Expeditionary missions around the

world must deal with ground water that has contaminates which

range from high salinity to oil pollution. The water purification-expeditionary warfare program will conduct a field demonstration of

advanced technology to show increased performance and/or reduced

cost for water purification and offers to significantly upgrade existing water purification systems with advanced technology.

The committee recommends an increase of $2 million in PE

63640M for the water purification-expeditionary warfare program.

Wide band gap semiconductor materials

The budget request contained $5.5 million in PE 61153N for

basic research and $30.0 million in PE 62712E and $3.5 million in

PE 62271N for applied research in wide band gap semiconductor

electronics.

Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Action for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) required the Secretary of DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
194

fense to carry out a cooperative program to develop and demonstrate advanced technologies and concepts for future Naval radar

systems and other applications, with particular emphasis on development of high frequency and high power wide band gap semiconductor materials and devices. The provision also required the

DDRE to report to the congressional defense committees on the implementation of the plan, including identification of the funding required to carry out the fiscal year 2003 program and for the future

years defense program. The committee has not yet received the

DDRE’s report.

The committee continues to place a high priority on the development of the technology for advanced wide band gap semiconductor

materials and devices for future naval radar and other applications. The committee notes the results of the December 2000 Special Technology Review on Radio Frequency Applications for Wide

Band Gap Technology by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics that recommended

an increased science and technology investment in wide band gap

materials, devices, circuits, and packaging which would total approximately $50 million a year over a five-year period beginning in

fiscal year 2002, in order to develop the technologies necessary to

field advanced radar systems in time to meet the Navy’s and the

Department of Defense requirements in 2015. The committee recommends a total of $47.0 million for basic and

applied research in wide band gap semiconductor materials technology, an increase of $8.0 million to the budget request and including $30 million in PE 62712N, $5.5 million in PE 61153N, and

$11.5 million in PE 62271N.

AIR FORCE RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $17,601.2 million for Air Force

RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $18,803.2

million, an increase of $1,202.0 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Air

Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major

changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table.

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

Items of Special Interest

Advanced aluminum aerostructures

The budget request contained $22.3 million in PE 63211F for aerospace technology development, including $9.6 million for continued development of advanced aluminum aerostructures.

The committee is aware that advanced aluminum aerostructures

have demonstrated significant cost, weight, and production process

reductions for the C–17 and C–130 aircraft, and offer similar improvements for future programs such as F–22 and Joint Strike

Fighter. The committee recommends $26.3 million in PE 63211F, an increase of $4.0 million for continuation of advanced aluminum

aerostructures.

Advanced concept ejection seat II improvement

The budget request contained $925 thousand in PE 64706F for

development of aircraft life support systems, but included no funds

for the advanced concept ejection seat (ACES) II pre-planned product improvement (PPPI) program. The ACES II is the pilot ejection

seat used on all Department of the Air Force combat aircraft except

the B–52 bomber.

The committee understands that Air Force pilots continue to experience injuries from high-speed ejections, which can be rectified

by inflatable restraints and improved parachute design. The committee further understands that an improved modular ACES II

seat design has the potential to both reduce maintenance requirements, thereby lowering life-cycle costs, and to accommodate smaller-sized females and larger-sized males.

To address these improvements in the ACES II, the committee recommends $8.0 million in PE 64706F, an increase of $7.1 million,

for continuation of the ACES II PPPI program and encourages the

Air Force to continue to provide funds for the ACES II PPPI in its

future years defense program.

Advanced thermal protection systems

The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 62102F for materials, but included no funds for advanced thermal protection systems (TPS).

The committee is aware that current thermal protection materials are derivatives of materials designed specifically for long

range missile applications and do not provide adequate protection

for current and emerging requirements to address prolonged, high

temperature stresses of in-atmosphere hypersonic flight. Advanced

TPS materials have demonstrated the capability to provide enhanced protection, as well as weight reduction, and offer solutions

for aerostructures in development and planned for the future.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE

62102F for advanced TPS.

Aging landing gear life extension program

The budget request contained $19.9 million in PE 65011F for development of products and services to improve the performance of

aging aircraft systems but included no funds for the aging landing

gear life extension (ALGLE) program.

205

The ALGLE program addresses the operational, safety and maintenance consequences of increased mishaps resulting from landing

gear failures as well as low mission capable rates for KC–135, C–

130, C–5 and F–16 aircraft that are attributable to either unavailable or unreliable landing gear assets. The committee notes that

the ALGLE program is prototyping new landing gear component

modifications, developing new repair techniques, and exploiting

new technologies. The committee understands that these efforts

have already resulted in life cycle cost reductions of over $62.0 million, and that the program has the potential to further reduce life

cycle costs by over $400.0 million.

Accordingly, the committee believes that this program should

continue to address the Air Force’s aging landing gear problems in

fiscal year 2003 and in subsequent years. The committee recommends $34.9 million in PE 65011F, an increase of $15.0 million,

for continuation of the ALGLE program.

Air combat training ranges

The budget request contained $13.5 million in PE 64735F for

combat training range development but included no funds to integrate tactical data information and ground tracking in the Nellis

Air Combat Training System (NACTS).

The NACTS, configured with instrumentation to determine aerial

combat outcomes, is used to train aircrews and ground-based participants for combat. The committee understands that the joint tactical information distribution system (JTIDS), an aircraft data system to exchange time-critical targeting data, will be integrated into

the NACTS in fiscal year 2002, but that the NACTS does not have

the capability to assess the effectiveness of JTIDS uses in NACTS

tactics training scenarios for aircrew and ground participants.

The committee recommends $16.5 million in PE 64735F, an increase of $3.0 million, to integrate tactical data information and

ground tracking into the NACTS.

Air Force manufacturing technology program

The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 78011F for the

Air Force’s Industrial Preparedness Manufacturing Technology program, a reduction of $21.4 million from the amount provided in fiscal year 2002.

The committee is concerned by the low level of fiscal year 2003

funding requested by the Air Force for the Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) program. The ManTech Program has an outstanding record of strengthening industrial base capability, shortening lead times for manufacturing applications and defense products, improving weapon system affordability, and speeding the

transition and insertion of vital technology out of the laboratory

and into operational use for the warfighter. The basic capability of

the industrial base to produce military weapons is supported

strongly by commercial investments, but military-unique industrial

capabilities required to elevate our weapon systems above those of

potential adversaries depend on military investment. The ManTech

Program is a critical element of the investment needed to transform the industrial capability to support the transformation of the

armed forces. The requested budget of $37.6 million is far short of

206

the level needed to support, sustain, and enable such a transformation.

The committee strongly recommends that the Secretary of the

Air Force restore the program to a funding level of at least $70 million for fiscal year 2004, and to consider treating the ManTech Program as an Air Force corporate investment program with annual

funding of at least 1 percent of the total funds budgeted for Air

Force Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.

Air Force/national systems cooperation

The budget request contained $8.8 million in PE 63856F for Air

Force/national systems cooperation.

The committee is aware that the Air Force and national systems

management are now combined within the office of the Under Secretary of the Air Force, and that therefore cooperation should result in reduced costs and should not require additional funding.

The committee recommends $2.8 million in PE 63856F, a decrease of $6.0 million for Air Force/national systems cooperation.

Ceramic matrix composites

The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapons systems, but included no funding for

ceramic matrix composites.

The committee notes that ceramic matrix composite materials

offer significant weight reduction and enhanced durability for high

performance jet engines used in the F–22 and Joint Strike Fighter.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63112F for continued development of ceramic matrix composites.

Compass Call upgrades

The budget request contained $3.9 million in PE 27253F for

Compass Call, and included $2.5 million to develop and integrate

new technologies to sustain Compass Call.

The committee notes that Compass Call is the Air Force’s airborne wide area coverage offensive counter information system.

The committee is aware that the Tactical Radio Acquisition and

Countermeasures Subsystem (TRACS) represents the next evolutionary capability increase in receiver/countermeasures capability

for Compass Call.

The committee recommends $11.9 million in PE 27253F, an increase of $8.0 million for TRACS.

Electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic radar target

generator

The budget request contained $46.3 million in PE 64759F for

major T&E investment, but included no funds for electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic radar target generator (RTG).

The committee is aware test ranges and training ranges are constantly challenged to provide operationally realistic threat environments for electronic countermeasures. The RTG will provide threat

representative aircraft signatures and high fidelity models to represent the environments the warfighter is likely to encounter on today’s battlefields.

207

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

64759F for electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic

RTG.

Electronic warfare development

The budget request contained $65.1 million in PE 64270F for

electronic warfare (EW) development, of which $10.6 million was

included for the precision location and identification (PLAID) technology program, but included no funds for the development of the

comet infra-red (IR) countermeasures system.

Precision location and identification

The PLAID technology program will improve aircrew situational

awareness by providing accurate ground emitter location and unambiguous identification. The committee understands that the

budget request for fiscal year 2003 does not provide for the development of a PLAID capability that would pass ground emitter target locations to other systems nor provide for risk-reduction flight

testing of this capability.

The committee recommends an increase of $14.7 million for this

purpose.

Comet infra-red countermeasures system

Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a procurement increase for the comet IR countermeasures system, but understands that further testing is required in fiscal year 2003 to develop the comet IR countermeasures production configuration.

Since the Air Force Chief of Staff included comet IR countermeasures among his top unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003,

the committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million for this purpose.

The committee recommends $85.0 million in PE 64270F, an increase of $19.9 million.

Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle

Air Force

The budget contained $309.0 million in PE 35205F for endurance

unmanned aerial vehicles, and included $306.0 for Global Hawk

high altitude endurance (HAE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

The Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) contained an additional $128.3 million for Global Hawk and associated sensor electronics development.

The committee notes the recent operational success of Global

Hawk and supports introduction of this new capability. However,

the committee is aware that the joint engineering team is methodically re-baselining the Global Hawk program and recognizes that

this process must be thorough and complete to form the basis for

a strong, well-structured production phase. The committee recognizes that while the air vehicle definition may be more mature

than sensor packages, determining the proper sensors is fundamental to the future success of Global Hawk. The committee recalls

the problems associated with other programs making the transition

from an advanced concept technology demonstration to formal acquisition, and believes that those experiences have shown that

208

extra attention to detail is important as the transition to acquisition is made. Some Global Hawk documentation required by the

DOD 5000 series acquisition regulations is either incomplete or in

various stages of development, and must be completed.

The committee believes that the proper goal for the Global Hawk

acquisition program should be to expeditiously field a meaningful

operational capability for the warfighter. However, determination

of a proper operational capability for Global Hawk that fits within

the overall intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance architecture, is essential to successful production.

The committee believes that cost reduction efforts are essential

to allow fielding Global Hawk in meaningful numbers and notes

that while production rate affects average per unit cost, the proper

design, robust but not gold plated, has an even greater potential

to limit cost and schedule growth. Industrial facilities can be efficiently sized for a particular rate, given stable production goals.

The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that industrial production facilities are sized at an appropriate and realistic capacity,

based on a firm commitment to a sustained rate of production,

rather than an overly optimistic estimate that leads to unwarranted investment in production facilities.

The committee also believes that the Air Force should make

maximum appropriate use of off-the-shelf technology and open

standards in order to minimize system costs and allow competition,

rather than engaging in prolonged development that slightly improves performance while causing great expense and years of potential delay. The committee is also aware of the Navy’s new UAV

concept exploration effort examining Global Hawk and, should the

Navy decide to use Global Hawk, believes that the sensors and

platform should remain common with the Air Force variant unless

modifications are justified as necessary to meet mission requirements.

The committee notes that basing and infrastructure development

are also cost drivers and must be developed with maximum commonality and minimum duplication, again based on a realistic estimate of procurement numbers. The committee notes that shared

Air Force-Navy Global Hawk basing facilities might offer cost savings should the Navy decide, after its broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) experimentation, to acquire Global Hawk.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to re-baseline the Global Hawk by December 31, 2002. This new baseline

should incorporate a clear roadmap of technology insertion leading

to an objective configuration. The re-baselining shall be established

on realistic per unit costs, with and without sensors; address the

evolutionary growth structure or ‘‘spiral’’ cost, schedule objectives,

and milestone decisions.

The committee recommends the budget request for Global Hawk.

Navy

The budget request contained $206.4 million in PE 35204N and

included $152.0 million for Global Hawk and $28.3 million in the

DERF fiscal year 2003 for sensor development.

The committee is very concerned that the Navy enters the Global

Hawk program with clear maritime requirements and notes that

there is currently no mission needs statement, no analysis of mulVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
209

tiple concepts, and no specific exit criteria. The committee directs

the Secretary of the Navy not to obligate more that 20 percent of

the Navy’s Global Hawk funding until these requirements have

been met for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Phase

I demonstration in accordance with DOD 5000 series.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit the

acquisition strategy for the BAMS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

to the congressional defense and intelligence committees.

The committee recommends $180.3 million in PE 35204N for

Global Hawk, including $28.3 million for sensor development in the

DERF for fiscal year 2003.

GPS–II program adjustment

The budget request contained $324.1 million in PE 35165F for

the NAVSTAR global positioning system (GPS).

The committee is aware that recent program adjustments have

eliminated funds included to modify future GPS–II satellites to increase power.

Therefore, the committee recommends $275.1 million in PE

35165F, a decrease of $49.0 million for GPS–II.

Guidance, propulsion, and re-entry vehicle demonstration/validation

The budget request contains $63.0M in PE 63851F for the development of guidance, propulsion, and re-entry vehicle technology

demonstration and validation programs.

The committee is concerned that a number of Air Force science

and technology efforts to develop space vehicle and missile technologies are not being effectively coordinated and tested.

Therefore, the committee recommends that the demonstration

and validation efforts for development of guidance, propulsion, reentry vehicles be executed by the Ballistic Missile Technology office

and the Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, and demonstration/validation of advanced technologies and new capabilities be executed by

the Space and Missile System Center Detachment Rocket Program.

High-accuracy network determination system

The budget request contained $6.5 million in PE 63444F for the

Maui space surveillance system, but included no funds for the highaccuracy network determination system (HANDS).

The committee understands the importance of maintaining space

situational awareness to ensure collision avoidance of national assets and space debris. The committee is aware that potential collisions can unduly draw attention from mission space-based national

requirements. Accurate determination of target satellite orbits,

neighboring satellites and debris is key to collision avoidance operations and threat management. HANDS can reduce the potential

for collision by reducing errors in the current space-object maintenance catalog. The committee supports further development of this

initiative.

The committee recommends $11.5 million in PE 63444F, an increase of $5.0 million for the high-accuracy network determination

system.

210

Identification of time critical programs

The budget request contained $34.3 million in PE 63789F for C3I advanced development, including $4.2 million for continued development of identification of time critical programs.

The committee is aware of the importance of reducing the sensorto-shooter engagement time for hi-value, short-duration battlefield

targets and fully supports continued development of technologies

for this purpose. The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE

63789F for accelerated testing and evaluation of time critical target

identification.

Information operation technology and fusion initiative

The budget request included $9.4 million in PE 33140F for the

information systems security program, but included no funds for

the information operation technology and fusion initiative.

The committee notes that the Information Systems Security Program conducts research and development of information protection

tools and transitions them to operational systems. The committee

also notes that the effort concentrates on transitioning state of the

art information operation capabilities to the warfighter by demonstrating and validating advanced technology necessary to address specific deficiencies and shortfalls identified by the Air Intelligence Agency. The committee further notes that the aim of the

program is to expedite technology to the field through rapid prototyping.

The committee believes deficiencies exist in the area of information operations, information assurance, information fusion, and information security. The committee understands that advanced development can eventually eliminate these deficiencies, particularly

when applied in a collaborative program utilizing industry, academia, and government resources. The committee encourages the

Secretary of the Air Force to pursue this initiative. The committee recommends $12.4 million in PE 33140F, an increase of $3.0 million, for the information operation technology and

fusion initiative.

Information security and intrusion detection development

The budget request included $34.3 million in 63789F for command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) advanced development, and included $7.0 million for battlespace information

exchange and $9.3 million for dynamic aerospace command and

control execution.

The committee is concerned with the growing threat to information exchange procedures, supports efforts to develop innovative security measures, and applauds Air Force efforts to develop and test

components of a secure, deployable information grid. The committee understands that technology developments include an information assurance decision support system, advanced information

management, multi-level secure communications, secure survivable

networks, and communications transmission systems.

The committee is also aware of efforts to develop an intrusion defense capability as a means for detecting and defeating hostile

forces trying to embed digital information as a means of deception.

The committee is supportive of these and other efforts aimed at reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
211

inforcing information integrity activities and urges further investment in these areas.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63789F for development, product tests, and the fielding of intrusion

defenses and system security tools.

Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology

The budget request contained $53.6 million in PE 62500F for Air

Force Multi-disciplinary Space Technology, including $19.6 million

for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology and $76.6

million in PE 62114N for Navy Power Projection Applied Research,

including $13.6 million for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion

technology.

The committee notes the improvements in large and small rocket

engine propulsion capability made available through the Integrated

High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) program and

supports the increased emphasis placed on IHPRPT by the Department of Defense and the Air Force.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62500F and $5.0 million in PE 62114N for integrated high payoff

rocket propulsion technology.

Joint air to surface standoff missile

The budget request contained $42.1 million in PE 27325F for the

Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), including $19.6 million for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology.

The committee notes the recent series of successful JASSM flight

tests and is aware of Air Force efforts to extend the missile range

to provide longer stand-off and sustain or improve accuracy. The

committee is encouraged by the proposed plan to develop the extended range segment of the JASSM program, and supports acceleration of that effort.

The committee recommends $52.1 million in PE 27325F, an increase of $10.0 million for accelerated testing and evaluation of and

extended range JASSM.

Joint integrated satellite communications technology

The budget request contained $148.9 million in PE 64479F for

Mistar LDR/MDR satellite communications, but included no funds

for joint integrated satellite communications (SATCOM) technology

(JIST).

The committee is aware that JIST is a web-based satellite communications management technology that utilizes the Department’s

existing internet protocol router to expand the flexibility and efficiency of military satellite communications. The committee notes

that development systems like JIST, based on common standards,

is key to increased satellite communications efficiency.

The committee recommends $157.0 million in PE 64479F, an increase of $8.1 million for JIST.

Joint services work station

The budget request contained $55.5 million in PE 27581F for

Joint STARS, including $19.3 million for the Joint Services Work

Station.

212

The committee is aware of the importance of maintaining multiservice interoperability for all supporting elements of the Joint

STARS systems. The committee recommends $68.2 million in PE 27581F, including $32.0 million for the continued development of the Joint Services Work Station, an increase of $12.7 million.

Laser induced surface improvement technology

The budget request contained $46.3 million in PE 64759F for

major test and evaluation investment, but included no funds for

laser induced surface improvement technology (LISI).

The committee is aware that the LISI technology has been demonstrated to significantly extend product life by improving surface

properties and increasing resistance to the effects of wear and corrosion. The committee notes that the technology has reached prototype development stage for demonstration projects on military components. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

64759F to complete the prototype processing facility to move laser

induced surface improvement technology into fielded applications.

Lithium ion battery development

The budget request contained $107.7 million in PE 62203F for aerospace propulsion, and included $9.9 million for lithium ion battery development.

The committee notes the development of improved batteries and

fuel cells continues to afford significant savings and enhancement

in weapons and communication system. The next generation, highenergy/density, lithium ion battery will enable development and

production of smaller, lighter aircraft, space vehicles, and hand

held electronic equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

62203F for continued development of the lithium ion battery.

Low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling truck propulsion

The budget request contained $35.8 million in PE 78611F for

support systems development, but included no funds for low emission/efficient hybrid fuel truck propulsion.

The committee is informed that existing Air Force aviation refueling trucks operate short distances in a manner that causes high

fuel usage, high emissions and decreased engine life. The committee notes that a heavy-duty hybrid drive technology has been

developed for aviation refueling trucks.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE

78611F for installation and test of low emission/efficient hybrid

aviation refueling truck propulsion.

Metals affordability initiative

The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 62102F and

$21.1 million in PE 63112F for materials development, and $37.6

million in PE 78011F for industrial preparedness, but included no

funds for continuation of the metals affordability initiative (MAI).

The committee is aware that the MAI represents a unique government-industry collaboration to provide significant improvements

in the manufacturing of specialty aerospace metals.

213

The committee fully supports the continuation of the MAI and

recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62102F, an increase

of $5.0 million in PE 63112F, and an increase of $3.0 million in PE

78011F for acceleration of the initiative.

Missile technology demonstration

The budget request contained $16.2 million in PE 65860F for the

rocket systems launch program, but included no funds for continuation of the missile technology demonstration (MTD–3b).

The committee is aware that the MTD–3b continues to mature

technologies that support high speed weapon system platforms.

The committee recommends $27.2 million in PE 65860F, an increase of $11.0 million for MTD–3b.

Network centric collaborative targeting

The budget request contained no funding in PE 35207F for

manned reconnaissance systems.

The committee recognizes the Air Force’s thrust towards network

centric warfare, but notes that the Air Force requested no money

towards this effort.

The committee recommends $20.0 million in PE 35207F, an increase of $20.0 million for network centric collaborative targeting

advance concepts technology demonstration.

Pulse detonation engine

The budget request contained $107.7 million in PE 62203F for

propulsion development, including $16.0 million for continued development of the pulse detonation engine (PDE).

The committee is aware that the PDE offers significant cost and

performance advantages over conventional engines

The committee supports Air Force plans to fabricate and test a

flight worthy prototype and recommends an increase of $6.0 million

in PE 62203F for accelerated testing and evaluation of the PDE.

Rapid attack support system

The budget request contained no funds in PE 27027F for continued development of the rapid attack support system.

The committee is aware that software development has progressed to the point that many of the systems in the DOD Joint

Technical Architecture can be tied together to enhance the process

of rapid targeting and attack.

The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 27027F for transition of the rapid attack support system to production.

Scorpius

The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for Scorpius.

The committee is aware that Scorpius development responds to

the Air Force mission need statement for operationally responsive,

affordable space lift. The committee notes that Scorpius had a successful sub-orbital launch on the first attempt.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE

63401F for Scorpius.

214

Space Technology

The Air Force’s budget includes significant out-year funding for

Minuteman IV and future space vehicle development activities. To

minimize development costs, common technologies and requirements for ballistic missiles and space vehicles should be shared between the Air Force and the Navy. To assure resources are properly focused on future strategic system development, the committee

recommends that the Air Force ensure that efforts of the Space and

Missile Systems Center and the Air Force Research Laboratory are

combined so that both development and test facilities address technology requirements for future strategic missile and space systems

in a coordinated fashion.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE

63311F, Ballistic Missile Technology, and $1.0 million in PE

62201F, Aerospace Propulsion, to coordinate future missile and

space systems requirements and technology.

Streaker small launch vehicle

The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for the

Streaker small launch vehicle.

The committee is aware that space launch remains a very expensive portion of the space program. The committee notes that a low

cost launch technology is being developed for micro and nano satellites, which offers potential to significantly reduce, associated

launch costs.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63401F for the Streaker small launch vehicle.

Super wideband compressive receiver

The budget contained $4.5 million in PE 63260F for intelligence

advanced development, but included no funds for super wideband

compressive receiver (SWCR) technology.

The committee is aware SWCR technology has near-term potential to greatly improve receiver capability for multiple applications.

SWCR technology combined with software reprogrammability may

also offer rapid adaptation to new wave forms.

The committee recommends $5.5 million in PE 63260F, an increase of $1.0 for million SWCR.

Synthetic theatre operations research model

The budget request contained $21.9 million in PE 27601F for Air

Force Modeling and Simulation, but included no funds for the synthetic theatre operations research model (STORM).

The committee is aware that the Joint Model Transition (JMT)

project has been created to support the development and upgrade

of research and development models, and notes that STORM offers

the potential to be an excellent candidate for the first year of the

JMT initiative.

The committee recommends $23.9 million in PE 27601F, an increase of $2.0 million for the continued development of STORM

within the JMT project.

215

Texas regional institute for environmental studies

The budget request contained no funds in PE 63723F for environmental engineering technology.

The committee continues to support the ongoing Texas Regional

Institute for Environmental Studies (TRIES) research and development of environmental technologies to protect military water supply systems. The committee encourages further work in this area,

and remains supportive of the cooperative partnership arrangement between TRIES and the Air Force.

The committee recommends $3 million in PE 63723F for TRIES

to demonstrate new deployable bioreactor technologies.

Thermal management for space structures

The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 62102F for ma- terials, and more than $8.0 million the thermal management for

aerospace structures.

The committee is aware that the Office of Naval Research and

the Air Force Research Lab have demonstrated the potential to improve performance and reduce weight on military aircraft and

spacecraft by using ultra-high thermal conductivity carbon fibers

for selected electronics/avionics components and structures. The Air

Force launched a program in this area in fiscal year 2000, and significant progress has been made. The committee understands that

the Air Force has qualified use of these carbon fibers for manufacturing compact electronic enclosures for satellite passive cooling

systems. The committee supports further development in this initiative and encourages the qualification of these composite materials for applications across all fleets of military aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million in PE

62102F for continued development of thermal management for

space structures.

Thrust vector control and infrared signature reduction

The budget request contained $85.7 million in PE 63216F for

aerospace propulsion and power technology, but included no funding for thrust vector control and infrared signature reduction.

The committee is aware that the Air Force is experimenting with

a propulsion flow control to reduce the heat signature of fighter jets

that will reduce vulnerability to heat seeking missiles. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63216F for continued development of thrust vector control and infrared signature reduction.

Upper atmospheric and astronomical training

The budget request contained $219.1 million in PE 61102F for

Defense Research Sciences, but included no funding for enhanced

upper atmospheric and astronomical training.

The committee is aware that the Air Force has provided extensive scientific training in upper atmospheric and astronomical research to both government and non-government audiences. However, the training facilities are limited in capacity and in need of

expansion and enhancement. The committee notes that an Air

Force investment of $5.0 million for enhanced scientific research

equipment would be combined with non-government funding to

complete the project.

216

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for enhanced upper atmospheric and astronomical training.

Vacuum pump

The budget request contained $39.9 million in PE 62605F for Directed Energy Technology, but included no funds for the vacuum

pump.

The committee is aware of the potential benefits afforded by upgrades to vacuum pump systems at Air Force laser facilities, and

recommends $42.25 million in PE 62605F, an increase of $2.25 million for vacuum pump system upgrades.

Wind-corrected munitions dispenser development

The budget request contained no funds in PE 64600F for munitions dispenser development.

The committee understands that the Air Force intends to terminate the Joint Stand Off Weapon ‘‘B’’ variant dispenser weapon in

fiscal year 2003 due to technical delays and cost increases. Accordingly, the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified a $16.2

million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement to extend the range

of the unpowered wind corrected munitions dispenser (WCMD) by

developing a deployable wing system for the WCMD, which would

enable the weapon to glide for an extended range (ER). The committee notes the effective use of the gravity fall WCMD in Operation Enduring Freedom and believes a WCMD–ER enhancement

would provide an additional stand off weapon capability within the

Air Force’s war reserve munition stock, and, recommends $16.2

million in PE 64600F for development of the WCMD–ER.

DEFENSE-WIDE RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $16,613.6 million for Defense-Wide

RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $17,191.2

million, an increase of $309.1 million and the transfer of $268.6M

million for missile defense programs from Army RDT&E to Defense-wide RDT&E.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Defense-Wide RDT&E program are identified in the table below.

Major changes to the Defense-Wide request are discussed following

the table.

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

Items of Special Interest

Advanced sensor applications program

The budget request included $16.0 million in PE 63714D8Z for

the advanced sensor applications program.

The Committee is concerned that promising projects executed by

the Navy’s (PMA264) program office are appreciably under funded.

Additional details are contained in the classified annex to this report.

Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

in PE 63714D8Z for the advanced sensor applications program.

Aircraft affordability initiative

The budget request included $10.3 million in PE 64805D8Z for

the Department of Defense Commercial Operations and Support

Savings Initiative (COSSI), and included no funds for the digital

electronic warfare (EW) aircraft affordability initiative. The committee notes that the stated goal of COSSI is to adapt commercial

technologies to reduce operations and support (O&S) costs and to

improve overall weapons systems performance.

The committee remains supportive of the EW digital product improvement program (PIP) based on its promise to substantially decrease high-performance aircraft O&S costs and increase combat

performance. The committee understands the potential benefits associated with a reduction in both weight and power consumption

requirements aboard such aircraft, and notes the potential savings

associated with a wholesale conversion to a digital EW receiver.

The committee notes significant progress to date in the requisite

software development, design, and testing of a digital receiver and

two associated modules for the F–22 aircraft. The committee supports a continuation of this effort, and encourages implementation

of design verification testing and Lot 4 insertion in the F–22 program.

The committee recommends $18.3 million in PE 64805D8Z, an

increase of $8.0 million, for the digital EW PIP aircraft affordability initiative.

Backscatter mobile truck system

The budget request contained $33.6 million in PE 63228D8Z for

physical security equipment, but included no funds for the

backscatter mobile truck system.

The committee is aware that the backscatter mobile truck system

is a commercial-off-the-shelf system capable of detecting organic

materials in shipping containers and vehicles.

The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE

63228D8Z for the backscatter mobile truck system

Ballistic missile defense

The budget request contained $7,763.0 million for ballistic missile defense and related activities, $12.6 million less than the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The request included

$6,690.7 million in research, development, test and evaluation

(RDT&E) and $23.4 million in military construction for the Missile

Defense Agency (MDA), as well as $312.3 million in Army RDT&E,

226

$72.9 million in Defense-Wide RDT&E, and $663.7 million in Army

missile procurement. The committee recommends $7,784.0 million for ballistic missile

defense, an increase of $21.0 million. The committee authorizes

$7,003.7 million for MDA, reflecting transfers of $117.7 million for

the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program from

the Army PE 63869A to the MDA PE 63881C and $150.8 million

for Patriot Advanced Capability–3 (PAC–3) improvements from the

Army PE 64865A to MDA in PE 64865C, and a net increase of

$21.0 million. The transfers are consistent with the committee’s

view, as expressed in Section 23X, that responsibility for research

and development related to improvements of fielded systems should

remain with MDA to ensure component integration and interoperability with the ballistic missile defense ‘‘system of systems’’.

Silicon carbide based wide bandgap technology

The budget request contained $121.8 million in PE 63175C for

advanced technology development, but included no funds for silicon

carbide based wide bandgap technology.

The committee remains concerned about the apparently small

fraction of MDA’s budget devoted to technology development (1.8

percent in the request), noting that these activities lead to evolving

capabilities for countering advanced threats. The committee understands that significant program specific technology development occurs within individual programs, and believes that MDA should establish a means to more fully account for its technology investments across-the-board.

The committee recommends $127.3 million for technology, an in- crease of $5.5 million for development of silicon carbide based wide

bandgap semi-conductor technology. Wide bandgap technology finds

wide application in advanced power electronics, particularly ground

based radar and next generation communication systems.

Ballistic missile defense system

The budget request contained $1,066.0 million in PE 63880C for

the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system but included no funds

for wide bandwidth technology and $8.1 million for Battlespace Environment and Signatures Toolkit.

The BMD system elements comprise battle management, command and control (BM/C2), communications, targets and countermeasures, system engineering and integration, and system-wide

test and evaluation. The committee understands that the globally

distributed ballistic missile defense system will be the most complex architecture ever attempted by the Department of Defense. Although the scientific hurdles are relatively small, the engineering

challenges associated with orchestrating an effective defense are

considerable, and the committee supports MDA’s efforts to build a

national industry team to address system component integration

and interoperability.

Wide bandwidth technology program

The committee recognizes the value of wide bandwidth information technology to improve operational efficiency and test infrastructure, and recommends $10.0 million for the Wide Bandwidth

Technology program.

227

Battlespace environment and signatures toolkit

The committee notes the ongoing work to develop the Battlespace

Environment and Signatures Toolkit program to model threat signatures and supports the efforts to maintain a current threat signature database and tools to integrate current information into ongoing missile defense program. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate this effort.

Terminal defense segment

The budget request contained $170.0 million in PE 63881C for the terminal defense segment, including $65.7 million for Arrow.

Enhanced Arrow deployability program

The terminal defense segment includes $65.7 million for Arrow,

primarily for the Arrow System Improvement Program to evolve

system capabilities to counter advanced missile threats to Israel.

The committee recommends an increase of $21.0 million for the Enhanced Arrow Deployability Program to enhance Arrow system

operational capabilities and interoperability with missile defense

systems of the United States.

Navy area program

The terminal defense segment also contains $90.0 million for a

sea-based terminal program to develop alternatives to the Navy

Area program, which was terminated on December 14, 2001 as a

result of a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach. The committee supports the

Administration’s efforts to enforce fiscal discipline in major development and acquisition programs, but notes the undiminished need

for lower tier sea-based defense, and encourages MDA to move expeditiously in pursuing alternatives. The committee recommends $308.7 million, an increase of $117.7

million, which reflects transfer of MEADS into this program element, and an increase of $21.0 million for Arrow

Midcourse defense segment

The budget request contained $3,195.1 million in PE 63882C for the midcourse defense segment, including $426.6 million for seabased midcourse defense.

Ground based midcourse defense

The budget request includes $533.9 million for the 2004 Pacific Test Bed and $2,072.5 million for ground-based midcourse defense,

both down significantly from fiscal year 2002. The committee is encouraged by the recent flight test successes of this program, but

more importantly by the test rate, which is now approaching threemonth centers. The committee strongly believes that programs of

this level of sophistication and maturity only seriously move forward when the test program reaches a critical momentum.

Aegis LEAP interceptor flight demonstration program

The committee understands that the sea based midcourse defense segment is still in its infancy, but is encouraged by the first

intercept achieved in the Aegis LEAP Interceptor (ALI) Flight

Demonstration Program with an interceptor launched from the

228

Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie in January. The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million to purchase additional ALI

test articles for threat representative testing.

Long range S-band and X-band discrimination radar development

The committee is also supportive of the new emphasis on improving existing shipboard radar to enable better ballistic missile discrimination and tracking and recommends an increase of $25.0 million to accelerate long range S-band and X-band discrimination

radar development.

The committee recommends $3,244.6 million, an increase of $52

million for ALI flight demonstration program and $25.0 million for

long range radar improvements.

Boost defense segment

The budget request contained $796.9 million in PE 63883C for

the boost defense segment.

The committee recommends $719.4 million, a decrease of $77.5

million.

Of the amount requested, $144.0 million is for ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ boost

phase intercept programs that rely on the energy of motion (kinetic

energy) of the interceptor to negate the target. The request supports two programs, consisting of $89.6 million for a sea-based

boost program leading to a demonstration in fiscal year 2005, and

$54.4 million for a space-based boost program leading to a demonstration in fiscal year 2006. The committee is concerned that,

given the amount of tactical air power already available, and recent

successes with armed unmanned aerial vehicles in Operation Enduring Freedom, MDA may have overlooked the most promising

near term alternative for boost phase defense—air—based kinetic

energy boost phase intercept. The committee urges MDA to give serious consideration to this option.

Of the amount requested, $625.4 million is for directed energy

boost phase programs that rely on laser heating to induce structural failure of the target. The request for directed energy programs consists of $34.8 million for the space-based laser and $598.0

million for the airborne laser (ABL).

In the case of ABL, the committee is concerned by escalating

costs and the slip in schedule of a lethal shoot down demonstration

from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005. The committee understands the formidable technical challenges this program faces.

While the committee expects that one day directed energy will play

a role in ballistic missile defense, the committee notes that the 30

plus year historical record on developing lethal, militarily-useful

systems is singularly unimpressive. The committee questions a

boost phase defense investment strategy that relies on this difficult

technology to the extent that the current program does, and encourages MDA to more seriously pursue alternative approaches.

The committee recommends $520.5 million for ABL, a reduction of

$77.5 million specifically to funds requested to begin payments on

a second aircraft and purchase long lead optics.

229

Sensors segment

The budget request contained $373.4 million in PE 63884C for

the boost defense segment.

The committee recommends the budget request. The committee

believes that space-based sensors with play a key role in ballistic

missile defense, and supports the restructured Space-Based Infrared System-low (SBIRS-low) program proposed by MDA. The restructured program will begin to place satellites in orbit in the fiscal year 2006–2007 timeframe to support, with current developmental technologies, the activities of the 2004 Pacific Test Bed, but

will continue to compete and evolve more capable sensor payloads

for later launches.

THAAD and PAC–3

The budget request contained $932.2 million in PE 64861C for

the Theater High Altitude Air Defense system (THAAD, and $150.8

million in PE 64865A for PAC–3 engineering and manufacturing

development (EMD). Funds for these two programs were requested

under separate program elements, as required for programs in

EMD by section 223(b) of title 10, United States Code, as amended

by Section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107).

The committee supports the budget request, but moves PAC–3

EMD funding into MDA for reasons previously discussed. The committee notes that the Army began fielding limited numbers of

PAC–3 missiles in September of 2001 as planned, and has begun

initial operational testing while continuing an RDT&E program to

improve the system’s capability against an expanded threat set.

After a troubled test program culminating in intercept of two ballistic missile targets in 1999, THAAD entered EMD in fiscal year

2000. However, the program is not scheduled to resume flight tests

until late fiscal year 2004. The committee understands that the

THAAD interceptor is undergoing major redesign and re-engineering, but given the nearly $1 billion budget for this program, and

the likelihood that certain flaws will only be uncovered in flight,

the committee questions the advisability of such a long hiatus in

flight testing.

Cooperative programs

Although the committee believes that the United States should

lead in the development of ballistic missile defense systems, the

committee does not think that missile defense should be a protection simply provided by the United States to the international community, but rather a capability whose benefits and costs are shared

with friends and allies. Accordingly, the committee makes special

note of support for international cooperative programs in the budget request, including $65.7 million for Israel’s Arrow terminal missile defense program in PE 63881C, $69.1 million for the RussianAmerican Observation Satellite program in PE 63884C, $79.0 million for cooperative research with Japan on sea-based upper tier

defense in PE 63882C, and $117.7 million for co-development with

Italy and Germany of the Medium Extended Air Defense System

(MEADS) in PE 63869A. The committee is familiar with the special

difficulties associated with execution of international cooperative

230

programs, but believes that such programs help to advance the national security agenda of the United States.

Exploration of alternative approaches

The committee understands that the Department may investigate other options for ballistic missile defense—nuclear—armed

interceptors, blast fragmentation warheads, and directed energy

technologies—as alternatives to current approaches based predominantly on hit-to-kill technology. The committee would consider such

an examination of alternatives to be a prudent step, consistent

with the commitment to evaluate all available technological options

for this critical mission.

Ballistic missile defense baseline reports

The Committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)

is in the process of completing an internal planning document

known as the Technical Objectives and Goals document (TOG). As

the cornerstone of this system engineering process, the TOG and

applicable supporting systems engineering documents provide a development baseline for each block within the overall ballistic missile defense system that sets performance goals at the system,

project, and in some cases the component level. The Committee further understands that the TOG will be an essential document in

formulating the 2004 budget request. The resulting Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System baseline from this process will be documented as part of the BMD System Selected Acquisition Reports,

submitted annually to Congress.

The Committee directs the Director of MDA to ensure that the

relevant performance goals and development baselines of the TOG

be communicated to Congress as part of the budget justification

materials accompanying the FY 2004 and future budget requests.

Such development baselines shall be made available for each block.

In particular, the baselines shall be made available for projects developing systems that may be fielded, and other programs and

projects identified as congressional special interest items.

The Committee recognizes the difficulty in summarizing data to

make it readily understandable for Congress. This difficulty is compounded by the transition from a requirements-based acquisition

process to a capability-based process. The Committee further appreciates and supports the efforts made by MDA to respond in a

timely fashion to requests for further information made by the

Committee. To make the voluminous data that MDA provides more

readily understandable, the Committee directs the Director of MDA

to ensure that the annual budget justification material for each

system include the funding profile for developing the major components of each of the projects that may be fielded, and for each block

of that system.

The committee notes that section 232(h) of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) requires a report by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation

(OT&E) by no later than February 15 of each year. To date, no specific report by the Director of OT&E has been received. The Committee directs the Director of OT&E to comply with the statutory

requirement, and expects the Missile Defense Agency to continue

231

to work cooperatively with the Director of OT&E so that the report

may be prepared and submitted in a timely fashion in the future.

Cobra blue force tracking equipment

The budget request contained $281.4 million in PE 116404BB for

tactical systems development, but included no funds for blue force

tracking equipment.

The committee is aware that the Army Special Operations Command has an approved combat mission needs statement (MNS) to

equip its teams with secure blue force tracking devices. It is also

aware that the Marine Corps has a draft MNS for its Marine expeditionary units. The committee notes that a limited blue force

tracking capability has been deployed, with unanimous praise from

the units so equipped. The committee further notes that additional

equipment is required to fully equip deployed Army Special Forces

and Marine Expeditionary Units.

The committee recommends $283.9 million in PE 116404BB, an

increase of $2.5 million to develop the next generation cobra blue

force tracking equipment.

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

The budget request contained a total of $932.9 million for chemical/biological defense research, development, test, and evaluation,

including $64.1 million in PE 61384BP for basic research, $262.2

million in PE 62384BP for applied research, $249.8 million in PE

63384BP for advanced technology development, $144.8 million in

PE 63884BP for demonstration/validation, $169.0 million in PE

64384BP for engineering and manufacturing development, and

$43.0 million in PE 65384BP for RDT&E management support.

The budget request also contained $133.0 million in PE 62383E for

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) biological warfare defense research program.

Engineered pathogen identification and countermeasures program

The committee notes that the potential threat of using unknown

or genetically modified pathogens as biological warfare agents

places a high premium on the ability to rapidly identify the pathogen and its disease producing characteristics and to develop and

implement therapies for countering the agent. The committee understands that human genome mapping promises beneficial advances both in medicine and in the identification and treatment of

biological warfare pathogens. Advances in biotechnology, computational biology and computational chemistry promise the capability

to shrink the drug research cycle significantly. In fiscal year 2002,

Congress provided $2.0 million to initiate a program for rapid identification and development of countermeasures to biological warfare

and engineering pathogens.

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

61384BP to continue the program for applied research in identification and development of countermeasures to genetically modified or

engineered pathogens.

232

Rapid antibody-based biological countermeasures

The committee has been advised that recent advances in molecular biology combined with advances in microbiology have resulted

in the development of powerful technologies, based upon a human

antibody platform, which can be used to devise effective countermeasures against biological weapons. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62384BP for applied research in human antibody-based countermeasures against biological agents.

Multi-wavelength surface scanning biological sensor

The budget request contained $16.0 in PE 63714D8Z for the advanced sensors applications program.

The committee understands that recent advances in multi-wavelength excitation spectral technology shows promise for development of high spectral resolution fluorescence systems that would

provide the capability to detect and identify biologic agents not discernible with conventional sensors by exploiting the fine spectral

signatures of both the biologic target and the existing background.

The committee notes oversight by the Office of the Secretary the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence) of a program for development and demonstration of multi-wavelength excitation spectral technology that,

if successful, could provide a leap-ahead improvement in the scanning and screening of potentially contaminated locations. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63714D8Z to continue the development of active, high-resolution,

broad-band infrared sensors for real-time detection and identification of pathogens. The committee directs the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Chemical-Biological Defense) and the Director,

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to review the program

for coordination and potential integration in related programs in

the DOD chemical-biological defense program or DARPA biological

warfare defense program.

Chemical-biological regenerative air filters

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

62384BP to accelerate the program for applied research in chemical-biological regenerative air filtration technology to replace activated charcoal filters in Navy and other collective protection systems.

Chemical-biological mass spectrometer II

The chemical-biological mass spectrometer (CBMS) is a detector

capable of both biological and chemical agent detection and identification. The CBMS Block I system is a component of the P3I Biological Integrated Detection System (BIDS). The CBMS Block II

system is an improved system that is being developed for inclusion

in the NBCRS Block II system (IAV–NBCRV) and the Joint Service

Lightweight NBCRS system. The CBMS II is being further enhanced to allow operation as a stand-alone system.

The committee understands that CBMS Block has demonstrated

an effective chemical agent detection and identification capability

and that the currently funded effort would complete the development of this chemical capability. A January 2002 peer review of

233

further testing concluded that the CBMS Block II had demonstrated the potential capability for biological detection and that

continued development should focus on the development and testing of biological agent identification algorithms, improve systems

reliability and producibility, and develop a logistics and maintenance support program. Successful completion of the development

program would result in a single integrated detection system for future nuclear, biological, chemical reconnaissance platforms. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

63884BP to accelerate the program for development and demonstration of the CBMS Block II.

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense enhancement

The committee recommends $137.0 million in PE 62383E, an increase of $4.0 million for applied research in asymmetric protocols

for biological defense with emphasis on enhancing individual nonspecific immunities to and blocking pathogens from biological warfare threat agents.

Mustard gas prophylactic

The budget request included $262.2 million in PE 62384BP for

the Chemical Biological Defense program, but included no funding

for the development of a mustard gas prophylactic.

The committee recognizes the threat of mustard gas as a potential weapon of mass destruction and notes that existing methods of

protection are focused primarily on external apparel. The committee is aware of a technology, referred to as Signal Transduction

Interruption Methodology Antioxidant Liposomes (STIMAL) that

might provide a prophylactic defense. The anticipated research

product supports the body’s immune and molecular systems to first

stabilize and then accelerate the recovery process in cases of unprotected exposure. Prophylactic treatment testing has yielded a rate

of treatment as high as 83% and shows some promise for even

higher rates with further development. The committee supports

further research, development, and testing to accelerate this initiative.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62384BP for STIMAL.

Biological defense homeland security test bed

The budget request included $485.1 million for Department of

Defense (DOD) homeland security initiatives requested by the Office of Homeland Security: the biological counterterrorism research

program and the biological defense homeland security support program. The committee understands that the objective of the biological defense homeland security support program is to initiate a comprehensive pilot program to build a National Biological Defense

System for the Office of Homeland Security. The program will create and deploy a national, multi-component, multi-organization defense capability that is targeted to protect urban areas, other highvalue assets, and special events; and to provide an integrated

homeland security capability designed to detect, mitigate, and respond to biological-related incidents. The committee notes that the

Department’s fiscal year 2003 plans for the program include establishment of a fully equipped DOD test bed in each of the military

234

departments, an enhanced chemical-biological monitoring system in

the National Capitol Region, and an initial biological surveillance

and monitoring capability in two additional urban areas.

The committee understands that the pilot project to increase

chemical biological defense capabilities at DOD installations will

equip nine diverse DOD installations selected by the military departments with state-of-the-art contamination avoidance, protection

and decontamination equipment, enhanced emergency response capabilities for consequence management, and an integrated command and control network. The project will also include a comprehensive training and exercise plan for each installation.

The committee notes, however, that the criteria and process for

selecting the locations of, and establishing the two urban area test

beds have not been determined.

The committee believes that the Department of Defense should

proceed promptly with a pilot program for establishing the two

urban area test beds to provide the capability to develop, test, validate and deploy technologies and systems that will provide for increased homeland security. The committee also believes that selection of the sites for these test beds should take into account the factors of the potential biological threat to the area, geography, transportation and other critical infrastructure networks, military and

government presence. Other criteria should include previously established crisis and consequence response capabilities, industrial,

medical, and academic activities, and the availability of state, regional, local governmental, and non-governmental activities that

would participate in the test bed.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a

competitive program for selection of urban area test beds in the biological defense homeland security support program. The committee believes that the regional biological defense network will

serve as a national model to develop and promote integrated solutions to secure America’s borders, support first responders and defend against bioterrorism.

C3I intelligence programs

The budget request contained $75.7 million in PE 35190D8Z and

$5.6 million in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) for

C3I intelligence programs.

The committee notes that the program has a very significant increase over the prior year, due to a new program called horizontal

fusion. This program has insufficient program definition associated

with it.

The committee recommends a decrease of $34.0 million in PE

35190D8Z for C3I intelligence programs.

Combat sent data distribution upgrade

The budget request included $4.6 million in PE 35207G for

manned reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for the

Combat Sent data distribution upgrade.

The committee is aware that Combat Sent does not have a high

data-rate communications link to allow near real-time distribution

of data to theater commanders and analysis centers.

235

The committee recommends $12.9 million in PE 35207G, an increase of 8.3 million for the Combat Sent data distribution upgrade.

Combating terrorism technology support

The budget request contained $49.0 million in PE 63122D8Z for

the combating terrorism technology support program. The program

develops technology and prototype equipment that address DOD,

interagency, and international technology requirements for combating terrorism.

Lightweight biological detectors

The committee notes a number of competing technologies for development of portable, light-weight, biological-detection and identification systems that are capable of rapidly detecting and positively

identifying a broad range of biological agents and other organisms.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63122D8Z to accelerate the competitive development and evaluation of these systems.

Chemical-biological electrostatic decontamination system

The committee notes that the electrostatic decontamination system is a photosensitive, electrostatically charged mist, which when

sprayed onto a contaminated surface and illuminated with ultraviolet light destroys the chemical or biological agents that are

present. Successful development and demonstration of the electrostatic decontamination system could result in a field expedient decontamination capability that would be less dependent on water

and would not require the deployment of post-decontamination

waste disposal equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE

63122D8Z to continue the development and evaluation of the electrostatic decontamination system.

Facial recognition technology

Given the rise in the number of terrorist attacks against Americans, the committee remains committed to anti-terrorism efforts

and biometrics technology in particular. The committee notes the

potential force protection applications and surveillance benefits of

facial recognition technology and is aware of ongoing operational

testing in this field.

The committee understands that further development in this

area is necessary to improve both image quality and automatic recognition performance rates.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63122D8Z for facial recognition technology.

Magnetic quadrupole resonance explosives detection

The committee notes the development, demonstration, and employment of scanning explosive detection systems that use magnetic quadrupole resonance technology to detect the presence of explosives in luggage and mail with a greatly enhanced detection

probability and reduced false alarm rate.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63122D8Z to accelerate the development and evaluation of magVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
236

netic quadrupole resonance technology for screening of personnel

for the presence of explosives and to extend the application of the

technology to the screening of cargo and vehicles.

Commercial imagery to support military requirements

The budget request supported purchase of commercial imagery,

products and services in support of national intelligence and military needs.

The committee believes real progress has been made in the past

year with respect to understanding the desirability of integrating

commercial remote sensing into the national architecture.

However, the committee believes that insufficient progress has

been made by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central

Intelligence in achieving the goals outlined by Congress in its fiscal

year 2002 direction on this subject. Given the lateness of last year’s

defense bills, the committee appreciates the difficulty in complying

fully with last year’s direction. Nevertheless, the committee is

genuinely disturbed by reports that the process for development

and implementation of the commercial imagery strategy called for

may now be on hold.

The committee also questions the wisdom and cost effectiveness

of continued investment in government infrastructure for imagery,

products and services that would likely be contracted out by 2005

on implementation of the desired commercial strategy. This area

will receive increased scrutiny by the committee.

Finally, the committee is not satisfied with the geospatial readiness of our troops. There is no reason for them to not have the best

geospatial products based on the most current geospatial data

available in the United States today. Regrettably, they do not.

Complex systems engineering

The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63704D8Z for

special technical support, but included no funds for complex systems engineering.

The committee is aware that multi-view data standards are

being developed for an integrated digital design environment supporting complex systems design. The committee is also aware that

this project is developing common data formats to permit data from

advanced computer-based system design and analysis tools in use

by DOD to be efficiently integrated, eliminating the costly and

time-consuming manual interface that is standard today. The committee notes the significant success achieved in the development of

the multi-view data framework and supports its application to additional pilot efforts.

The committee recommends $17.0 million in PE 63704D8Z, an

increase of $5.8 million for complex systems engineering.

Computer science and internet security degree program

The budget request contained $394.3 million in PE 33140G for

information systems security programs, but included no funds for

the computer science and internet security degree program.

The committee notes that there is an increasing dependency

within the Department of Defense on the internet. This reality has

generated a growing need for individuals who are highly trained in

237

computer and internet security tools and procedures necessary to

protect systems from attack.

The committee recommends an increase of $750 thousand in PE

33140G for the computer science and internet security degree program.

Defense agency science and technology funding

The budget request contained $9,677.2 million for defense science

and space technology, including all defense-wide and military service funding for basic research, applied research, and advanced development.

The committee notes that this amount represents an increase of

$919.5 million, or 10.5 above the amount requested for the fiscal

year 2002 budget, and 2.7 percent of the budget request. However,

the committee also notes that the amount requested for science and

technology is a decrease of $199.3 million from the amount provided by Congress for fiscal year 2002. The committee commends

the Department of Defense commitment to a goal of 3 percent of

the budget request for the defense science and technology program

and progress toward this goal.

The committee views defense science and technology investments

as critical to maintaining U.S. military technological superiority in

the face of growing and changing threats to national security interest around the world, and believes that both the defense agencies

and the military departments have vital roles in DOD’s science and

technology investment strategy. Defense agencies focus on science

and technology specific to the particular agency or, in the case of

DARPA, on problems of national-level problems, operational dominance, and exploitation of high-risk, high-payoff technology. The

military departments’ science and technology programs focus on

the development and transition of more mature technologies into

future weapons systems.

The committee notes that the defense-wide science and technology account increased over 14 percent while the Air Force account increased over 5 percent and the Army and Navy science and

technology accounts each decreased more than 21 percent (over

$400 million each). Although the committee is pleased with the

overall progress in the defense science and technology program, the

committee continues to be disturbed by the continuing trend of

overall reduction in the military departments’ science and technology program in comparison to significant increases in the Defense-wide science and technology account and in the amount budgeted for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),

in particular. The committee concern is not directed at the content

of the DARPA program, but rather on the Department’s continuing

trend of placing higher priority on defense agency science and technology programs at the expense of the already inadequate service

research and development budgets. The committee believes that

the Department has not provided sufficient justification to support

these imbalances in funding levels between defense agencies and

the services, and, therefore, recommends correcting these imbalances by reductions in the DARPA accounts that appear to show

disproportionate growth and distribution of those funds among

service science and technology projects.

238

The committee recommends the reductions in the program elements listed:

[In millions of dollars]

61101E—Defense research science ................................................................. 12.0

62301E—Computing systems and communications technology .................. 50.0

62712E—Materials and electronics technology ............................................. 50.0

63285E—Advanced aerospace systems .......................................................... 50.0

The committee directs that the reduction of $50.0 million in PE

62301E not be assessed against DARPA Information Awareness Office programs.

Defense counterintelligence programs

The budget request contained $60.7 million in PE 35146D8Z for

classified programs-C3I, but included no funding for an initiative

to accelerate efforts to support specific counterintelligence awareness efforts.

Additional details are contained in the classified annex to this report.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

35146D8Z for the Defense counterintelligence programs initiative

Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research

The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 61114D8Z for

the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR).

The committee is aware that DEPSCoR is helping to improve our

nation’s science and technology capability through funding of meritreviewed research activities at universities in 21 states and Puerto

Rico. The committee notes that these programs help individuals,

institutions and states improve their research capabilities and to

become more competitive for other funding sources.

The committee recommends $19.9 million in PE 61114D8Z, an

increase of $10.0 for DEPSCoR.

Defense imagery and mapping program

The budget request contained $143.5 million in PE 35102BQ for

the Defense imagery and mapping program. The committee is concerned that promising projects are under-funded. Additional details

are found in the classified annex to this report.

The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million in PE

35102BQ for the Defense imagery and mapping program.

Defense manufacturing supply chain management

The budget request contained $25.5 million in PE 63712S for logistics research and development technology demonstration.

The committee notes defense industry concerns about reducing

lead time and increasing the quality of procured parts and equipment from their respective supply chains as a strategy to deliver

weapons systems to their Department of Defense customers on

time and on budget. These concerns extend to hard-to-find and obsolete spare parts and equipment.

The committee recommends $27.0 million in PE 63712S, an increase of $1.5 million to develop and demonstrate an integrated,

multi-state, virtual defense manufacturing supply chain pilot capability.

239

Defense travel system

The budget request contained $30.4 million in PE 65124D8Z for

the defense travel system.

The committee notes that the budget request for the defense

travel system increased precipitously and believes that the last

year’s level is sufficient.

The committee recommends $20.4 million in PE 65124D8Z, a decrease of $10.0 million for the Defense travel system

Enhanced techniques for the detection of explosives

The budget request contained $33.6 million in PE 63228D8Z for

physical security equipment research and development.

The committee notes that the detection of explosives is a major

concern. Standoff detection of hidden or buried ordnance, including

improvised explosive devices, landmines, unexploded ordnance, is

critical in mitigating the risk and increasing the safety of military

and civilian personnel involved in the clearance of landmines and

unexploded ordnance, explosive ordnance disposal operations and

the response of security forces to an incident. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63228D8Z for multidisciplinary research in the development of advanced technologies for the detection of explosives, improvised explosive devices, landmines, and unexploded ordnance that will lead

toward the development of cost effective, highly reliable, computer

integrated explosive detection systems.

Environmental security technical certification program

The budget request contained $28.3 million in PE 63851D8Z for

the Environmental Security Technical Certification Program.

The committee believes that budget justification documents support funding at the previous year’s level, but the 40 percent increase requested is not sufficiently justified. The committee recommends $20.3 million in PE 63851D8Z, a decrease of $8.0 million for the Environmental Security Technical

Certification Program.

Integrated optoelectronics technology

The budget request contained $440.5 million in PE 62712E for

applied research in materials and electronics technology.

The committee notes the potential for advances in high capacity

interconnects, innovative chip scale technologies, advanced

microelectromechanical systems, and miniaturization and integration of optical systems that would enable the development of advanced optoelectronics devices for defense and other applications. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62712E for applied research in integrated optoelectronics technology.

Interdisciplinary biological nanoscience research

The budget request included $175.6 million in PE 61101E for

multidisciplinary science basic research, and included $9.3 million

for specific research in nanostructure biology.

The committee views the Nanostructure in Biology program as

potentially providing new and unprecedented opportunities to exploit a wide range of bio-functionality in a number of military apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
240

plication areas, including chemical and biological sensing,

diagnostics, and therapeutics. Potential innovations in this area include the development of algorithms for real-time atomic level resolution of molecules. Such resolution techniques could provide

unique threat countermeasures, biomolecular sensors and motors,

drug delivery devices, and advanced wound healing techniques, all

sharing the potential for providing far-reaching applications in future battlefield environments.

The committee notes the ongoing research involving

nanospheres, nano-biosensors, and multi-crystal equipment, and

encourages further work in this area for detecting cytotoxicity. The

committee recognizes the unique benefit of interdisciplinary studies

and strongly supports further investment in this area.

The committee recommends $10.8 million in PE 61101E for the

Nanostructure Biology program, an increase of $1.5 million, for

interdisciplinary biological nanoscience research.

Joint technology office

The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 63924D8Z for

high energy laser advanced technology programs.

The committee understands the challenges of developing high energy lasers for weapons applications. The committee is encouraged

by the progress demonstrated in some of the large and more visible

demonstration programs, but believes it necessary to proceed on a

broad front to develop the full range of technologies required to

bring directed energy to the battlefield.

The committee recommends $28.6 million in PE 63924D8Z, an

increase of $15.0 million.

Kinetic energy-anti satellite system

The budget request contained no funding in PE 63XXXD8Z for

kinetic energy-anti satellite (KE–ASAT) system.

The committee notes that the kinetic energy-anti satellite system

is to develop an option for space control, a critical capability for future space operations.

The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE

63XXXD8Z for the kinetic energy-anti satellite system.

Medical free electron laser

The budget request contained no funding in PE 62227D8Z for the

ongoing medical free electron laser (MFEL) program and recommended transfer of program management to the National Institutes of Health.

The committee is aware that the MFEL program has been a good

example of a peer-reviewed program that is oriented toward military medical applications. The committee believes that the MFEL

program transfer was inappropriate and supports MFEL retention

within DOD.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense not to transfer

the MFEL program and recommends $15.0 million in PE 62227D8Z

for MFEL.

241

Multi-function self-aligned gate

The budget contained $11.9 million in PE 35206G for manned reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for multi-function selfaligned gate (MSAG) tile antenna technology.

The committee believes that MSAG has the potential to revolutionize antenna design and result in significant improvement in

data rates to meet rapidly escalating demand for information exchange in the new digital warfare environment. The committee recommends $14.9 million in PE 35206G, an increase of $3.0 million for the development and demonstration of

MSAG tile antenna technology.

Multi-link antenna system

The budget request contained $199.6 million in PE 63750D8Z for

advanced concept technology demonstrations, but included no funds

for the multi-link antenna system (MLAS).

The committee notes that MLAS technology has demonstrated

communications using small arrays, and is at the point in development at which a larger, full-scale demonstration is appropriate.

The committee is aware that the multi-link antenna system advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) has been planned

and approved by the Secretary of Defense. The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million in PE

63750D8Z for the multi-link antenna system ACTD.

National collaborative environment

The committee, in the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107), directed the Secretary of

Defense and Director of Central Intelligence to develop a proposed

architecture for a national collaborative environment. The committee is aware that the ongoing war against terrorism has increased the need for such a capability.

The committee notes, with pleasure, that the Secretary of Defense has initiated a well-staffed program through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop the fundamental architecture, technologies and tools necessary to enable a

national collaborative environment. The committee realizes that architectural studies may well impact the direction and effort of the

DARPA program, and requests the Secretary of Defense to ensure

that the Director, DARPA is a full participant in those study efforts

and is made fully aware of all related work within the Department.

The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to

provide continued support for this vital DARPA program and the

ultimate establishment of a national collaborative environment.

‘‘Smart’’ fuzing

The committee believes the United States should make every effort to reduce the susceptibility of friendly forces and non-combatants to accidental death or injury—including that which results

from inappropriate contact with unexploded ordnance—without impairing military effectiveness, capability, or mission accomplishment. Hence, the committee recommends the Department of Defense place greater priority on the development of affordable and

effective submunition fuses that have reliability rates comparable

to those found in unitary munitions fuzing, thus increasing perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
242

formance of these munitions while reducing the danger of

unexploded ordnance to friendly forces and non-combatants. The

committee also encourages the continued development of ‘‘smart’’ landmines with higher reliability and performance rates.

Spike urban warfare system

The budget request contained $6.7 million in PE 116401BB, for

special operations technology development, but included no funds

for the Spike urban warfare system.

The committee is aware that enhancements are required for

shoulder fired guided missiles, and improvements to the guidance

system in order to better defeat hard targets and reduce collateral

damage in an urban environment. The committee recommends $11.7 million in PE 116401BB, an

increase of $5.0 million for the Spike urban warfare system.

Strategic environmental research and development program

The budget request contained $60.5 million in PE 63716D8Z for

the strategic environmental research and development program

(SERDP).

The committee notes that insufficient budget specific justification has been provided for SERDP including an $11.0 million increase

over the level of funding projected for fiscal year 2003 in the fiscal

year 2002 amended budget request. The committee recommends $30.5 million in PE 63716D8Z, a decrease of $30.0 million for the Strategic Environmental Research

Program.

Tactical missile recycling

The budget request contained $8.9 million in PE 63104D8Z for explosives demilitarization technology, and included $5.8 million

for tactical missile recycling.

The committee is aware that the explosive demilitarization technology program is a cooperative interservice, interagency effort focused as the sole Department of Defense program dedicated to the

development of safe, efficient, and environmentally acceptable processes for resource recovery and recycling or disposition of strategic,

tactical, and conventional munitions including explosives and rocket motors.

The committee recommends $11.9 million in PE 63104D8Z, an

increase of $3.0 million for tactical missile recycling technology.

Thermobaric warhead development

The budget request contained $77.4 million in PE 63160BR for

development and demonstration of counterproliferation advanced

technologies.

The committee notes the effectiveness of thermobaric materials,

a new class of explosives that demonstrate impressive capabilities

for generation of pressure and thermal effects much greater than

conventional high explosives. Weapons employing thermobaric warheads were developed rapidly and employed with great effectiveness in support of tunnel defeat operations in the war on terrorism

in Afghanistan. The committee also notes the progress being made

in the development and demonstration of advanced thermobaric

warheads in the on-going thermobaric warhead advanced concept

243

technology demonstration lead by the Defense Threat Reduction

Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63160BR for thermobaric warheads advanced technology development. The committee recommends continued close coordination of

the DTRA program with the Navy’s insensitive munitions program

and the Army’s advanced warheads development program.

Unmanned aerial vehicles major acquisition programs

The committee is aware that recent successful operational employment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) has heightened military service efforts to develop and field several new variants, with

additional capabilities. The committee notes that though the budget request has rapidly increased overall funding for UAVs, formal

acquisition management documentation is incomplete or not yet developed in many instances.

The committee expresses its concern about proper program management elsewhere in this report, and is specifically concerned that

UAV programs adhere to the same standards as other acquisition

programs. The committee recognizes the necessity for and benefit

of acquiring a robust family of UAVs, but believes that the Secretary of Defense and military service Secretaries must ensure that

the programs are managed well, to prevent unanticipated cost

growth and schedule delays experienced by other new systems. The

committee notes that while the acquisition per unit cost may be

relatively small, in the aggregate, the acquisition cost rivals the investment in other larger weapon systems.

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview

The budget request contained $222.1 million for Operational Test

and Evaluation RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization

of $222.1 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Operational Test and Evaluation RDT&E program are identified in the

table below. Major changes to the Operational Test and Evaluation

request are discussed following the table.

244

245

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations

This section would establish RDT&E funding levels for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002.

Section 202—Amount for Basic and Applied Research

This section would establish basic and applied research funding

levels for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002.

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 211–RAH–66 Comanche Aircraft Program

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from obligating any of the funds in fiscal year 2003 for engineering and

manufacturing development of the RAH–66 Comanche aircraft program until the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a report, prepared in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, containing an accurate estimate of funds to complete engineering and

manufacturing development and the new restructured timeline for

bringing the aircraft to initial operational capability.

This provision would also impose a cost cap on the total cost of

engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), require an annual report by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD

IG) that would assess the progress of EMD and its prospect of completion under the cost cap, and allow adjustments to the cost cap

for economic inflation and compliance with laws enacted after September 30, 2002. The annual report would be required until EMD

is complete. Finally, the provision would limit the obligation of

funds authorized to be appropriated for each year to 90 percent

until the DOD IG annual report is submitted.

Section 212—Management Responsibility for Navy Mine

Countermeasures Programs

This section would amend section 216 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102–

190) and would extend the implementation of the Management Responsibility for Navy Mine Countermeasures programs through fiscal year 2008.

The committee believes that the requirement that the Secretary

of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provide

an annual certification of the adequacy of the Navy’s mine countermeasures program has had a positive impact on the program, increasing the visibility of and attention paid to the program by officials in the Department of Defense and the Navy. The committee

notes the direction contained in the committee report on H.R. 3616

(H. Rept. 105–532) that the annual certification by the Secretary

of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff address

the adequacy of funding for the mine countermeasures program for

the budget year through the end of the future years defense proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
246

gram and also include objective measures against which the Navy’s

progress in enhancing its mine countermeasures capabilities can be

evaluated.

Section 213—Extension of Authority To Carry Out Pilot Program

for Revitalizing the Laboratories and Test and Evaluation Centers of the Department of Defense

Section 246 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) authorizes the

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program for revitalizing the

laboratories and test and evaluation centers of the Department of

Defense with the objective of improving cooperative relationships

for the performance of research and development with universities

and other private sector entities. This provision would amend section 246 to add the demonstration of improved efficiency in the performance of the research, development, test, and evaluation functions of the Department of Defense to the objectives of the pilot

program and would also extend the authorization for the program

until March 1, 2008.

Section 214—Revised Requirements for Plan for Manufacturing

Technology Program

This provision would amend section 2525(e) of title 10, United

States Code, to reduce the requirement for update and submission

to Congress of the five-year plan for the Department of Defense

(DOD) Manufacturing Technology Program from annually with the

submission of the DOD budget to biennially. The amendment

would also delete the requirement including in the report an annual assessment of program effectiveness and an annual assessment of the extent to which the costs of manufacturing technology

projects are being shared.

Section 215—Technology Transition Initiative

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense, acting

through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, to carry out an initiative to facilitate the

rapid transition of new technologies from DOD science and technology programs into DOD acquisition programs. The initiative

would be managed by a senior official in the Office of the Secretary

of Defense, who would be assisted by a board of directors composed

of the acquisition executives of the military departments, the members of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and the commander of the Joint Forces Command; and who would be responsible for identifying promising technology that have been demonstrated in DOD science and technology programs, identify potential sponsors and establish management agreements for the transition of such technologies into production, and provide not less that

fifty percent of the funding for recommended projects that are selected for such funding support. The provision would also require

the Secretary to establish a panel of highly qualified scientists and

engineers to advise the Under Secretary on matters relating to the

initiative.

The provision would further require that the amount requested

for activities of the initiative shall be set forth in a separate proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
247

gram element within amounts requested for Defense-wide research,

development, test, and evaluation activities. The committee expects

that the Secretary of Defense will establish a funding planning

wedge for the Technology Transition Initiative program in the future years defense plan.

The committee notes that the Technology Transition Initiative

established pursuant to Sec. 215 does not replace, but complements

the responsibility of the senior acquisition executives of the Department of Defense and the military departments and the heads of the

Defense agencies with research and development responsibilities

under section 5358, title 10, United States Code (section 904, Public Law 106–301) to ensure that the science and technology programs under their authority are carried out in such manner that

will foster the transition of science and technology to higher levels

of research, development, test, and evaluation.

Section 216—Defense Acquisition Challenge Program

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program, the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program,

to provide a person, institution, industrial corporation, or activity

within or outside the Department of Defense the opportunity to

propose the insertion of unique and innovative technologies (‘‘challenge proposals’’) at the component, subsystem, or system level of

an existing DOD acquisition program that, compared to the incumbent component, subsystem, or system, would result in substantially superior improvements in performance, affordability,

manufacturability, or operational capability of that acquisition program.

The provision would require the Secretary to establish procedures under which challenge proposals would be submitted for review and evaluation by a panel of scientists and engineers established under the auspices of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics). The committee believes that

these procedures should provide for the solicitation of component,

subsystem, or system-level technologies that, if incorporated in the

appropriate defense acquisition program would result in substantial improvements in the program and could be transitioned rapidly

into a fielded program, a block change, or a spirally developmental

increment. The committee expects that the review panel would

take a ‘‘best value’’ approach that encompasses consideration of

such criteria as potential improvement in performance, affordability, manufacturability, and operational capability. Those proposals with merit would be requested to submit a proposal to be

reviewed by the government program office and the prime system

contractor for the impacted program. The program office-prime contractor team would then conduct an independent review of the merits of the challenge proposal, including whether the challenge proposal is likely to result in improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, or operational capability at the component, subsystem, or system level of the applicable acquisition program and whether the challenge proposal could be implemented

rapidly in the program through changes in fielded systems, through

block changes to the component, subsystem, or system, or through

a spiral development increment. Each challenge proposal determined under a favorable full review and evaluation by the program

248

office and prime contractor to satisfy the criteria outlined above

would then be considered by the prime system contractor for incorporation into the acquisition program as a new technology insertion

at the component, subsystem, or system level.

The committee believes that the challenge program could provide

an excellent avenue for accelerating the introduction of new and innovative technology into defense acquisition programs and that appropriate incentives, such as share-in-saving or other appropriate

incentives, should be established to encourage the program office

and the prime contractor to adopt successful challenge proposals

that meet the criteria outlined above.

SUBTITLE C—BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Section 231—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Procurement of

(PAC–3) Missiles Pending Submission of Required Certification

This section would prevent obligation of funds for procurement of

PAC–3 pending submission to the congressional defense committees of criteria for the transfer of missile defense programs from

the Missile Defense Agency to the military departments, and certification by the Secretary of Defense that those criteria have been

met for the PAC–3 program. The criteria and certification are required by sections 224(b)(2) and 224(c), respectively, of title 10,

United States Code.

Section 232—Responsibility of Missile Defense Agency for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Related to System

Improvements of Programs Transferred to Military Departments

This section would amend Section 224(e) of title 10, United

States Code to require the Director of the Missile Defense Agency

to retain responsibility for research, development, test, and evaluation related to improvements of missile defense systems and system components that have been transferred to the military departments for procurement and fielding.

Section 233—Amendments To Reflect Change in Name of Ballistic

Missile Defense Organization to Missile Defense Agency

This section would amend a number of provisions of permanent

law to reflect the name change of the ‘‘Ballistic Missile Defense Organization’’ or ‘‘BMDO’’ to the ‘‘Missile Defense Agency’’ or ‘‘MDA’’.

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

OVERVIEW

The budget request for operation and maintenance represents an increase of $22.7 billion over spending levels authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2002. Of this increase, $13.8 billion has been

included for the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF), and

$3.3 billion represents the cost for Department of Defense civilian

employees health care and retirement accrual funding. The remaining $5.6 billion, which represents three percent of the operation

and maintenance budget request, is allocated to what the Department has termed ‘‘realistic budgeting’’ and inflation. As detailed

elsewhere in the report, $10.0 billion of the DERF, and the $3.3 bilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
249

lion for the civilian employees accrual funding have not been included in the committee’s recommendations.

Although the budget request has been portrayed as the largest

increase in defense spending in many years, the reality is that

there are little, if any, real increases. The committee is concerned

with the Department’s ability to achieve acceptable readiness in

the military services. The proposed level of funding, coupled with

the need to fight a war, and $25.4 billion in unfunded requirements

identified by the chiefs of the military departments for fiscal year

2003, suggests that adequate military readiness will be difficult to

sustain in the long term. Not only is there concern for sustaining

adequate readiness for the duration of the current conflict, but also

a looming concern for the inevitable reconstitution of our forces

when the war has concluded. Many of the Department’s combat

weapons systems are long past their initial design lifespan, and

there are only a few replacement systems on the drawing boards.

The committee notes the increased attention and recognition of

historic under-funding in many of the critical readiness accounts

with the application of realistic funding this year. Even this approach of realistic funding, however, may not sustain readiness at

acceptable levels. As an example, the budget request includes an

increase for ship depot maintenance of $621.2 million. This significant increase will not provide any additional ship repair over previous years, it will merely fund previously programmed ship repair

requirements and may negate the annual practice of re-programming and supplemental funding requests. Even with this laudable

attempt at realistic funding, the committee notes that the ship repair accounts are only funded at the 95 percent level.

The committee conducted a series of hearings in an effort to obtain a more accurate and detailed assessment of current and nearterm readiness from senior DOD civilian and military leaders. As

it has been for the past several years, the overwhelming impression

left on the committee was of an overextended force struggling to

maintain acceptable readiness levels in a wartime environment

coupled with domestic terrorism concerns. The committee continues

to hear complaints about lack of spare parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure, growing equipment and facility backlogs, and

the difficulties of conducting quality training and operational deployments with significant personnel shortages. The committee

notes that within the fiscal years 01, 02, and 03 DERF accounts,

over $4.0 billion has been dedicated for increased force protection

requirements. The committee applauds the Department for these

much needed security improvements and urges the Department to

assign the same level of effort to the other infrastructure needs of

the Department.

The committee notes that the Department has made some

progress, but must continue to take steps to reduce costs in nonreadiness related accounts. At the same time, the Department

must provide aggressive oversight over proposals to reduce costs

through contracting out and privatization. The committee is concerned with the apparent differing opinions between the Department and the Office of Management and Budget as to the need for

further mandated outsourcing studies. At the same time, the committee is aware that the Department has turned to strategic

sourcing as a means to make outsourcing decisions without the

250

need for prolonged studies. The committee is concerned that strategic sourcing may encompass consolidation, restructuring, privatization, and the outright termination of existing services, which

may produce short-term savings, but may prove to be more costly

in the future and may have an adverse impact on readiness. The

committee fully supports well developed and justified programs

that will reduce costs and prove over time to enhance readiness;

however, at a time when military readiness is critical for the successful prosecution of the war effort, the committee does not believe

the Department should conduct uncoordinated new programs.

Consistent with past practice, the committee has identified

spending that does not directly support readiness and has

reprioritized it into areas that will. In making decisions on how

best to apply resources to address readiness problems, the committee relied heavily on testimony received during extensive oversight hearings and on the unfunded priorities identified by the

service chiefs.

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENTS

The committee recommends the following adjustments to the fiscal year 2003 budget request:

[In millions of dollars]

Department of the Army Adjustments:

AIT/RFID Maintenance ............................................................................ +9.0

AIT/RFID Prepositioned Stocks .............................................................. +8.0

Army Aviation Warfighting Simulation Center ..................................... +4.0

Army Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS) ................................................. +8.0

Army Depot Apprenticeship Program ..................................................... +10.0

Army National Guard Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS) ..................... +4.0

Army National Guard Modular Sleep System ....................................... +10.0

Army Reserve Modular Sleep System .................................................... +6.0

Army Reserve Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS) .................................. +4.0

Army Reserve Military Technicians ....................................................... +8.0

Azur Blue Cannon Bore Cleaning System ............................................. +2.2

BA–4 BRAC Preparation Funds .............................................................. ¥24.1

BA–4 Global Command Support System ................................................ ¥5.0

Controlled Humidity Preservation .......................................................... +20.0

Corrosion Prevention and Control Program ........................................... +12.0

Electronic Maintenance and Point to Point Wiring ............................... +6.0

Hydration on the Move (CamelBak) ....................................................... +4.1

M–Gators ................................................................................................... +4.0

Training Range Modernizations .............................................................. +32.0

Transfers to H.R. 4547 ............................................................................. ¥14.4

USARSO Leasing Increases .................................................................... ¥2.55

Department of the Navy Adjustments:

AV–8B Engine Life Maintenance Program ............................................ +2.0

BA–3 IMET Funding ................................................................................ ¥4.93

BA–3 IMET Funding, USMC .................................................................. ¥1.33

Corrosion Control Program ATC Glass .................................................. +2.0

Hydration on the Move CamelBak .......................................................... +1.0

LHA Stability Improvement Alterations ................................................ +57.0

Navy Aviation Depot Apprenticeship Program ...................................... +6.0

Navy Shipyard Depot Apprenticeship Program ..................................... +6.0

Stainless Steel Sanitary Spaces .............................................................. +15.0

Navy Transfer to H.R. 4547 .................................................................... ¥5.3

Naval Sea Cadets ..................................................................................... +1.0

USMC Facility Restoration and Modernization ..................................... +31.0

USMC Transfers to H.R. 4547 ................................................................ ¥11.5

Uniting through Reading ......................................................................... +0.1

Department of the Air Force Adjustments:

Aging Propulsion Systems Life Extension .............................................. +7.0

Air Force Logistics System/L–SMART ................................................... +2.5

Air National Guard Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS) ......................... +4.0

B–1B Pivot Shear Replacement .............................................................. +80.0

BA–4 BRAC Preparation Funds .............................................................. ¥16.5

Combat Air Patrol Flying Hours ............................................................. ¥300.0

Hydration on the Move (CamelBak) ....................................................... +1.0

Office, Secretary of Defense Adjustments:

Impact Aid ................................................................................................ +35.0

Defense-wide Activities Adjustments:

CSRS/FEHBP Accrual Funding transfer out ......................................... ¥2,276.3

Defense Human Resources Activity ........................................................ ¥20.0

Defense Information Systems Agency .................................................... ¥37.0

DERF transfer to other accounts ............................................................ ¥6,213.3

Foreign Currency Account ....................................................................... ¥522.4

Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercise Program .................................................. ¥10.0

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ................................. ¥50.0

Washington Headquarters Service .......................................................... ¥10.0

TRICARE Prime Remote ......................................................................... +6.0

Marshall Island Diabetes Reversal/Wellness Program ......................... +2.0

National Guard Challenge ....................................................................... +2.5

National Guard Youth Foundation ......................................................... +2.5

281

Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions

Since the submission of the budget request, the U.S. dollar has

increased in value compared to various foreign currencies. As a result, the committee believes that the budget request is overstated.

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction in this account

of $522.4 million to be apportioned to the military services by the

Department of Defense.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises

The committee is concerned with the increasing pace of operations throughout the military services and the proposed Joint

Chiefs of Staff (JCS) training exercises program. The budget request includes an increase of $21.8 million for JCS training exercises. The committee believes that requirements for these additional training exercises will be levied against units that are already overextended with the execution of the war on terrorism,

other world-wide operational deployments, home station training

exercises, and training exercises at the services’ major combat

training centers. The committee questions whether the benefit of

additional JCS exercises, at this time, is worth the price paid by

units already suffering the effects of high operational tempo. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for the

JCS training exercises program.

BUDGET REQUEST DISPLAY ISSUES

Accrual Accounting for Civil Service Retirement and Health

Programs

The budget request proposed, for the first time, to include $3.3

billion for the costs of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS)

and the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program for

future retirees on an accrual basis in the accounts that pay the salaries of current civilian employees. Currently, these accrual accounts are funded by the Office of Management and Budget and

are paid from a general account of the U.S. Treasury. Specific legislation is required to accomplish this change in these mandatory accounts. The Congress has not acted on the required legislation and,

therefore, the committee recommends the continuation of the current practice of funding these accounts. The following represents

the total budget request for CSRS and FEHB that have not been

included in the committee’s recommendation:

[In millions of dollars]

Operation and Maintenance—Army .............................................................. 612.382

Operation and Maintenance—Navy ............................................................... 324.278

Operation and Maintenance—Marine Corps ................................................. 47.210

Operation and Maintenance—Air Force ........................................................ 531.055

Operation and Maintenance—Defense-Wide ................................................. 346.046

Operation and Maintenance—Army Reserve ................................................ 43.220

Operation and Maintenance—Navy Reserve ................................................ 6.227

Operation and Maintenance—Air Force Reserve .......................................... 55.365

Operation and Maintenance—Army National Guard ................................... 87.255

Operation and Maintenance—Air National Guard ....................................... 88.416

Office of the Inspector General ....................................................................... 8.275

Court of Military Appeals ............................................................................... 0.311

RDT&E—Army ................................................................................................ 98.161

RDT&E—Navy ................................................................................................. 5.565

282

RDT&E—Air Force .......................................................................................... 36.249

RDT&E—Defense-Wide ................................................................................... 14.688

Military Construction—Army ......................................................................... 26.083

Military Construction—Navy .......................................................................... 10.470

Working Capital Fund—Army ........................................................................ 109.042

Working Capital Fund—Navy ........................................................................ 373.228

Working Capital Fund—Air Force ................................................................. 122.365

Working Capital Fund—Defense Commissary Agency ................................ 27.589

Working Capital Fund—Defense-Wide .......................................................... 206.879

Family Housing—Army ................................................................................... 3.267

Family Housing—Defense Logistics Agency ................................................. 0.037

Defense Health Program ................................................................................. 126.230

Total ....................................................................................................... 3,309.893

Defense Emergency Response Fund

The budget request for operation and maintenance contained, for

the first time, a single entry for a transfer account entitled the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF), which is intended to be

used to support the efforts of the Department of Defense (DOD) to

respond to, or protect against, acts or threatened acts of terrorism

against the United States. Of the requested $20.1 billion for the

DERF, $10.0 billion is designated as incremental funding for ongoing operations in the War on Terrorism. The remaining $10.1 billion contained in the DERF transfer account is intended for enhancements and new initiatives identified to assist the Department

in force protection, munitions, military construction, security and

communications requirements, continuity of operations requirements, and for additional flying hours to support combat air patrols

within the United States.

In accordance with the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003, (H.Con. Res. 353), the $10.0 billion designated as incremental funding for ongoing operations in the war on terrorism has not been included in the committee’s recommendation.

The committee is concerned that maintaining a single transfer

account for the additional items needed by the military services to

increase security, and continue operations of the war on terrorism,

will be difficult to manage and, of greater concern, will be difficult

to audit. The committee notes that the Department provided detailed DERF justification materials based on the traditional appropriation account formats. Using this data, the committee has distributed all of the remaining DERF transfer account into the specific services’ accounts by budget activities and sub-activities

groups. The following shows the distribution of the DERF transfer

account to the traditional appropriations accounts:

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................. $ 3,847,048,000

Procurement ........................................................................................... 3,382,433,000

Research and Development ................................................................... 2,198,235,000

Military Construction ............................................................................ 594,384,000

Military Personnel ................................................................................. 32,900,000

Total ............................................................................................. 10,055,000,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) ISSUES

Overview

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence [ASD(C3I)] is a single position with

various roles and responsibilities, one of those roles being the DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00304 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
283

partment of Defense’s (DOD) Chief Information Officer (CIO).

Under title 10, United States Code, the DOD CIO is responsible for

reviewing budget requests; ensuring interoperability; ensuring federal and Department of Defense standards are prescribed; and

eliminating duplicative information technology and national security systems. The committee recognizes these are difficult and challenging responsibilities, yet these tasks are vital if DOD is to succeed in management reform and transformation.

The committee is aware of several dominant problems regarding

the purchase of information technology systems. These problems include the inability to aggressively control and manage user requirements; failure to integrate information technology reviews with

budget and financial decisions; difficulty in properly using performance based contracts; and promotion or endorsement of program

managers who do not have the varied skills necessary to run a successful information technology program.

Requirements

Information technology systems have the ability to improve dramatically the Department’s numerous administrative processes.

The committee believes that too often tremendous resources are

wasted on systems that do not meet the initial requirement for

which the systems were intended. Without proper oversight and aggressive leadership, management reform will suffer and cases, such

as described below, will prevail.

The committee recognizes that requirements setting and management are particularly difficult for those IT systems that are intended to be joint or defense wide. Evidence suggests that these IT

systems cannot move beyond the requirements phase without

strong leadership making difficult trade-offs among the various requirements. Without leadership, joint or defense wide systems duplicate military or agency unique systems rather than replace those

systems. Equally, a joint or defense-wide system often migrates

into a more unique system as the various agencies and military

services adapt the system to their individual requirements. One of

the more glaring examples of failure to minimize requirement

growth is the Standard Procurement System (SPS), a system touted as moving the procurement world into paperless contracting.

This system was stunted by the services’ and agencies’ insurmountable requirements and lack of Department leadership to arrest unnecessary requirements growth. The services and agencies

complained that their unique requirements were not being met and

independently changed the system to fit their own needs. The committee is aware of other problems with SPS, but believes requirements growth was one of the more significant problems. The Department committed over $320.0 million to this system prior to

Congress bringing SPS to a halt last year.

Budget Reviews

The committee believes that the Department of Defense has not

articulated or successfully integrated the CIO’s responsibilities

with budgeting and financial decisions. The committee believes the

opportunity for such integration presents itself with the Department’s recent commitment to a financial management modernization program.

284

The Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, is committed to

leadership and strong oversight over this program—which includes

the development, funding, and financing of the information technology systems under the modernization program. The committee

believes the Comptroller’s interest in information technology should

be captured and the Comptroller should have greater responsibility

and oversight over all information technology systems within the

Department of Defense. The committee believes that the need to integrate the CIO’s responsibilities with the Comptroller’s responsibilities is well within the foundation principles of the ClingerCohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–106).

Performance-based contracting

A major concern for the committee is the way in which the Department uses performance-based contracts, or task orders, for IT

services. The committee believes in the concept of payment for performance. When the Department chooses a performance based service contract for an IT system, the Department should design the

contract in a way that ties contractor payment with performance.

The committee believes that a performance metric, and thus payment, should be more than a delivery schedule. Payment should

also include an affirmative evaluation of whether the service or

product does in fact meet all of the contract objectives. Failure to

incentivize the contractor to perform as originally agreed in the

contract is a practice inconsistent with good management and good

business practice.

Program management

A successful IT program manager needs a strong and varied set

of skills and knowledge. Not only does the program manager need

acquisition experience, it is equally important to have technical and

functional knowledge. The technical experience is important in

evaluating the vendor product, understanding vendor progress, and

recognizing technical difficulties ahead. Functional knowledge is a

key to evaluating user requirements, recognizing the necessary degree of business re-engineering, and anticipating user concerns.

These three skills can be difficult to find in one program manager.

The committee believes, however, that at a minimum, the senior

program management team must incorporate all three varied

skills.

Defense Messaging System (DMS)

This system was originally intended to replace the automatic digital network (AUTODIN), a messaging system that DOD uses to

transmit messages ranging from unclassified to top secret, including sensitive compartmented information. Seven years after the

original DMS contract was awarded, and the expenditure of $647.0

million, the AUTODIN is still not in operation because, in part, top

secret and sensitive compartmented information cannot be transmitted with DMS. The committee believes this is just one of several

examples where after general requirements for an IT system have

been established, the Department has failed to provide the necessary leadership to manage and move the system in a positive and

successful direction. The committee strongly believes that without

proper oversight and aggressive leadership in this area, manageVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
285

ment reform will suffer and cases, such as demonstrated above,

will prevail.

Defense Integrated Military Human Resources Systems

The Department of Defense is attempting to develop and implement the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System

(DIMHRS), a single personnel and pay system that will support all

military personnel. The committee is concerned with the Department’s continued disparate efforts in the development of DIMHRS.

Information technology systems of this magnitude and importance

require uniform, rigid, and continuous oversight. The committee believes that such an oversight management structure is not in place.

In the budget request for fiscal year 2003, the committee received three different budget exhibits from the three organizations

that play a significant role in development of DIMHRS. None of the

three organizations were aware of the other submissions, or could

discuss information or data contained in the other’s submissions.

The program manager and program executive office could not even

explain the purpose or work of all four prime contractors working

for the program manager. The committee notes there are over 12

prime contracts under this initiative.

The committee has seen total confusion, a lack of communication,

and complete mistrust between the personnel community and the

pay community. The two sides do not support each other’s funding

requirements, user requirements, or testing procedures. This system will fail unless the Secretary of Defense takes immediate steps

to vastly improve the management structure of DIMHRS. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to obligate no funds appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for DIMHRS until a report is submitted

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. The report shall include: a statement of

the roles and responsibilities assigned to the Defense Human Resources Activity, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and

the Department of the Navy; all funds appropriated and obligated,

by appropriation, for DIMHRS since its inception; a list of each

prime contractor and the work to be performed under the contract;

a description of the pay and personnel module that will be used in

DIMHRS and a description of the testing each module underwent

and a statement whether the module can meet user requirements.

Global Command Support System—Army

In 1997, the Army initiated actions that would transform the

Army’s information technology (IT) support systems. This included

replacing 16 legacy IT systems with five modules. After spending

over $320.0 million on this system to date, nothing has been fielded

and no legacy systems have been turned off. In fact, the Army is

still attempting to implement the first, and admittedly easiest,

module. The committee is troubled by the amount of money and

time needed for initial fielding of the first and easiest module, and

is equally concerned with the Army’s decision to start development

of the second module, even before there is an Army decision about

whether the second module will be a commercial off the shelf product or a government developed product. In light of these concerns,

the committee recommendation includes a reduction of $5.0 million

for the Global Command Support System.

286

Supply Maintenance Aviation Reengineering Team

The Supply Maintenance Aviation Reengineering Team is one of

four enterprise resource planning initiatives within the Department of the Navy. Although the objectives of this plan have commendable goals, the committee is concerned with the Navy’s acquisition plan for this initiative. The Navy has awarded a performance

based contract for this initiative; however, at the same time, the

Navy is still developing performance measurements, quantifying

mission improvements, resource savings and mission benefits. In

addition, the Navy has informed the committee that it is still waiting for the contractor to document critical aspects of the project.

The committee urges the Navy to re-evaluate this initiative.

Warfighters Simulation System

The Warfighter Simulation system, initiated by the Department

of the Army in 1994, is intended to allow Army units world wide

to train in their local command posts using their assigned organizational equipment. The committee understands that no formal

cost benefit or return on investment analysis was ever performed

for this system. In April 2001, the system experienced a ‘‘schedule

breach’’. At that time, the milestone decision authority for this system directed that a revised acquisition program baseline be developed and cost position established. To date, neither is complete.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to not

obligate any funds for fiscal year 2003 for the Warfighter Simulation System until the military decision authority reviews the revised acquisition program baseline and cost position and determines it is appropriate to move forward with this program.

Wireless Priority Service

The budget request includes $101.0 million in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, and $73.0 million in the operation and maintenance request for the Defense Information Systems Agency to initiate and implement a priority wireless service whereby government officials can achieve priority access when using cellular

phones. Following White House guidance, the committee understands that the Department hopes to have priority access nationwide by December, 2003. However, the committee does not believe

that the Department has developed a realistic implementation

plan, and has not seen evidence that the Department can obligate

$73.0 million in the first quarter of fiscal year 2003. Therefore, the

committee recommends a reduction of $37.0 million for the Defense

Information Systems Agency.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Through a series of hearings, fact-finding trips and in-depth

briefings, the committee has received a growing number of reports

from the Department of Defense and the military services that

mandatory compliance with federal environmental laws is having

an increasingly adverse impact on their ability to fully utilize training ranges that are critical to maintaining military readiness. The

committee is concerned that maintaining military readiness is not

only necessary to insure national security, but especially critical for

the successful prosecution of the War on Terrorism.

287

During the past several months, the committee has had numerous meetings with representatives from the Department, the military services, federal environmental regulators, state regulatory organizations and representatives of the nonprofit environmental

community to consider their common and competing concerns regarding the impact on military readiness and national security

caused by compliance with various federal environmental laws. In

addition to meetings in Washington, D.C., the committee has visited numerous military facilities throughout the country to examine

the positive effects of compliance with environmental laws and regulations, as well as the adverse impact environmental compliance

is creating in other geographic areas, particularly in the context of

encroachment upon existing and available land which can be used

for military training and testing.

The committee is of the opinion that it is essential that all federal agencies, including the Department, be required to comply

with all federal environmental laws, including the Endangered

Species Act (Public Law 93–205), the Marine Mammal Protection

Act (Public Law 92–522), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Public

Law 93–300), the Clean Air Act (Public Law 88–206), and the

Clean Water Act (Public Law 92–500), to name a few. However,

due to its unique training and operational missions, the Department often faces unique challenges in balancing its obligations to

comply with these environmental laws and sustaining military

readiness. The ever increasing limitations and restrictions on lands

and waters which are currently set aside for military training exercises, as well as restrictions on the times and conditions under

which military training exercises can be conducted, are some examples of these environmental encroachment challenges.

For example, the Navy spends approximately $2.4 million each

year and is forced to close its shore bombardment range off the

California coast at San Clemente Island four days each week during the breeding season due to the presence of a bird called the loggerhead shrike, an endangered species that inhabits the island.

When the shrike was initially listed as an endangered species on

San Clemente Island, the population was estimated to include only

13 birds. Today the population has grown to approximately 160

birds, of which approximately 70 birds are in the wild. The rest are

housed in the captive breeding programs on San Clemente Island

or at the San Diego Zoo, all at the expense of the Navy. To achieve

this environmental success, the Navy has found it necessary to reduce one of the island’s two firing ranges in size by 90 percent and

the other by 50 percent during the fire season. Although the shrike

population has increased dramatically, current laws establish no

goal at which restrictions on the Navy’s activities will be relaxed.

Similarly, at Fort Hood, Texas, one of the Army’s premier training installations, of approximately 200,000 training acres, 66,000

acres, or 33 percent, of the training land is committed to protect

the habitat of two endangered species. The presence of cultural artifacts restricts an additional 11 percent of Fort Hood’s training

area, and 128,000 acres have restrictions on digging, affecting 64

percent of the training area. Combined with additional restrictions

of smoke and noise, a total of 84 percent of Fort Hood’s available

training area is currently subject to some kind of limitation. The

288

committee notes that some type of encroachment problem exists at

nearly every military installation.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is an important environmental

statute that was enacted in 1918 to control the mass slaughter of

birds for commercial purposes. Under the statute, a federal agency

can obtain a permit to ‘‘take’’ migratory birds intentionally, such as

clearing large flocks of Canadian Geese from a landing field or golf

course. However, a federal court recently ruled that the Navy had

violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by accidentally taking migratory birds while conducting training at one of its facilities in

Guam without a permit to take migratory birds. The court recognized a paradox in that the statute prohibits the issuance of a permit to authorize unintentional takings during military readiness

activity. The committee recommends a provision that would amend

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to correct this paradox.

After several weeks of requesting that the Department communicate its environmental proposals to Congress, the Department delivered its proposed legislative language to the committee three

business days prior to the Readiness Subcommittee markup.

Among the requests received from the Department for relief of environmental encroachment was a proposal addressing encroachment of the Navy’s operational activities by creating a new definition of ‘‘harassment’’ under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The committee recognizes the need to balance important federal

environmental laws against the need to safeguard the Navy’s ability to maximize its readiness capabilities. The committee declined

to adopt a provision addressing the encroachment challenges created by the current language in the Marine Mammal Protection

Act due to the lack of a meaningful period during which the committee had to examine the long-term environmental impact of this

legislative provision. The committee recognizes that modifications

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act may be required to address

the Navy’s concerns and intends to continue its examination of this

matter in order to derive the correct legislative solution to this

issue.

It is not the intent of the committee to weaken or repeal any of

the existing federal environmental laws. The committee remains

committed to fully funding the environmental programs of the Department. This commitment is demonstrated through annual authorizations to the Department and the military services of approximately $4 billion for environmental programs. The committee

is similarly committed to preserving the invaluable natural resources that occupy the lands and seas upon which the military

services operate, including authorization of important research and

development projects with partners throughout the government

and environmental community.

The committee recommends several legislative provisions to promote a statutory balance between the need to preserve and protect

our invaluable natural resources and the equally important imperative to ensure national security

289

MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION ISSUES

Appropriated Fund Support for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

Programs

The committee has long supported robust appropriated fund support to Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs of the

Department of Defense and the military services. At the same time,

the committee believes that the Department should conduct efficient, self-supporting business activities that both provide a benefit

and some measure of income. The committee has discovered, however, that the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the resultant tightened security on military bases have had a devastating

impact on many installation MWR programs. Many business activities suffered significant financial losses as customers had difficulty

accessing base facilities and a substantial number of personnel deployed. In testimony before the committee, Department of Defense

officials stated that the Department was reviewing a proposal to

provide some measure of financial relief for affected programs. The

committee commends the Secretary of Defense for this initiative

and urges him to follow through and provide needed funds to these

important programs.

Defense Commissary Agency Funding and Staffing

The committee believes that the commissary benefit is one of the

most important non-pay benefits provided to military families. The

committee has learned in repeated family testimony and installation visits that the commissary store is a key element of a cohesive

military community, especially in times of crisis and major deployments. The committee is aware that the Defense Commissary

Agency (DECA) has embarked on an aggressive cost cutting campaign that will eliminate 2,650 civilian positions over a three-year

period. While the committee believes that all Defense agencies

should be operated at maximum efficiency, the committee has

heard testimony that these cuts may have gone too far, to the point

of jeopardizing service to the customer. The Secretary of Defense,

in testimony before the committee on February 6, 2002, committed

to maintain the present level of savings and customer service in

commissary stores, and the committee fully supports that objective.

There is dispute, however, on whether that commitment is being

fulfilled. To answer that question and help the committee and the

Department preserve this important benefit, the committee believes that an independent agency should be tasked to determine

whether an adequate level of funding and staffing will be maintained.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General to review the DECA budget, staffing plan, and customer satisfaction

survey methodology to determine the adequacy of the customer

service survey methodology and whether current levels of savings

and customer service can be maintained. The Comptroller General

shall report his findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services not later than

March 1, 2003. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to moderate the pace of these proposed personnel reductions

until the results of the Comptroller General review are available.

290

Force Protection for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is reviewing force protection standards for military installations. This

review includes overall base security, facility stand off distances

from installation perimeters, parking security, building engineering

upgrades and the like. The committee believes that Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) activities of all types should be included in this review. The committee is aware of instances where

major resale and other MWR activities are located outside the perimeter of a military installation. The committee affirms its long

held view that the protection of Department of Defense assets and

facilities, including MWR activities, wherever they may be located,

is a command responsibility that must be resourced with appropriated funds.

Support of Privatized Housing Areas

The committee supports the military services’ efforts to improve

military family housing through privatization initiatives. The committee has also acted to preserve the virtual monopoly of the military resale system on installations by prohibiting such projects

from including facilities that would compete with military commissaries, exchanges, or other Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

(MWR) programs. The committee provided that protection because

it believes that military communities are best served by military

resale activities. In order to continue to receive such protection, the

military services’ resale and MWR programs have an obligation to

aggressively support privatized housing with needed programs such

as shoppettes, child care centers, and other necessary facilities, especially if such housing is isolated from the parent installation.

OTHER ISSUES

Automatic Identification Technology/Radio Frequency Identification

The committee believes that equipment maintenance is a critical

requirement to achieving readiness. The Department of the Army

is developing depot level maintenance programs to re-capitalize

equipment and mitigate the impact of aging combat equipment.

The key to the maintenance process of these programs, is the ability to track and manage critical parts within the repair cycle process. Currently, the ability to accurately see the location of items in

the repair cycle is limited. Many items undergoing repair are often

lost, misrouted, or misplaced requiring procurement of a replacement part, or work being deferred until the part can be found. Either action results in production delays and increased repair costs.

The committee is aware of a promising automatic identification

technology that would enable the tracking and management of critical parts and equipment known as Radio Frequency Identification

(RF/ID) for maintenance. In January 2001, the Army successfully

concluded a pilot program using RF/ID to continuously track and

monitor critical and essential repair parts of selected major aviation components undergoing maintenance at their aviation depot.

In addition, the committee believes that every opportunity to obtain and employ technologies that will aid in Total Asset Visibility

(TAV) of all materiel in storage, transit, and from manufacturer or

291

vendor, to depots, through ports, afloat on the high seas, and in

land based storage sites. This is particularly important to optimize

the processes associated with the storage and shipment of pre-positioned stocks, sets, kits, and outfits stored throughout the globe to

support contingency requirements.

Because these new technologies have the potential to improve readiness, the committee recommends the addition of $8.6 million

for Maintenance RF/ID, and $7.9 million for Pre-Positioned Stocks

RF/ID. Procurement requirements for these systems are discussed

elsewhere in the report.

Cold Weather Clothing

The committee is aware that within the active and reserve components, there is a need for additional funding for the Extended

Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS), which is designed to provide protection during cold and wet weather. As an example, many

military units operating in harsh weather environments, including

Afghanistan, continue to provide individuals with obsolete cold

weather clothing that was designed and fabricated with 1970’s fabric technology and construction techniques. These critical protective

items, now approaching 25 years in the inventory, represent the

oldest and most inefficient items of clothing in use by soldiers in

the field. Faced with the dilemma of wearing the outmoded coldweather gear and being uncomfortable, many soldiers rely on personal outdoor wear to keep warm purchased from commercial

sources at their own expense. The committee believes that individual mobility, protection and comfort is a significant contributor

to the combat readiness of the individual war-fighter and would

significantly improve their quality of life. Therefore, the committee

recommends an increase of funding for ECWCS as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Army.................. ............................................................................................... 8.0

Army Reserve ............................... ................................................................... 4.0

Army National Guard ...................... .............................................................. 4.0

Air National Guard ......................... ............................................................... 4.0

Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities

The committee continues to believe that the Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) program, created by

the Department of Defense (DOD) in 1998 and designed to bring

the most modern and advanced manufacturing capabilities used

from commercial industry in DOD maintenance depots and related

maintenance activities, is of great value as a technology resource

and will have a positive effect on the efficiency and effectiveness

of DOD industrial activities. The CTMA program is in direct support of section 361 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) that required DOD to re-engineer industrial processes and adopt best-business practices at

their depot-level activities. Although DOD initially funded the

CTMA program in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to carry out the mandate of Section 361, it has failed to keep CTMA in its budget despite the strong support of the program by Congress and the depot

activities of the Department. Therefore, the committee recommends

the addition of $20.0 million for the Defense Logistics Agency to

continue the CTMA program at depot-level activities that will

292

lower operations and sustainment costs. The committee believes

the addition of these funds will allow depot-level activities to participate in manufacturing technology demonstration projects in collaboration with more than 220 of the leading U.S. manufacturers

and urges the Department of Defense to include funding for the

CTMA program in future budget requests.

Industrial Mobilization Capacity/Unutilized Plant Capacity

Industrial Mobilization Capacity (IMC)/Unutilized Plant Capacity

(UPC) funding at Department of the Army arsenals is required to

compensate the arsenals for the costs of that capability that is

maintained only for mobilization. If the arsenals were a private

business, they would get rid of this mobilization capacity and associated costs. The arsenals, however, have been directed to retain

this mobilization capacity. Absent direct IMC/UPC funding the arsenals would have to include these mandated mobilization costs in

their overhead rates. These inflated overhead rates would greatly

hamper the arsenals as they compete for work from outside the

Army as well as drive up production costs. The practical implication of not fully funding IMC/UPC has been costly to the arsenals.

The Congress has expressed its concern about the Army’s lack of

support of IMC/UPC for the past several years, including a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2001 (Public Law 106–398) to fully budget for IMC/UPC. The committee is aware that the budget request includes $24.8 million for

IMC/UPC for Rock Island Arsenal and $25.2 million for IMC/UPC

for Watervliet Arsenal. The committee congratulates the Secretary

of the Army for finally fully budgeting for this critical requirement

and expects the secretary to use the funding only for IMC/UPC

needs at the Army’s production arsenals.

Fuel Savings Technology

The United States uses more petroleum each year than the next

five largest consuming nations combined. Military fuel consumption

for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in America. Ten years after the end of the Cold War, over 70 percent of the

tonnage required to deploy Army combat units is fuel. Naval forces

depend each day on millions of gallons of fuel to operate around the

globe. The Air Force is the largest Department consumer, and

spends approximately 85 percent of its fuel budget to deliver, by

airborne tankers, just 6 percent of its annual jet fuel usage. Due

to unpredictable changes in fuel costs, the projected loss in the Department’s fuel account in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 is expected

to be approximately $1.2 billion.

The committee believes the Department should consider new

technologies to reduce the amount of required fuel. A report issued

by the Defense Science Board Task Force in January 2001 titled:

‘‘More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden’’, stated

‘‘High payoff, fuel-efficient technologies are available now to improve warfighting effectiveness in current weapon systems through

retrofit and by new systems acquisition’’. One of these new technologies to reduce fuel usage is a bolt-on fuel catalyst that treats

293

fuel prior to ignition and has shown remarkable reductions not

only in fuel usage, but also in engine emissions.

The committee is aware that a fuel catalyst system, designed for

diesel engines, has been tested over a 14 month period by the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton, California with results showing an

average 38.7 percent fuel economy and a 44.8 percent reduction in

certain engine emissions. This same technology was also tested by

the Navy Facilities Engineering Service Center onboard a Navy

vessel that resulted in a 39 to 50 percent reduction in exhaust pollution and a 21 percent reduction in fuel consumption. This new

technology would increase fuel efficiency resulting in substantial

cost savings on fuel, would extend vehicle range, and would reduce

the attendant logistical cost to supply fuel. The committee understands the cost of this new technology can be amortized in as little

as six months through fuel savings alone.

Given the magnitude of potential fuel savings and emissions reductions, the committee does not understand why the Department

has not taken advantage of this technology. The committee urges

the Secretary of Defense to take immediate steps for the application of this new technology as soon as practicable.

Energy Savings Performance Contracts

Authority for the Department of Defense to enter into Energy

Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) is contained in section 8287

of title 42, United States Code, and Executive Order 13123. Based

on this authority, the Department of the Air Force has entered into

numerous ESPCs. Under current Air Force policy, a single contractor is awarded an ESPC for each of the five regions, which

make up the continental United States. The committee believes

there could be instances where an installation is interested in entering into an ESPC, but the capabilities of the contractor assigned

to that region do not meet the installation’s requirements. The

committee, therefore, requests the Secretary of the Air Force to reevaluate its current policy of dividing the country into regions and

entering into only one ESPC per region.

Long Term Depot Strategy

The committee is concerned that the Air Force has not yet completed a long-term depot strategy. Over the past few years, the

committee has expressed a need for the Air Force to develop a

strategy that provides a roadmap for how the air logistics centers

will be used and supported in the future. While the committee is

pleased that the Air Force has made significant progress in developing such a strategy, the committee is concerned that the strategy

has not yet been finalized and looks forward to receiving, as soon

as possible, a completed long-term depot strategy that will identify:

(1) Future weapon systems and how they will be supported

in the depots,

(2) The plans for future investments in infrastructure and

technology to ensure that the depots are fully equipped and

resourced to support critical weapon systems, and

(3) The parameters of public-private partnerships to ensure

effective and efficient support of weapon systems for the Air

Force.

294

National Defense Sealift Fund Issues

The budget request contained $388.8 million for one T–AKE vessel in the National Defense Sealift Fund. The T–AKE is a Department of the Navy cargo and ammunition ship that provides at-sea

replenishment. Twelve T–AKE ships are planned for procurement

between fiscal years 2000 and 2007.

The committee notes that the previous future years defense program (FYDP) submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2001 included

two T–AKE ships in fiscal year 2004 but the FYDP for fiscal year

2003 includes only one ship in this year, and understands that

costs for T–AKE ships in fiscal year 2004 and later years are based

on the option that the Navy would procure two T–AKE ships in fiscal year 2004.

Since the committee understands that fixed-price contracts have

been awarded under the assumption that the Department of the

Navy would provide funding for two ships in fiscal year 2004 and

to deviate from that assumption would increase unit costs, it encourages the Navy to return to a funding profile that would exercise the option to procure two T–AKE ships in fiscal year 2004.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding

This section would authorize $129.8 billion in operations and

maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other activities and

agencies of the Department of Defense.

Section 302—Working Capital Funds

This section would authorize $2.4 billion for Working Capital

Funds of the Department of Defense.

Section 303—Armed Forces Retirement Home

This section would authorize $69.9 million from the Armed

Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed

Forces Retirement Home, including the Armed Forces Retirement

Home—Washington, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home—

Gulfport.

SUBTITLE B—ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Section 311—Incidental Taking of Migratory Birds During Military

Readiness Activity

This section would amend section 704 of title 16, United States

Code, to give the Department of Defense statutory authority under

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, P.L. 93–300, to obtain a permit for

incidental taking of birds during authorized military readiness activity.

295

Section 312—Military Readiness and the Conservation of Protected

Species

This section would amend section 1533 of title 16, United States

Code, (Public Law 93–205), to amend the Endangered Species Act

of 1973 to prohibit further designations of critical habitat for endangered species in areas for which an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan has been prepared under section 101 of

the Sikes Act, (Public Law 86–797). This section would also require

regulatory agencies to consider national security concerns in addition to economic impact prior to designating future areas of critical

habitat. This section would not annul existing critical habitat designations, but it would permit the Secretary of the Interior to exercise discretion to revise existing critical habitat designations on

military installations. No existing critical habitat can be revised,

however, if such action would result in the extinction of an endangered or threatened species.

Section 313—Single Point of Contact for Policy and Budgeting

Issues Regarding Unexploded Ordnance, Discarded Military Munitions, and Munitions Constituents

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish

a single point of contact in the Department of Defense for policy

and budgeting issues involving the characterization, remediation,

and management of explosive and related risks with respect to

unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions

constituents at defense sites that pose a threat to human health or

safety. The section would also permit the Secretary to establish an

independent advisory and review panel to report annually to Congress on progress made by the Department of Defense regarding

unexploded ordnance.

SUBTITLE C—COMMISSARIES AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND

INSTRUMENTALITIES

Section 321—Authority for Each Military Department To Provide

Base Operating Support to Fisher Houses

This section would amend section 2493 of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize the secretary of a military department to provide appropriated fund support to Fisher Houses associated with

the health care facilities of that military department. Currently,

only the Secretary of the Navy may provide such support. This provision would expand that authority to the Secretaries of the Army

and Air Force.

Section 322—Use of Commissary Stores and MWR Retail Facilities

by Members of National Guard Serving in National Emergency

This section would amend section 1063a of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize members of the national guard who are ordered

to non-federal service in response to a federally declared national

emergency to use commissary and exchange stores. Many members

of the national guard have been called to service in their states to

help secure the homeland in the War on Terrorism, and the comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
296

mittee believes that they should be authorized commissary and exchange privileges.

Section 323—Uniform Funding and Management of Morale,

Welfare, and Recreation Programs

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to permit

installation commanders to manage funds appropriated for installation Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs under the

procedures used for nonappropriated funds. In effect, the installation commander would be allowed to pool appropriated and nonappropriated MWR funds into a single nonappropriated fund account, resulting in greater flexibility and a more streamlined financial accounting system. The Department of Defense conducted a

successful test of this concept, and the committee believes adoption

of this initiative throughout the Department will increase the efficiency of MWR programs operated at the installation level.

SUBTITLE D—WORKPLACE AND DEPOT ISSUES

Section 331—Notification Requirements in Connection With Required Studies for Conversion of Commercial or Industrial Type

Functions to Contractor Performance

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to notify

Congress when the public sector maintains performance of a commercial function after competing against the private sector to determine which workforce could perform the work in the most efficient and effective manner.

Section 332—Waiver Authority Regarding Prohibition on Contracts

for Performance of Security-Guard Functions

This section would provide a waiver to section 2465(a) of title 10,

United States Code, which currently prohibits the contracting out

of security guard functions of the Department of Defense. The

waiver authority would allow the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department to contract for security guard functions if these functions are or will be performed by members of the

armed forces, and at locations where security-guard functions are

now required since September 11, 2001.

Section 333—Exclusion of Certain Expenditures From Percentage

Limitation on Contracting for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads

Currently, section 2474(f) of title 10, United States Code, excludes, until the year 2005, all work performed by non-federal personnel at Department of Defense maintenance and repair depots

from the percentage limitations (50/50) on contracting for depotlevel maintenance by the private sector. This provision would remove the date limitation. The committee believes that the date limitation impedes the ability of both the public and the private sectors to fully achieve the benefits of public-private partnerships.

297

Section 334—Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding Depot-Level

Maintenance and Repair Workloads That Were Performed at

Closed or Realigned Military Installations

This provision would repeal section 2469a of title 10, United

States Code, that addressed depot-level maintenance and repair

workloads that were performed at installations closed or realigned

under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990

(Public Law 101–510). All applicable installations have completed

closure or realignment actions and, therefore, section 2469a is no

longer necessary.

Section 335—Clarification of Required Core Logistics Capabilities

This provision would amend section 2464(a)(3) of title 10, United

States Code to change the definition of core logistics to include acquisition logistics, supply management, system engineering, maintenance, and modification management.

SUBTITLE E—DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION

Section 341—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees

This section would authorize $30.0 million for educational assistance to local education agencies where the standard for the minimum level of education within the state could not be maintained

because of the large number of military connected students. The

committee’s commitment to military children has provided much

needed boosts to the education of military children around the

country. Even so, the committee notes that the Department of Education impact aid program provides supplementary funds to eligible

school districts nationwide, and believes that the Department of

Education bears the principal responsibility for providing support

for the educational needs of the nation’s children.

Section 342—Availability of Quarters Allowance for Unaccompanied Defense Department Teacher Required To Reside on

Overseas Military Installation

This section would amend section 905 of title 20, United States

Code, to provide a method for the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) to reimburse the Department of the Navy

for the costs associated with making excess family housing available to unaccompanied DODEA teachers assigned to Guantanamo

Bay Naval Station, Cuba. The provision would also provide

DODEA with a needed incentive to attract and retain qualified

educators to accept employment at Guantanamo Bay.

Section 343—Provision of Summer School Programs for Students

Who Attend Defense Dependents’ Education System

This section would amend section 921 of title 20, United States

Code, to clarify that the Secretary of Defense may provide optional

summer school programs in the defense dependents’ education system at no cost to those students who would normally be entitled

to a free public education.

298

SUBTITLE F—INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Section 351—Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract

This provision would authorize the Department of the Navy to

expand the duration of the current contract for Navy Marine Corps

Intranet services from the current five years to seven years. The

committee believes that this extension is necessary for the continued success of this program.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(P.L. 106–398) authorized a phased implementation for the NavyMarine Corps Intranet. Under this approach, the first phase consisted of implementing and testing the first 15 percent of the total

number of seats to be provided under the contract. Although the

Navy agreed that this approach was reasonable, the following year

the Navy sought legislative relief. In response, Congress granted

Navy the authority to order 250,000 seats, over half the program,

before the operational testing of the original 15 percent was complete. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

(P.L. 107–107) granted this authority. The Department of the Navy

has recently notified the committee that it needs authority to

lengthen the duration of the original contract. The committee recognizes the enormous infrastructure the contractor has built and

implemented in order for the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet to be

successful. The committee believes it is appropriate for the contractor to have a longer period of time to recoup its investment

costs.

The committee, however, continues to have significant concerns

over this program. At this time, the primary concerns are cost and

funding. The budget request for NMCI is $1.4 billion. This funding

request, however, does not include the costs for maintaining legacy

systems, being connected to the SIPRNET, or to fund a transition

office. The committee is concerned these unfunded requirements for

fiscal year 2003 will exceed $600.0 million.

Section 352—Annual Submission of Information on National

Security and Information Technology Capital Assets

This provision would codify information and data the Department of Defense must supply Congress on information technology

systems. In the past, the committee has received information technology documents that describe the various information technology

initiatives and provide budget data on these initiatives. These documents, however, are too often inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete. The Department must provide the committee accurate and

precise information and data on information technology systems.

The committee will rely on the documents, submitted pursuant to

this provision, when making recommendations. It is not the committee’s intention, however, to eliminate data or information the

Office of Management and Budget or the Department of Defense

may internally request on information technology and national security systems.

299

Section 353—Implementation of Policy Regarding Certain

Commercial Off-the-Shelf Information Technology Products

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure

effective implementation, throughout the military services and defense agencies, of the federal government’s policy to purchase only

those commercial off-the-shelf information assurance and information assurance-enable information technology products that have

been evaluated and validated in accordance with specified criteria,

schemes, or programs.

Section 354—Installation and Connection Policy and Procedures

Regarding Defense Switch Network

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a clear, uniform, and enforceable policy, applicable to all military and defense agencies, regarding the testing and certification

requirements that must be satisfied before a telecom switch can be

connected to the Defense Switch Network.

The committee understands that there is a current policy in

place, but believes the current policy is not well defined and does

not have clear requirements for certifying and connecting telecom

switches. The Department of Defense must apply the new policy

consistently, or risk vendor re-evaluating the Department as a customer.

SUBTITLE G—OTHER MATTERS

Section 361—Distribution of Monthly Reports on Allocation of

Funds Within Operation and Maintenance Budget Subactivities

This provision would amend section 228 of title 10, United States

Code, to clarify that the report required by section 228, concerning

the allocation of funds within the various operation and maintenance accounts of the Department of Defense, be provided to the

congressional defense committees.

Section 362—Minimum Deduction From Pay of Certain Members of

the Armed Forces to Support Armed Forces Retirement Home

This provision would amend section 1007(i) of title 37, United

States Code, to require that the minimum amount to be collected

monthly from all active duty enlisted and warrant officer personnel

for the support of the Armed Forces Retirement Home be no less

than $1. The committee notes that the current rate of deduction,

$.50 cents, was established in 1977 and; although Congress authorized the Department of Defense to increase the monthly deduction

to $1 in section 371 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103–337), the Department has not

acted on this authority. The committee further notes that had the

Department increased the monthly deduction to the authorized

level of $1 in 1995, the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust

Fund would have received, approximately, an additional $55.0 million thereby maintaining the stability of the Trust Fund.

300

Section 363—Condition on Conversion of Defense Security Service

to a Working Capital Funded Entity

This provision would prohibit the Department of Defense from

converting the Defense Security Service (DSS) to a working capital

fund (WCF) entity until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on

Armed Services that the financial tools and systems are in place

to support DSS as a WCF.

Section 364—Continuation of Arsenal Support Program Initiative

This section would amend Section 343 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to extend the Arsenal Support

Initiative Program through fiscal year 2004. It would also require

the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional

defense committees by July 1, 2003, on the benefits of this program

for Army manufacturing arsenals and to the Army and the success

as of that date in achieving the goals of the program.

Section 365—Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of

Resources and Training System, and Training Range Inventory

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a

comprehensive plan for addressing problems created by limitations

on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace reserved,

withdrawn, or designated for training and testing activities by the

Department. The section would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on plans of the Department to improve

the Global Status of Resources and Training System to better reflect the extent that military units are achieving training requirements and the impact of encroachment and other factors negatively

affecting military readiness. In addition, the section would require

the Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain a training range

data bank for each of the military services.

Section 366—Amendments to Certain Education and Nutrition

Laws Relating to Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing

This section would amend section 8003(b)(2) of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, (section 7703(b)(2) of title 20,

United States Code), to prevent changes in the daily attendance,

caused by the privatization of family housing on military installations, from affecting payments under the impact aid program. The

section would also amend section 9(b)(3) of the Richard B. Russell

National School Lunch Act (section 1758(b)(3) of title 42 United

States Code), to exclude payments to military personnel for

privatized military housing from affecting the eligibility of students

for free or reduced price school lunches.

301

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL

AUTHORIZATIONS

OVERVIEW

The committee’s military personnel recommendations directly reflect its considerations of the impact that the war on terrorism is

having on service members and their families. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on America, the nation’s military forces, already stressed by years of high operations tempo and underresourcing, responded magnificently to a range of challenges, and

many new missions. Notwithstanding that magnificent response,

the committee believes that the wartime operations have both

masked and exacerbated the same debilitating stresses of high operations and personnel tempos that existed before the global war

on terrorism. While fully supporting the efforts of the Secretary of

Defense to reduce operational and mission requirements, the committee recognizes that the war on terrorism will be a long-term effort and that some growth in active manpower is prudent at this

time. Therefore, the committee’s recommendation would increase

active duty end strength by 12,600 above fiscal year 2002 levels,

the largest single-year growth in active strength since 1985–1986,

and provide an additional $550.0 million to support the increase.

The committee also understands that service in uniform, whether

in peace or war, often inflicts disabling injuries on military personnel. Heretofore, disabled military retirees were prohibited by

law from receiving both their full military retired pay and their

disability payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

The committee’s recommendation would end this injustice by authorizing the most severely disabled military retirees, those rated

60 percent and above, to receive both their full retired pay and

their full VA disability payments by 2007.

Building on its continuing multi-year effort to improve pay and

benefits, the committee continues to believe that fully funded and

flexible compensation programs are essential to successful recruiting and retention. Accordingly, the committee would provide a pay

raise that combines both across-the-board and targeted increases

for mid-grade noncommissioned officers and officers, and a new,

more flexible approach to managing the retention of critical health

care providers. Furthermore, the committee’s recommendation

would reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses from the current 11.3

percent to 7.5 percent in fiscal year 2003 and sustain the commitment to eliminate out-of-pocket expenses by fiscal year 2005.

Responding to the Secretary of Defense’s desire for increased

freedom to manage, the committee remains committed to providing

military and civilian personnel managers within the Department of

Defense the flexible authorities needed to promote efficient, effective, equitable, and timely management practices. Accordingly, the

committee would include more flexible legislative initiatives for

promotion, retirement, education programs, leave management,

medical deferment of separation or retirement, support for veterans’ funerals, privately-owned vehicle storage, and recruit candidate testing.

Finally, in the area of health care, the committee continues to

seek better implementation of the TRICARE For Life program and

302

to improve existing programs. To this end, the committee’s recommendations focus on several limited benefit changes, necessary

improvements to TRICARE’s management and business practices,

the future of the managed care support contracts and optimization

efforts.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—ACTIVE FORCES

Section 401–End Strengths for Active Forces

This section would authorize the following end strengths for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 30, 2003.

Service FY 2002 authorized

FY 2003 Change from

Request

Committee

recommenda- tion

FY 2003 re- questFY 2002 authorized

Army ...................................................................... 480,000 480,000 484,800 4,800 4,800

Navy ....................................................................... 376,000 375,700 379,457 3,757 3,457

USMC ..................................................................... 172,600 175,000 175,000 0 2,400

Air Force ................................................................ 358,800 359,000 360,795 1,795 1,995

DOD Total ..................................................... 1,387,400 1,389,700 1,400,052 10,352 12,652

The committee’s strength recommendation approves the 1.4 percent growth for the Marine Corps requested by the Secretary of Defense, and also provides for one percent increases for the Army and

Navy, and a one-half of one percent increase for the Air Force that

are in addition to the budget request. The committee’s concerns

about the inadequacy of active component manning levels extend

back for at least five years prior to the commencement of the

worldwide war on terrorism on September 11, 2001. Since that

date, new military force requirements have emerged and the operations tempo has increased. In only one case—the increased Marine

Corps end strength—did the budget request recognize these new

realities. For the other services, the net end strength requested in

the budget was just below the fiscal year 2002 authorized levels.

While the committee fully supports the efforts of the Secretary of

Defense to require the military services to comprehensively review

their total force manpower requirements, the committee also believes that some increases in end strength are prudent now, that

the recommended increases are within the discretionary end

strength growth permitted by current law, and that the recommended increases can be achieved by each of the military services. To support the additional end strength, the committee recommends increasing by $550.0 million the total amount authorized

for the military personnel accounts of the Army, Navy and Air

Force.

Section 402—Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum

Levels

This section would amend section 691 of title 10, United States

Code, by establishing end strength floors for the active forces at the

fiscal year 2003 strength levels recommended by the committee in

section 401.

303

Section 403—Authority for Military Department Secretaries To

Increase Active-Duty End Strengths by Up to One Percent

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to increase the authorized active duty end strength of

their respective military service by up to one percent. The increase

allowed to the secretaries of the military departments would be

within the overall two percent increase in end strength that current law now permits the Secretary of Defense to authorize. The

committee recommends this expanded authority for the secretaries

of the military departments to allow them flexibility to enhance

manning and readiness in essential units or critical specialties or

ratings, and to assist them in managing dynamic strength fluctuations occurring in the military services as a result of new requirements, hard-to-predict recruiting and retention variables, and variables induced by the movement of reserve component personnel on

and off active duty.

Section 404—General and Flag Officer Management

This section would increase by one the limit on the number of

United States Marine Corps three- and four-star general and flag

officers authorized to be on active duty, thereby permitting the

commanding general, II Marine Expeditionary Force, to serve as a

lieutenant general. This section would also exempt the senior military assistant to the Secretary of Defense from counting against

the limits on three- and four-star general and flag officers that

apply to that officer’s specific military service. In addition, the section would also require that the chief of the Army Veterinary Corps

serve in the grade of brigadier general. This section would become

effective upon Congressional receipt of a report, using current requirements and data, that complies fully with section 1213, of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public

Law 104–201).

Section 405—Extension of Certain Authorities Relating to Management of Numbers of General and Flag Officers in Certain Grades

This section would extend to December 31, 2004, three expiring

authorities relating to general and flag officer management. Those

authorities provide for: the process by which the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff fill vacant senior

joint four-star general and flag officer positions; the exemption of

the senior joint four-star general and flag officers appointed by that

process from the general and flag officer limits that apply to the

military services; and, the process by which the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff designates and fills 12 general and flag officer

positions on the joint staff and 10 reserve component general and

flag positions on the staffs of the commanders of the unified and

specified commands.

304

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve

This section would authorize the following end strengths for the

selected reserve personnel, including the end strength for reserves

on active duty in support of the reserves, as of September 30, 2003:

Service FY 2002 authorized

FY 2003 Change from

Request

Committee

recommenda- tion

FY 2003 re- questFY 2002 authorized

Army National Guard ............................................. 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 0

Army Reserve ......................................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0

Naval Reserve ....................................................... 87,000 87,800 87,800 0 800

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 39,558 39,558 39,558 0 0

Air National Guard ................................................ 108,400 106,600 106,600 0 ¥1,800

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 74,700 75,600 75,600 0 900

DOD Total ..................................................... 864,658 864,558 864,558 0 ¥100

Coast Guard Reserve ............................................ 8,000 9,000 9,000 0 1,000

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in

Support of the Reserves

This section would authorize the following end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of September 30,

2003:

Service FY 2002 authorized

FY 2003 Change from

Request Committeerecommendation

FY 2003 request FY 2002 authorized

Army National Guard ............................................. 23,698 23,768 24,562 794 864

Army Reserve ......................................................... 13,406 13,588 14,070 482 664

Naval Reserve ....................................................... 14,811 14,572 14,572 0 ¥239

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0

Air National Guard ................................................ 11,591 11,697 11,697 0 106

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 1,437 1,498 1,498 0 61

DOD Total ..................................................... 67,204 67,384 68,660 1,276 1,456

The committee believes that full time manning is a crucial component of readiness in the reserve components and for the last several years has supported continued overall growth in full-time

manning. In that vein, the committee’s recommendation for fiscal

year 2003 would provide for a 2.2 percent growth over the previous

year’s end strength for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves.

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

This section would authorize the following end strengths for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2003:

Service FY 2002 authorized

FY 2003 Change from

Request

Committee

recommendation (floor)

FY 2003 requestFY 2002 authorized

Army National Guard 23,615 23,615 24,102 487 487

Army Reserve ......................................................... 6,249 6,349 6,599 250 350

Air National Guard ................................................ 22,422 22,495 22,495 0 73

305

Service FY 2002 authorized

FY 2003 Change from

Request

Committee

recommendation (floor)

FY 2003 requestFY 2002 authorized

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 9,818 9,911 9,911 0 93

DOD Total ..................................................... 62,104 62,370 63,107 737 1003

The committee’s recommendation would provide for a 1.6 percent

growth in the strength of military technicians above the levels authorized in fiscal year 2002.

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2003 Limitation on Non-Dual Status

Technicians

This section would establish the following limits on the numbers

of non-dual status technicians as of September 30, 2003:

Service FY 2002 limit

FY 2003 Change from

Request

Committee

recommendation (limit)

FY 2003 request FY 2002 limit

Army National Guard ............................................. 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0

Army Reserve ......................................................... 1,095 995 995 0 ¥100

Air National Guard ................................................ 350 350 350 0 0

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 90 0 90 90 0

DOD Total ..................................................... 3,135 2,945 3,035 90 ¥100

The committee’s recommended increase in the number of Air

Force Reserve non-dual status technicians results from revised

data provided by that component subsequent to the committee’s receipt of the budget request. The committee notes that the Army Reserve and the Air Force Reserve are required by section 10217 of

title 10, United States Code, to reduce the total number of non-dual

status technicians in both components to no more than 175 by September 30, 2007, and the committee urges both components to coordinate their efforts to reach that objective.

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Authorization of Appropriations for Military

Personnel

This section would authorize $93,725.028 million to be appropriated for military personnel. This authorization of appropriations

reflects both reductions and increases to the budget request that

are itemized below.

[Dollars in millions]

Military personnel accounts

O&M accounts

Recommended Increases

Active End Strength:

Army ............................................................................................................................................ 247.00 ....................

Navy ............................................................................................................................................. 201.00 ....................

Air Force ...................................................................................................................................... 102.00 ....................

RC End Strength:

Army National Guard AGRs ......................................................................................................... 28.40 ....................

Army Reserve AGRs ..................................................................................................................... 11.50 ....................

306

[Dollars in millions]

Military personnel accounts

O&M accounts

Army National Guard Military Technicians ................................................................................. .................... 11.30

Army Reserve Military Technicians ............................................................................................. .................... 8.00

Defense Health Program:

TRICARE Prime Remote ............................................................................................................... .................... 6.00

Marshall Island diabetes program ............................................................................................. .................... 2.0

Other Programs:

Military personnel funding in Defense Emergency Response Fund ........................................... 32.90 ....................

Naval Sea Cadets ....................................................................................................................... .................... 1.00

National Guard Challenge ........................................................................................................... .................... 2.50

National Guard Youth Foundation .............................................................................................. .................... 2.50

Uniting Through Reading ............................................................................................................ .................... 0.13

Total Recommended Additions ........................................................................................... 622.80 33.43

Recommended Reductions

Effect of FY 2002 NDAA legislation on accrual payment to Uniformed Services Retiree Health

Care Fund .................................................................................................................................... 810.00 ....................

Savings from not adopting DOD legislative proposals ................................................................... 29.20 ....................

Savings from repeal of Special Stipend for Severely Disabled ...................................................... 33.43 ....................

Transfer funding for wartime-related pays to H.R. 4547 ............................................................... 320.80 ....................

Total Recommended Reductions ............................................................................................ 1,193.43

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

OVERVIEW

The committee remains committed to providing military and civilian personnel managers within the Department of Defense the

flexible authorities needed to promote efficient, effective, equitable,

and timely management practices. Accordingly, the committee

would include more flexible legislative initiatives for promotion, retirement, education programs, leave management, medical

deferment of separation or retirement, support for veterans’ funerals, privately-owned vehicle storage, and recruit candidate testing.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Absentee Voting for Military Members

Section 1604 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) requires the Secretary of Defense

to conduct during the November 2002 general election a statistically valid demonstration project under which uniformed voters

may cast their absentee ballot through an electronic voting system.

The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense has exercised the discretionary authority included in section 1604 to delay

the electronic voting demonstration project until the general election in November 2004. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to continue to investigate the potential to participate in, and

provide funding for, smaller scale tests during the November 2002

election as preparation for the major effort envisioned for the November 2004 election. The committee is aware of existing initiatives that would benefit from the support of the Department of Defense and would provide such an interim step opportunity during

the November 2002 election.

307

Compensation and Benefits for Reserve Component Members

The committee recognizes that the current level of reserve component participation and responsibility in military operations

changed dramatically during the last decade of the twentieth century. Today the reserve components represent a significant portion

of the capability of the total force and are an essential element in

the full spectrum of worldwide military operations. Since 1996, the

reserve components have contributed between 12 and 13 million

full time equivalent days in direct support of DOD missions, a tenfold increase over a 1989 benchmark period. In addition, the current national military strategy calls for a significant number of

military occupational specialties and skills to reside solely in the

reserve components. The recent war on terrorism has required the

call-up of over 85,000 reservists to active duty, and the current

operational tempo gives no indication that there will be significant

reductions in the near future. This increase in operations tempo of

reserve forces raises questions about compensation and benefits of

particular concern to the citizen-soldier.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of

the United States to review the terms and elements of reserve compensation, benefit, and personnel support programs, including the

retirement system. The review should address the effectiveness and

adequacy of compensation and benefit programs, income protection

for reservists called to active duty, family support programs, health

care access, and other programs of interest to reservists serving on

active duty. The review should assess the need for these programs

to be improved and, if appropriate, offer recommendations for

achieving needed improvements. The review should also include a

comparison of these programs to similar programs conducted for

the benefit of active duty forces to determine if the reserve programs are fair and equitable given the increased contributions by

reserve forces to the defense of the nation.

Additionally, the review should include an examination of the

differences in benefits and protections provided to reservists who

are called to serve under different authorities to include: title 10,

United States Code; title 32, United States Code; and state active

duty. The review should assess the need for benefits and protections to be made consistent regardless of the authority under which

reservists are called to serve and, if appropriate, offer recommendations for achieving that objective.

The committee directs the Comptroller General to report his findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March

31, 2003.

Consideration of Innovative Readiness Training Initiatives

The committee recognizes the success of the Department of Defense Civil Military Innovative Readiness Training Program, which

is authorized by section 2012 of title 10, United States Code. This

program provides military unit and individual support and services

to non-Department of Defense organizations in a manner that accomplishes unit and individual training requirements. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consider training opportunities that provide a benefit to our nation’s youth and support the

308

President’s education priorities. The committee recommends the

secretary to consider applications from local schools, particularly

those in rural and urban areas, for support of training initiatives

to establish computer networks in schools.

Review and Report on Increased Participation of U.S. Navy Officers

in Intermediary and Senior War Colleges

The committee is concerned about the challenges facing the Navy

in providing its officers with appropriate and timely opportunities

for professional military education. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review the plans and progress

achieved to increase participation of active and reserve Navy officers in intermediate and senior war colleges. The review should include an assessment of the attendance objective for each level, as

well as actions being taken to achieve the objectives. Specific attention should be given to responses that may require enabling congressional action. The Secretary of the Navy shall provide the results of the review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services by April 18, 2003.

Uniting Through Reading

The committee is pleased to note the success of the Navy’s Uniting Through Reading program. Uniting Through Reading improves

literacy and strengthens the quality of life for Navy and Marine

Corps families separated during deployments. This popular family

support program is currently available to all ships preparing for

deployment, and is being extended to the Naval Construction

Forces (Seabees), Marine Expeditionary Units, the Naval Reserve

Forces, individual deployers, and deployed, shore-based squadrons.

Uniting Through Reading helps maintain the emotional bond between children and parents during extended periods of separation.

The committee recommends an additional $130,000 for this important program.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—GENERAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES

Section 501—Increase in Number of Deputy Commandants of the

Marine Corps

This section would increase the authorized number of deputy

commandants at Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, from

five to six. This authorization would permit the commander, Marine Corps Combat Developments Command, to be designated a

deputy commandant, but would not increase the number of threestar Marine Corps general officers on active duty because the commander, Marine Corps Combat Developments Command, already

holds that rank.

Section 502—Extension of Good-of-the-Service Waiver Authority for

Officers Appointed to a Reserve Chief or Guard Director Position

This section would extend to December 31, 2004, the authority

of the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement for significant

joint experience as a qualification for appointment as the chief of

309

the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps reserve or as director

of the Army or Air National Guard. The committee recommends

the extension because it understands that the requirement for significant joint experience was established just two years ago with

the enactment of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), and that the

Department and service secretaries will require a period of time for

future candidates for appointment as chiefs of the reserve and national guard components to acquire that joint experience. However,

the committee also believes that unless the Secretary of Defense

acts aggressively, it could be many years before senior reserve component officers will gain the requisite experience. Therefore, this

section would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to

Congress regarding the steps that he, together with the Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs and the secretaries of the military departments,

will take to ensure that no further extensions of this waiver authority will be required after 2004.

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT MANAGEMENT

Section 511—Reviews of National Guard Strength Accounting and

Management and Other Issues

This section, like section 512, is a result of the committee’s continued concerns about the national guard’s unit strength management, senior officer selection and oversight, and whistleblower protections. This section would require both the Comptroller General

and the Secretary of Defense to conduct reviews and to provide the

committee assessments of:

(1) The effectiveness of the Department of Defense’s continuing effort to improve unit strength management in the

Army National Guard;

(2) The effectiveness of the federal recognition process for

senior national guard officers;

(3) The nature and extent of administrative and judicial actions taken in cases of substantiated misconduct by senior national guard officers;

(4) The effectiveness of federal protections for whistleblowers

and the national guard and the nature and extent of corrective

actions taken against those in the national guard who retaliate

against whistleblowers; and

(5) The differing Army and Air Force policies for taking adverse administrative actions against national guard general officers serving in a state status.

Section 512—Courts-Martial for the National Guard When Not in

Federal Service

This section would amend title 32 United States Code, to update

and streamline the administration of military justice in the national guard when it is not in a federal status. Furthermore, reflecting the committee’s support for the 1998 recommendation of

the Department of Defense Panel to Study Military Justice in the

National Guard, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a model state Uniform Code of Military Justice, as

well as a model state Manual for Courts-Martial, and undertake an

310

effort to present these two models for consideration and possible

adoption by all the states and territories. As noted in the panel’s

report, such an effort would promote the modernization and uniformity of the administration of military justice in the national

guard while in state status.

Section 513—Matching Funds Requirements Under National

Guard Youth Challenge Program

This section would revise the Department of Defense cost share

for each state’s National Guard Challenge Program from 60 percent

to 75 percent.

SUBTITLE C—RESERVE COMPONENT OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY

Section 521—Exemption from Active Status Strength Limitation

for Reserve Component General and Flag Officers Serving on Active Duty in Certain Joint Duty Assignments Designated by the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

This section would exempt the 10 reserve component general and

flag officers who are serving on active duty on the joint staffs of

the commanders of the unified and specified commands from counting against the numbers of reserve component general and flag officers authorized by section 12004 of title 10, United States Code.

These 10 reserve component general and flag officers, the so-called

‘‘Chairman’s ten’’ because the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

designates the joint staff positions they fill on active duty, already

are exempted by section 526 of title 10, United States Code, from

counting against active duty general and flag officer limits. The

proposed exemption from reserve component general and flag officer authorizations would enable the reserve components not on active duty to fill 10 more general and flag officer mobilization positions. The authority for this exemption would expire on December

31, 2004.

Section 522—Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion to Grade of

Major General for Certain Reserve Component Brigadier Generals Who do Not Otherwise Qualify for Consideration for Promotion Under the One-Year Rule

Section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, precludes promotion eligibility for reserve officers who are serving on the reserve

active-status list or the active-duty list (or combination of both

lists) for less than one year as of the convening of the promotion

board. This section would permit reserve brigadier generals of the

Army and Air Force to be eligible for promotion with less than one

year on the reserve active-status list or the active-duty list (or combination of both lists) when the following three factors apply to the

officer:

(1) The officer had been transferred from an inactive status to

the active status list during the one-year period preceding the date

of the convening of the promotion board.

(2) The officer had been in an inactive status for less than one

year immediately before the officer’s most recent transfer to an active status.

311

(3) The officer had continuously served for at least one year on

the reserve active status list, the active duty list (or a combination

of both lists) before the officer’s most recent transfer to an inactive

status.

Section 523—Retention of Promotion Eligibility for Reserve Component General and Flag Officers Transferred to an Inactive Status

Section 14317 of title 10, United States Code, requires that reserve officers forfeit their status as a selectee for promotion when

they are transferred to inactive status. They may be promoted

upon return to active status, but only if recommended for promotion by a subsequent promotion board. This section would permit reserve officers selected for promotion to major general and

rear admiral to retain their promotion eligibility and, if otherwise

qualified, be promoted to the higher grade upon returning to an active status from an inactive status.

Section 524—Authority for Limited Extension of Medical

Deferment of Mandatory Retirement or Separation for Reserve

Officers

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to defer mandatory retirement or separation of reserve

officers undergoing hospitalization or medical observation when

such hospitalization or medical observation is part of an evaluation

to determine the officer’s eligibility for disability retirement or separation. The secretary of the military department would be authorized to extend the retirement or separation for 30 days after completion of the evaluation requiring hospitalization or medical observation.

SUBTITLE D—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Section 531—Authority for Phased Increase to 4,400 in Authorized

Strengths for the Service Academies

This section would permit the secretaries of the military departments, beginning with classes entering the service academies during the 2003–2004 academic year, to increase the end strengths for

cadets or midshipmen at their respective service academies, in annual increments of up to 100, from the current limit of 4,000 to

4,400. In addition, this section would specify that the annual increase in service academy end strength could not exceed the increase achieved during the preceding year in enrollments in the

senior Reserve Officers Training Program (ROTC) of that service.

This section also urges the secretaries of the military departments

to ensure that by the 2006–2007 academic year the corresponding

increase in enrollments in the senior ROTC program are all scholarship participants. The committee recommends a linkage between

end strengths at the service academies and senior ROTC enrollments because it firmly believes that the long-term effectiveness of

the officer corps of the military services will be enhanced by growth

in both commissioning sources.

312

Section 532—Enhancement of Reserve Component Delayed

Training Program

This section would authorize members who enlist in the reserve

delayed training program to remain in that program for one year,

a full three months longer than authorized in current law. The oneyear duration would be consistent with the active duty delayed

entry program.

SUBTITLE E—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Section 541—Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain

Decorations to Certain Persons

This section would waive the statutory time limitations for the

award of the Distinguished Flying Cross to individuals recommended for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross by the service secretary concerned.

Section 542—Option To Convert Award of Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal Awarded for Operation Frequent Wind to Vietnam

Service Medal

This section would authorize participants in Operation Frequent

Wind, the evacuation of Vietnam conducted on April 29 and 30,

1975, to return the award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary

Medal and to receive the Vietnam Service Medal in its place.

SUBTITLE F—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Section 551—Staffing and Funding of the Defense Prisoner of War/

Missing Personnel Office

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to increase

the military and civilian manning levels, as well the annual funding, for the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office

(DPMO) in fiscal year 2004 and subsequent years to enable the

DPMO to adequately perform its full range of missions. This section would also prohibit the secretary in fiscal year 2003 from reducing the assigned military and civilian personnel and funding

below the levels requested in the budget. The committee makes

this recommendation because it believes the DPMO plays a crucial

role in the fulfillment of the national commitment to provide a full

accounting for the prisoners of war and missing in action of the nation’s wars. The committee is disappointed that the secretary did

not heed the committee’s direction in the committee report on H.R.

2586 (H. Rept. 107–194), to increase DPMO resources. The committee also understands that the DPMO faces a potential reduction

of 15 percent or more in fiscal year 2003 as part of the secretary’s

plan to reduce the size of headquarters. The committee believes

such a reduction in DPMO to be imprudent.

Section 552—Three-Year Freeze on Reductions of Personnel of

Agencies Responsible for Review and Correction of Military Records

The committee considers the review boards agencies, and specifically the boards for correction of military records, within each military department as representing congressional interests in safeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
313

guarding fairness and equity for all service members. The committee views these boards differently from other headquarters functions and becomes concerned when announced management decisions to reduce manpower levels within the boards threaten their

efficiency and effectiveness.

Accordingly, this section would preclude the secretaries of the

military departments from reducing the number of military and civilian personnel assigned to duty within the boards through fiscal

year 2005 until 90 days after the secretary of the military department concerned submits a report that describes the proposed reduction, provides the rationale for the reduction, and specifies the

number of personnel that will be assigned to the board after the

reduction is complete.

Section 553—Department of Defense Support for Persons

Participating in Military Funeral Honors Details

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to prescribe a flat-rate daily stipend for military retirees and others who

are not service members or government employees participating in

funeral honors details. The stipend would be paid in lieu of separate payments for transportation and miscellaneous expenses.

Section 554—Authority for Use of Volunteers as Proctors for

Administration of Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Test

This section would authorize the secretaries concerned to accept

the voluntary services of educators and other individuals to assist

recruiters in administering the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude

Battery to high school students.

Section 555—Annual Report on Status of Female Members of the

Armed Forces

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit

an annual report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services on the status of female

members of the armed forces regarding assignments and assignments policies, deployment, promotion and retention rates, and sexual harassment.

SUBTITLE G—BENEFITS

Section 561—Voluntary Leave Sharing Program for Members of the

Armed Forces

This section would authorize a service member to transfer accrued leave to another member when the recipient is likely to require a prolonged absence from duty due to a medical condition of

a family member or other hardship condition. The commander of

the recipient and the commander of the contributor would be required to approve such transfer of leave.

Section 562—Enhanced Flexibility in Medical Loan Repayment

Program

This section would repeal the bar against providing loan repayment benefits to participants in the armed forces health professions

314

scholarship and financial assistance program and would remove

the limit on the total benefit that may be paid.

Section 563—Expansion of Overseas Tour Extension Benefits

Section 705 of title 10, United States Code, authorizes members

who have been granted leave and transportation benefits in connection with an extension of an overseas tour to travel to the nearest

port of entry within the 48 contiguous states and return. This section would authorize members who have been granted leave and

transportation benefits in connection with an extension of an overseas tour to travel to an alternative location within the 48 contiguous states, so long as the cost does not exceed the cost of transportation to the nearest port of entry.

Section 564—Vehicle Storage in Lieu of Transportation When

Member Is Ordered to a Nonforeign Duty Station Outside Continental United States

This section would authorize members to store a privately-owned

vehicle when the member is ordered to a duty station in a nonforeign area outside the continental United States and the shipment

of a vehicle is prohibited or contingent upon completion of extensive modification.

SUBTITLE H—MILITARY JUSTICE MATTERS

Section 571—Right of Convicted Accused to Request Sentencing by

Military Judge

This section would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States

Code, to permit the sentencing phase of trial in courts-martial to

be conducted by a military judge sitting alone, rather than by court

members.

Under the present courts-martial process, a military judge alone

may not sentence an accused if the accused elects to be tried by

court members. Such a result, however, has disadvantages. Sentencing trials involving members may be more lengthy and complicated than judge-alone proceedings, costing the government time

and expense and keeping court members away from their regular

duties for extended periods. Moreover, military judges generally

have as sound a sense of community and disciplinary norms and

mores as court members because they typically preside over many

cases at a single installation.

This section would permit a separate choice of forum decision to

be made following announcement of findings of guilt or innocence

by the court but before evidence on sentencing is received. A request for sentencing by judge-alone could be made orally on the

record or in writing. Consistent with article 18 of the Uniform Code

of Military Justice, section 818 of title 10, United States Code, and

Rule for Courts-Martial 201(f)(1)(C), judge-alone sentencing would

not be permitted in capital cases.

This section would apply to offenses committed after January 1,

2003. The committee notes that Congress considered a similar provision last year but deferred legislative action pending receipt of a

report from the Secretary of Defense on this issue. The report was

due March 1, 2002, but has not been received. The committee has

315

been provided no explanation for the failure to timely provide this

report. The committee anticipates receipt of the report in time to

permit full consideration of this issue before the effective date of

this provision.

Section 572—Report on Desirability and Feasibility of Consolidating Separate Courses of Basic Instruction for Judge Advocates

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to study the

feasibility and desirability of consolidating the separate Army,

Navy and Air Force courses on basic instruction for judge advocates

into a single course to be conducted at a single location. Recent deployments of American military personnel have demonstrated increased interoperability requirements, as well as the likelihood

that joint military operations will be more common in the future.

Given this reality, questions must be asked about whether cost savings in training activities can be achieved and whether common

courses of instruction among the services in certain disciplines

leading to better interoperability in joint operations make sense.

In the context of the services’ judge advocate officer corps, the

legal subjects officers should learn in order to be successful military attorneys are not service-specific. For example, the provisions

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and courts-martial practices are substantially the same for all the services, as are the majority of laws pertaining to claims, civil law and legal assistance.

Moreover, overhead and infrastructure cost savings could be

achieved by consolidating the physical facilities of the three service

judge advocate schools into a single location. Service-unique instruction or acculturation could easily be provided as an adjunct to

a generic legal course of instruction. The result of this consolidation

could be well-trained legal officers who could perform better in

joint operational environments and whose training costs are less

than those of officers who attend the separate courses of instruction provided at present. The committee requires the secretary to

report on his findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services

and the House Committee on Armed Services by February 28,

2003.

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

OVERVIEW

The committee continues to believe that fully funded and flexible

compensation programs are essential to successful recruiting and

retention. Accordingly, the committee would include a pay raise

that combines both across-the-board and targeted increases for

mid-grade noncommissioned officers and officers, increases to wartime pays and benefits and a new more flexible approach to managing the retention of critical health care providers.

The committee remains committed to achieving for disabled military retirees concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA). The committee is pleased that the Concurrent Resolution on

the Budget—Fiscal Year 2003 (H. Con. Res. 353), adopted in the

House includes an allocation of $5.8 billion over 5 years in mandaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
316

tory spending to fund full concurrent receipt during fiscal year

2007 for disabled retirees rated by the VA as 60 percent disabled

and above. Accordingly, the committee would include a provision

that achieves full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA

disability compensation during fiscal year 2008 for military retirees

rated by the VA as 60 percent disabled and above.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Integrating Basic Allowance for Subsistence into Basic Pay

The committee has grown increasingly concerned that similarly

situated deployed service members receive disparate treatment regarding receipt of basic allowance for subsistence (BAS). Based on

the type of deployment and service-unique policies, some service

members receive their full BAS while others serving at the same

duty location receive only a portion of their BAS. While the committee remains committed to resolving such inequities, this concern

has prompted the committee to question the larger issue of whether BAS continues to be a useful management tool. It occurs to the

committee that the services would benefit from eliminating the administrative burden and structure associated with managing BAS

and integrating the value of the allowance into basic pay for all

personnel. While such a strategy would raise the issue of how to

deal with the increase in the tax burden for individuals, the committee notes that the increase in personal taxes would be

counterbalanced by an increase in the value of retired pay for those

that remain for a full career. The committee is aware that the Seventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation recognized the

benefits of simplifying military pay systems and made a recommendation that included the elimination of BAS.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to

study this issue, examine the cost implications, develop implementation strategies, and determine the Department of Defense position. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report the

findings of his review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services

and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2003.

Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve

The committee has received complaints that the benefits of the

Montgomery G.I. Bill for members of the selected reserve have not

kept pace with the benefits provided under the Montgomery G.I.

Bill for members serving on active duty. The committee recognizes

that there are necessary differences between the programs and

that benefit levels will be different due to the different purposes of

the programs. However, the committee believes that some of the

existing differences between the programs are not justified and

have resulted from administrative oversight or neglect. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the

differences between the two programs and report the findings and

recommendations of his review to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March

31, 2003.

317

Reducing the Gap Between Military and Private Sector Pay

Increases

The committee believes that eliminating the gap in pay raise

rates between the military and the private sector is fundamental

to an effective compensation strategy and an essential prerequisite

to successful recruiting and retention. While a variety of other allowances, special pays, and bonuses must be constantly monitored

and adjusted when required, basic pay is the foundation upon

which the other elements of compensation are based and it must

keep pace with private sector pay raises.

Section 602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) requires that military pay raises

exceed the private sector rate by one-half of one percent during fiscal years 2001 through 2006. The committee recognizes that, depending on the pay raises planned for the defense budgets through

fiscal year 2006, the pay gap will likely not be eliminated during

fiscal year 2006. The committee is inclined to extend beyond fiscal

year 2006 the period of time that military pay raises are required

to exceed the private sector pay raise rates. While such an action

would signal military forces and their leaders that the committee

is committed to restoring and maintaining parity between military

and private sector pay raises, it may also prematurely set a goal

that will ultimately be unnecessary.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report the details of his long-term plan for military pay raises and

his estimate as to when the gap in pay raise rates between the

military and the private sector will be eliminated. The committee

directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the report to the Senate

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services by March 31, 2003.

Use of the Critical Skills Retention Bonus for Linguists

The committee urges the secretaries of the military departments

to fully utilize the flexibility provided in the critical skills retention

bonus to address the need to retain qualified foreign language

speakers. The war on terrorism has highlighted the need to attract

and retain foreign language speakers, including, but not limited to,

critical languages such as Arabic, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Persian-Farsi, and Russian. For example, a January 2002 report by

the General Accounting Office (GAO) indicated that the Army had

a requirement for 608 Korean linguists, but was only able to fill

480 positions. This shortfall did not result because of inadequate

training levels. The Defense Language Institute has graduated 693

Korean linguists over the previous 5 years, or 114 percent of the

Army’s total requirement. The committee believes that more needs

to be done to retain skilled linguists to take advantage of the higher productivity inherent with more experienced and proficient linguists. The committee believes that the critical skill retention

bonus offers the means to achieve the needed improvement in the

retention of military linguists.

318

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2003

This section would increase basic pay a minimum of 4.1 percent

for all members of the uniformed services. In addition, the section

would provide additional increases to mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers, and mid-grade officers to maintain incentives to serve throughout the enlisted career and to increase incentives to retain junior officers and highly skilled enlisted members.

This raise would continue to fulfill Congress’ commitment to increasing pay for the uniformed services. The combined across-theboard and targeted raise would be the equivalent of a 4.7 percent

across-the-board raise and would reduce the pay gap between military and private sector pay increases over time from 7.5 percent to

6.4 percent.

Section 602—Expansion of Basic Allowance for Housing Low-Cost

or No-Cost Moves Authority to Members Assigned to Duty Outside United States

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay

members assigned overseas who complete low-cost or no-cost moves

to continue to receive basic allowance for housing (BAH) based on

the BAH rate for the member’s previous duty location if the secretary determines that it would be inequitable to pay the member

the BAH rate for the member’s new duty location. The provision

would bring the treatment of BAH rates for low-cost or no-cost

moves in an overseas area in line with the treatment of BAH for

similar moves inside the United States.

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

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

Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces

This section would extend the authority for the selected reserve

reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment bonus, special

pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve assigned to certain

high priority units, the selected reserve affiliation bonus, the ready

reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus, and the prior service

enlistment bonus until December 31, 2003.

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

Pay Authorities for Certain Health Care Professionals

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for registered

nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special

pay for selected reserve health care professionals in critically short

wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental officers

until December 31, 2003. The provision would also extend the authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health professionals who serve in the selected reserve until January 1, 2004.

319

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

Authorities for Nuclear Officers

This section would extend the authority for the special pay for

nuclear-qualified officers extending the period of active service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2003.

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

Authorities

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer

retention bonus, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the

enlistment bonus for active members, the retention bonus for members with critical military skills, and the accession bonus for new

officers in critical skills until December 31, 2003.

Section 615—Minimum Levels of Hardship Duty Pay for Duty on

the Ground in Antarctica or on Arctic Icepack

This section would specify a hardship duty pay rate of not less

than $240 per month for duty performed by service members on

the ground in Antarctica or on the Arctic icepack. The provision

would specify that the monthly rate be prorated and paid for each

day of qualified service.

Section 616—Increase in Maximum Rates for Prior Service

Enlistment Bonus

This section would increase the rates paid to reservists with critical skills under the prior service enlistment bonus from $5,000 to

$8,000 in the case of a member who enlists for six years, from

$2,500 to $4,000 in the case of a member who enlists for three

years, and from $2,000 to $3,500 in the case of a member who received a prior bonus for a three year enlistment and who reenlists

or extends for an additional three years.

Section 617—Retention Incentives for Health Care Providers

Qualified in a Critical Military Skill

The committee recognizes that, in some cases, the legislative authorities for health care provider special and incentive pays and bonuses have not been updated for a decade and have lost their value

to attract and retain quality practitioners. The committee understands that the Department of Defense is studying health care provider compensation and that a new structure for these incentives

will be forthcoming. In an effort to facilitate the ultimate implementation of the new pay and bonus structure, the committee

elects to adopt a more flexible legislative authority for this purpose

that preserves through an annual report the capability of Congress

to provide oversight. Accordingly, this section would amend the

critical skill retention bonus to provide exceptions to the limits on

bonus amounts and years of service for bonuses paid to health care

providers.

320

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 631—Extension of Leave Travel Deferral Period for

Members Performing Consecutive Overseas Tours of Duty

This section would authorize members who have been granted

travel and transportation benefits in connection with a consecutive

overseas tour to defer those benefits for the full duration of the additional tour of duty. If the member is unable to undertake the

travel before the completion of the additional tour because of duty

in connection with a contingency operation, the provision would authorize the member to defer the travel and transportation for a

year after the contingency operation duty ends.

SUBTITLE D—RETIRED PAY AND SURVIVORS BENEFITS

Section 641—Phase-in of Full Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired Pay and Veterans Disability Compensation for Military Retirees with Disabilities Rated at 60 Percent or Higher

The committee is opposed to reducing retired pay due to members of the uniformed services to offset the receipt of compensation

for service-connected disabilities paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The committee believes that retirees are entitled to receive both the retired pay for which they contributed

years of faithful service and the VA compensation for a service-connected disability intended to recognize a lifelong limitation on earning potential. The committee intends to continue to promote concurrent receipt for all eligible retirees and is committed to adopt

the legislative changes needed to achieve advances in concurrent

receipt to the extent that funding for this purpose is made available in future concurrent budget resolutions.

Accordingly, and consistent with the Concurrent Resolution on

the Budget—Fiscal Year 2003 (H. Con. Res. 353) adopted in the

House, this section would authorize retirement-qualified members

of the uniformed services with disabilities rated as 60 percent and

above to receive during the fifth year of a 5–year transition program, full VA disability compensation without a reduction in retired pay. In the case of a member who receives a disability retirement, the section would allow the retired pay to be reduced, but

only to the extent that the member’s retired pay exceeds the

amount of retired pay to which the member would have been entitled based solely on the member’s years of service.

The transition program would provide the following amounts to

disabled retirees during fiscal year 2003:

(1) Members rated 100 percent disabled would receive $750 per

month.

(2) Members rated 90 percent disabled would receive $500 per

month.

(3) Members rated 80 percent disabled would receive $250 per

month.

(4) Members rated 70 percent disabled would receive $250 per

month.

(5) Members rated 60 percent disabled would receive $125 per

month.

321

The transition program during fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006

would reduce for each retiree the difference between the amount of

retired pay received the previous year and full concurrent receipt

by 23 percent, 30 percent, and 64 percent, respectively. During fiscal year 2007, all retirees with disability rating of 60 percent and

above would receive their entire retired pay and VA disability compensation.

Section 642—Change in Service Requirements for Eligibility for

Retired Pay for Non-Regular Service

This section would reduce the number of years of continuous reserve component service required immediately before qualifying for

non-regular retired pay from eight to six.

Section 643—Elimination of Possible Inversion in Retired Pay Costof-Living Adjustment for Initial COLA Computation

This section would limit partial-year retired pay cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in the first year of retirement to be no greater

than the COLA paid to retirees who were retired for the entire

year.

Section 644—Technical Revisions to So-Called ‘‘Forgotten Widows’’ Annuity Program

This section would make technical and administrative changes to

section 644 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) that addressed annuities for certain military surviving spouses.

SUBTITLE E—RESERVE COMPONENT MONTGOMERY GI BILL

Section 651—Extension of Montgomery G.I. Bill-Selected Reserve

Eligibility Period

This section would extend the eligibility window for educational

assistance for members of the selected reserve through the Montgomery G.I. Bill from 10 to 14 years from the date of first eligibility.

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 661—Addition of Definition of Continental United States in

Title 37

This section would amend section 101 of title 37, United States

Code, to include the definition of continental United States as the

48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia and amend other

sections of title 37, United States Code, to reflect the addition of

the definition.

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE MATTERS

OVERVIEW

Enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal

Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) limited changes to TRICARE in

fiscal year 2002 to necessary improvements intended to facilitate

322

better implementation of TRICARE For Life or to improve existing

programs. The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for

the Department’s efforts to ensure smooth implementation of the

new benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees and their eligible beneficiaries and other improvements to TRICARE. With this

in mind, the committee has focused this year’s legislation on several limited benefit changes, necessary improvements to

TRICARE’s management and business practices, the future of the

managed care support contracts, and optimization efforts.

The committee was encouraged that the defense health program

budget request relied on more realistic cost and budgeting assumptions. The commitment to fully fund the defense health program

(DHP) is commendable. However, the committee continues to urge

the Department of Defense (DOD) to more fully optimize the military treatment facilities. Although the direct care system of military treatment facilities has received an increase in the budget request, a sustained period of under-investment in optimization,

maintenance, and repair of these facilities has eroded the capacity

of the military hospitals and clinics of the direct care system. The

committee is concerned that current funding for the direct care system continues to undermine optimization efforts, forcing some patients into the private sector. On balance, this phenomenon drives

up the cost of the defense health program and limits the resources

available for treating patients in the direct care system. The committee expects to be kept informed of the efforts to allocate defense

health resources in a manner that will maximize the effectiveness

of the entire DHP.

For the past several years, the committee has focused its efforts

to reduce the high cost of TRICARE claims processing. In testimony this year, the committee again heard from providers and

managed care support contractors that DOD’s unique claims processing system costs continue to far exceed those of equivalent civilian systems for processing claims. The testimony suggested that

impediments to a cost-effective, provider and beneficiary friendly

system for TRICARE claims processing continue to exist. Hearing

testimony also suggested that the committee needs to better understand the nature, reasons, and extent of trends in the TRICARE

network provider instability, and the effectiveness of DOD’s and

TRICARE managed care support contractors’ efforts to measure

and mitigate such turbulence. The committee was encouraged by

testimony from DOD health officials that they would examine the

policies and practices associated with the managed care support

contractors, and the committee urges the Department to move forward and examine and formulate plans to address these issues.

However, the committee is concerned about the long-term impact

of these issues on the program and requires the Comptroller General to also study these areas.

The committee recognizes that DOD is negotiating extension periods to existing managed care support contracts even as it considers how to structure the next generation of TRICARE contracts.

Much remains to be known of the Department’s plans to redesign

the contracts and possible initiatives to carve out specific contract

areas such as marketing and pharmacy services. The committee

notes DOD’s intent to include suitable best business practices

found in the health care industry and to incorporate mechanisms

323

that share risk between TRICARE’s partners—the Department of

Defense and the managed care support contractors. The successful

implementation of the new contracts should also keep in mind the

potential impact on the beneficiaries. The committee urges the Department to continue to ensure all stakeholders are included. The

committee expects to be kept fully informed as the Department approaches its final design of new contract vehicles.

The committee continues to be pleased with the nature and extent of DOD’s engagement with the private non-governmental associations representing the interests of the beneficiaries of the military health care system during its deliberations on the design of

next generation contracts and implementation of TRICARE programs. The committee encourages DOD to continue to reach out to

beneficiaries of the military health care system and other key

stakeholders including DOD’s managed care support contractors.

The Department should consider broadening and enhancing this

outreach to include other health care organizations and providers

in more routine consultations regarding benefit design and delivery, industry best practices, management initiatives, and beneficiary and provider communications and consultation. Such outreach could provide valuable insight regarding provider and beneficiary incentives and satisfaction.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Claims Processing for Under–65 Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries

The committee is aware that Medicare-eligible beneficiaries

under the age of 65 are not currently able to have their health care

claims filed electronically because the Department has not yet resolved cross-over claims issues. Until the Department remedies this

shortcoming, under–65 Medicare-eligible beneficiaries are unable to

fully participate in TRICARE For Life (TFL) and, in essence are

denied participation in the program because they must pay their

fees upfront. For many, this is not a viable option. Until this crossover claims issue is resolved, these beneficiaries are effectively denied the ready access to Medicare providers they are entitled to

under the TFL program. The committee directs the Secretary of

Defense to expeditiously resolve this barrier to TFL participation

and submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services

and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2003,

on actions taken to resolve claims processing problems for under–

65 Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.

Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System

Improvements

The committee is concerned about the accuracy and timeliness of

the current process to update information in the Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). In particular,

there appears to be some delay in entering updates when changes

occur in the sponsor’s military status, demographics, or duty station. The DEERS database determines the eligibility and benefit

program of service members. If there are delays in accurately processing and transmitting personnel changes to DEERS by the military services, then beneficiaries are denied health care, or health

324

care is delayed. The committee believes the Department should set

a goal of near real-time updates with 100% accuracy. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, to assess the ability of the

military services to update information in DEERS in a more timely

and accurate manner, and, if necessary, implement a plan to make

the improvements the secretary believes are necessary. The secretary’s report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services would be required by September 30, 2003.

Force Health Protection

The committee remains strongly committed to ensuring that the

force health protection of our troops continues to remain a high priority for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services. The committee is pleased to note the implementation of new

clinical guidelines for use by DOD and the Department of Veterans

Affairs’ (VA) physicians in caring for the unique needs of military

personnel and their families. However, as utilization of the active,

guard and reserve components continues to increase to meet the

growing demand for deployments around the world, force health

protection remains at the forefront of our ability to meet these requirements. The Department was tasked with developing a system

that can be used to track military personnel who are deployed,

monitor in-theatre medical requirements, and conduct post-deployment assessments to ensure that DOD and the military services

know where and when our men and women are deployed, the environment in which they are deployed, any medical requirements

they are subject to while in theatre, and any post-deployment

health developments. These issues were raised as a result of the

Persian Gulf War. In view of the continuing and increasing deployments around the world, we need to ensure that we are doing everything possible to protect the health of our troops. The committee

recently requested that the General Accounting Office examine the

DOD–VA medical surveillance system. In view of this, the committee urges that the Secretary of Defense take this opportunity to

review the entire spectrum of force health protection issues in

order to ensure that a collaborative, focused and adequately

resourced effort is underway, and that appropriate medical surveillance policies and procedures are in place throughout the DOD and

the military services.

Military Health Care System Information Management

The committee remains interested in developments by the Department of Defense (DOD) to improve its health care information

management systems. The committee, therefore, is concerned that

the Department has yet to provide the interim report requested in

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) to conduct a comprehensive study of DOD medical data systems that will facilitate management, clinical treatment, system performance evaluations, costs, manpower and enrollment. The establishment of a comprehensive medical data system

is vital to the Department on a number of levels, including improving benefits and services to military personnel, retirees and their

families, increasing resource sharing activities between the DepartVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
325

ment and the Department of Veterans Affairs or other federal

agencies and private organizations, improving resource management and reducing barriers to ensure medical readiness. The committee urges the Department to provide adequate resources to ensure that the development and implementation of these information management systems moves forward in a timely manner.

TRICARE Access Standards for Appointments

The committee is aware of the many advantages available to

beneficiaries under TRICARE Prime, including the access standards for the wait time for appointments. The committee is concerned that these standards may not be uniformly met by all managed care support contractors and military treatment facilities,

thereby impacting their ability to adequately address the health

care needs of TRICARE Prime enrollees. The Department needs to

ensure that beneficiaries calling for appointments receive them

within the required access standards.

The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense review

and improve current processes to ensure that military treatment

facilities inform the managed care support contractors of available

appointments.

Waiver of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Deductible for Beneficiaries

in Nursing Homes

The committee is concerned that TRICARE beneficiaries who are

patients in nursing homes are currently subject to the annual deductible for using out-of-network pharmacy services. Because

TRICARE considers the pharmacy services used by nursing homes

in most states to be out-of-network pharmacies, the committee believes the Department could resolve this inequity by waiving the

annual deductible for patients in nursing homes. This non-network

pharmacy deductible policy is aimed at creating an incentive for

beneficiaries to use the National Mail Order Pharmacy or network

pharmacies. However, the policy unintentionally penalizes beneficiaries in nursing homes. The committee directs the Secretary of

Defense to implement such policies and regulations or recommend

any legislative changes that may be necessary to waive the deductible for these patients, and report to the Senate Committee on

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by

March 31, 2003, on actions taken.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—HEALTH CARE PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

Section 701—Elimination of Requirement for TRICARE

Preauthorization of Inpatient Mental Health Care for MedicareEligible Beneficiaries

This section would eliminate the redundant TRICARE

preauthorization requirement for specific cases in which Medicare

has already authorized such care and Medicare is the primary

payer. This provision would take effect on October 1, 2004.

326

Section 702—Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for Certain

Dependents

This section would extend the TRICARE Prime Remote benefit

to active duty family members who are not authorized to accompany the member to the member’s permanent duty station. This

benefit would apply in cases when the dependent continues to reside at the location of the former duty assignment and that location

is more than 50 miles, or approximately 1 hour of driving time,

from the nearest military medical treatment facility adequate to

provide the needed care; or when there is no reasonable expectation the member will return to the location of the former duty assignment and the dependent moves to a location that is more than

50 miles, or approximately 1 hour of driving time, from the nearest

military medical treatment facility adequate to provide the needed

care. This provision would take effect on October 1, 2002.

Section 703—Enabling Dependents of Certain Members Who Died

While on Active Duty to Enroll in the TRICARE Dental Program

This section would amend section 1076a(k)(2) of title 10, United

States Code, to permit the dependents of members who die while

serving on active duty tours of more than 30 days to enroll in the

TRICARE Dental Program under that section regardless of the dependent’s dental plan enrollment status on the date of the member’s death. Many dependents outside the continental United

States temporarily discontinue participation in the premium sharing dental plan under section 1076 because they receive their dental care in DOD dental facilities. In cases where the member dies

while assigned overseas, their dependents’ nonparticipation disadvantages their future eligibility. This section would authorize

these dependents to participate in the dental plan in the same

manner as other dependents of members who die while on active

duty.

Section 704—Improvements Regarding the Department of Defense

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund

This section would align the normal cost contribution funding for

the Department of Defense (DOD) Medicare-eligible retiree health

care fund with the military personnel accounts since the payments

into the fund are related to post-retirement health benefits associated with military service, this change would treat accrual funding

for health benefits for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries in a manner

consistent with funding for retirement pension costs under chapter

74 of title 10, United States Code.

This section would mandate participation in the Uniformed Services Retiree Health Care Fund by non-DOD uniformed services.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–

107), made participation in the fund discretionary for the Coast

Guard, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, and

the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. The committee views the President’s request to require such participation by the secretaries of the federal departments administering non-DOD uniformed services without prejudice and has included such a provision.

327

Section 705—Certification of Institutional and Non-Institutional

Providers Under the TRICARE Program

This section would amend section 1079 of title 10, United States

Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations

to allow, to the extent practicable, providers authorized under title

XVIII of the Social Security Act, section 1395 et seg. of title 42,

United States Code, to be deemed TRICARE providers in addition

to their current certification as TRICARE For Life (TFL) providers.

This provision would allow the acceptance of Medicare certification

as the basis of TRICARE provider authorization. Moreover, this

provision reduces administrative requirements associated with the

credentialing of Medicare providers so that they may treat

TRICARE patients in addition to TFL patients. This provision will

take effect on October 1, 2003.

Section 706—Technical Correction Regarding Transitional Health

Care

The transitional health care benefit for certain involuntarily separated members made permanent in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107), inadvertently

failed to include the dependents of the service members. This technical correction ensures transitional health care benefits for the dependents of the service members entitled to such benefit.

SUBTITLE B—REPORTS

Section 711—Comptroller General Report on TRICARE Claims

Processing

This section would require the Comptroller General to evaluate

the continuing impediments to a cost-effective, provider and beneficiary friendly system for TRICARE claims processing. The committee has long had an interest in claims processing reform, including a range of reforms directed in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65). Recently the

committee heard testimony from providers and industry that

DOD’s unique claims processing system features individual claim

costs far exceeding those of equivalent civilian systems for processing claims. Moreover, the requirements associated with DOD’s

claims processing system may discourage some providers from participation in the TRICARE program, thus creating an impediment

to beneficiary access. The committee is concerned that these issues

were among those that led to the reforms in the National Defense

Authorization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–65). The committee is

also concerned that on balance, the additional cost and administrative burdens associated with this unique claims processing system

may serve as a hindrance to more efficient beneficiary care and satisfaction, as well as improved provider participation. The study

mandated under this section would pay special attention to:

(1) The extent of progress implementing improvements in

claims processing particularly the application of best industry

practices;

(2) The extent of progress in simplifying claims processing

procedures and eliminating or reducing the reliance on and

complexity of, the Health Care Service Record;

328

(3) The suitability of a Medicare-compatible claims processing system with regard to the data requirements necessary

to administer TRICARE and related information systems; and

(4) The extent to which the TRICARE claims processing system impedes provider participation and beneficiary access, and

provide recommendations for improvements.

The Comptroller General’s report of findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Services would be required by March 31,

2003.

Section 712—Comptroller General Report on Provision of Care

Under the TRICARE Program

This section would require the Comptroller General to evaluate

the nature, reasons, and extent of trends in TRICARE network provider turbulence, and the effectiveness of DOD’s and TRICARE

support managed care contractors’ efforts to measure and mitigate

such turbulence. The committee has heard testimony that provider

network instability exists in certain geographic areas, that such instability may be associated with the administrative requirements,

preauthorization procedures and the reimbursement rates of the

TRICARE program, that the measurement of past and future

trends may be instructive, that DOD’s existing authority to adjust

reimbursement rates to address provider network adequacy in certain areas is largely unused, and that the administrative requirements of the TRICARE program merits review. The study mandated under this section would pay special attention to:

(1) The adequacy of provider/network stability measurement

tools and their current use by DOD and/or managed care support contractors to assess network adequacy/stability;

(2) The relationship of reimbursement rates and TRICARE

administration requirements, (including preauthorization requirements) to provider/network turbulence;

(3) The current extent of the problem and likely future

trends with and without intervention using existing authority;

(4) DOD’s and TRICARE managed care support contractors’

use of existing authority to apply higher reimbursement rates

in specific geographic areas;

(5) Recommendations for improvements needed in measurement tools or their application; and

(6) Recommendations for specific fiscally prudent measures

that could mitigate negative trends or improve provider/network stability.

The Comptroller General’s report of findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Services would be required by March 31,

2003.

Section 713—Repeal of Report Requirement

This section would repeal the reporting requirement specified in

section 712 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398). The committee

notes that the reporting requirement has been superceded by the

TRICARE For Life program and obviated by decisions by the DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00350 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
329

partment of Defense and the Department of Health and Human

Services not to pursue the Medicare subvention demonstration

project.

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Acquisition Program Management

The Department of Defense acquisition programs continue to experience significant cost increases and schedule delays. No military

service is exempt from this problem. Examples of major acquisition

programs with significant cost increases and schedule delays include:

(1) Army—CH–47 helicopter upgrade and Comanche helicopter.

(2) Navy—Virginia class submarine and LPD–17.

(3) Air Force—Space based infrared system and advanced extremely high frequency communications satellite.

(4) Marine Corps—UH–1/Cobra helicopter upgrades.

(5) Special Operations Command—Advanced seal delivery

system.

The continued prevalence and the pervasive nature of unscheduled cost growths and schedule delays lead the committee to conclude that the Department of Defense is not yet practicing the improvements espoused to be included in the new Department of Defense Directive 5000 series and Department of Defense Instruction

5000 series.

Each military service has a program or programs that have exceeded the Nunn-McCurdy limits, which necessitates review by the

Secretary of Defense, program re-base-lining, and re-certification to

Congress.

It is well recognized that cost growth and time delays are often

associated with poor program structure and unsatisfactory program

management, often involving both government and contractors. Examples of poor management include:

(1) Contractors submitting low cost estimates—an action inconsistent with best business practices.

(2) The Department failing to sufficiently analyze the scope

of work, estimate costs accurately, establish affordable requirements and avoid requirement creep, resulting in increased system development and procurement cost.

(3) Both the Department and contractors establish high performing program management teams, but then disband the

teams as other projects reach high profile.

(4) Discontinuity in program management.

(5) Allowing too many programs to progress to SDD/EMD,

without sufficient funding available to adequately fund programs in the out years.

The committee believes that the issue is not to re-write Department of Defense Directive 5000 series again, but rather to properly

baseline programs, beginning with the mission needs statement

and operational requirements specification. Programs must be

330

based on realistic cost estimates, which are fully funded. Program

operational requirements must be complete and remain stable. The

joint requirements oversight council (JROC) must guard against requirements creep and ensure compliance with applicable Department of Defense acquisition regulations, including JROC validation

and approval.

The committee also believes that in order to manage acquisition

properly, DOD must have and use a modern financial control system, as is discussed elsewhere in this report.

Defense Logistics Agency’s Best Value Contracting

The committee is aware of concerns over how the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is implementing best value contracting in the acquisition of select items. DLA is responsible for acquiring and managing over 13,000 different items that outfit military troops and civilian customers with uniforms, helmets, body armor, chemical protective suite, footwear, tents, and other related items. DLA is one

of the Department of Defense’s principal buyers of goods and services, yet DLA’s buying practices have often come into question. The

committee understands the difficult task facing DLA and other defense acquisition organizations in balancing the imperative to ensure the best possible value for the military customer while also

providing for the broad participation of qualified private sector suppliers. To better understand how DLA is performing in executing

this goal, the committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct

a review on whether DLA is properly implementing applicable statutory and regulatory guidance for best value purchases. In particular, the review should examine DLA’s use of past performance

as an evaluation factor in the selection of suppliers and the impact

this practice is having on the imperative to maintain an adequate

domestic supplier base for key items of supply. The report shall be

provided to the House Armed Services Committee no later than

March 1, 2003.

Report on Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by

Women

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report whether

the Department of Defense has met its annual goal of awarding

procurement contracts to small business concerns owned or controlled by women from fiscal years 1998—2002. To the extent the

Department of Defense has not met its goals the Secretary of Defense shall include in the report actions taken to try to meet its

goal. This report shall be provided to the House Committee on

Armed Services no later than February 15, 2003.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 801—Plan for Acquisition Management Professional

Exchange Pilot Program

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a

pilot program for the exchange of personnel between Department

of Defense acquisition management community and the private sector. The committee believes such an exchange program would improve knowledge and foster understanding between the two comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
331

munities with the ultimate benefit of the Department acquiring

better quality products and services.

Section 802—Evaluation of Training, Knowledge, and Resources

Regarding Negotiation of Intellectual Property Arrangements

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate

the adequacy of training, education and resources within the acquisition community on the negotiation of intellectual property. This

section would require the Secretary of Defense to report the results

of the evaluation in a report to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. The report

shall also include any actions that should be taken to meet the Department’s needs, and the number of legal personnel within the Department of Defense (DOD) who are trained in the negotiation of

intellectual property arrangements.

The committee is concerned that DOD does not have the resources to adequately negotiate intellectual property rights with

the private sector. The committee notes that in 1995 DOD updated

the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations pertaining to rights in

technical data and computer software. The updates resulted from

the work of a Government-Industry Technical Advisory Committee,

established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102–190). The committee is concerned that the flexibility and commercially-friendly intellectual

property terms and conditions contained in these regulations are

not understood, and are thus underutilized within DOD.

Section 803—Limitation Period for Task and Delivery Order

Contracts

This section would amend sections 2304a and 2304b of title 10,

United States Code, by proscribing the period of time for which

these contracts can be awarded, and by more clearly characterizing

advisory and service task order contracts as a type of task and delivery order contract. The committee believes it is appropriate to

limit contract duration in order to better promote the use of competition. The committee also believes that all task and delivery

order contracts should be treated as congruently as is possible and

appropriate.

Section 804—One-Year Extension of Program Applying Simplified

Procedure to Certain Commercial items; Report

This section would amend section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act

of 1996 (divisions D and E of Public Law 104–106) by extending for

one more year the authority for the Secretary of Defense to use

simplified acquisition procedures for the purchase of commercial

items not greater then $5.0 million. The section would also require

the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress, no later than January 15, 2003, whether authority under the pilot program should be

made permanent. The report should also address the benefits and

usefulness of this pilot program.

332

Section 805—Authority to Make Inflation Adjustment to Simplified

Acquisition Threshold

This section would provide the Administrator of the Office of

Federal Procurement Policy with the authority to adjust the simplified acquisition threshold every five years to account for inflation.

Section 806—Improvement of Personnel Management Policies and

Procedures Applicable to the Civilian Acquisition Workforce

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop an

implementation plan for improving the personnel management

policies and procedures for the Department of Defense acquisition

workforce based on the demonstration project authorized by section

4308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1996 (Public Law 104–106). The section would additionally require

the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress by February 15, 2003, containing the implementation plan and any areas

within the implementation plan needing legislative relief.

The committee supports the ongoing Department of Defense

(DOD) Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration

Project, which is designed to determine the effectiveness of initiatives to increase organizational efficiencies, enhance retention rates

and rewards for performance, and increase quality of the workforce

and the products it acquires. The committee is concerned with the

delay in commencing the demonstration project and believes that

the Secretary of Defense must ensure that lessons learned from the

first three years of the demonstration project are incorporated into

the Department’s overall acquisition management, organizational

structure, and personnel systems.

Section 807—Modification of Scope of Ball and Roller Bearings

Covered for Purposes of Procurement Limitation

This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United States

Code, by expanding the definition of ball and roller bearings to include unconventional or hybrid ball and roller bearings, cam follower bearings, ball screws and other derivatives of ball and roller

bearings. This section would not extend the time period for which

the procurement limitation is in place.

Section 808—Rapid Acquisition and Deployment Procedures

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop

rapid procedures for the acquisition and the deployment of items

a commander of a unified combatant command urgently requires.

The procedures would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the secretary of the military service, as well as the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation to work

together in an expedited manner in order to deliver to the commander of a unified combatant command the item urgently needed

to react to an enemy or to provide safety.

Section 809—Quick-Reaction Special Projects Acquisition Team

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish

a special projects acquisition team to examine and address issues

333

affecting expeditious procurements. The special projects acquisition

team shall specifically address industrial base issues, lengthy acquisition procedures due to acquisition regulations, environmental

issues, small business concerns, and the purchase of products made

in the United States.

Section 810—Report on Development of Anti-Cyberterrorism

Technology

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report to Congress by February 1, 2003, on Department of Defense

efforts to enter into contracts with private entities to develop anticyberterrorism technology.

Section 811—Contracting with Federal Prison Industries

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to acquire a

product or service from Federal Prison Industries in accordance

with chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code. This provision

would also require the Secretary of Defense to assure that Federal

Prison Industries, Inc. does not provide contractor services if an inmate were to have access to certain information.

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Regional Centers for Security Studies

The committee has been concerned that the Department of Defense’s regional centers for security studies, and some of its staff,

have not accurately represented the views and policies of the

United States government with regard to foreign affairs and national security matters. As such, the committee was inclined this

year to propose legislative provisions that would seek to redress

this problem. However, the committee is reassured by recent reports that senior officials in the Department of Defense are reviewing how the regional centers are organized, managed, and staffed,

as well as studying a number of ways to ensure coherence with regard to policy matters and positions. As a result, the committee has

withheld action this year regarding this matter, but looks forward

to receiving the results of the Department’s assessment, and its

plans, if any, for subsequent action.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

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

Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps

This section would redesignate the title of the Secretary of the

Navy to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Section 902—Report on Implementation of United States Northern

Command

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of

334

Representatives a report by September 1, 2002, containing an implementation plan for the United States Northern Command that

addresses organizational, legal, diplomatic, budgetary, and personnel matters associated with the establishment of the command.

Section 903—National Defense Mission of Coast Guard to be

Included in Future Quadrennial Defense Reviews

This section would amend section 118(d) of title 10, United

States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to include the national defense mission of the U.S. Coast Guard when conducting

the Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee recognizes that

the U.S. Coast Guard currently performs a range of national security missions, and anticipates that in the future the U.S. Coast

Guard will increasingly be integrated with the other military services in the conduct of deployments and joint operations. Accordingly, the committee believes the Secretary of Defense should assess and include the capabilities of the U.S. Coast Guard as part

of the Quadrennial Defense Review process.

Section 904—Change in Year for Submission of Quadrennial

Defense Review

This section would amend section 118(a) of title 10, United

States Code, to move the submission of the Quadrennial Defense

Review (QDR) to the second year after a year divisible by four.

The committee notes the importance of the QDR to the Department’s planning guidance and other important decisions. While the

committee believes the QDR allows a new Administration the opportunity to lay out a blueprint for its future defense plan and activities, it also recognizes that the complexity of preparing the QDR

can be compounded by the lengthy confirmation process for Presidential appointees. The committee feels that moving the submission of the QDR back a year will give senior civilian Department

of Defense leadership more time to conduct the type of critical review of all aspects of the Department’s operations envisioned by

the statute.

Section 905—Report on Effect of Operations Other Than War on

Combat Readiness of the Armed Forces

This section would require a report on the impact of operations

other than war on the combat readiness of the United States

Armed Forces. These operations include humanitarian operations,

counter-drug operations, peace operations (including peace monitoring activities and observer missions), and nation assistance,

which is defined as the assistance provided to a host nation to promote stability, develop sustainability, and establish institutions responsive to the needs of the people. In order to better account for,

understand, and highlight the impact of these operations on the

Department of Defense, and to assist Congress in assessing these

costs and benefits relative to the nation’s foreign policy and national security interests, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare and submit to the Committees on Armed Services

of the Senate and House a detailed report on the pecuniary and

non-pecuniary costs and benefits of these operations.

335

Section 906—Conforming Amendment to Reflect Disestablishment

of Department of Defense Consequence Management Program Integration Office

This section would amend section 12310(c) of title 10, United

States Code, to conform to an internal Department of Defense reorganization involving the Consequence Management Program Integration Office.

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

CHARTERING OF SPECIAL PURPOSE VESSELS

Each year the Department of the Navy charters a number of special purpose vessels in order to meet both its ongoing and emergency requirements. These vessels generally include salvage ships,

oceanographic survey and research vessels, cable laying ships, and

other vessels not traditionally used in special purpose roles. The

committee notes that despite the Navy’s desire to increase competition for these charters, there have been several instances where

only one contractor submitted bids for these charters. In some

cases, the method of procurement or the type of contract proposed

for the charter may have served to inadvertently eliminate a class

of vessels that are capable of performing these functions but are

not technically classified or cataloged as being able to perform the

mission.

In view of this and the committee’s desire to increase competition

in these programs, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy

to prepare a report that will address the following matters:

(1) Identification of barriers, including legal, regulatory, administrative, or acquisition procedures, that may exist with respect to the use of U.S.-flag vessels or that otherwise may decrease competition;

(2) A market survey which identifies vessels capable of performing the required activities;

(3) The need for increased use of innovative contracting

methods, including greater use of performance based contracts;

(4) Identification of methods for increasing the use of U.S.-

flag vessels in such special purpose activities;

(5) Any proposals for legislation or administrative steps that

the Secretary considers necessary to increase competition and

use of U.S.-flag vessels.

The report shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on

Armed Services and to the House Committee on Armed Services

not later than February 1, 2003.

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Overview

The budget request for counter-drug activities maintained a

steady-state level of effort as compared with prior years. The committee continues to support a robust counter-drug program and is

cognizant of the linkages between terrorist organizations and the

international narcotics trade. In that regard, the committee is conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
336

cerned with the lack of targeting of opium storage facilities in Afghanistan that were identified early in the conduct of Operation

Enduring Freedom. The committee understands that U.S. Central

Command deemed that opium in any form did not constitute a

credible military target. However, as well established, the ruling

Taliban maintained close ties to the narcotics trade in Afghanistan

and used illicit narcotics trafficking profits to bolster their regime.

Accordingly, the committee believes the Department of Defense

should review and revise its policy in this regard to ensure that

such targets are properly prosecuted in Afghanistan and any future

conflicts.

The committee is also aware that the U.S. Southern Command

Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in El Salvador, Ecuador, and

Curacao are all nearing full operational capability. The committee

remains fully supportive of this important effort but is concerned

that recent statements by senior Ecuadorian officials may restrict

the use of the airfield at Manta, Ecuador. The committee believes

that U.S. aircraft based at Manta should be available to conduct

search and rescue and humanitarian relief operations. Accordingly,

the committee urges the Administration to engage the government

of Ecuador to seek approval for use of the Manta FOL for these

specific purposes.

The budget request contained $848.9 million for drug interdiction

and counter-drug activities, in addition to $149.8 million for operational tempo which is included within the operating budgets of the

military services.

The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 2003

Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:

[In thousands of dollars]

FY03 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request ........................................ $848,900

Educate America’s Youth ......................................................................... 27,100

Increase Safety of Citizens ...................................................................... 81,800

Reduce Health & Social Costs ................................................................. 82,500

Shield America’s Frontiers ...................................................................... 335,700

Break Drug Sources of Supply ................................................................ 321,800

Recommended Decreases:

DEA Support ............................................................................................. 1,300

Riverine Training Deployments .............................................................. 1,000

Tethered Aerostat Radar System ............................................................ 5,000

Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft ................................................... 3,000

Recommended Increases:

Mexico Information Analysis Center ...................................................... 1,500

National Guard C–26 Aircraft ................................................................. 2,100

Southwest Border Fence .......................................................................... 6,700

Recommendation .............................................................................................. $848,900

Items of Special Interest

DEA support

The budget request contained $6.2 million for Department of Defense support to federal law enforcement, namely the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) for data processing and analysis. While

the committee fully supports the underlying merit of the classified

program, the committee strongly believes the Drug Enforcement

Agency (DEA) must assume responsibility for adequately funding

the program requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends

a decrease of $1.3 million for this activity.

337

Mexico information analysis center

The budget request contained $790,000 for the Mexico Information Analysis Center (IAC). The committee is aware that the IAC

provides tactically actionable intelligence in support of U.S. and

Mexican counter-narcotics efforts and has contributed to significant

gains in this area. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for this successful program.

National Guard C–26 aircraft

The budget request did not contain funds to complete the upgrade of counter-narcotics National Guard C–26 aircraft with

Electro-Optical (EO) digital cameras. The committee is aware that

of the current fleet of 11 aircraft, only 10 C–26s are outfitted with

an EO camera. The committee understands the requirement for the

National Guard is to complete the standardization and additionally

procure two EO camera spares. The committee supports this program and recommends $2.1 million for this purpose.

Riverine training deployments

The budget request contained $4.1 million for worldwide riverine

deployments. The committee supports this activity but is aware

that deployments of this nature are frequently postponed or delayed. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0

million for this program.

Southwest border fence

The Southwest border continues to be a heavily utilized drug

trafficking corridor into the United States. The committee has been

supportive of fence and road-building activities in this area and

continues to support this effort. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.7 million for this purpose.

Tethered aerostat radar system

The budget request contained $40.7 million for the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) which includes $13.3 million for procurement of equipment as compared to $3.4 million in fiscal year

2002. The committee is concerned with the relative size of this increase and, therefore, recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in the

TARS program.

Transit zone maritime patrol aircraft

The budget request contained $9.0 million for Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft, a new contractor lease program to assist in

maritime surveillance. The committee understands the basis for

this initiative but is concerned that the total budget request is not

fully executable in fiscal year 2003. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million for this program.

PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATION

The General Accounting Office wrote a comprehensive text on

the body of law governing federal appropriations, ‘‘Principles of

Federal Appropriations Law,’’ in 1982, with a second version published in 1991. This committee considers this text to be a useful resource in deciphering federal appropriations law. As material in

338

this publication is subject to change by statute or through decisionmaking process, the committee requests that the General Accounting Office update this text.

SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES

The committee is concerned with the level of access contractor

employees have to military facilities and installations within the

United States. In today’s environment it is appropriate for any and

all security risks to be examined, and to the extent necessary precautions taken. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of

Defense to evaluate the security risk that may be associated with

contractor employee’s access to military facilities and installations,

and to report to the House Committee on Armed Services and the

Senate Committee on Armed Services, no later than February 1,

2003, the results of the evaluation. The evaluation shall include: A

determination whether the Department of Defense should require

contractors to conduct background investigations on contractor employees; if background checks are appropriate, to describe the type

of background checks that should be implemented and the cost of

these background checks.

STRATEGIC FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN

The most recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), submitted to

Congress by the Department of Defense on January 8, 2002, is a

broad policy document. Despite setting levels for active forward deployed strategic weapons of 3800 in fiscal year 2007 and 1700–2200

in fiscal year 2012, it contains no comprehensive description of the

baseline force structure required to execute the national defense

strategy that supports those levels. A force structure plan, including the number of warheads by type in both active (deployed, ‘‘responsive’’ and spares) and inactive status, the number and type of

each associated weapons system, and the number and type of each

associated delivery platform, is the point of departure for making

intelligent decisions regarding weapons complex infrastructure recapitalization, as well as investments in stockpile life extension

programs. Such a plan would also provide a framework for Department of Defense investments in weapons systems and delivery vehicles.

Accordingly, Section 1014 requires the Secretaries of Defense and

Energy to jointly prepare a baseline nuclear force structure plan for

the period covered by the NPR, and a budget plan to support that

force structure. It requires, in addition, submission of a report on

the force structure and supporting budget plans to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 2003.

The committee recognizes and endorses the Administration’s efforts to reach an agreement with the Russian Federation on future

strategic force levels. The committee does not intend, in this regard, to hinder or limit the President’s options in carrying out the

foreign policy of the United States. Consequently, the committee

has allowed an extension of the due date of the report to Congress

should the President determine that deferment is in the national

security interests of the United States.

339

U.S. STRATEGIC DETERRENT

The committee believes that a flexible, reliable, and robust nuclear deterrent is critical to the national security of the United

States. Capable and credible strategic forces are essential to deterring enemies and potential adversaries, defending our friends and

allies, promoting global stability, and ensuring that the United

States can protect and advance its interests abroad.

Given these vitally important goals and interests, juxtaposed

against a strategic environment that is as uncertain, dangerous,

and complex as ever in history, the committee has outlined in a

Sense of Congress provision the purposes and need for the United

States to maintain a reliable, flexible and robust strategic deterrent. The key to achieving such a posture is revitalization of the

nation’s nuclear weapons industry, and the retention and training

of skilled nuclear and weapons technicians, scientists, and engineers.

Finally, the committee firmly believes that improvements and

changes to the nation’s strategic deterrent should be made in accordance with the national defense strategy, the Nuclear Posture

Review, and the global strategic environment.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—Transfer Authority

This section would provide fiscal year 2003 transfer authority to the Department of Defense for amounts up to $2.0 billion.

Section 1002—Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations for

Fiscal Year 2002

This section would authorize amounts enacted in the Emergency

Supplemental Act, 2002 (Division B of Public Law 107–117) for the

Department of Defense and for the national security activities of

the Department of Energy.

This section would also authorize those defense items appropriated pursuant to any fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental

appropriations legislation enacted during the second session of the

107th Congress.

This section would further limit the obligation of emergency supplemental funds to the Department of Defense until the Secretary

submits a report to the congressional defense committees detailing

the appropriation accounts to which the funds have been transferred and the purpose for which the transferred amounts are to

be used.

Section 1003—Uniform Standards Throughout Department of Defense for Exposure of Personnel to Pecuniary Liability for Loss

of Government Property

This section would extend the authority for imposition of pecuniary liability for government property that is lost, damaged or destroyed to military members of the Navy and Marine Corps, and

to all civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Currently,

only military members and civilian employees of the Departments

340

of the Army and the Air Force are subject to this liability. This section would also extend the authority to deduct the amount of the

pecuniary liability from the pay of a member of the Navy and Marine Corps. Currently, the authority to deduct the liability applies

only to members of the Army and Air Force.

Section 1004—Accountable Officials In the Department of Defense

This section would establish pecuniary liability for those Department of Defense officials who submit illegal, improper, or incorrect

data or information to an official who could rely on that data to

make payment on a voucher. This provision provides the Department the ability to enforce responsibilities assigned to personnel in

the management of purchase cards, as well as other areas where

personnel are required to review and submit data that the Department will rely on to make payments.

Section 1005—Improvements in Purchase Card Management

This section would amend section 2784 of title 10, United States

Code, by enhancing the Secretary of Defense’s responsibilities for

management and oversight of the Department of Defense’s purchase card program. Recent reports, including the Department of

Defense’s March 2002 Inspector General Report demonstrate that

additional managerial steps are needed to prevent negligence, misuse, or abuse of the purchase card. This section would add those

safeguards necessary to improve internal controls over this program.

Section 1006—Authority to Transfer Funds Within a Major

Acquisition Program from Procurement to RDT&E

This section would amend Chapter 131 of title 10, United States

Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense limited authority to

transfer funds from Procurement to Research, Development, Test,

and Evaluation (RDT&E), for the same acquisition program when

that program’s development effort cannot transition to procurement

as planned.

This transfer authority is limited to a total of $250.0 million for

any fiscal year and $20.0 million per acquisition program per fiscal

year. This authority also specifically prohibits the use of transferred amounts for new starts.

Section 1007—Development and Procurement of Financial and

Nonfinancial Management Systems

This section would require: (1) the Secretary of Defense to submit

a report to the congressional defense committees providing the

goals and objectives of the department’s financial management

modernization plan; and (2) the approval of the Under Secretary of

Defense, Comptroller, prior to the expenditure of funds by any department or agency within the Department of Defense for new or

upgraded financial management and non-financial feeder systems.

On July 19, 2001, the Secretary of Defense established the Financial Management Modernization Program and directed the program management office to ‘‘develop a DOD-wide blueprint—an

Enterprise Architecture—that prescribes how the Department’s fiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
341

nancial and non-financial feeder systems and business processes

will interact.’’ The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) authorized $100.0 million for the

Financial Management Modernization Program in PE 65016D8Z.

The fiscal year 2003 budget request was $96.3 million.

The committee believes that this program is one of the most important developmental programs within the Department. The committee also believes that the major impediment to implementing a

viable financial management program within the Department will

be overcoming the cultural and bureaucratic resistance to change.

Consequently the committee believes that strict control over expenditures for new and upgraded financial and non-financial feeder

systems is required and that until the architecture is established

for the new system that no agency or department within DOD

should be permitted to commit funds for new, upgraded or interim

financial management systems without the explicit approval of the

Comptroller. In addition, implementation of the objective system

under prescribed milestones must be mandatory.

This can only be accomplished if the responsible agency, the Department’s comptroller, is given total authority for all funds authorized for obligation for financial management and feeder systems within the Department.

SUBTITLE B—REPORTS

Section 1011—After-Action Reports on the Conduct of Military

Operations Conducted as Part of Operation Enduring Freedom

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commander-in-Chief of United States Central Command, and the Director of Central Intelligence, to submit to the Senate Committee

on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence two reports on the conduct

of military operations conducted as part of Operation Enduring

Freedom. The first report, an interim report, would be required not

later than June 15, 2003, and the final report not later than 180

days after the cessation of hostilities associated with Operation Enduring Freedom.

The committee is aware that the campaign in Afghanistan demonstrated new war fighting doctrine and concepts and believes an

appropriate record must be established as soon as possible to assist

in the conduct of future military operations. Therefore, the committee supports a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to

produce two reports to address the accomplishments and shortcomings of the overall military operation, including personnel,

readiness, basing, air and sea lift, joint operations, and equipment

matters. The committee notes that after-action reports of Operation

Desert Storm and Operation Allied Force can serve as a guide for

the Department in this regard. The committee is particularly concerned with the factors that promoted or inhibited the timely insertion of Special Operations Forces (SOF) personnel and assets into

the theater of operations, their operational utility and effectiveness

once in Afghanistan, and the scope and adequacy of logistical and

342

operational support provided to both SOF and Central Intelligence

Agency personnel.

Section 1012—Report on Biological Weapons Defense and CounterProliferation

This section would require a report on the Department’s biological weapons defense, nonproliferation, and counter-proliferation

programs. Given the anthrax letter attacks of 2001, efforts by the

al Qaeda terrorist organization to acquire dangerous pathogens,

and continuing reports by the intelligence community that several

rogue states and other countries have active biological warfare programs, the committee is concerned about the United States’ ability

to halt, defend against, and counter these present and emerging

threats.

As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to

provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services on the Department’s programs and initiatives to defend against and counter the development, production, and proliferation of biological weapons agents,

technology, and expertise to terrorist groups and other states. The

purpose of this report is to inform Congress of the legal (including

U.S. and international law), policy, resource, and other impediments to the Department’s biological warfare defense, nonproliferation, and counter-proliferation initiatives, activities, and programs.

Section 1013—Requirement That Department of Defense Reports

to Congress Be Accompanied by Electronic Version

This section would amend section 480(a) of title 10, United

States Code, to require the Department of Defense to submit to

Congress electronic versions of all unclassified required reports, to

include certifications, notifications, or other written communications.

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense

failed to comply with section 1042 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) which required the Department of Defense to provide electronic reports only

upon request from Congress. Accordingly, the committee reaffirms

its view that this requirement is consistent with the Department’s

intention to make greater use of electronic media and will facilitate

broader dissemination of, and wider access to, official DOD information.

Section 1014—Strategic Force Structure Plan for Nuclear Weapons

and Delivery Systems

This section would require the Secretaries of Defense and Energy

to jointly prepare a baseline nuclear force structure plan for the period covered by, and consistent with, the Nuclear Posture Review

submitted to Congress on January 8, 2002. The plan would include

the warheads, weapon systems, and delivery vehicles required to

execute the national defense strategy, as well as the infrastructure,

modernization and life extension plans, and other elements of the

defense program of the United States necessary to sustain that

force structure. The section would also require a budget plan to

support that force structure. The section would require submission

343

of a report on the force structure and supporting budget plan to the

congressional defense committees by January 1, 2003, but would

permit the President to defer submission of the report to a date

certain should the President determine that it is in the national security interest of the United States to submit the report on a later

date.

Section 1015—Report on Establishment of a Joint National

Training Complex and Joint Opposing Forces

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Services not later than six months after the

date of enactment that outlines a plan to develop and operate a

joint national training complex capable of supporting field exercises

and experimentation at the operational level of war across a broad

spectrum of adversary capabilities.

The committee notes that the Department of Defense currently

lacks the infrastructure to support joint high-fidelity field exercises

and experiments and is aware that the National Defense Panel recommended in 1997 that the Department establish a Joint National

Training Complex to fully support joint transformation initiatives.

Accordingly, the committee believes that the Department must assess the benefits of establishing a Joint National Training Complex

in order to enhance future joint warfighting.

Section 1016—Repeal of Various Reports Required of the

Department of Defense

This section would repeal a number of reporting requirements

contained in title 10, United States Code, and annual National Defense Authorization Acts.

Section 1017—Report on the Role of the Department of Defense in

Supporting Homeland Security

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to

the congressional defense committees a report by December 31,

2002, on Department of Defense responsibilities, missions, and

plans for military support of homeland security, with particular

focus on defense against biological agents.

Section 1018—Study of Short-term and Long-term Effects of

Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapon

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to request a

report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which will be

submitted to the Congress with the Secretary’s comments as appropriate, on the short- and long-term effects on a civilian population

and/or U.S. military personnel in the proximity of the target area,

as a result of:

(1) The use of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, to include the effects on the target area itself;

(2) The use of an above-ground nuclear detonation to destroy

hard or deeply-buried targets in the target area;

344

(3) The use of an advanced conventional weapon to destroy

an adversary’s weapons of mass destruction storage or production facilities in the target area.

Section 1019—Study of Short-term and Long-term Effects of

Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missile Interceptor

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to request a

report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which will be

submitted to the Congress with the Secretary’s comments as appropriate, on the short- and long-term effects of:

(1) The use of a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptor in the

outer atmosphere on the civilian population and U.S. military personnel in proximity to the target area;

(2) A nuclear weapon detonated above a major U.S. city on the

population of that city and on the nation as a whole.

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1021—Sense of Congress on Maintenance of a Reliable,

Flexible, and Robust Strategic Deterrent

This section would express the Sense of Congress regarding the

purposes and need for the United States to maintain a reliable,

flexible and robust strategic deterrent in accordance with the national defense strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review, and the global

strategic environment.

Section 1022—Time for Transmittal of Annual Defense

Authorization Legislative Proposal

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to transmit

to Congress the annual defense authorization request for a fiscal

year within 30 days of the date the President transmits to Congress the budget for that fiscal year. In this section ‘‘defense authorization request’’ is defined as a legislative proposal submitted

to Congress for enactment and includes the authorization of appropriations for that fiscal year as required by section 114 of title 10,

United States Code, personnel strengths for that fiscal year as required by section 115 of title 10, United States Code, and any other

matter that is proposed by the Secretary of Defense for enactment

as part of the annual defense authorization bill for that fiscal year.

Section 1023—Technical and Clerical Amendments

This section would make a number of technical and clerical

amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis.

Section 1024—War Risk Insurance for Vessels in Support of NATOApproved Operations

This section would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

provide war risk insurance to a commercial vessel that is supporting a shared logistics military operation approved by the North

Atlantic Council. This section would also authorize the Secretary of

Transportation, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to

seek from another nation a commitment to indemnify the United

345

States for any amounts paid by the United States for claims

against such insurance.

Section 1025—Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Portland, Oregon

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to sell

Navy Drydock No. YFD–69, located in Portland, Oregon, to Portland Shipyard, LLC at an amount equal to the fair market value

at the time of the conveyance, as determined by the Secretary.

Section 1026—Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil

Support Teams

This section would express the sense of the Congress that the

Secretary of Defense should establish 23 additional Weapons of

Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, raising the total to 55, and

provide at least one team be established in each state and territory.

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN

PERSONNEL

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1101—Eligibility of Department of Defense

Nonappropriated Fund Employees For Long-Term Care Insurance

This section would amend sections 9001 and 9002 of title 5,

United States Code, to permit nonappropriated fund employees of

the Department of Defense to participate in the employee-funded

Federal Long Term Care Insurance program.

Section 1102—Extension of Department of Defense Authority to

Make Lump-Sum Severance Payments

This section would amend section 5595 of title 5, United States

Code, to extend the lump-sum severance payment authority to employees of the Department of Defense who are involuntarily separated from September 30, 2003, to September 30, 2006. This section would also direct that the President report to Congress within

twelve months whether this new authority should be made permanent or extended to other federal agencies.

Section 1103—Common Occupational and Health Standards for

Differential Payments as a Consequence of Exposure To Asbestos

This section would amend sections 5343 and 5545 of title 5,

United States Code, to establish a common standard for payment

of hazardous duty differential pay for reason of exposure to asbestos for prevailing rate and general schedule federal employees.

Section 1104—Continuation of Federal Employee Health Benefits

Program Eligibility

This section would amend section 8905a of title 5, United States

Code, to extend eligibility for health benefits to Federal employees

separated before October 1, 2006, or February 1, 2007, if specific

notice of separation is given to the employee before October 1,

2006.

346

Section 1105—Triennial Full-Scale Federal Wage System Wage

Surveys

This section would amend section 5343 of title 5, United States

Code, to change the full-scale federal wage system wage survey

cycle conducted by the Office of Personnel Management from two

to three years.

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER

NATIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1201—Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts to

Inspect and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities

This section would extend the authority under section 1505 of

the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992, section

5859a of title 22, United States Code, for the Department of Defense to expend up to $15.0 million in fiscal year 2003 in support

of the United Nations efforts to account for Iraqi weapons of mass

destruction items, facilities, and capabilities.

Section 1202—Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan

This section would strengthen the self-defense capability of Taiwan and promote regional stability. The Taiwan Relations Act of

1979 (Public Law 96–8) states that ‘‘the United States will make

available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in

such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain

a sufficient self-defense capability.’’ This law further stipulates that

the President and Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their

judgment of the needs of Taiwan. While the committee is generally

satisfied with the Administration’s actual and proposed sales of defense articles to Taiwan, China’s missile buildup and arms acquisitions have heightened concern about Taiwan’s ability to defend

itself. The committee is concerned that if the balance of power in

the Taiwan Strait continues to shift in China’s favor, China may

be tempted to seize Taiwan by force.

The United States has stated, through policy and law, that it desires a peaceful resolution to the differences between China and

Taiwan. In 2000, the Department released a report that stated, ‘‘As

long as Taiwan has a capable defense, the environment will be

more conducive to peaceful dialogue, and thus the whole region will

be more stable.’’

Given these reports and assessments, the committee believes

that Taiwan’s self-defense capability could be enhanced, and regional stability promoted, through the conduct of operational training and exchanges of senior officers between the armed forces of

the United States and the armed forces of Taiwan. This training

would cover a broad range of military matters, to include improving civil-military relations. The committee believes that weapons

sales alone do not guarantee capability. Rather, these systems are

only as effective as the military personnel trained to operate, integrate, and employ them.

347

The committee is confident that the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive training plan by the Department, for the

conduct of training between the armed forces of the United States

and the armed forces of Taiwan, will help Taiwan maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, deter aggression, promote dialogue,

and enhance regional stability.

This section would also require that the Secretary of Defense

submit the joint training and exchange plan, at least 30 days before implementation, to the Congress, specifically the Committees

on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate,

the Committee on International Relations in the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate.

Section 1203—Administrative Services and Support for Foreign

Liaison Officers

This section would amend Title 10, United States Code, by making clear that the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the

military departments may pay for, or provide without cost, administrative services and support to foreign liaison officers performing

duties at military facilities in the United States. Through the Department of Defense Foreign Liaison Officer Program, military representatives of foreign governments are temporarily assigned to

components or commands of U.S. armed forces. The administrative

services and support that could be provided under this section include base or installation operation support services, office space,

utilities, copying services, fire and police protection, and computer

support. This section would not authorize the Secretary to provide

pay and allowances and other similar benefits for foreign liaison officers. The U.S. government would also not cover, among other

things, the following costs associated with foreign liaison officers

stationed in the United States: pay and allowances; travel by the

officers and their dependents; movement of the household effects of

the officers or their dependents; preparation and shipment of the

remains and funeral expenses associated with the death of an officer or the officer’s dependents; formal and informal training of the

officers; and expenses in connection with the return of an officer

whose assignment has been terminated or expired, along with his

dependents.

This provision was requested by the Department of Defense.

However, given the committee’s concern that this authority could

evolve over time to cover costs and activities that would be unauthorized under this provision (as outlined above), a report shall be

required before this authority is either reauthorized or expires on

September 30, 2005.

Section 1204—Additional Countries Covered by Loan Guarantee

Program

This section would amend section 2540(b) of title 10, United

States Code, to expand the list of countries eligible under the Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program to include countries that

are determined by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with

the Secretary of State, to be important to the United States’ efforts

348

to combat drug trafficking organizations or foreign terrorist organizations.

The committee continues to believe that the Defense Export Loan

Guarantee Program can serve as an alternative to U.S. foreign assistance programs, and can support legitimate foreign defense

equipment requirements. However, the committee is concerned that

many nations, such as Colombia, that are combating drug trafficking organizations or foreign terrorist organizations do not currently qualify for the Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program.

Therefore, the committee believes that it is in the interest of the

United States to expand the list of nations eligible to participate

in the program.

Section 1205—Limitation on Funding for Joint Data Exchange

Center in Moscow

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of more

than 50 percent of fiscal year 2003 funds for activities associated

with the Joint Data Exchange Center in Moscow, Russia, until 30

days after the Secretary of Defense submits to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House

Committee on International Relations the agreement required by

section 1231 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) and an agreement exempting the United States from Russian taxes and liability.

The committee remains concerned by Russia’s apparent unwillingness to move forward with this project by agreeing to the same

kinds of tax and liability exemptions that apply to other U.S.-Russia cooperative programs. The committee urges the Department of

Defense to reach agreement with Russia on such exemptions, or

risk continued congressional support for this endeavor.

Section 1206—Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in

Colombia

This section would restrict funds available to the Department of

Defense to support or maintain more than 500 U.S. military personnel in Colombia at any time. The amendment would provide exemptions from the limitation for military personnel assigned to the

U.S. Embassy in Colombia as an attache ́, part of the security assistance office or the Marine Corps security contingent, participating in natural disaster relief efforts, involved in non-operational

transit through Colombia, engaged in rescuing or retrieving U.S.

military or governmental personnel, or participating in a ship port

call. The provision would also provide the Secretary of Defense the

authority to waive the military personnel limitation should the Secretary determine that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

349

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $416.7 million for cooperative

threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing a 3.4 percent increase from the $403 million appropriated for fiscal year 2002. The

request included $239.9 million to dismantle former Soviet Union

(FSU) weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and associated infrastructure; $94.4 million to consolidate and secure FSU WMD and

related technology and materials; $8.8 million to increase transparency and encourage higher standards of conduct; $58.9 million

to support defense and military cooperation with the objective of

preventing proliferation; and $14.7 million for other program support, including administrative and management costs. Finally, from

these program categories, $55.0 million would go toward preventing the proliferation of biological weapons.

The committee recommends the budget request with modifications.

The committee has traditionally supported the overriding goal of

the CTR program: to reduce the threat to the United States posed

by the former Soviet Union’s residual weapons of mass destruction

and their delivery systems. Nevertheless, in recent years the committee has raised numerous concerns, including: the expansion in

the program’s scope; the Department’s willingness—especially in

the absence of prior congressional consultation—to absorb project

costs that Russia, in particular, has not funded; the difficulty in determining whether assistance provided is accomplishing intended

objectives; the lack of appropriate access and transparency agreements; the challenge of ensuring that assistance provided is not directly or indirectly facilitating the process of arms modernization;

possible duplication and redundancies in similar projects executed

by multiple federal agencies; fraud, waste, and mismanagement in

the program; and whether CTR activities are more appropriately

funded outside the Department of Defense.

This year, the committee faces a much more daunting problem.

Current law stipulates that United States assistance for CTR

projects may not be provided to any independent state of the

former Soviet Union for any year unless the President certifies to

Congress for that year that the proposed recipient state is committed to a number of conditions that are in the national interest

of the United States. The President currently has no authority to

waive this certification or any of these conditions.

These conditions and certification were mandated given the

amount of financial assistance being provided to these countries,

and the obvious need for reciprocal financial and political commitment by recipient countries to the goals and objectives of these

threat reduction programs. Granting the President unlimited waiver authority for the annual certification, or any of the conditions

that compose it, would most certainly weaken the President’s ability to insist that recipient countries fully support, participate in,

and share the fundamental goals of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act (Public Law 103–160). However, completely suspending

350

these programs would itself be contrary to U.S. interests in ensuring the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The Administration informed Congress in early 2002 that the

President cannot certify that Russia is committed to complying

with relevant arms control agreements, specifically the Biological

and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons

Convention (CWC). The purposes of these conventions are to prevent the use of these types of weapons of mass destruction by prohibiting any research, development, production, or stockpiling of

these weapons.

The purpose of the United States CTR programs with the states

of the former Soviet Union is to similarly prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, or their acquisition or theft by third parties, by assisting these countries in reducing their excess stockpiles, production facilities, materials, and delivery systems, among

other things. By doing so, presumably the risk of proliferation,

theft, and illicit or accidental use—prevention of which are in the

national security interests of the United States and its allies— would also be reduced.

If Russia is not committed, let alone not complying with, its obligations under the BWC and CWC, then its illicit activities undermine the purpose and goals of the CTR program. Moreover, noncompliance with its arms control agreements calls into question

Russia’s fundamental commitment to nonproliferation and demilitarization, its credibility and trustworthiness as a treaty partner,

and its strategic intentions and plans toward the United States

and other nations.

Given that the President has been forthright about Russia’s

questionable activities, and has put Moscow on notice regarding its

commitment to comply with all relevant arms control agreements,

the committee is granting the President limited waiver authority in

Section 1308 so as to allow the CTR program in Russia to continue.

This waiver authority, however, is limited in both duration and

scope, and includes appropriate reporting requirements to ensure

that Congress is properly apprised of the nature and extent of this

ongoing matter, and why it is important to the United States national security to exercise this waiver authority.

Additionally, the President is required to develop a plan or policy

to promote Russian compliance with its relevant arms control

agreements. Needless to say, failure by Russia to take immediate

action to demonstrate its commitment to the BWC and CWC risks

further restrictions on CTR assistance to Russia.

The committee continues to believe that the focus of the CTR

program should be the elimination of those weapons that pose the

most serious and direct threat to U.S. security—first and foremost,

strategic nuclear weapons and associated infrastructure. As such,

the committee does not fully support the Administration’s budget

request for chemical weapons destruction in Russia, particularly

when that country is failing to meet its obligations under the CWC.

The committee also notes that the CTR program was originally

envisioned as a short-term emergency effort to reduce the threat

posed to the United States by the thousands of nuclear weapons

and their delivery vehicles left behind after the demise of the Soviet Union. However, the original focus of the CTR program has expanded significantly in scope since its inception. Now, there is an

351

effort to expand the CTR program beyond the FSU. The committee

does not believe this is wise given the amount of CTR work still

needing to be done in the FSU, and has therefore placed a prohibition on further expansion of the CTR program.

The committee believes that the oversight provided by Congress

since the program’s inception has served to improve the overall

management of the program and to increase its effectiveness. As

such, the committee remains troubled that the Department has not

complied with the various reporting requirements mandated by law

that are designed to enhance congressional visibility and oversight

of the CTR program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a

provision (sec. 1303) that would prohibit or limit the obligation or

expenditure of all fiscal year 2003 CTR funds until the necessary

reports are submitted.

The committee expects the Department to consider carefully and

fully the concerns the committee has identified with respect to the

CTR program as the Department prepares its budget and program

request for fiscal year 2004.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Arms Elimination Projects in Russia

The budget request contained $70.5 million for strategic offensive

arms elimination projects in Russia, a 47 percent decrease from the

fiscal year 2002 appropriated amount of $133.4 million. The committee recommends the budget request.

Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention

The budget request contained $55.0 million for biological weapons proliferation prevention activities in the former Soviet Union,

a 223 percent increase from the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level

of $17.0 million. The committee recommends the budget request.

Although generally supportive of efforts to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons expertise, the committee remains concerned over the lack of transparency with respect to Russia’s biological weapons programs, the risk that collaborative research on

defensive biotechnology can be applied to offensive weapons purposes, the perpetuation of a knowledge and skills base among Russian scientists that may increase their attractiveness to foreign

states seeking to develop biological weapons, the difficulty of

verifying that assistance provided is not being diverted to illicit

purposes, and the lack of an exit strategy for this activity.

Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia

The budget request contained $133.6 million for chemical weapons elimination activities in Russia, which represents a 167 percent

increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $50.0 million. The committee does not fully support this request.

Rather, the committee supports funding this request at $50.0

million, and making the balance of the DOD request—$83.6 million—also available for strategic offensive arms elimination in the

former Soviet Union and nuclear weapons transportation and storage security in Russia.

352

As previously stated, the committee continues to believe that the

focus of the CTR program should be the elimination of those weapons that pose the most serious and direct threat to U.S. security:

strategic nuclear weapons and associated infrastructure. As such,

the committee does not support a budget request that proposes to

spend $133.6 million on chemical weapons destruction in Russia,

particularly when that country is failing to live up to its obligations

under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

As it stands, Russia has failed to meet any of the time and destruction milestones outlined in the CWC; in fact, Russia is admittedly years behind schedule and shows little sign of making

progress in complying with the convention. While Russia may claim

economic hardship, and the failure of other countries—particularly

the United States—to help fund the destruction activities outlined

in the CWC, the committee notes that Russia’s obligations under

the CWC are Russia’s responsibilities—not others’. Moreover, the

Russian government could meet its obligations under the CWC by

freeing up funds dedicated to the production of SS–27 ballistic missiles, the development of other offensive arms, and the pursuit of

military modernization initiatives.

Finally, the committee is troubled by the fact that Russia has yet

to meet all of the necessary conditions, particularly the requirement to provide full and accurate information regarding its chemical weapons stockpile, before CTR funds can be expended on the

chemical weapons destruction facility (CWDF). Because Russia has

failed to meet these conditions, no CTR funds have been expended

on the destruction facility to date. Given the totality of facts, the

Committee has decided to flat line this year’s budget request for

chemical weapons destruction rather than endorse a 167% increase

in funding for this project. Additionally, continued Russian reluctance to resolve these issues not only undermines congressional

support for the CTR program, it also jeopardizes continued funding

for the CWDF project in particular.

Defense and Military Contacts

The budget request contained $18.9 million for defense and military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union, a slight

increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $18.3 million. The committee recommends the budget request. Last year, the

CTR program funded approximately 500 defense and military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union. This year’s budget

request would also support 500 events. However, the committee

continues to believe that the utility of these activities is difficult to

quantify, yet fully expects the Department to do so as it plans, implements and evaluates these activities. As such, the committee

has required a detailed report on this program’s activities before

more than 50% of fiscal year 2003 CTR funds are obligated or expended.

Fissile Material Storage Facility

The budget request did not contain funding for this activity. The

committee notes that Russia continues not to seek assistance to

build a second wing at the Mayak storage facility and that sufficient funds remain to complete activity on the first wing. AccordVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00374 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
353

ingly, the committee supports the Department’s action not to seek

additional funds for this activity and recommends a provision (section 1305) that would continue to prohibit CTR funds from being

used for the design, planning, or construction of a second wing. The

committee notes that Russia has consistently refused to agree to

transparency measures that would allow the United States to

verify that the fissile material stored at the facility in Mayak, Russia, is from dismantled nuclear weapons and reiterates its view

that the Department should continue to seek an agreement with

Russia on this issue.

Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia

The budget request contained $39.9 million for nuclear weapons

storage security in Russia, a 27 percent decrease from the fiscal

year 2002 appropriated level of $54.7 million. The committee recommends the budget request, but reiterates the need for the Secretary of Defense to seek an agreement with Russia allowing appropriate U.S. access to nuclear weapons storage sites for which

CTR assistance is provided.

Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security

The budget request contained $19.7 million for nuclear weapons

transportation security in Russia, a 107 percent increase from the

fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $9.5 million. The committee

recommends the budget request. The committee notes that these

costs were previously paid by Russia and again urges the Department to seek an agreement that would once again shift the burden

of financial responsibility for this activity back to Russia.

Other Assessments and Administrative Support

The budget request contained $14.7 million for other program

support, including management and administrative costs, project

development, and audits and examinations, an 11 percent increase

over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $13.2 million. The

committee recommends the budget request.

The committee notes that a portion of these funds has traditionally been applied to new initiatives in the concept development

stage. The committee understands that Russia has in the past proposed various initiatives for CTR consideration, including initiatives involving conventional weapons or delivery platforms. The

committee believes that the statutory language of section 1303 of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), which prohibits the use of CTR funds for conventional elimination purposes, should be strictly adhered to and that

CTR funds should not be expended on concept development studies

designed to assess the viability of elimination projects specifically

prohibited under the statutory prohibition.

Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination in

Kazakhstan

The budget request contained $9.0 million for weapons of mass

destruction infrastructure elimination activities in Kazakhstan, a

50 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of

354

$6.0 million. This would include funding for activities related to the

prevention of fissile and radioactive material proliferation, and the

elimination of facilities used to support the deployment and operation of weapons of mass destruction, including infrastructure at

former bomber bases. The committee recommends the budget request.

Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination in

Ukraine

The budget request contained $8.8 million for weapons of mass

destruction infrastructure elimination activities in Ukraine, a 47

percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $6.0

million. This would include funding for activities related to the

elimination of facilities used to support the deployment and operation of weapons of mass destruction, including facilities for storage and maintenance of nuclear weapons. The committee recommends the budget request.

Russian Proliferation to Iran

The committee is deeply concerned about continued Russian proliferation to Iran, and the clear threat that this dangerous activity

presents to the national security and vital interests of the United

States. Needless to say, Russian proliferation to Iran, and to other

countries, conflicts with the purpose and goals of the Cooperative

Threat Reduction (CTR) program, and could undermine continued

congressional support for threat reduction efforts in Russia.

According to the U.S. intelligence community, Russian proliferation to Iran consists primarily of nuclear and missile technology,

goods, and know-how, and dual-use items that could contribute to

the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. This proliferation also includes other WMD technologies and advanced conventional weapons; and Russian entities

are also transferring similar items to other countries, including

China, Libya, and Syria.

As a result of Russian assistance, the intelligence community estimates that Iran could attempt to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2005, and could possess a nuclear weapon by 2010.

Combined, these capabilities would create a new strategic threat to

the United States, and an immediate threat to American forces, interests, allies and friends in the region.

Unclassified intelligence reports indicate that Russian proliferation to Iran takes place either covertly, under the guise of peaceful

cooperation, or through academic and scientific exchanges that take

place in both Russia and Iran. In either case, this matter has been

raised by United States officials at the highest levels of the Russian government. Yet, despite U.S. efforts, this activity continues

with either the knowledge or acquiescence of senior Russian officials, who support these illicit transfers or are tolerating them for

strategic or financial reasons.

To make matters worse, Iran has a longstanding history of providing safe harbor, money, arms and assistance to foreign terrorist

organizations. As a result, Iran has been rightly designated a

‘‘state sponsor of terrorism’’ by the United States. The most dangerous aspect of Russian proliferation to Iran, therefore, is that

355

weapons of mass destruction technologies or materials might be

passed onto foreign terrorist organizations supported by Teheran.

It goes without saying that the combination of foreign terrorists organizations and weapons of mass destruction would constitute a

grave threat to the national security of the United States, since an

attack of this nature would be extremely difficult to prevent, deter,

or defend against.

Therefore, it would be fair to state that the ongoing proliferation

of WMD technologies, materials, and know-how from Russia to

Iran represents a greater, broader, and more likely threat to the

national security and vital interests of the United States than the

potential proliferation of these same items from Russia.

Russian proliferation to Iran and other countries raises serious

questions about Moscow’s intentions, commitment to nonproliferation, and desire for improved U.S.-Russian relations. Thus, the

President must make nonproliferation a top priority when dealing

with Moscow, and must demonstrate United States resolve and

commitment to nonproliferation through clear, firm and coherent

policies and strategies that employ the full-range of diplomatic and

economic tools at his disposal, both positive and negative, to eliminate this dangerous activity once and for always.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction

Programs and Funds

This section would specify the kinds of programs to be funded

under this title and would make fiscal year 2003 Cooperative

Threat Reduction (CTR) funds available for obligation for three

years.

Section 1302—Funding Allocations

This section would allocate fiscal year 2003 funding for various

CTR purposes and activities.

Section 1303—Prohibition Against Use of Funds Until Submission

of Reports

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal

year 2003 CTR funds until 30 days after the annual report required by section 1308 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), and

the update for the multi-year plan required to be submitted for fiscal year 2001, are submitted.

Section 1304—Report on Use of Revenue Generated by Activities

Carried Out Under Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

This section would place a new reporting requirement, as practicable, in the annual report required by section 1308 of the Floyd

D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(Public Law 106–398) regarding use of the revenue generated by

CTR activities in the states of the former Soviet Union.

356

Section 1305—Prohibition Against Use of Funds for Second Wing

of Fissile Material Storage Facility

This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for the design,

planning, or construction of a second wing for the fissile material

storage facility in Mayak, Russia.

Section 1306—Sense of Congress and Report Requirement

Regarding Russian Proliferation to Iran

This section would express the Sense of Congress regarding continued Russian proliferation of goods, technology, and know-how

that directly or indirectly contribute to Iran’s development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, and the threat that

this illicit activity could pose to United States national security and

vital interests.

This section would also require the President to report to the

Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on

Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and

the House Committee on International Relations regarding the

scope, nature, and extent of Russian proliferation to Iran, and to

other countries of concern; the impact this activity could have on

the United States and its national security interests; and the plan,

policy, or strategy that the President intends to pursue to halt Russian proliferation.

Section 1307—Prohibition Against Use of Cooperative Threat

Reduction Funds Outside the States of the Former Soviet Union

This section would prohibit expanding the CTR program to states

outside of the former Soviet Union.

Section 1308—Limited Waiver of Restriction on Use of Funds

This section would provide limited authority for the President to

waive the certification requirement of paragraph (d)(5), section

5952 of title 22, United Stated Code—which states that Russia is

committed to complying with all relevant arms control agreements—for national security purposes.

This waiver authority is limited in both duration and scope. It

includes appropriate reporting requirements to ensure that Congress is properly apprised of the nature and extent of Russia’s lack

of commitment to all relevant arms control agreements, why it is

important to the United States national security to exercise this

waiver authority and continue CTR activities with Russia, and the

President’s plan or policy to promote Russian compliance with its

relevant arms control agreements.

The committee notes that while it may be in the national security interest of the United States to continue CTR programs in

Russia, it is even more important to the nation’s security that Russia comply with all relevant arms control agreements, particularly

those involving weapons of mass destruction.

Section 1309—Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of

Report on Defense and Military Contacts Activities

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of more

than 50% of fiscal year 2003 CTR funds for ‘‘Defense and Military

357

Activities’’ until the Secretary of Defense submits a report to Congress detailing the activities, operation, and performance of the

previous year’s events under this program.

TITLE XIV—UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE

OVERVIEW

The Utah Test and Training Range is used for operational training, testing of new systems, and missile motor storage, testing and

destruction. The range provides the largest overland safety footprint available in the Department for aircrew training and weapons testing. The continued operation of the Utah Test and Training

Range is vital for meeting test and training requirements for the

Air Force, allied forces, other national agencies, civilian industry

and civilian academic institutions.

In order to fulfill its mission, the Air Force must maintain overflight capability, including low-altitude overflight, by manned and

unmanned aircraft and vehicles as well as the ability to undertake

supersonic events. The Air Force must protect established rightsof-way to existing ground instrumentation and communications

gear, and the capability to upgrade or add additional equipment as

necessary. The Air Force also requires emergency access to certain

areas and the ability to control or restrict public access.

In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management recommended that approximately 1.9 million acres in Utah be designated as wilderness,

including approximately 200,000 acres within the Utah Test and

Training Range. The Wilderness Act of 1964, P.L. 88–577, defines

wilderness as lands upon which ‘‘the imprint of man’s work [is]

substantially unnoticeable’’ such that the lands provide ‘‘outstanding opportunities for solitude.’’ In recent years, the Department’s readiness capabilities have been encroached by threatened

litigation wherein parties have asserted that military training activities conducted at or near proposed wilderness areas nationwide

are unlawful in instances where the activities interfere with a solitude wilderness experience.

Continued unrestricted access to the special use airspace and

lands that comprise the Utah Test and Training Range is a national security priority that is compatible with the protection and

proper management of the natural, environmental, cultural and

other resources of these lands. This provision would not amend the

Wilderness Act, which is silent on the issue of military activities

above wilderness areas.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1401–Definition of Utah Test and Training Range

This section would define the ‘‘Utah Test and Training Range’’ as

those portions of the military operating area of the Utah Test and

Training Area located solely in the State of Utah, including the

Dugway Proving Ground.

358

Section 1402—Military Operations and Overflights at Utah Test

and Training Range

This section would specify that the Wilderness Act would not restrict the ability of the military to conduct overflights or designate

new training routes on the Utah Test and Training Range. The section would specify that the Wilderness Act would not require the

removal of existing communication, instrumentation or electronic

tracking systems, and would permit maintenance of or installation

of any such equipment in the future. This section would also instruct the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of Interior

to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to determine procedures and guidelines regarding emergency access, the restriction of

public access for safety and security reasons and the temporary

placement of communications equipment for training and testing of

military activities.

Section 1403—Designation and Management of Lands in Utah Test

and Training Range

This section would specify the Federal lands located in the Utah

Test and Training Range that will be designated as wilderness. All

areas designated as wilderness would be administered by the Secretary of the Interior subject to the conditions specified in the provision.

Section 1404—Designation of Pilot Range Wilderness

This section would designate specified Federal lands in Box Elder

County, Utah, as wilderness known as the Pilot Range Wilderness

Area.

Section 1405—Designation of Cedar Mountain Wilderness

This section would designate specified Federal lands in Tooele

County, Utah, as wilderness known as the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area.

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

PURPOSE

The purpose of Division B is to provide military construction authorizations and related authority in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2003. As approved by the committee,

Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of

$9,953,476,000 for construction in support of the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) security infrastructure fund for fiscal year

2003.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW

The Department of Defense requested $4,713,916,000 for military

construction and $4,220,133,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2003. Within the military construction request, $545,138,000 was

requested for implementation of base closure and realignment acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
359

tions. The committee recommends authorization of $5,702,368,000

for military construction, including $545,138,000 for base closure

implementation, and $4,251,108,000 for family housing.

Although the last two military construction budgets will be the

highest in several years, the committee remains concerned about

the state of our military installations and facilities. Despite these

two relatively robust budgets, the situation at installation after installation remains grim, with little hope for the future without a

serious commitment to the modernization of the Department’s infrastructure. Even the improved funding for sustainment, modernization and restoration does not provide enough resources to

keep the condition of these facilities from falling further behind.

The budget request would have funded little more than beddown

of new missions and some quality of life projects. While important,

these projects do nothing to improve the situation for long neglected current mission requirements, which continue to suffer. To

address some of this shortfall, the committee recommends an increase in new budget authority of $1,019,427,000, and carefully reviewed the projects contained in the budget request. While the

committee approved all but a few of the requested projects, the

committee withheld approval of seemingly redundant projects overseas and withheld judgment on the value of additional North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters.

The committee is pleased that three of the four military services

expect to have all military families living in adequate family housing by 2007 through the housing privatization program. The committee has recommended further enhancements to this program in

the effort to hasten the day when all military families will live in

decent homes.

A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in Division B

for fiscal year 2003 follows:

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

TITLE XXI—ARMY

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $1,476,521,000 for Army military

construction and $1,405,620,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2003. The committee recommends authorization of $1,521,433,000

for military construction and $1,400,700,000 for family housing for

fiscal year 2003.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Planning and Design

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning

and design activities for the following project: $1,600,000 for a railhead at Baumholder, Germany.

Unspecified Minor Construction

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute

the following project: $1,050,000 for sewage plant environmental

compliance upgrades at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

Water Tanks, Fort Bliss, Texas

The committee authorizes $10,200,000 for phase two of a project

to replace elevated water tanks at Fort Bliss, Texas, and recommends authorization of appropriation of $5,200,000. The committee notes that sufficient authorization of appropriations to complete phase two of this project was provided by section 2101 of the

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107–107).

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Army construction

projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized amounts are listed on

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2102—Family Housing

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2003.

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2003.

376

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item contained in the Army’s budget for fiscal year 2003. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Army may

spend on military construction projects.

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain

Fiscal Year 2002 Projects

This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division

B of Public Law 107–107) to provide for an increase in the amounts

authorized for military construction at Fort Carson, Colorado, and

Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

TITLE XXII—NAVY

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $895,131,000 for Navy military construction and $1,243,488,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2003. The committee recommends authorization of $1,245,585,000

for military construction and $1,245,404,000 for family housing for

fiscal year 2003.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System Land Based Test Site

The committee commends the Secretary of the Navy for including

planning and design funding in the budget request for the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) Land Based Test Site

at Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station, New Jersey. The committee believes this project is a critical component of the CVN–X

program and understands that the Secretary of the Navy intends

to request full funding for the project in fiscal year 2004. The committee endorses the secretary’s plan to fund this project in fiscal

year 2004.

North Chicago Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center And

Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to consult with

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and provide a report of the plan

required by the House of Representatives report on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Report 107–333) to

jointly make maximum use of the North Chicago Veterans Affairs

Medical Center. The report should be transmitted to the committee

by January 30, 2003.

The committee believes that efficiencies are possible if the Department of the Navy and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs

share a single, modern facility. The committee recognizes the many

bureaucratic impediments to such a proposal, among them the reality that construction of medical facilities for the military departments is managed and budgeted by the Department of Defense

(DOD). With the understanding that the Secretary of the Navy and

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs agree on the design of a new joint

377

facility that will be no more costly to each department than respective single use facilities, the committee encourages the Secretary of

the Navy to submit a request to fund the DOD portion of a joint

facility to the Secretary of Defense for consideration in the fiscal

year 2004 or future medical construction budget requests.

The committee believes that any joint venture undertaken at

Great Lakes Naval Hospital and the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center should meet jointly identified needs in a cost

effective manner, be mutually beneficial to the beneficiaries of both

departments, and incorporate the best business practices and lessons learned from previous joint ventures. To this end, the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense,

and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall consult on further development of compatible budget, reimbursement and accounting

systems, and compatible information technology goals. The consultation shall seek to identify restrictive regulations, policies and

regulatory redundancies that inhibit resource sharing, and provide

milestone dates to address each identified issue.

Planning and Design

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy complete planning

and design activities for the following projects: $1,100,000 for a

child development center at North Island Naval Air Station, California and $180,000 for a fire station at Whidbey Island Naval Air

Station, Washington.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction

projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized amounts are listed on

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2202—Family Housing

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2003.

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2003.

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Navy’s budget for fiscal year 2003. This section also

provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy may spend on

military construction projects.

378

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain

Fiscal Year 2002 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division

B of Public Law 107–107) to provide for an increase in the amounts

authorized for military construction at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia.

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $644,090,000 for Air Force military

construction and $1,521,113,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2003. The committee recommends authorization of $929,721,000 for

military construction and $1,555,092,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2003.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

C–17 Assault Strips

The committee endorses the decision by the Secretary of the Air

Force to base C–17 aircraft at March Air Reserve Base, California,

and Travis Air Force Base, California. The committee notes that

fully trained C–17 crews must practice combat landings at assault

strips located at air bases near their home station. The committee

has learned that a facility at Bicycle Lake, Fort Irwin, California,

may be able to serve as an assault strip for March Air Reserve

Base and Travis Air Force Base crews with some minor improvements. The committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force and the

Secretary of the Army to consider upgrading the facility at Fort

Irwin for use as an assault strip and urges the Secretary of the Air

Force to construct assault strips at locations at appropriate distances from other bases where C–17 aircraft are stationed.

Planning and Design

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following projects: $675,000 for

an air traffic control tower at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware,

$2,160,000 for the 1st Air Force operations support center at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, and $2,430,000 for corrosion control

paint facility at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Air Force construction

projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized amounts are listed on

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

379

Section 2302—Family Housing

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year

2003.

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2003.

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Air Force’s budget for fiscal year 2003. This section also

would provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force may

spend on military construction projects.

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $687,535,000 for defense agencies

military construction and $47,912,000 for family housing for fiscal

year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of

$779,896,000 for military construction and $47,912,000 for family

housing for fiscal year 2003.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Planning and Design

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

planning and design, the Secretary of Defense complete planning

and design activities for the following project: $1,300,000 for the

fifth building of the Uniformed Services University of Health

Sciences at Bethesda, Maryland.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects

This section contains the list of authorized defense agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized amounts are

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2402—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2003.

Section 2403—Energy Conservation Projects

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry

out energy conservation projects.

380

Section 2404—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Defense Agencies’ budget for fiscal year 2003. This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount the defense

agencies may spend on military construction projects.

Section 2405—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain

Fiscal Year 2000 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division

B of Public Law 106–65) to provide for an increase in the amounts

authorized for military construction at Blue Grass Army Depot,

Kentucky.

Section 2406—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain

Fiscal Year 1999 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division

B of Public Law 105–261) to provide for an increase in the amounts

authorized for military construction at Newport Army Depot, Indiana.

Section 2407—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain

Fiscal Year 1997 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division

B of Public Law 104–201) to provide for an increase in the amounts

authorized for military construction at Pueblo Chemical Activity,

Colorado.

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $168,200,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends $168,200,000.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security

investment program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount

specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill and the amount

of recoupment due to the United States for construction previously

financed by the United States.

381

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

This section would authorize appropriations of $168,200,000 as

the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security investment program.

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES

FACILITIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $297,301,000 for military construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 2003 of

$512,395,000 to be distributed as follows:

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $ 170,793,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 119,266,000

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 86,789,000

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 66,971,000

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 68,576,000

Total ............................................................................................. 512,395,000

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Dual Use Reserve Facilities

The committee understands that select Marine Reserve units are

developing innovative programs with local educational institutions

that may result in greater synergy between the military and civilian community at the local level. The committee is aware that

these initiatives may involve efficiencies in the form of dual use of

some facilities. The committee is interested in this initiative and

directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services by March 1, 2003, on the value of this program.

Joint Army Reserve and National Guard Reserve Center

The committee believes that the reserve components should construct joint facilities wherever possible. The committee understands

that both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have inadequate facilities in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The committee urges

the Secretary of the Army to consider establishing a joint Army Reserve and Army National Guard center in the Scranton, Pennsylvania area to properly support the reserve components in northeast

Pennsylvania. The committee is also aware that the Army National

Guard and Army Reserve are considering such a joint project in the

Moreno Valley, California, area, and urges the Secretary of the

Army to complete this needed joint facility as soon as possible.

Planning and Design, Air National Guard

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following projects: $1,650,000 for

a fire crash rescue station and control tower at Otis Air National

Guard Base, Massachusetts, $1,110,000 for an aircraft maintenance complex at Duluth International Airport, Minnesota, and

382

$347,000 for phase two of an aircraft maintenance complex in

Nashville, Tennessee.

Planning and Design, Army National Guard

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning

and design activities for the following projects: $990,000 for an

armed forces reserve center in Haleyville, Alabama, $1,126,000 for

an aviation transformation readiness center at Windsor Locks,

Connecticut, $1,580,000 for an aviation support facility at Fort

Stewart, Georgia, $659,000 for a readiness center in Methuen,

Massachusetts, $2,014,000 for an aviation support facility at North

Kingstown, Rhode Island, and $856,000 for an information operations armory at Camp Murray, Washington.

Unspecified Minor Construction

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute

the following project: $586,000 for readiness center utilities upgrades at Worcester, Massachusetts.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and

Land Acquisition Projects

This section would authorize appropriations for military construction for the guard and reserve by service component for fiscal

year 2003. The state list contained in this report is intended to be

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF

AUTHORIZATIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required

to Be Specified by Law

This section would provide that authorizations for military construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family

housing projects and facilities, contributions to the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will expire on October 1, 2005 or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal

year 2006, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to

authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated

before October 1, 2005 or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.

Section 2702—Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year

2000 Projects

This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal

year 2000 military construction authorizations until October 1,

383

2003, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for

military construction for fiscal year 2004, whichever is later.

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year

1999 Projects

This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal

year 1999 military construction authorizations until October 1,

2003, or the date of the enactment of the act authorizing funds for

military construction for fiscal year 2004, whichever is later.

Section 2704—Effective Date

This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV,

XXV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1, 2002, or

the date of the enactment of this act, whichever is later.

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Impact of Privatized Housing on Local School Systems

The committee commends the Secretary of Defense’s initiative to

eliminate substandard military family housing by 2007 by aggressive use of housing privatization authorities. The committee believes that such initiatives, while worthy, should carefully consider

the impact on all local support facilities, especially local school systems. It is particularly challenging for Department of Defense Education Activity Schools to respond effectively to sudden shifts in

student population, since these schools must accommodate all students on a given installation, and since new school construction

must be approved in the Department’s military construction budget

request. Local education activities feel the effects as well, and have

little chance to react as federal impact payments are slow to adjust.

The committee notes that service secretaries are authorized to include new school facilities in privatized housing contracts, and is

concerned that this authority has not been used to its fullest advantage. In order to understand how the Department is addressing

this issue both at installations with and without Department of Defense schools, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2003, the impact of

privatized housing on local and any Department of Defense schools

at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Fort Hood, Texas, and Lackland Air

Force Base, Texas, together with the measures taken to ameliorate

those impacts.

Integrated Water Management System on Guam

The committee recognizes the need for efficient management, utilization and conservation of water resources for the civilian and

military communities on Guam. For some years, the committee has

encouraged the military services to privatize utility systems where

possible. In that regard, the committee encourages the Department

of Defense to work collaboratively with the Government of Guam

for a comprehensive and integrated water supply system and

384

wastewater system on the island. To achieve this goal, the committee urges the exploration of a public-private partnership to

manage the distribution and supply of potable water on a more efficient basis in Guam.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Changes to Alternative Authority for Acquisition

and Improvement of Military Housing

This section would amend several provisions of subchapter IV of

chapter 169, title 10, United States Code, to provide the secretaries

of the military departments with additional flexibility in the management of family and unaccompanied housing under alternate authorities. This section would amend section 2872a of title 10,

United States Code, to add police and fire protection services to the

services that may be provided by a service secretary under these

authorities; would amend section 2874 of title 10, United States

Code, to permit service secretaries to lease existing housing and incorporate such housing into contracts negotiated under these authorities; would repeal section 2879 of title 10, United States Code;

would amend section 2880 of title 10, United States Code, to remove restrictions on space limitations by grade for unaccompanied

housing provided under these authorities on a military installation;

and would amend section 2883 of title 10, United States Code, to

consolidate the existing separate family housing and unaccompanied housing improvement funds into a single fund.

Section 2802—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Construction

Projects as Part of Environmental Response Action

This section would amend section 2810 of title 10, United States

Code, to clarify that the secretaries of the military departments are

required to notify Congress of their intent carry out military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law necessary to

carry out an environmental response action when the cost of that

project exceeds the minor construction threshold.

Section 2803—Leasing of Military Family Housing in Korea

This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to lease in Korea no

more than 2,400 units of family housing for a maximum lease

amount of $35,000 per year and no more than 1,175 units of family

housing for a maximum of $25,000 per year.

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2811—Agreements with Private Entities to Limit Encroachments and Other Constraints on Military Training, Testing, and Operations

This section would authorize the secretary of a military department to enter into an agreement with a private organization whose

principal purpose is the conservation of natural resources to acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00406 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
385

quire an interest in land near military installations for the purpose

of preserving natural habitat and limiting commercial development

near military installations. The committee believes that judicious

use of this initiative will help to preserve the last refuge habitat

of some endangered species and will reduce the risk of urban encroachment impacting training at military installations.

Section 2812—Conveyance of Surplus Real Property for Natural

Resource Conservation Purposes

This section would authorize the secretary of a military department to convey surplus real property under the administrative control of the secretary to an entity of state or local government or a

nonprofit conservation organization for the purpose of maintaining

the property for the conservation of natural resources in perpetuity.

Section 2813—National Emergency Exemption From Screening and

Other Requirements of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

for Property Used in Support of Response Activities

This section would amend section 11411 of title 42, United States

Code, to provide an exception to the requirement to screen excess

or surplus property for various other uses when the property may

be needed by federal, state, or local agencies to support emergency

efforts in times of war, national emergency, or the occurrence of a

major disaster.

Section 2814—Demonstration Program on Reduction in Long-Term

Facility Maintenance Costs

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct

a demonstration program to assess whether the inclusion of facility

maintenance requirements in military construction contracts may

reduce the long-term facility maintenance costs of the military departments. This program is limited to 12 contracts, but is in addition to similar authority provided to the Secretary of the Army by

section 2814 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107–107).

Section 2815—Expanded Authority to Transfer Property at Military Installations to Be Closed to Persons Who Construct or Provide Military Family Housing

This section would amend section 204 of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public

Law 100–526) and section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–510) to provide greater

flexibility to the secretary of a military department to exchange

property at a closed military installation for needed military family

housing.

386

SUBTITLE C—LAND CONVEYANCES

PART I—ARMY CONVEYANCES

Section 2821—Land Conveyances, Lands in Alaska No Longer

Required for National Guard Purposes

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey

to the State of Alaska, a local government entity, or Indian tribe

in the State of Alaska certain parcels of real estate in the National

Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska that are excess to the needs of

the Alaska National Guard.

Section 2822—Land Conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, consisting of approximately 50 acres containing an

abandoned railroad spur, to the city of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. The

property is to be used by the city for storm water management,

recreation, and other public purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the city.

Section 2823—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Training Center,

Buffalo, Minnesota

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property, with improvements, to the Buffalo Independent School District 877 of Buffalo,

Minnesota. The property is to be used by the school district as a

learning center. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the school district.

Section 2824—Land Conveyance, Fort Bliss, Texas

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property at Fort Bliss,

Texas, consisting of approximately 44 acres with and without improvements to the State of Texas. The property is to be used by the

State for the construction of a veterans’ nursing home. The cost of

any surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the

State.

Section 2825—Land Conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration a parcel of real estate at Fort Hood,

Texas, consisting of approximately 174 acres with and without improvements, to the Veterans Land Board of the State of Texas. The

property is to be used by the State to establish a State run veterans’ cemetery. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the board.

387

PART II—NAVY CONVEYANCES

Section 2831—Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station,

Miramar, San Diego, California

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey

a parcel of real property at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San

Diego, California, to ENPEX Corporation for consideration. The

section would require that the corporation construct family housing

in the San Diego area and convey such housing and underlying real

estate to the Secretary of the Navy as consideration for the parcel

to be conveyed by the secretary. The section would also require

that the value of the housing and real estate to be acquired by the

secretary be of at least equal value to real estate being conveyed,

and would restrict the use of the land conveyed by the secretary

to the generation of electric power.

Section 2832—Boundary Adjustments, Marine Corps Base,

Quantico, and Prince William Forest Park, Virginia

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and

the Secretary of the Navy to adjust the boundaries of Marine Corps

Base, Quantico, Virginia, and Prince William Forest Park, Virginia.

The boundary adjustment will require the Secretary of the Navy to

transfer approximately 352 acres of land to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, and will require the Secretary of the Interior to transfer approximately 3,400 acres of land

to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy.

PART III—AIR FORCE CONVEYANCES

Section 2841—Land Conveyance, Wendover Air Force Base

Auxiliary Field, Nevada

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and

the Secretary of the Air Force to convey certain parcels of real

property at Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field, Nevada, to

the City of West Wendover, Nevada, and Tooele County, Utah,

without consideration, for the purpose of establishing a runway

protection zone and the development of an industrial park.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2861—Easement for Construction of Roads or Highways,

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California

This section would amend section 2867 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public

Law 107–107) to clarify that any state law that would restrict the

construction of the proposed road through Camp Pendleton, California, has no effect on the authority of the Secretary of the Navy

to grant the easement or on the Transportation Corridor Agency to

construct and operate the road.

388

Section 2862—Sale of Excess Treated Water and Wastewater

Treatment Capacity, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North

Carolina

This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to enter into

an agreement that would allow Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, to

provide treated water and wastewater treatment services to

Onslow County, North Carolina, if the secretary determines that

such an agreement is in the public interest and will not interfere

with current or future utility needs at Camp Lejeune. The section

would also require the county to reimburse the Navy for the fair

market value of the services provided and specify that any amounts

paid would be credited to the base operations and maintenance accounts of Camp Lejeune.

Section 2863—Ratification of Agreement Regarding Adak Naval

Complex, Alaska, and Related Land Conveyances

This section would ratify an agreement made by the Secretary of

the Interior, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Aleut Corporation

in September 2000 concerning the reuse of the Adak Naval Complex, Alaska, and other related land conveyances. The agreement

would provide that real estate on Adak Island withdrawn for use

by the Secretary of the Navy may be transferred to the Aleut Corporation without regard to the requirements of section 1621 of title

42, United States Code, pertaining to lands in the Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge. In return, the Aleut Corporation would

agree to transfer to the Secretary of the Interior at least 36,000

acres of land suitable for inclusion in the Alaska Maritime National

Wildlife Refuge. The committee believes that this agreement promotes the public interest by equitably preserving wildlife habitat

and allowing the Secretary of the Navy to divest of unneeded real

property.

Section 2864—Special Requirements for Adding Military

Installations to Closure List

This section would amend section 3003 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public

Law 107–107) to require that the base closure commission vote

unanimously to add an installation to the list of bases being considered for closure and that at least two commissioners must visit any

base ultimately recommended for closure.

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $15,434.0 million for the national

security activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2003.

Of this amount, $8,038.7 million is for the programs of the NaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00410 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
389

tional Nuclear Security Administration and $7,395.2 million is for

environmental and other defense activities. The committee recommends $15,400.9 million, the amount requested less $33.1 million for retirement accrual, representing an increase of $1,324.2

million from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2002. The following table summarizes the budget request and the committee

recommendations.

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

Request

The Administration proposed legislation to require agencies, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to pay the full government share of the

accruing cost of retirement for current Civil Service Retirement

System (CSRS) employees and to pay the full accruing cost of postretirement health benefits for current civilian employees who are

enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

(FEHB). At the present time, agencies pay about half of the employer’s share for accruing benefits, and the remainder is covered

by a mandatory general fund payment. The Administration’s proposed change would require specific legislation to move the full

government share to each agency’s budget.

The committee understands that the appropriate committee with

jurisdiction to initiate this change has declined to consider the required legislation and, therefore, recommends continuing the current practice of funding these benefits. The fiscal year 2003 budget

request for the atomic energy defense activities of the Department

of Energy (DOE) includes $33.1 million to fund this proposed

change in the CSRS and the FEHB program. The following represents the total budget request for funding for CSRS and FEHB

that has not been included in the committee’s recommendation for

the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy:

PROGRAM

[In thousands of dollars]

National Nuclear Security Administration:

Weapons Activities—Secure Transportation Asset program direction 2,379

Naval Reactors—program direction ........................................................ 1,230

Office of the Administrator ...................................................................... 11,776

Environmental Management: Defense Environmental Restoration and

Waste Management—program direction .................................................... 14,227

Other Defense Activities:

Office of Security—program direction .................................................... 1,703

Intelligence ................................................................................................ 313

Counterintelligence .................................................................................. 128

Independent oversight and performance assurance ..................................... 185

Environmental, Safety and Health—program direction ............................... 869

Worker and community transition—program direction ............................... 91

Office of Hearings and Appeals ...................................................................... 203

Total ................................................................................................... 33,104

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Overview

The budget request contained $8,038.7 million for the National

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for fiscal year 2003. The

committee recommends $8,034.3 million, representing an increase

of $913.3 million from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2002.

407

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Adjustments to the budget request

The committee recommends $8,034.3 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), including reductions for retirement accrual, and makes adjustments to individual programs. The budget request contained a record $5,869.4 million for Weap- ons Activities, including $1,234.5 million for directed stockpile

work. The committee remains concerned that NNSA nuclear weapon life extension program goals are not properly matched to Department of Defense needs, as evidenced by life extension and modernization activities for the weapon systems, and the delivery vehicles designed to carry those warheads and bombs. The budget request contained a record $1,113.6 million for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs. The committee remains

concerned that, as evidenced by a pattern of high unobligated balances, many international cooperative programs have been funded

at a rate in excess of what the programs can effectively absorb.

Reductions

The budget request contained $14.6 million for international nu- clear safety programs. The committee recommends $11.6 million, a

reduction of $3.0 million. The committee cautions that other federal

and international entities already have nuclear safety as a primary

mission.

The budget request contained $49.3 million for the elimination of

weapons-grade plutonium production program. The committee recommends $19.3 million, a reduction of $30.0 million. The committee notes that this program is being transferred from the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program, with $57.8 million in unobligated balances. The committee believes that

NNSA’s request for an additional $49.3 million in fiscal year 2003

is excessive, especially given that the Administration has no detailed plan for execution of the program, or even a formal agreement with the Russian Federation with regard to cost sharing and

shut down of the reactors at Seversk and Zheleznogorsk.

The budget request contained $98.0 million for Russian surplus

fissile materials disposition. The committee recommends $88.0 million, a reduction of $10.0 million specifically to program support

and oversight in the United States. The committee notes that the

budget request more than doubles funds for these activities in fiscal year 2003 to over one-third of the request for the program. The

committee has cautioned NNSA in the past regarding excessive levies on international programs.

The budget request, less retirement accrual, contained $335.9

million for the Office of the Administrator. The committee recommends $315.9 million, a reduction of $20.0 million to hold this

appropriation account to the comparable fiscal year 2002 level. The

committee expects economies to result from the organizational

streamlining and management efficiencies that Congress in large

part created NNSA to effect.

Increases

The budget request contained $949.9 million in Readiness in

Technical Base and Facilities for operations of facilities. The comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00429 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
408

mittee recommends $994.9 million, an increase of $45.0 million.

The committee is aware of the poor condition of weapons complex

infrastructure, particularly at the production plants, and the continuing need to address maintenance backlogs. The committee recommends $25.0 million for infrastructure maintenance and mission

essential upgrades and replacements at the Pantex Plant. The committee recommends an additional $20.0 million for repairs of facilities and priority upgrades at the Y–12 Plant.

The budget request contained $451.8 million for the high energy density physics (HEDP) campaign, including $237.7 million for operations and maintenance, and $214.0 million for National Ignition

Facility construction. The committee recommends $262.7 million,

an increase of $25.0 million, for HEDP campaign operations and

maintenance. The HEDP campaign comprises experimental programs directed towards developing data on the properties and behavior of matter under extreme conditions of temperature and

pressure, and is critical to gaining a scientific understanding of

how nuclear weapons work. Data developed in HEDP programs are

used to validate computer simulations, which in turn are used to

assess weapon characteristics, and excursions from nominal performance. In particular, the committee is concerned by reductions

and terminations in the budget request of high technical quality

programs such as the high average power laser program and the

petawatt initiative. The budget request contained $194.0 million for U.S. surplus ma- terials disposition programs. The committee recommends $198.0

million, an increase of $4.0 million to investigate alternative technologies and fuel cycles for disposition of weapons grade plutonium

excess to defense needs. The committee understands that the Administration has selected fabrication of mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for

consumption in commercial power reactors as its baseline approach. However, the committee is aware that, in the longer term,

other approaches such as fuel cycles based on thorium could offer

significant advantages in terms of proliferation resistance and efficiency of plutonium consumption. The committee encourages NNSA

to work with both the private sector and the Russian Federation

to assess the technical feasibility and economic viability of thoriumbased fuel cycles.

Federal workforce restructuring

A number of independent assessments have described federal

management of the nuclear weapons complex as burdened by excessive, and in some cases duplicative, staffing.

In its 1999 Report on Security Problems at the U.S. Department

of Energy, the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

(PFIAB) described a management structure comprising ‘‘layer upon

layer of bureaucracy’’ that made it nearly impossible to assign responsibility or accountability. The PFIAB singled out for special

comment the field offices, which have been described as redundant

‘‘shadow headquarters,’’ pressing their own agendas and priorities,

concluding that the weapons labs reported to ‘‘far too many DOE

masters’’. The PFIAB report was highly instrumental in triggering

Congress to pass in 1999 the National Nuclear Security Administration Act, title XXXII of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), leading to establishment

409

of a semi-autonomous agency within the Department to manage

the weapons complex.

In its report NNSA Management: Progress in the Implementation of Title 32 dated December 12, 2001, GAO noted that longstanding issues of organizational roles and responsibilities remained unaddressed in a substantive way, and that NNSA reform

efforts appeared to be losing momentum in some areas.

In its FY 2001 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile of March 15, 2002, the Panel emphasized a continuing need to

reduce duplicative and non-value added management practices, and

correspondingly to implement significant reductions in NNSA staff.

The Panel recommended that this smaller government organization

focus on oversight and policy responsibilities, and ‘‘restore management responsibility, authority and accountability to the laboratory

directors and plant managers for meeting requirements, standards,

timelines, and budgets’’. The committee concurs with these assessments. While NNSA’s

Report to Congress on the Organization and Operations of the National Nuclear Security Administration of February 25, 2002 appears to anticipate that ‘‘streamlined processes and redefined roles’’ will lead to a ‘‘significant reduction’’ in federal staff, the report provides no specifics on the size of the reductions or the timeline over

which they will occur. In the meantime, the committee notes that

justification materials submitted with the budget request show

that federal staffing levels at NNSA have actually grown since fiscal year 2001. The committee strongly urges the Administrator to

move forward decisively and expeditiously with a restructuring of

the NNSA federal workforce, and start NNSA on the path to realizing the organizational streamlining and management efficiencies

Congress intended in passing the NNSA Act in 1999.

Foster Panel Assessment of NNSA Reform Efforts

The last underground test of a nuclear weapon at the Nevada

Test Site occurred a decade ago. Since that time the United States

has observed a moratorium on testing, relying instead on a sciencebased stewardship program to certify the continued viability of the

nation’s nuclear stockpile. Concerns regarding the efficacy of this

approach led Congress in 1998 to establish a panel to assess the

process for certifying the safety, reliability and performance of nuclear weapons in the absence of testing. Section 3159 of the Strom

Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

(Public Law 105–261) established the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile

(commonly know as the Foster Panel after its chairman, Dr. John

S. Foster). The Panel, established for a period of three years, has

consistently noted in its annual reports ‘‘* * * the disturbing gap

between the nation’s policy that maintaining a safe and reliable

nuclear stockpile is a supreme national interest and the actions

taken to support this policy’’. The committee has benefited greatly

from the Panel’s independent assessments, and expresses its appreciation for the contributions to national security of its members.

In 1999, Congress fundamentally restructured how the Department of Energy manages defense nuclear activities. Title 32 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public

410

Law 106–65), the National Nuclear Security Administration Act,

established a semi-autonomous NNSA within DOE. In passing the

Act, Congress intended to address significant and long-standing

problems relating to DOE’s management of defense nuclear programs by establishing an organization that would be responsible

for, and accountable for, management of the nation’s nuclear stockpile and related programs. NNSA was statutorily established over

two years ago, on March 1, 2000. The committee has been fortunate that the Panel’s tenure has included the first two years of

NNSA’s organizational life.

In standing up and staffing a new organization, Congress has

provided a rare opportunity to address the difficult and important

problems that have confounded efforts to properly manage the nation’s nuclear stockpile. On March 15, 2002, the Foster Panel submitted its fiscal year 2001 report to Congress—Expectations for the

U.S. Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship Program. In it, the Panel notes

that some progress has been made. However, the report also states:

There remains an urgent need for NNSA to address the

fundamental problems that Congress created it to correct.

The start-up phase is now over. If NNSA cannot within

the current year achieve the autonomy and provide the

leadership Congress intended, it is appropriate for Congress to revisit other options for managing the nuclear

weapons program.

The committee concurs with this assessment.

The committee regards the current year as a watershed, during

which NNSA’s organizational and management reform efforts are

likely to succeed or fail. Because of the value the committee places

on independent assessment, and the critical need for attaining a

functional nuclear weapons complex, the committee, in Section

3141, extends the termination date of the Panel to April 1, 2003.

Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign

The budget request contained $194.5 million for plutonium pit

manufacturing and certification programs. The committee recommends the budget request.

The United States remains the only nuclear power without the

ability to produce all the components of a nuclear weapon. In particular, the United States has not produced a plutonium pit, a critical weapon component, since manufacturing operations ceased at

Rocky Flats in 1989. The goal of the manufacturing campaign is to

produce a certifiable W88 pit in fiscal year 2003, and establish a

limited production capability of 10 pits per year at Los Alamos National Laboratory by 2007. The National Nuclear Security Administration intends to be able to certify a W88 pit without underground

testing by fiscal year 2009, with a goal of sooner achieving this capability in 2007.

The campaign as described above is designed to meet a limited

need for W88 surveillance pits for destructive evaluation purposes.

Ultimately the nation will require the ability to produce replacement pits at a far higher rate in order to meet the needs of the

enduring stockpile. While the effects of aging, and consequently the

lifetime of pits, are not known with certainty, and international

agreements may further affect requirements for new pits, the comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00432 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
411

mittee believes that prudence dictates a need to proceed immediately, with preliminary steps to re-establish a large scale pit production facility, especially given that site selection and permitting

will likely entail an extended process. The committee is somewhat

concerned that the budget request of $2.0 million for design of a

modern pit facility, half that appropriated in fiscal year 2004, is

not commensurate with the seriousness of the need.

Robust nuclear earth penetrator

The committee understands that the NNSA intends to reprogram $7.0 million of fiscal year 2002 funds, and requests $15.0 million

in fiscal year 2003, to begin formal design studies for a robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP). The 6.2/6.2a design study has been

approved by the Nuclear Weapons Council with a cost to completion of $46.0 million, and will involve repackaging of an existing

stockpile warhead. The committee understands that RNEP is not

a new design, is not a low yield ‘‘mini nuke’’, and is not ‘‘clean’’ in

the sense that fallout and collateral damage can be contained. Consequently the committee does not believe that RNEP represents a

significant departure from current stockpile weapons. The committee expects to be informed of any changes to the parameters of

this study.

Stockpile certification

In 1995 the President established a requirement for annual certification of the nuclear stockpile. The committee believes this annual certification, including an assessment of the need to resume

underground tests, provides a valuable measure of the health of

the nation’s strategic deterrent. In section 3144, the committee has

taken action to strengthen this certification process by requiring an

assessment of other factors that have strong bearing on the certification process, including the adequacy of the tools and methods on

which those certifications are based, and the ability of the weapons

complex infrastructure to detect and resolve problems in the stockpile. The committee has also taken measures to strengthen peer review in the certification process.

Test readiness

The President has stated that resumption of underground nuclear testing is not required at this time, and the Administration

continues to observe the moratorium on nuclear testing. As reflected in justification materials submitted to Congress in support

of the President’s fiscal year 2003 budget request, the policy of the

NNSA is to be capable of resuming underground testing within two

to three years, should the President determine that such tests are

necessary. The NNSA Administrator has stated that the current

test readiness posture of the weapons complex is closer to three

years.

The most recent Nuclear Posture Review, submitted to Congress

by the Department of Defense on January 8, 2002, supports reduction of the Department of Energy’s test readiness lead-time.

In its fiscal year 2001 report to Congress submitted on March 15,

2002, the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of

the United States Nuclear Stockpile recommends a test readiness

of 3 months to a year depending on the type of test. The Panel

412

notes that the test ‘‘pedigree’’ of existing weapons is deteriorating

with time, and that prudence dictates that the President should

have a ‘‘realistic option’’ to resume nuclear testing if technical or

political events so require.

The committee concurs with these recommendations. The committee believes that test readiness could be greatly enhanced by,

among other actions, planning for specific tests, conducting site

preparation activities, laying in diagnostics, and maintaining test

articles at the Nevada Test Site. Section 3145 requires the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the NNSA Administrator, to

develop and report to Congress on a plan and budget to achieve a

one-year readiness posture within one year of a decision to do so.

Tritium readiness campaign

The budget request contained $126.3 million for the tritium readiness campaign. The committee recommends the budget request.

Tritium is a perishable radioactive element that is essential to

the proper functioning of stockpile weapons, and consequently must

periodically be replaced. The United States has not had the capability to produce tritium since 1988, and has relied on reserves, and

tritium recovered and recycled from dismantled weapons, to maintain the stockpile. The committee understands that the tritium

readiness campaign is on schedule to begin irradiation of tritium

producing bars in commercial light water reactors at Watts Bar

and Sequoyah in fiscal year 2003, and to begin production extraction for the stockpile in fiscal year 2006 at the Savannah River

Site. The committee urges the National Nuclear Security Administration to continue to maintain the schedule for this critical project.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview

The budget request contained $7,395.2 million for environmental

and other defense activities for fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends $7,366.5 million, including reductions for retirement accrual, representing an increase of $410.9 million from the amount

authorized for fiscal year 2002.

Items of Special Interest

Adjustments to the Budget Request

The budget request, less retirement accrual, contained $99.0 million for Other Defense Activities environment, safety, and health

(ES&H) programs. The committee recommends $94.0 million, a reduction of $5.0 million. The committee notes that the budget had

increased in recent years to accommodate administrative functions

associated with assessment and compensation programs that

should present a relatively short term increase in funding requirements, and that other worker health studies should be nearing

completion.

The budget request, less retirement accrual, contained $25.7 million for Other Defense Activities worker and community transition

programs. The committee recommends $19.7, a reduction of $6.0

million to hold these programs to fiscal year 2002 levels.

413

Environmental management cleanup reform program

The budget request contained $800.0 million to establish a new

environmental management cleanup reform program. This new

program is designed to provide the vehicle for implementing the

recommendations of the Department of Energy’s recently completed ‘‘top to bottom review’’ of its environmental management programs

(EM). As structured today, this review concluded that the EM program now has a life cycle cost of $220 billion and, that without significant change in business processes, the cost estimate could easily

increase to more than $300 billion. In fact only about one-third of

the EM program budget is going toward actual cleanup and risk reduction work. The remainder is spent on maintenance, fixed costs,

and other activities required to support safety and security. Not

only have the dollar estimates proven to be overly optimistic, the

schedule estimates have followed a similar path. Numerous sites

are already unable to meet their commitments as outlined in an

earlier 1998 Departmental report. Moreover, the three largest

sites—Savannah River, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and Hanford—have such long term completion

dates (2038, 2050, and 2070, respectively) that the estimates for

cost and schedule are highly uncertain and subject to change. The

reality of an extended cleanup schedule is that eventually it could

lead to more prolonged and potentially severe public health and environmental risks.

With these facts not in dispute, it was critical for the Department to seek alternative cleanup approaches that would be designed to produce more real risk reduction, accelerated cleanup,

and cost and schedule improvements. This new program is established for the purpose of meeting these goals. Evidence does suggest that a program can be turned around if a site can adopt an

approach similar to that taken at Rocky Flats, Colorado. By adopting a risk based management approach, combined with a clear mission, a culture of urgency, and a performance based contract, the

cleanup at Rocky Flats is now scheduled to be completed 50 years

ahead of schedule and $30 billion below the original baseline. The

goal of the new program is in essence to take the successes at

Rocky Flats and apply those principles complex-wide.

Under this new cleanup reform program it is contemplated that

the Department will work with the States and federal regulators

with a goal of reaching an agreement on an accelerated and riskbased cleanup—a cleanup that eliminates unneeded activities.

Once an agreement or ‘‘site performance management plan’’ is

reached and a new cost savings and funding profile is established

for the acceleration or alternate cleanup strategy, funds will be

made available from the EM Cleanup Reform account to fund or

supplement existing funding of a site’s base budget. The committee

expects that the site’s entire budget for cleanup will be used for activities addressed and agreed to in the site performance management plan. Finally, this new program is designed to ensure that

constant or greater funding levels are available to those States

whose cooperative efforts lead to greater and faster risk reduction.

In that regard, the committee understands that the Department

has been in initial discussions with state officials representing the

sites most affected by this new program. As a result of these discussions, the committee has been advised that a ‘‘letter of intent’’

414

has been signed with the State of Washington to accelerate cleanup

at that state’s Hanford site. The agreement proposes an allocation

of approximately $433.0 million from this new cleanup reform account. This agreement, if and when it is fully implemented, would

accelerate cleanup by 35–45 years and result in cost savings of $33

billion over the current projected costs. The committee understands

that negotiations with the State of South Carolina are moving rapidly toward a similar agreement. The committee understands that

this agreement, if finalized, will result in a substantial monetary

increase above the site’s base budget for fiscal year 2003 of $961.1

million and at the same time result in an accelerated cleanup and

risk reduction. The committee is encouraged by these efforts and

urges other sites to develop proposals for an accelerated and riskbased cleanup.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration

This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2003, including funds for

weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs,

naval reactors programs, and the Office of the Administrator.

Section 3102—Environmental and Other Defense Activities

This section would authorize funds for environmental and other

defense activities for fiscal year 2003, including funds for defense

environmental restoration and waste management, defense environmental management cleanup reform, defense facilities closure

projects, defense environmental management privatization, other

defense activities, and defense nuclear waste disposal.

SUBTITLE B—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY

AUTHORIZATIONS GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 3120—Short Title; Definitions

This section would designate this subtitle as the ‘‘Department of

Energy National Security Authorizations General Provisions Act’’.

This Act will make permanent law certain recurring provisions governing the use of funds authorized for national security programs

of the Department of Energy. This section would also define the

terms ‘‘DOE national security authorization’’, ‘‘congressional defense committee’’, and the term ‘‘minor construction project’’.

Section 3121—Reprogramming

This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in excess

of the amount authorized for the program until the Secretary of

Energy has notified the congressional defense committees and a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which the notification

is received.

415

Section 3122—Minor Construction Projects

This section would limit the initiation of a minor construction

project if the current estimated cost for the project exceeds $5.0

million, and would require the Secretary of Energy to notify the

congressional defense committees in the event the estimated cost

of any project exceeds $5.0 million and the reasons for the cost variation.

Section 3123—Limits on Construction Projects

This section would permit the initiation and continuation of any

construction project only if the estimated cost for the project does

not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the amount authorized

for the project; or (2) the most recent total estimated cost presented

to Congress as justification for such project. To exceed this limit,

the Secretary of Energy must report in detail the reason therefore

to the congressional defense committees and the report must be before the committees for 30 legislative days. This section would also

specify that the 125 percent limitation would not apply to projects

estimated to cost under $5.0 million.

Section 3124—Fund Transfer Authority

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to transfer

funds to other agencies of the government for performance of work

for which funds were authorized and appropriated. The provision

would permit the merger of such funds with the funds made available to the agency to which they are transferred.

Section 3125—Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to certify that

a conceptual design for a construction project has been completed

prior to requesting funding for that project, except in the case of

emergencies.

Section 3126—Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and

Construction Activities

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to perform

planning and design for construction activities utilizing available

funds for any Department of Energy national security program

whenever the Secretary determines that the design must proceed

expeditiously to protect the public health and safety, to meet the

needs of national defense, or to protect property.

Section 3127—Funds Available for all National Security Programs

of the Department of Energy

This section would authorize, subject to section 3121 of this act,

amounts appropriated for management and support activities and

for general plant projects to be made available for use in connection

with all national security programs of the Department of Energy.

Section 3128—Availability of Funds

This section would allow funds authorized for atomic energy activities of the Department of Energy to remain available until exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00437 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
416

pended, except for amounts appropriated for the National Nuclear

Security Administration pursuant to a DOE national security authorization. Amounts appropriated for the Office of the Administrator for Nuclear Security will remain available until the end of

that fiscal year and all other amounts appropriated to the National

Nuclear Security Administration will remain available for a total

of three fiscal years.

Section 3129—Transfer of Defense Environmental Management

Funds

This section would provide the manager of each field office of the

Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer defense

environmental management funds from a program or project under

the jurisdiction of the office to another such program or project.

Section 3130—Transfer of Weapons Activities Funds

This section would provide the manager of each field office of the

Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer weapons

activities funds from a program or project under the jurisdiction of

the office to another such program or project.

Section 3131—Scope of Authority to Carry Out Plant Projects

This section would clarify that the authority of the Secretary of

Energy to carry out plant projects includes authority for maintenance, restoration, planning, construction, acquisition, modification

of facilities, and continuation of projects authorized in prior years,

and related land acquisition.

SUBTITLE C—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 3141—One-year Extension of Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile

This section would extend the statutory termination date of the

Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United

States Nuclear Stockpile (also known as the Foster Panel) to April

1, 2003. The section would also require an additional report from

the Panel on February 1, 2003.

Section 3142—Transfer to National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Relating to Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium in Russia

This section would transfer the Cooperative Threat Reduction

program relating to elimination of weapons grade plutonium production in Russia from the Department of Defense (DOD) to the

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the Department of Energy. The section would transfer specified assets of the

program to the NNSA, including any unexpended balances of appropriations. The provision would not remove program limitations

or restrictions, including the period of availability of funds for obliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00438 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
417

gation. The section would also transfer responsibility for obligations under federal law from officers of DOD to those of NNSA.

Section 3143—Repeal of Requirement for Reports on Obligations of

Funds for Programs on Fissile Materials in Russia

This section repeals a duplicative reporting requirement related

to programs to improve the protection, control, and accountability

of fissile materials in Russia.

Section 3144—Annual Certification to the President and Congress

on the Condition of the United States Nuclear Weapons Stockpile

This section would require an annual certification to the President and Congress on the safety, reliability, and performance of

each nuclear weapon type in the active stockpile of the United

States. The certifications would be required from the directors of

the National Laboratories and the commander of United States

Strategic Command for each weapon type for which they are responsible. The section would also require a report from the aforementioned on other matters related to the certifications, including

an assessment of the need for the United States to resume underground nuclear testing, and would require the National Laboratory

directors to use certain ‘‘red team’’ procedures for the certification

process. The section would require the submission of the certifications and reports to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, as

appropriate, by January 15th of each year, and would require that

the Secretaries forward the certifications and reports unchanged to

the President and Congress not later than February 1st of each

year.

Section 3145—Plan for Achieving One-Year Readiness for Resumption by the United States of Underground Nuclear Weapons

Tests

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to submit to

Congress with the fiscal year 2004 budget request a report on a

plan and a budget to enhance underground nuclear test readiness.

The report would detail the plan and budget required to achieve a

one-year readiness posture for resumption of underground nuclear

weapons tests. A one-year readiness posture is the capability of the

Department of Energy to resume underground tests not later than

one year after so directed by the President, should the President

determine that such tests are necessary. The provision would require that the plan and budget provide for attainment of a one-year

readiness posture within one year of a decision to execute the plan.

SUBTITLE D—PROVISIONS RELATING TO DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT

Section 3151—Defense Environmental Management Cleanup

Reform Program

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to carry out

a program to reform the Department’s environmental management

activities using the funds authorized in section 3102(a)(2) of this

act. The Secretary would be authorized to transfer funds to each

site upon the execution of a site performance management plan

418

and upon its submission to the congressional defense committees.

The site performance management plan for a site is defined as a

plan, agreed to by the applicable federal and state agencies with

regulatory jurisdiction with respect to the site, that provides for the

performance of activities that will accelerate the reduction of environmental risk and will also accelerate the environmental cleanup

at the site. Upon the transfer and merger of the funds, all funds

in the merged account are available only to carry out the site performance management plan at the site.

Section 3152—Report on Status of Environmental Management Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental Risks and

Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to prepare a

report on the status of the management initiatives recommended in

the Department’s report entitled ‘‘Top-to-Bottom Review of the Environmental Management Program’’ and dated February 4, 2002.

Specifically, this report is to address the progress being made in

streamlining risk reduction processes, contract management, acquisition strategy, and consolidation of special nuclear materials. This

section would require the report to be submitted to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the Department’s

budget justification materials for fiscal year 2004.

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

Request

The Administration proposed legislation to require agencies, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to pay the full government share of the

accruing cost of retirement for current Civil Service Retirement

System (CSRS) employees and to pay the full accruing cost of postretirement health benefits for current civilian employees who are

enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

(FEHB). At the present time, agencies pay about half of the employer’s share for accruing benefits, and the remainder is covered

by a mandatory general fund payment. The Administration’s proposed change would require specific legislation to move the full

government share to each agency’s budget. The committee understands that the appropriate committee with jurisdiction to initiate

this change has declined to consider the required legislation and,

therefore, recommends continuing the current practice of funding

these benefits. The fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board includes $0.5 million to fund this

proposed change in the CSRS and the FEHB program. The committee recommendation does not include this amount.

419

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3201—Authorization

This section would authorize $19.0 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2003.

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3301—Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds

This section would authorize $76.4 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2003. The

provision would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after a notification to Congress.

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations

This section would authorize $21.1 million for fiscal year 2003 for

the operation of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

The Administration proposed legislation to require agencies, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to pay the full Government share of the

accruing cost of retirement for current Civil Service Retirement

System (CSRS) employees and to pay the full accruing cost of postretirement health benefits for current civilian employees who are

enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

(FEHB). At the present time, agencies pay about half of the employer’s share for accruing benefits, and the remainder is covered

by a mandatory general fund payment. The Administration’s proposed change would require specific legislation to move the full

Government share to each agency’s budget.

The committee understands that the appropriate committee with

jurisdiction to initiate this change has declined to consider the required legislation and, therefore, recommends continuing the current practice of funding these benefits. The fiscal year 2003 budget

request included $4.4 million dollars for the Maritime Administration to fund this proposed change in the CSRS and the FEHB program. The following represents the total budget request for funding

for CSRS and FEHB that has not been included in the committee’s

recommendation for the Maritime Administration.

[In thousands of dollars]

Operations and Training ................................................................................. 4,089

420

Title XI Administrative Expenses .................................................................. 356

Total ....................................................................................................... 4,445

Blanket Approval of Vessel Time Charters

Section 9 of the Shipping Act, 1916, (46 App. United States Code

808), requires prior approval of the Secretary Transportation of

vessel charters to persons who are not U.S. citizens. In 1992, the

Maritime Administration, which is charged with responsibility for

administering section 9, issued regulations that granted ‘‘blanket’’

prior approval of time charters and other forms of temporary use

agreements to persons who are not U.S. citizens. The committee

urges the Maritime Administration to review this policy, as implemented by this regulation, to determine whether changes should be

made in light of recent concerns over the security in our nation’s

ports. The committee expects to receive a report on the Maritime

Administration’s findings and any recommendations for legislative

changes, by November 1, 2002.

Financial Assistance to States to Prepare Vessels for Use as

Artificial Fish Reefs

The budget request contained $11.1 million for the disposal of

four vessels from the National Defense Reserve Fleet. The committee recommends $20.0 million, an increase of $8.9 million above

the budget request for disposal of obsolete vessels including assistance to states. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) required the Maritime Administration to dispose of all vessels in the National Defense Fleet that

are not otherwise assigned to the Ready Reserve Force or otherwise

designated for a specific purpose by September 30, 2006. The cost

to accomplish this goal will likely exceed $350.0 million based on

current estimates. While scrapping of certain vessels is the only

method of disposal, there also appears to be a substantial demand

for use of a number of these obsolete vessels as artificial fishing

reefs.

While the Maritime Administration’s artificial reef program was

established in 1972, it has not been utilized to the extent possible

since the individual states that take title to these vessels must pay

for the cost of moving the vessel to the location for sinking, pay for

the cost of removal of oil and other hazardous substances, and pay

for the cost of sinking the vessel. In order to make this program

more appealing to the states and to help offset the cost of reefing

a vessel, the committee has established a new program which will

allow the Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Maritime

Administrator, to provide financial assistance to a state to prepare

the vessel for use as an artificial reef. This assistance will include

the cost of environmental remediation, towing, and sinking. The

committee has not set a specific amount of assistance that can be

awarded to a state but rather allows the Maritime Administrator

to consider a number of elements including the total amount of

funding available in the program. The committee understands that

it may be substantially less expensive to sink a vessel for use as

a reef than paying for the scrapping of the vessel.

The committee recognizes that the process of obtaining approval

to sink a vessel as an artificial reef involves the coordination with

421

various agencies of government, including the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, the United States Coast Guard, and the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, however this new program of financial assistance is intended to remove at least one obstacle in

the system. While nothing in this section alters or removes any

current environmental requirements, the committee urges the responsible agencies to work together to establish national standards

for the cleaning of hazardous materials from ships prior to their

sinking as artificial reefs. The committee understands that it typically takes nine months for a state to complete the federal agency

coordination. The committee expects that the financial assistance

provided in this act, coupled with a uniform national standard, can

result in a cost effective and environmentally responsible partial alternative to traditional vessel disposal techniques.

Loan Guarantee Program

The budget request, excluding the accrued agency costs of Civil

Service Retirement and Federal Health benefits, contained $4.1

million to fund administrative expense associated with the management of the title XI loan guarantee program. The budget request

contained no funds for costs, as defined in section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 93–344). The committee recommends $54.1 million for the title XI program, an increase of $50 million above the budget request.

Marketing Efforts to Reduce Potential Losses

The committee is concerned with the recent defaults that have

occurred in the title XI loan guarantee programs as a result of the

bankruptcy filing by American Classic Voyages and the potential

costs of these defaults on the United States Treasury. Although the

recent defaults occurred for a variety of reasons, including the

downturn in the economy and the events of September 11, 2001,

the committee is also concerned that the Maritime Administration

may be moving ahead too quickly in its efforts to dispose of the assets which it has or will receive as a result of the bankruptcy filing.

It was indeed unfortunate that two of the ships in question were

partially completed at the time of the filing; however, the committee is of the opinion that the Maritime Administration should

use every effort possible to avoid scrapping these ships. In that regard, the committee strongly urges the Maritime Administration to

explore options that will allow these ships to be completed as originally designed, including an aggressive marketing effort to find a

new buyer. The committee likewise urges the shipyard where these

partially completed ships are located to join in that effort. The committee believes that completion of these ships offers the best longterm opportunity for reducing the ultimate cost to the title XI program. In that regard, the committee expects to be advised on a regular basis of the progress being made in securing a suitable buyer

for these ships.

422

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003

This section would authorize a total of $167.3 million for fiscal

year 2003, an increase of $54.4 million above the budget request

for the Maritime Administration. Of the funds authorized, $93.1

million would be for operations and training programs, $50.0 million would be for the costs as defined in section 502 of the Federal

Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 93–344), of loan guarantees

authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, (46 App. United States Code 1271 et seq.), $4.1 million would

be for administrative expenses related to providing these loan guarantees, and $20.0 million would be for the disposal of obsolete ships

in the National Defense Reserve Fleet.

Section 3502—Authorization to Transfer the USS Sphinx

This section would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

convey the vessel USS SPHINX to the Dunkirk Historical Lighthouse and Veterans Park Museum for use as a military museum.

Section 3503—Financial Assistance to States for Preparation of

Obsolete Vessels for Use as Artificial Reefs

This section will allow the Secretary of Transportation to provide

financial assistance to states to offset the cost of transferring the

vessel to the state and preparing the vessel for use as an artificial

reef. The specific amount of funding provided shall be based on the

availability of funds, the benefit to the program, and the cost effectiveness compared to other ship disposal options.

Section 3504—Independent Analysis of Title XI Insurance

Guarantee Applications

This section would grant authority to the Secretary to obtain an

independent analysis of an application for a guarantee or commitment to guarantee under the Title XI program. It would also, subject to limits contained in current law, allow the Secretary to be reimbursed for the cost of this outside independent analysis.

DEPARTMENTAL DATA

The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance

with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Washington, DC, April 19, 2002.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense proposes the enclosed draft legislation, ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal year

423

2003 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2003, and for

other purposes.’’

This legislative proposal is part of the Department of Defense

Legislative Program for the Second Session of the 107th Congress

and is necessary to carry out the President’s budget plans for fiscal

year 2003. The Office of Management and Budget advises that

there is no objection to the presentation of this proposal to the Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the program

of the President.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM J. HAYNES II,

General Counsel.

Enclosures.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Washington, DC, March 25, 2002.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense proposes the enclosed bill, Military Construction Authorizations, as part of its legislative program for the Second Session of the 107th Congress, and

we urge its enactment.

The enclosed bill will authorize military construction and facility

management for the military departments, the defense agencies,

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment program, and the National Guard and Reserve components. It will enhance our efforts to mitigate encroachment on and around our installations and facilities through both partnering with natural resource conservation organizations to purchase property and conveying surplus real property to conservation organizations. Revisions to the house privatization legislation will improve program

execution and enable privatization of barracks. We also propose to

purchase land near the Pentagon on Boundary Channel Drive in

Arlington, Virginia, in order to build a new office building that

meets anti-terrorism force protection standards and consolidates

activities currently in leased space. Our proposed military construction legislation also includes legislation that will increase our freedom to manage and help us to achieve greater efficiency in our installation management.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to

the presentation of these initiatives for your consideration and the

consideration of the Congress.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM J. HAYNES II,

General Counsel.

Enclosures.

424

COMMITTEE POSITION

On May 1, 2002 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum

being present, approved H.R. 4546, as amended, by a vote of 57–

1.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE OF RESOURCES, Washington, DC, May 1, 2002.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for contacting me with regard

to several provisions within H.R. 4546, the Defense Authorization

Act of 2003. Specifically, you requested to know the Resources

Committee’s recommended disposition with regard to:

Section 311—Incidental Taking of Migratory Birds During

Military Readiness Activity

Section 312—Military Readiness and the Conservation of

Protected Species

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay

Section 602—Expansion of Basic Allowance for Housing

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

Section 615—Minimum Hardship Duty Pay for Antarctica

and Artic Icepack

Section 631—Extension of Leave Travel Deferral Period

Section 641—Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired Pay and

Veterans Disability

Section 2821—Land Conveyance, Lands in Alaska

Section 2832—Boundary Adjustments, Marine Corps Base,

Quantico

Section 2841—Land Conveyances, Wendover Air Force Base

Auxiliary Field, Nevada

Section 2863—Ratification of Agreement Regarding Adak

Naval Complex, Alaska

Section 3503—Financial Assistance to States for Preparation

of Transferred Obsolete Ships for Use as Artificial Reefs

Title XIV—Utah Test and Training Range

Because of the urgent need to bring this bill to the floor of the

House in order to provide crucial support of our military, I am writing to inform you that I have reviewed the above-referenced provisions and am in full support of their inclusion in H.R. 4546. Therefore, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. This action

does not affect any future jurisdictional claims over these, or similar, provisions. In addition, I would request that the Committee on

Resources be represented during any conference proceedings on all

matters within its jurisdiction.

I recognize that our two committees have historically worked

very closely together on matters of mutual interest, and I am

pleased that I have had a hand in the drafting of several of these

provisions. I also greatly appreciate the assistance and competence

425

of your staff, and look forward to continuing to work with you to

ensure that H.R. 4546 is enacted into law.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES V. HANSEN, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, DC, April 30, 2002.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing concerning H.R. 4546, the

‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,’’ which

is scheduled for action by your committee this week.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over matters concerning Medicare. Section 713 of the bill repeals the report requirement on the Medicare Subvention Demonstration Project. However, in order to expedite this legislation for

floor consideration, we will not take action on this particular proposal. This is being done with the understanding that it does not

in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this

understanding with respect to H.R. 4546 and would ask that a copy

of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your committee report.

Best Regards,

BILL THOMAS, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, DC, May 1, 2002.

Hon. BILL THOMAS,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of April 30, 2002

regarding H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2003.

I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation,

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a

referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I

agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on

Ways and Means is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee

report on the bill.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

BOB STUMP, Chairman.

426

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter concerns the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in

H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2003.

H.R. 4546, as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services, contains many provisions over which the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction. These include all sections that affect the pay, benefits, and personnel of the United

States Coast Guard and the United States Coast Guard Reserve as

well as provisions concerning war risk insurance.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4546 and the

need for this legislation to move expeditiously. While we have a

valid claim to jurisdiction over several provisions, I do not intend

to request a sequential referral of the bill. This is, of course, conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation

waives or affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee,

that every effort will be made to include any agreements worked

out by our staffs as the bill is taken to the Floor, and that a copy

of this letter and your response will be included in the Committee

Report and as part of the Record during consideration of the bill

by the House.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also asks

that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over

which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.

Hon. DON YOUNG,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of May 2, 2003

regarding H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2003.

I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to

request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration

of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will

be included in the Committee report on the bill.

427

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

BOB STUMP, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to inform the Committee on Armed

Services that the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hereby waives

any jurisdiction it may have over sections 641 and 651 of Title VI

of the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2003, has no objection to them and does not desire their referral.

Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE,

Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for working with me in your development of H.R. 4546, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2003,’’ specifically:

1. Section 341, ‘‘Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that

Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees.’’

2. Section 342, ‘‘Availability of Quarters Allowance for Unaccompanied Defense Department Teacher Required to Reside on Overseas Military Installation.’’

3. Section 343, ‘‘Provision of Summer School Programs for Students who Attend Defense Dependent’s Education System.’’

4. Section 366, ‘‘Amendments to Certain Education and Nutrition

Laws Relating to Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing.’’

As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction of the

Education and the Workforce Committee. While I do not intend to

seek sequential referral of H.R. 4546, the Committee does hold an

interest in preserving its future jurisdiction with respect to issues

raised in the aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We

would expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions

should a conference with the Senate arise.

I do have concerns regarding the change made in Committee to

the length of the authorization amending the National School

Lunch Act; however, I am certain that we can work together to address our mutual goals.

428

Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the

amendments to H.R 4546 and look forward to working with you on

these issues in the future.

Sincerely,

JOHN BOEHNER, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.

Hon. BOB STUMP, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On May 1, 2002, the Committee on Armed

Services ordered reported H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. As ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services, this legislation contains a number of

provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. These provisions include the following:

Section 601. Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2003.

Section 602. Increase basic allowance for subsistence for members forced to purchase meal outside messing facilities.

Section 612. One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay

authorities for certain health care professionals.

Section 614. One-year extension of other bonus and special pay

authorities.

Section 615. Minimum levels of hardship duty pay for duty on

the ground in Antarctica or Arctic icepack.

Section 631. Extension of leave travel deferral period for members.

Section 641. Phase-in of full concurrent receipt of military retired

pay and veterans disability compensation for military retirees with

disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher.

Section 704. Improvements regarding the Department of Defense

Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund.

Section 713. Repeal of report requirement.

Section 3201. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Authorization.

Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation before the

House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and Commerce

agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the bill based on the provisions listed above. By agreeing not to seek a sequential referral,

the Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive its jurisdiction over these provisions or any other provisions of the bill that

may fall within its jurisdiction. In addition, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves its right to seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction which are considered in the HouseSenate conference, and asks for your support in being accorded

such conferees.

I request you include this letter as part of the report on H.R.

4546 and as part of the Record during consideration of this bill by

the House.

Sincerely,

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Chairman.

429

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that on Wednesday, May 1,

2002, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably reported

H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2003. The bill includes a number of provisions that fall within the

legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations

pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of Representatives.

The specific provisions within our committee’s jurisdiction are:

(1) Section 1201, Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts to

Inspect and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities; (2) Section 1202,

Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan; (3) Section 1204, Additional

Countries Covered by Loan Guarantee Program; (4) Title XIII, Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the Former Soviet

Union; (5) Section 3142, Transfer to National Nuclear Security Administration of Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Relating to Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium

in Russia; and (6) Section 3143, Repeal of Requirement for Reports

on Obligation of Funds for Programs on Fissile Materials in Russia.

Pursuant to Chairman Dreier’s expected announcement that the

Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule for

H.R. 4546 and your desire to have the bill considered on the House

floor next week, the Committee on International Relations will not

seek a sequential referral of the bill as a result of including these

provisions, without waiving or ceding now or in the future this

committee’s jurisdiction over the provisions in question. I will seek

to have conferees appointed for these provisions during any HouseSenate conference committee.

I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of the report on H.R. 4546 and as part of the record during consideration

of the bill by the House of Representatives.

With best wishes,

HENRY J. HYDE, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC, April 30, 2002.

Hon. BOB STUMP, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that Representative Van

Hilleary may offer an amendment to the FY 2003 DOD Authorization bill relating to Federal Prison Industries. I have reviewed the

amendment and support it. If it is included in the DOD Authorization bill, I do not intend to seek a referral on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Sincerely,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman.

430

FISCAL DATA

Pursuant to clause 3(d) Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2003 and the following four years. The results of such efforts are reflected in the

cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget

Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,

which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(c)(3)

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of

Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional

Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:

MAY 3, 2002.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen, who can be reached

at 226–2840. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will

be pleased to provide them.

Sincerely,

DAN L. CRIPPEN.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

Summary: H.R. 4546 would authorize appropriations totaling

$382 billion for fiscal year 2003 and an estimated $14 billion in additional funding for 2002 for the military functions of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy. It also

would prescribe personnel strengths for each active-duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. CBO estimates

that appropriation of the authorized amounts for 2002 and 2003

would result in additional outlays of $392 billion over the 2002–

2007 period.

The bill also contains provisions that would raise the costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2004–2007 period. CBO estimates that those provisions would require appropriations of $7.0

billion over those four years.

The bill contains provisions that would increase direct spending

by an estimated $5.8 billion over the 2003–2007 period and $17.7

billion over the 2003–2012 period, primarily from the phase-in of

concurrent payment of retirement annuities with veterans’ disability compensation to retirees from the military and the other

uniformed services who have service-connected disabilities rated at

60 percent or greater. Because it would affect direct spending, the

bill would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.

H.R. 4546 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

431

1 After adding the $92 million estimated authorization for the Coast Guard Reserve, the bill would authorize appropriations of slightly more than $381.5 million for 2003. 2The authorization shown here for the Maritime Administration does not include any

amounts for maritime loan guarantees and related administrative costs because they are already authorized under existing law.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary

impact of H.R. 4546 is shown in Table 1. Most of the costs of

this legislation fall within budget function 050 (national defense).

TABLE 1.—BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 4546, THE BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law for Defense Programs:

Budget Authority a ................................................... 346,285 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 346,878 116,344 38,941 13,273 5,536 2,724

Proposed Changes:

Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations for

2002:

Estimated Authorization Level b ..................... 14,048 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays b ........................................ 5,345 5,782 1,941 660 174 79

Authorization of Appropriations for 2003:

Estimated Authorization Level ........................ 0 381,522 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 0 252,982 86,639 27,346 7,944 2,726

Spending Under H.R. 4546 for Defense Programs:

Estimated Authorization Level a .............................. 360,333 381,522 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 352,223 375,108 127,521 41,279 13,654 5,529

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................. 0 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997

NOTE: This table excludes estimated authorizations of appropriations for years after 2003. (Those additional authorizations are shown in Table 3.) a The 2002 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.

b The estimates shown for the 2002 supplemental are amounts contained in the Administration’s supplemental request for defense pro- grams. The outlay estimate for 2003 includes $5,684 million of spending from funds requested as emergency appropriations. Excluding emergency spending would lower total outlays in 2003 to $369,424 million.

Basis of Estimate

Spending Subject to Appropriation

The bill would specifically authorize appropriations totaling

$381.4 billion in 2003 (see Table 2) and additional amounts as may

be necessary for supplemental appropriations for defense in 2002,

which CBO estimates would total $14 billion based on the Administration’s request.1 Most of those costs would fall within budget

function 050 (national defense). H.R. 4546 also would specifically

authorize appropriations of $113 million for the Maritime Administration (function 400—transportation), $70 million for the Armed

Forces Retirement Home (function 600—income security), and $21

million for the Naval Petroleum Reserves (function 270—energy).2

The estimate assumes that the estimated authorization amount

for 2002 is appropriated by the end of June 2002, and that the

amounts authorized for 2003 will be appropriated before the start

of fiscal year 2003. Outlays are estimated based on historical

spending patterns.

The bill also contains provisions that would affect various costs,

mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the fiscal year 2003

432

authorization and by authorizations in future years. Table 3 contains estimates of those amounts. In addition to the costs covered

by the authorizations in the bill for 2003, these provisions would

raise estimated costs by $7.0 billion over the 2004–2007 period.

The following sections describe the provisions identified in Table 3

and provide information about CBO’s cost estimates for those provisions.

TABLE 2.—SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN H.R. 4546

Category

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Military Personnel:

Authorization Level a ................................................................... 93,670 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 88,612 4,402 281 94 0

Operation and Maintenance:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 130,159 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 96,425 26,006 5,538 1,186 378

Procurement:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 73,160 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays 20,860 ......................................................... 27,671 15,218 5,170 1,789

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 56,424 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 31,792 20,381 3,286 591 151

Military Construction and Family Housing:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 9,954 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 2,687 3,718 2,192 793 324

Atomic Energy Defense Activities:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 15,420 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 10,369 4,094 826 74 55

Other Accounts:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 2,643 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 1,874 418 125 96 49

General Transfer Authority:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 280 ¥60 ¥120 ¥60 ¥20

Total

Authorization Level b .................................................................. 381,430 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 252,899 86,630 27,346 7,944 2,726

a This authorization is for discretionary appropriations and does not include $55 million for mandatory payments from appropriations for military personnel. b These amounts comprise nearly all of the proposed changes for authorizations of appropriations for 2003 shown in Table 1; they do not include the estimated authorization of $92 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, which is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R.

4546

Category

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT

Virginia Class Submarine ................................................................... ¥37 ¥54 ¥60 ¥73 ¥93

C–130J Aircraft ................................................................................... 15 ¥63 ¥121 ¥142 ¥162

FORCE STRUCTURE

DoD Military Endstrengths .................................................................. 528 1,089 1,122 1,155 1,191

Coast Guard Reserve Endstrengths .................................................... 92 0 0 0 0

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS (DoD)

Military Pay Raises ............................................................................. 276 381 398 415 430

Expiring Bonuses and Allowances ...................................................... 706 796 417 234 152

Education and Training ...................................................................... 3 6 9 13 10

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

TRICARE Prime Remote ....................................................................... 12 10 9 8 8

433

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R.

4546—Continued

Category

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Transitional Health Care ..................................................................... 7 5 3 2 1

OTHER PROVISIONS

National Guard Challenge Program .................................................... 16 16 17 17 18

Asbestos Payments ............................................................................. ¥110 ¥110 ¥110 ¥110 ¥110

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program ...................................... 0 2 3 3 3

School Impact Aid ............................................................................... 0 0 0 14 14

Military Housing Privatization Initiative ............................................. 0 0 80 80 80

TOTAL ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................................ 1,508 2,078 1,767 1,616 1,542

Note: For every item in this table except the authorization for the Coast Guard, the 2003 levels are included in the amounts specifically

authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Amounts shown in this table for 2004 through 2007 are not included in Table 1.

Multiyear Procurement

In most cases, purchases of weapon systems are authorized annually, and as a result, DoD negotiates a separate contract for each

annual purchase. In a small number of cases, the law permits

multiyear procurement; that is, it allows DoD to enter into a contract to buy specified annual quantities of a system for up to five

years. In those cases, DoD can negotiate lower prices because its

commitment to purchase the weapons gives the contractor an incentive to find more economical ways to manufacture the weapon,

including cost-saving investments. Annual funding is provided for

these multiyear contracts, but potential termination costs are covered by an initial appropriation.

Section 111 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter

into a multiyear contract for procurement of Virginia class submarines starting in fiscal year 2003. This authority would be conditional on the prime contractor for the Virginia class submarine program entering into a binding agreement with the U.S. government

to expend from its own funds an amount not less than $385 million

for nuclear and non-nuclear components purchased in economic

quantities.

Based on information provided by the Navy, CBO assumes that

the Navy would buy five Virginia class submarines over the 2003–

2007 period if this agreement can be reached. CBO estimates that

savings from buying these submarines under a multiyear contract

would total $317 million, or just over $60 million a submarine, over

the 2003–2007 period. CBO estimates that funding requirements to

purchase these submarines, as well as funding the advance purchase of components for future boats, would total about $13 billion

over the 2003–2007 period (instead of the more than $13.3 billion

that would be needed under annual contracts).

Section 121 would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to

enter into a multiyear contract to purchase C–130J aircraft beginning in 2003 after the Secretary of Defense certifies that two

variants of the C–130J—the CC–130J airlift aircraft and the KC–

130J tanker aircraft—are operationally effective and suitable. The

Secretary of Defense also must certify that this multiyear contract

will result in substantial savings relative to the cost of annual contracts, that requirements for the system and the design of the sysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00455 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
434

tem are stable, and that the program is fully funded in the department’s plans for subsequent outyear budgets. Based on information

provided by the Air Force, CBO assumes that DoD will procure 64

aircraft over the 2003–2008 period—40 CC–130J aircraft for the

Air Force and 24 KC–130J aircraft for the Marine Corps. CBO also

assumes that the CC–130J and KC–130J aircraft would be purchased under one contract administered by the Air Force and covering six years of production beginning in 2003. CBO estimates

that savings from buying these aircraft under a multiyear contract

would total $473 million, or about $95 million a year, over the

2003–2007 period. CBO also estimates that additional savings of $182 million would accrue in 2008. Funding requirements to purchase these aircraft would total just under $3.4 billion over the

2003–2007 period (instead of the almost $3.9 billion that would be

needed under annual contracts).

Multiyear procurement of C–130Js would raise costs in 2003 because the KC–130J did not receive advance procurement in 2002

in anticipation of multiyear procurement starting in 2003, and because the Air Force would need to provide advance procurement for

the aircraft that it would purchase in 2004.

Military endstrength

The bill would authorize active and reserve endstrength levels

for 2003 and would increase the minimum endstrength authorization in permanent law. The authorized endstrengths for active-duty

personnel and personnel in the selected reserve would total about

1,400,000 and 865,000, respectively. Of those selected reservists,

about 69,000 would serve on active duty in support of the reserves.

The bill would specifically authorize appropriations of $93.7 billion

for the discretionary costs of military pay and allowances in 2003.

The authorized endstrength represents a net increase of 12,552

servicemembers that would boost costs for salaries and other expenses by $528 million in the first year and about $1.1 billion annually in subsequent years, compared to the authorized strengths

for 2002.

The bill also would authorize an endstrength of 9,000 in 2003 for

the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost about $92

million and would fall under budget function 400 (transportation).

Section 403 would allow the service secretaries to increase

endstrength by 1 percent above the level authorized by the Congress. Under current law, only the Secretary of Defense has this

authority. While there is the potential for increased costs, the service secretaries would still have to manage their resources given the

finite amount of money appropriated each year for military personnel. As such, CBO estimates that this provision would not significantly increase costs.

Compensation and benefits

H.R. 4546 contains several provisions that would affect military

compensation and benefits for uniformed personnel.

Military Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 4.1

percent across-the-board and authorize additional targeted pay

raises, ranging from 0.9 percent to 4.4 percent, for individuals with

specific ranks and years of service at a total cost of about $2.3 billion in 2003. Because the pay raises would be above those projected

435

under current law, CBO estimates that the incremental costs associated with the larger pay raise would be about $276 million in

2003 and total $1.9 billion over the 2003–2007 period.

Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would extend

DoD’s authority to pay certain bonuses and allowances to current

personnel. Under current law, most of these authorities are scheduled to expire in December 2002, or three months into fiscal year

2003. The bill would extend these authorities through December

2003. Based on data provided by DoD, CBO estimates that the

costs of these extensions would be as follows: • Payment of reenlistment bonuses for active-duty personnel would cost $327 million in 2003 and $191 million in 2004; enlistment bonuses for active-duty personnel would cost $133

million in 2003 and $361 million in 2004; • Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would cost $99 million in 2003 and $114 million in 2004; • Special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified per- sonnel would cost $67 million in 2003 and $72 million in 2004; • Retention bonuses for officers and enlisted members with

critical skills would cost $29 million in 2003 and $19 million

in 2004; • Accession bonuses for new officers with critical skills

would cost $14 million in 2003 and $5 million in 2004; and • Authorities to make special payments and give bonuses to certain health care professionals would cost $37 million in

2003 and $34 million in 2004.

Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller costs in

subsequent years because payments are made in installments.

Education and Training. Section 531 would allow the military

services to increase the number of students at each of the service

academies from the current ceiling of 4,000 to 4,400 students over

a four-year period at a maximum rate of 100 students a year for

academic years 2003–2004 through 2007–2008. Under this provision, the annual increase in service-academy students could not exceed the increase in the number of students in the Reserve Officer

Training Corp (ROTC) for the previous academic year.

Based on information from DoD, CBO expects that only the Navy

would increase its service-academy strength and that it would

bring on about 50 extra academy students a year, as well as an additional 50 ROTC students, at an average annual cost of about

$34,000 per student. According to the Navy, these additional students would not be used to increase overall officer endstrength, but

rather to offset a desired drawdown in the number of officers commissioned through the Officer Candidate School (OCS) program.

Thus, the actual cost of the increase for the academy and ROTC

students would be offset somewhat by the cost of the OCS graduates they would replace. Because the OCS program lasts less than

one year, the offsetting costs would not begin to affect net outlays

until 2007, when the first of the additional academy and ROTC

students would graduate and be commissioned. CBO estimates the

cost of implementing this provision would be $1 million in 2003

and $31 million over the 2003–2007 period, assuming appropriation

of the necessary amounts.

Section 651 would extend the period during which eligible reservists may use their education benefits from 10 years to 14 years. In

436

2001, over 82,000 reservists trained under this program and received an average annual benefit of $1,653. These benefits are paid

by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the DoD Education Benefits Fund. Each month, DoD pays into the fund the net present

value of the education benefit granted to each person who enlisted

in the previous month. Based on information from DoD about current contributions to the fund and expected accessions, CBO estimates section 651 would increase payments into the fund by about

$2 million each year. (CBO estimates that there also would be direct spending of about $29 million over the 2003–2012 period for

increased outlays from the fund. CBO’s estimate of those costs is

discussed below under the heading of ‘‘Direct Spending.’’)

Defense health program

Title VII contains several provisions that would affect DoD

health care and benefits. Tricare is the name of DoD’s health care

program; Tricare Prime and Tricare Prime Remote are managed

care programs, and Tricare Standard is a fee-for-service program.

Tricare Prime Remote. Section 702 would affect dependents of

servicemembers on active duty who live in a remote area, which is

defined as roughly a one-hour or more driving distance from a military treatment facility. Under certain conditions, this section would

allow dependents of personnel on active duty who live in a remote

area to participate in Tricare Prime Remote if the servicemember

is transferred to a different duty station and is not allowed to bring

his or her family. Section 702 also would allow the family members

of reservists called to active duty to participate in the Tricare

Prime Remote program if they live in a remote area. Under current

law, dependents of personnel on active duty living in remote areas

must reside with the active-duty member to participate in Tricare

Prime Remote. If the active-duty servicemember is transferred to

a duty station where he or she cannot bring family members, the

family can no longer participate in the Tricare Prime Remote program. Families of reservists called to active duty also are not allowed to participate in this program.

Based on information provided by DoD, CBO estimates that

about 36,000 dependents of personnel on active duty and about

50,000 dependents of reservists called to active duty would be affected by this provision. While CBO expects the number of family

members of active-duty personnel to remain fairly constant, CBO

assumes that the more than 80,000 reservists currently on active

duty will decline to about 65,000 in 2003 and 10,000 by 2006. If

the number of reservists called to active duty were to remain at

current levels over the 2003–2007 period, then the estimated costs

would be correspondingly higher.

According to DoD, about 40 percent of those dependents who

would be eligible for Tricare Prime Remote under this section already participate in Tricare Standard. Based on data provided by

the department, CBO estimates that the additional incremental

cost of providing Tricare Prime Remote to those individuals would

be $113 per person. In addition, CBO estimates that the new benefit would attract about 4,300 dependents to Tricare Prime Remote

who had not previously used any Tricare program at an estimated

annual cost of $1,900 per person. Thus, CBO estimates that the

cost of providing Tricare Prime Remote to more individuals would

437

be $12 million in 2003 and $47 million over the 2003–2007 period,

assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts.

Transitional Health Care. Under section 706, family members of

reservists who were called to active duty for more than 30 days

would be eligible for health care coverage under Tricare for 60 days

after the reservist is released from active duty. Under current law,

only the reservist is eligible for health care coverage under Tricare

for the 60 days after he or she is released from active duty. While

there are currently more than 80,000 reservists on active duty,

CBO assumes for this estimate that the number of reserves will

fall to about 65,000 in 2003 and 10,000 by 2006. If the number of

reservists remains at current levels over the 2003–2007 period, the

estimated costs would be correspondingly higher.

Based on data from DoD and the General Accounting Office,

CBO estimates that about 50 percent of the reservists have families and that about 40 percent of those families would use the transitional health care. CBO further estimates that providing an additional 60 days of health care coverage to those families would cost,

on average, about $600 per family. After accounting for inflation

and the assumed decline in the level of reservists called to active

duty, CBO estimates that this provision would cost $7 million in

2003, and $18 million over the 2003–2007 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts.

National Guard Challenge Program

Section 513 would allow DoD to reimburse a state program of the

National Guard Challenge Program for up to 75 percent of the cost

of operating the state program in a fiscal year. If fully implemented, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would

cost $84 million over the 2003–2007 period. CBO estimates that

raising the federal contribution to these programs to 75 percent

would increase the annual federal cost for each participant by approximately $2,500. Applying this annual cost to the 6,400 participants in the program would increase the cost by about $17 million

per year over the 2003–2007 period.

Asbestos differential pay

Under section 1103, federal wage-grade employees would be subject to the same standards as general schedule employees when determining eligibility for environmental differential pay (EDP),

based on exposure to asbestos. Under current law, general schedule

employees are entitled to 8 percent hazard differential pay if they

are exposed to asbestos that exceeds the permissible exposure limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The current EDP standard for wage-grade employees

entitles them to the same 8 percent of pay, but does not set an objective measure for determining the level of asbestos exposure necessary to qualify for EDP. In several instances where wage-grade

employees have sought back pay for EDP, arbitrators found in

favor of the employees when asbestos levels were below those consistent with OSHA standards. Based on information from DoD on

prior and pending arbitration rulings, CBO expects that implementing section 1103 would reduce the amount of back pay federal

agencies would be required to pay for EDP based on asbestos exposure. Assuming these cases would be handled administratively,

438

CBO estimates establishing OSHA standards for asbestos EDP

would save $110 million in 2003 and $550 million over the 2003–

2007 period, assuming appropriations are reduced by the estimated

amounts.

Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program

Section 1104 would extend a provision of law into fiscal year

2007 that allows DoD and certain Department of Energy employees

whose employment is terminated because of a reduction-in-force action to continue to participate in the FEHB health insurance program and only pay the regular employee’s share of the insurance

premium. The respective departments would be responsible for

paying the normal employer’s share of the premium. Under current

law, this provision expires in fiscal year 2004. Based on information from DoD and the Office of Personnel Management, CBO estimates that this provision would affect about 500 people a year at

an average annual cost of $5,500 per person over the 2003–2007

period. CBO estimates that extending this provision into fiscal year

2007 would cost $2 million in 2004, and $11 million over the 2004–

2007 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts.

School impact aid

Section 366 would allow school districts with a large percentage

of children from military families to continue to receive heavy impact aid when military families are temporarily relocated. Heavy

impact aid is federal funding earmarked for school districts with

large military populations. Many military families in those school

districts live on federal installations and do not contribute to the

local property tax base that is used to help finance school operations. Heavy impact aid helps to offset this loss of local tax revenue. Under current law, schools can only receive heavy impact aid

if they meet strict criteria for numbers of federal students located

in their districts, local tax rates, and per pupil expenditures. Because of population relocations associated with certain military

housing initiatives, some school districts would temporarily be unable to meet these criteria and would lose their heavy impact aid

for several years.

Based on data from the Department of Education and the Military Impacted Schools Association, CBO estimates that about four

school districts would initially be affected by housing privatization

and that these school districts receive about $18 million in heavy

impact aid annually. Because applications for heavy impact aid are

based on school district statistics from three years prior, CBO estimates that the cost of implementing this section would not occur

until 2006. After adjusting for the changes in student population

within the affected districts, CBO estimates that restoration of this

aid would cost about $14 million per year. Since the requirements

of the School Impact Aid program are not always fully funded, CBO

expects that the Department of Education would likely fund this

increase through reductions in aid to other school districts. CBO

expects this cost would reoccur annually only for the duration of

the privatization effort within the affected school districts, which

CBO estimates to be about three years.

439

Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI)

Section 2801 would increase the value of budget authority that

DoD can use to finance special authorities for the construction and

renovation of military family housing and military unaccompanied

housing. Those authorities allow DoD to use direct loans, loan

guarantees, long-term leases, rental guarantees, barter, direct government investment, and other financial arrangements to encourage private-sector participation in building military housing. Funding for those activities comes from the Family Housing Improvement Fund which is financed by appropriations made to the fund,

transfers from other accounts, receipts from property sales and

rents, returns on any capital, and other income from operations or

transactions connected with the program. Currently the amounts in

the fund are available for use by DoD to acquire housing using the

various techniques mentioned above, but the total value of budget

authority for all contracts and investments undertaken is limited

to $1 billion ($850 million for family housing and $150 million for

unaccompanied housing). Under the bill, those limits would be increased to $2 billion ($1.7 billion for family housing and $300 million for unaccompanied housing).

To date, DoD has signed contracts for 16 family housing projects

and is proceeding with solicitations for or considering plans for

close to 60 other projects over the next few years. Based on how

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has recorded obligations from DoD’s use of this authority, DoD has only recorded obli- gations of about $250 million—well below the current $1 billion

limit. Given DoD’s plans for future projects, CBO estimates that

the department will reach the current limit by the end of 2004. As

a result, CBO estimates that raising the limit effectively authorizes

additional appropriations beginning in 2005. Based on recent

trends and DoD’s current plans, CBO estimates these authoriza- tions would total about $80 million a year over the 2005–2007 period.

CBO, however, continues to believe that OMB’s current accounting for MHPI initiatives is at odds with government-wide standards for recording obligations and outlays. Those standards call for

different treatments depending on the character of the transaction.

The OMB accounting treats certain initiatives primarily as credit

and other transactions that have relatively little cost in terms of

recorded obligations and outlays. In contrast, CBO considers many

MHPI projects as having characteristics of lease-purchases or of

public-private partnerships, both of which require the Administration to record higher levels of obligations and outlays. Currently

the Administration’s approach allows DoD to obligate significantly more federal resources than the existing $1 billion limitation for

such projects. Consequently, if the limitation is increased to $2 billion, DoD would be allowed to obligate much more than that figure.

Government-Wide Accounting Principles. Some of the options

available for use of the Family Housing Improvement Fund involve

up-front commitments of government resources that would be spent

over a long period of time. According to standard principles of federal accounting, obligations of the fund should reflect the full

amount of the financial liability incurred when the government

makes such a commitment. In the case of a long-term capital lease

or rental guarantee, for example, obligations should equal the total

440

amount of lease or rental payments over the life of the contract,

and appropriations to cover the full amount of such obligations

should be available before entering into the lease or guarantee.

Some commitments could take the form of lease-purchases, which

would require the recording of both obligations and outlays up

front. Still others could be public-private partnerships formed to

borrow private funds in order to construct housing on a military

base; in those instances, obligations should equal the borrowing authority—a form of budget authority—used for that project. If direct

loans are used to help finance an on-base project, the value of future appropriations that will be passed through to developers—by

servicemembers who pay rent with their housing allowances— should be viewed as a subsidy, which would increase obligations.

In effect, the Administration’s accounting is allowing DoD to

record the costs of the projects incrementally over time rather than

up front. CBO believes this is counter to the government-wide principles that require costs from such projects to be recorded up front

in the budget. In future years, CBO’s approach would reduce the

amount of budget authority and outlays the Administration would

need to record each year in the military personnel accounts—which

fund housing allowances—since such costs would already be recorded.

CBO plans to consult with the Committee on the Budget in both

the House and the Senate on how to score future legislation that

expands or extends these authorities. Depending on the outcome of

those consultations, CBO may score such future legislation as direct spending.

Matters relating to other nations

Section 1204 would expand the list of countries eligible for loan

financing under the defense export loan guarantee program to include countries combating drug trafficking organizations or combating foreign terrorist organizations, as determined by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. CBO estimates that

implementing this provision would have no significant budgetary

effect because CBO believes that the authority would not be used.

The section would not authorize appropriations for the cost of any

loan guarantees, as defined by the Federal Credit Reform Act.

Without a subsidy appropriation, the borrowing country would be

required to pay fees sufficient to cover the cost of the contingent

liability of the United States under the guarantee plus administrative expenses. CBO estimates that the required fees would render

the total cost of financing no more attractive to potential borrowers

than financing without a government guarantee. CBO also estimates that the other limitations and authorizations provided in

title 12 would have little effect on the spending of funds otherwise

authorized to be appropriated.

Direct Spending

The bill contains provisions that would increase direct spending,

primarily from the phase-in of concurrent payment of retirement

annuities with veterans’ disability compensation to retirees from

the military and the other uniformed services who have serviceconnected disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater. The bill also

contains a few provisions with small direct spending savings. On

441

balance, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4546 would result in a

net increase in direct spending totaling $5.8 billion over the 2003– 2007 period (see Table 4).

Concurrent receipt

Section 641 would phase in over five years total or partial concurrent payment of retirement annuities together with veterans’

disability compensation to retirees from the uniformed services who

have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater.

The uniformed services include all branches of the U.S. military,

the Coast Guard, and uniformed members of the Public Health

Service (PHS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Under current law, disabled veterans who are retired from the

uniformed services cannot receive both full retirement annuities

and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Because of this prohibition on concurrent receipt, such

veterans forgo a portion of their retirement annuity equal to the

nontaxable veterans’ benefit. This section would permit, beginning

in 2007, individuals who have significant service-connected disabilities and have a retirement annuity based on years of service, to

receive both benefits in full without the reduction called for under

current law. Individuals whose retirement pay is based on their degree of disability would continue to forgo retirement pay equal to

the VA compensation payment, but only to the extent that their

disability had entitled them to a larger retirement annuity than

they would have received based on years of service.

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM CONCURRENT RECEIPT AND OTHER PROVISIONS

IN H.R. 4546

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Section 641—Concurrent Receipt:

Estimated Budget Authority ....................................................... 516 643 1,029 1,608 2,006

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 516 643 1,029 1,608 2,006

Section 362—Armed Forces Retirement Home Fee:

Estimated Budget Authority ....................................................... ¥7 ¥7 ¥7 ¥7 ¥7

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... ¥7 ¥7 ¥7 ¥7 ¥7

Section 643—Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Inversion:

Estimated Budget Authority ....................................................... ¥3 ¥3 ¥4 ¥4 ¥4

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... ¥3 ¥3 ¥4 ¥4 ¥4

Section 644—Forgotten Widows:

Estimated Budget Authority ....................................................... ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1

Section 651—Education Benefits for Selected Reserves:

Estimated Budget Authority ....................................................... 4 4 3 2 2

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 4 4 3 2 2

Section 701—Mental Health Benefits:

Estimated Budget Authority ....................................................... 0 1 1 1 1

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 0 1 1 1 1

TOTAL CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................................ 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997

Estimated Outlays ............................................................................... 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997

This section also would repeal a program that partially compensates certain severely disabled retirees for this reduction in

their retirement annuities. This program currently pays a fixed

442

benefit of $50 to $300 a month, depending on degree of disability.

Taken together, CBO estimates that implementing section 641

would increase direct spending for retirement annuities and veterans’ disability compensation by a net amount of about $516 mil- lion in 2003, $5.8 billion over the 2003–2007 period, and $17.8 billion over the 2003–2012 period (see Table 5).

TABLE 5.—ESTIMATED CHANGES IN RETIREE BENEFITS UNDER H.R. 4546

Description of Benefits Program

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Retirement Annuities:

Nondisability ............................................................................... 490 591 887 1,370 1,744

Disability .................................................................................... 83 97 135 194 234

Veterans Compensation Payments ...................................................... 0 13 67 104 89

Survivor Benefit Plan Payments ......................................................... 8 8 8 9 9

Special Compensation for Severely Disabled ..................................... ¥65 ¥66 ¥68 ¥69 ¥70

Total Changes in Retiree Benefits ........................................ 516 643 1,029 1,608 2,006

Retirement Annuities. Since the proposed legislation would treat

retirees differently based on their type of retirement—nondisability

or disability, the potential costs of the legislation depend on the

number of beneficiaries, their type of retirement, their disability

levels, and their benefit amounts.

Nondisability Retirees. A nondisability retirement is granted

based on length of service—usually 20 or more years. Section 641

would allow those longevity retirees whose degree of disability has

been rated as 60 percent or greater to receive full retirement annuities and veterans’ disability benefits with no offset in 2007, and to

receive an increasing portion of their retirement annuities over the

2003–2006 period. Data from the uniformed services indicate that

in 2001 the prohibition on paying both benefits concurrently caused

about $1.3 billion to be withheld from the annuity payments of

about 74,000 eligible DoD retirees with nondisability retirements,

and about 900 eligible Coast Guard, PHS, and NOAA retirees.

Using current rates of net growth in the population of new beneficiaries, CBO estimates this caseload would rise to about 78,000

nondisability retirees in 2003, and 96,000 nondisability retirees by

2012. CBO assumes that future benefit payments will increase consistent with current rates of growth in average disability levels and

also increase from cost-of-living adjustments. After phasing the

benefits in over five years as specified in the provision, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase direct spending

on retirement annuities for nondisability retirees of the uniformed

services by $490 million in 2003, $5.1 billion over the 2003–2007

period, and $15.6 billion over the 2003–2012 period.

Disability Retirees. Servicemembers who are found to be unable

to perform their duties because of service-related disabilities may

be granted a disability retirement. Section 641 would allow eligible

disability retirees to receive retirement annuities based on their

years of service and veterans’ disability benefits with no offset in

2007, and partial concurrent receipt of these payments in 2003

through 2006. Disability retirees would be eligible to obtain concurrent receipt of their retirement annuity and veterans’ disability

compensation if they served 20 or more years in the uniformed

services and had a disability rating of 60 percent or greater.

443

Data from the uniformed services indicate that in 2001, the pro- hibition on paying both benefits concurrently caused about $200

million to be withheld from annuity payments of about 11,400 eligible DoD retirees with disability retirements, and about 500 eligible

Coast Guard, PHS, and NOAA retirees. An analysis of retiree

records by DoD indicates that, under the criteria set forth in this

section, these retirees would be eligible to receive about 95 percent

of their retirement annuity concurrently with their VA disability

benefit. Assuming continuation of current trends in population and

benefit growth, and phasing the benefit in over five years as specified in this section, CBO estimates that, of the disability retirees

who would be receiving VA disability benefits in fiscal year 2003,

about 12,100 would be entitled to an additional $83 million in retirement annuities. CBO estimates their retirement annuities

would increase by $743 million over the 2003–2007 period and $2

billion over the 2003–2012 period.

Other Effects of Concurrent Receipt. Enacting section 641 also

would affect Veterans’ Disability Compensation, receipts to the

Treasury for Survivor Benefit Payments, Special Compensation to

Severely Disabled Retirees, and the level of contributions to the

Military Retirement Trust Fund.

Veterans’ Disability Compensation. Data from DoD indicates that

an additional 15,100 disability retirees of the uniformed services— 14,500 from DoD and about 600 from the other uniformed services—do not currently receive VA disability benefits that they are

entitled to receive. Since many disability retirees are not taxed on

their annuities, there is no incentive under current law for these

retirees to apply for the tax-free VA benefits, as they will be offset,

dollar-for-dollar, against their retirement annuities. Section 641

would provide a significant incentive for the more disabled of these

individuals to apply for VA disability benefits. CBO estimates that

about 7,000 disability retirees might be eligible for concurrent receipt under section 641, but, because many of these retirees are

both disabled and quite elderly, CBO expects that only about half

of that number would become aware of this improved benefit and

successfully complete the application process. Based on their DoDassessed degree of disability, CBO estimates that outlays for VA

disability benefits would increase by $13 million in 2004, about

$270 million over the 2003–2007 period, and $760 million over the

2003–2012 period. Because of the time needed for individuals to

prepare and submit their applications and the current backlog in

processing applications, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would not increase outlays for veterans’ disability compensation in 2003.

Survivor Benefit Plan Offsetting Receipts. Many retirees have a

Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) premium payment deducted from their

retirement annuity. The SBP was established in Public Law 92–

425 to create an opportunity for military retirees to provide annuities for their survivors. Those retirees who are not receiving a paycheck from DoD because their retirement annuity is totally offset

by their VA disability benefit may still participate in the SBP by

paying the monthly premium to the U.S. Treasury. These payments are recorded as offsetting receipts to DoD. According to DoD,

approximately 34,000 military retirees paid $23 million in SBP premiums to the Treasury in 2001. DoD also indicates that about $7

444

million of that amount was paid by about 8,000 retirees who would

begin to receive annuity checks under section 641. CBO’s estimate

of the increase in retirement outlays presented above assumes that

the SBP premiums of retirees who benefit from the legislation

would be deducted from the retirees’ annuities, and their payments

to the Treasury would cease. Assuming continuation of current

trends in population and benefit growth, CBO estimates these offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending) would decrease

by about $8 million in 2003, $40 million over the 2003–2007 period, and $90 million over the 2003–2012 period.

Repeal of Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees.

Section 641 also would repeal a special compensation program that

currently pays a fixed benefit of $50 to $300 a month to certain

uniformed service retirees who were determined to be 60 percent

to 100 percent disabled within four years of their retirement. Based

on information from DoD and assuming the population growth

trends continue, CBO estimates that about 36,000 DoD retirees

and about 600 retirees of the other uniformed services will receive

an average monthly benefit of $150 in 2002. Under current law,

this benefit is scheduled to increase over the next two years to

$172 a month. CBO estimates that the savings from repealing this

program would be $65 million in 2003, $338 million over the 2003– 2007 period, and $706 million over the 2003–2012 period.

Increased Accrual Payment Financing. The military retirement

system is financed in part by an annual payment from appropriated funds (an outlay in budget function 050) to the Military Retirement Fund, based on an estimate of the system’s accruing liabilities. If this provision is enacted, the yearly contribution to the

fund would increase to reflect the added liability from the expected

increase in annuities to future retirees. Under section 641, however, this incremental increase in the accrual payment would be

paid to the Military Retirement Fund by the Secretary of the

Treasury from the general fund of the Treasury. Using information

from DoD, CBO estimates that the accrual payment from the

Treasury would be $569 million in 2003, and about $3 billion over

the 2003–2007 period.

Armed Forces Retirement Home fee

Section 362 would increase the fee that certain military personnel pay toward the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement

Home. Currently, these personnel—which include active-duty enlisted personnel, warrant officers, and limited-duty officers—are required to pay a fee of 50 cents per month, which is used to offset

the costs of operating the retirement home. Section 362 would set

the fee at $1.00 per month. Based on information provided by the

Department of Defense, CBO estimates this provision would increase offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending) by $7

million per year.

Cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) inversion

Under current law, the annual COLA for military retirement annuities, which takes effect every December, is calculated based on

the amount of the increase in the consumer price index (CPI) over

the course of the previous fiscal year. Members of the uniformed

services who are newly retired are credited with only a partial-year

445

COLA the first December of their retirement. The size of this partial-year COLA depends on when during the year they retired, and

their retirement plan. Because the CPI declined during the fourth

quarter of 2001, retirees whose ‘‘COLA clock’’ started counting during that period of deflation will receive a larger COLA than those

retirees whose COLA is calculated from the previous, highergrowth quarter. Section 643 would prevent this ‘‘COLA inversion’’ by capping retirees’ initial COLAs at the level of the full-year

COLA received by the rest of the retiree population.

Based on data from DoD, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would reduce the COLA adjustment of about 43,000 servicemen who retire during fiscal year 2002 by less than half a percentage point. CBO estimates that the retirement annuities they would

otherwise receive in 2003 would be reduced by a total of about $3

million. This reduction in annuities would increase over time by

the amount of future COLA increases that would otherwise have

applied to the original $3 million. CBO estimates section 643 would

reduce retiree annuities by about $18 million over the 2003–2007

period and by $38 million over the 2003–2012 period.

Forgotten widows

Section 644 would modify a program to compensate surviving

spouses of certain active-duty servicemembers and reservists who

died before they were able to enroll in the Survivor Benefit Plan.

This program, which began in December 1997, is currently providing a monthly annuity of $186 to over 2,500 beneficiaries. Under

current law, benefits are retroactive to the inception of the program. CBO estimates that a survivor enrolling in the program in

2003 would receive, in addition to the monthly annuity, a lumpsum payment of over $11,000 and that by 2012, the lump-sum payment would increase to almost $32,000. Section 644 would eliminate the retroactive portion of the benefit, so that survivors who

enroll in the program after enactment of this legislation would receive the annuity, but not the lump-sum payment. Data from DoD

indicates that the eligible population is elderly, and the recent

growth rate has been limited to between 100 and 150 surviving

spouses a year. Without the lump-sum payment incentive, CBO assumes even fewer new enrollees would seek to become eligible each

year. CBO estimates eliminating the lump-sum payment would

save about $9 million over the 2003–2012 period.

Education benefits for the selected reserve

Section 651 would extend the period during which eligible reservists may use their education benefits from 10 years to 14 years. VA

reported that, in 2001, over 82,000 reservists trained under this

program and received an average annual benefit of $1,653. This average benefit includes both the basic benefit and a supplemental

benefit that DoD can offer to enhance accessions or re-enlistment

in critical skill specialties. This benefit increases each year by a

COLA and by the level of supplemental benefits being offered.

Based on current usage rates, CBO estimates that enacting this extension would result in an extra 2,500 trainees in fiscal year 2003

and a somewhat smaller number of additional trainees in subsequent years. The number of trainees will be larger in the first several years because reservists who are currently excluded from

446

using their benefits because they have exceeded the 10-year limit

would be expected to use the newly available benefit more intensively. Based on information from DoD and VA, CBO estimates

that enacting this legislation would increase education outlays by

$4 million in 2003, $15 million over the 2003–2007 period and by $29 million over the 2003–2012 period. Since DoD makes monthly

payments into the DoD Education Benefits Fund in the amount of

the net present value of the benefits granted during the previous

month, this increase in usage of the education benefit would necessitate an increase in payments to the fund. (The discretionary costs

associated with these payments are discussed earlier in the

‘‘Spending Subject to Appropriation’’ section under the heading of ‘‘Education and Training.’’)

Mental health benefits

Section 701 would remove a statutory requirement that inpatient

mental health care be preauthorized for retirees and dependents

who are eligible for Medicare beginning in 2004. Under current

law, Tricare for Life (TFL), another medical program run by DoD,

pays all Medicare copayments and deductibles for those benefits

that are covered by both programs. Beginning in 2003, TFL spending for Medicare-eligible retirees and dependents will be considered

direct spending. Under current law, Medicare does not require a

preauthorization for inpatient mental health care but Tricare does.

Removing this requirement would make the mental health benefits

identical and reduce confusion among beneficiaries and health care

providers.

Although most individuals would seek preauthorization before receiving inpatient mental health care, CBO expects that, under current law, some individuals would fail to obtain the necessary

preauthorization from Tricare and would have to pay the copayments and deductibles on their own. Because DoD does not have

any available data on the frequency or costs of inpatient mental

health care for Medicare-eligible retirees and dependents, CBO extrapolated this data from the general Medicare population. Under

section 701, CBO estimates that in 2004 TFL would cover the copayments and deductibles for about 600 additional people at an average cost of about $1,800 per person. Thus, CBO estimates section

701 would raise direct spending by $1 million in 2004, $4 million

over the 2004–2007 period, and $14 million over the 2004–2012 period.

Land conveyance and other property transactions

Titles XXVIII and XIV would authorize a variety of property

transactions involving both large and small parcels of land.

Section 2841 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the city of West Wendover, Nevada, and Tooele County,

Utah, without consideration, two parcels of federal land located in

those states and identified in the bill. According to the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM), those lands, which are withdrawn for

military purposes, currently generate no offsetting receipts and are

not expected to in the foreseeable future. Hence, CBO estimates

that conveying the lands would not affect offsetting receipts. According to the U.S. Air Force, portions of the lands that could be

conveyed have been used as a bombing range by the Air Force.

447

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act, the agency would have to remediate any expended and unexploded ordnance prior to conveying those lands.

Any federal spending for remediation, which could be significant,

would be subject to appropriation. At this time, CBO does not have

sufficient information to estimate remediation costs.

CBO estimates that other provisions in title XXVIII would not

result in significant costs to the federal government because they

would either authorize DoD to exchange one piece of property for

another or would authorize DoD to convey land that under current

law is unlikely to be declared excess and sold or is likely to be

given away.

Title XIV of H.R. 4546 would designate as wilderness more than

539,000 acres of federal lands throughout the state of Utah. Subject

to valid existing rights, the bill would withdraw most of those lands

from programs to develop mineral and geothermal resources. Withdrawing those lands from leasing and development could result in

forgone offsetting receipts if, under current law, the lands would

generate receipts from those activities. According to BLM, however,

the lands currently generate no significant receipts and are not expected to over the next 10 years. Hence, we estimate that any resulting changes in offsetting receipts would be negligible.

Title XIV also would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from

issuing permits for rights-of-way through certain federal lands in

Utah. According to BLM, the agency collects less than $100,000 a

year from such permits; hence, CBO estimates that any resulting

loss of offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending) would

not exceed that amount in any year.

Other provisions

The following provisions would have an insignificant budgetary

impact on direct spending: • Section 364 would extend the arsenal support program initiative (ASPI) through 2004. ASPI allows government owned

and operated arsenals to sign contracts with private companies

for the use of excess plant space and equipment. The arsenal

can then use the rents and fees from these contracts to reduce

overhead costs. To date, these contracts have generated less

than $500,000 a year in proceeds.

• Section 366 would allow the basic allowance for housing

(BAH) for service members who live in privatized housing to

be disregarded as income when determining eligibility for free

and reduced meals in the school lunch program. Under current

law, the BAH is counted as income. The provision would allow

more children to be eligible for free and reduced price meals

for the one year period after enactment. CBO estimates that

this section would increase direct spending in the child nutrition program in 2003, but that the costs would not be significant. (If this bill is enacted before the start of fiscal year 2003,

then there would be some insignificant cost in 2002 also.)

• Section 2862 would allow the Navy to provide wastewater

treatment services from its facilities at Camp Lejeune, North

Carolina, to Onslow County and other public entities near the

base. In exchange for those services, the Navy would receive

cash or in-kind payment. This provision would have no net imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00469 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
448

pact on direct spending because it would allow the Navy to

spend any cash that it collects.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net changes in direct spending that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are

shown in Table 6. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects through fiscal year 2006 are counted.

TABLE 6.—ESTIMATED IMPACT OF H.R. 4546 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Changes in outlays ........ 0 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997 2,123 2,256 2,386 2,524 2,672

Changes in receipts ....... Not applicable

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 4546 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state,

local, or tribal governments.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Defense Outlays: Kent

Christensen. Military Construction: David Newman. Military and

Civilian Personnel: Michelle Patterson and Dawn Regan. Armed

Forces Retirement Home: Geoffrey Gerhardt. Military Retirement:

Sarah Jennings. Health Programs: Sam Papenfuss. Multiyear Procurement: David Newman and Raymond Hall. Conservation and

Land Management: Megan Carroll. Maritime Administration:

Deborah Reis. Naval Petroleum Reserves: Lisa Cash Driskill. Nutrition Programs: Valerie Womer. Operation and Maintenance:

Matt Schmit. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:

Elyse Goldman. Impact on the Private Sector: R. William Thomas.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the committee generally concurs with the estimates as contained in the report of the Congressional Budget Office.

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings

and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant

to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.

With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new

spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase

or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however,

authorize appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation

are addressed in the estimate prepared by the Director of the ConVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00470 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
449

gressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974.

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the committee has not received a report

from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 4546.

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, this legislation would address several

general and outcome-related performance goals and objectives. The

general goal and objective of this legislation is to improve the quality of life for military personnel and their families, military readiness, the modernization and eventual transformation of the armed

forces, to enhance the development of ballistic missile defenses, and

to improve the condition of military housing and facilities.

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the quality

of life for military personnel and their families, the objective of this

legislation is to:

(1) ensure the largest one-year growth in active duty end

strength since 1986 by adding 12,650 personnel, enabling all

the military services to begin meeting long-standing manpower

shortages, as well as new manning requirements.

(2) provide every military service member a pay raise of between 4.1 and 6.5 percent effective January 1, 2003;

(3) reduce out-of-pocket housing costs for military personnel

to less than 8 percent during fiscal year 2003;

(4) eliminate unfair provisions in current law, thereby allowing those rated 60 percent disabled or greater to receive by

2007 their full military retired pay and full veteran’s disability

compensation.

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving military

readiness, the objective of this legislation is to:

(1) increase funding for key readiness accounts by $4.6 billion above the fiscal year 2002 level;

(2) satisfy approximately $200 million of the service chiefs’

unfunded readiness requirements;

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the modernization and eventual transformation of the armed forces and enhancing the development of ballistic missile defenses, the objective

of this legislation is to:

(1) increase funding for military procurement accounts by

$2.9 billion;

(2) satisfy more than $2 billion of the unfunded procurement

requirements identified by the service chiefs; and

(3) increase funding for military research and development

accounts by $914 million.

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving military

housing and facilities, the objective of this legislation is to:

(1) provide $10 billion for military construction and military

family housing programs, including $2 billion for quality of life

enhancements;

(2) provide several enhancements to the authority provided

by current law to privatize military housing that will provide

450

the military services more flexibility to procure adequate military family housing.

With respect to the outcome-related goal of increasing homeland

and troop defenses against terrorist and ballistic missile attacks,

the objective of this legislation is to:

(1) support the President’s request for $7.3 billion to combat

terrorism; and

(2) support the approach of the President’s ballistic missile

defense program and to increase funding for ballistic missile

defense programs by $8.4 million above the fiscal year 2002

level.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 3 (d)(1) of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal

governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the

bill provides no federal intergovernmental mandates.

RECORD VOTES

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken with

respect to the committee’s consideration of H.R. 4546. The record

of these votes is attached to this report.

The committee ordered H.R. 4546 reported to the House with a

favorable recommendation by a vote of 57–1, a quorum being

present.

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

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 italics,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—General Military Law

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY

POWERS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 2—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Sec.

111. Executive department.

* * * * * * *

113a. Transmission of annual defense authorization request.

* * * * * * *

§ 113a. Transmission of annual defense authorization request

(a) TIME FOR TRANSMITTAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall

transmit to Congress the annual defense authorization request for

a fiscal year during the first 30 days after the date on which the

President transmits to Congress the budget for that fiscal year pursuant to section 1105 of title 31.

(b) DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST DEFINED.—In this section,

the term ‘‘defense authorization request’’, with respect to a fiscal

year, means a legislative proposal submitted to Congress for the enactment of the following:

(1) Authorizations of appropriations for that fiscal year, as required by section 114 of this title.

(2) Personnel strengths for that fiscal year, as required by section 115 of this title.

(3) Any other matter that is proposed by the Secretary of Defense to be enacted as part of the annual defense authorization

bill for that fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

§ 115. Personnel strengths: requirement for annual authorization

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) Upon determination by the Secretary of a military department

that such action would enhance manning and readiness in essential

units or in critical specialties or ratings, the Secretary may increase

the end strength authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) for a

461

fiscal year for the armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary or, in the case of the Secretary of the Navy, for any of the

armed forces under the jurisdiction of that Secretary. Any such increase for a fiscal year— (1) shall be by a number equal to not more than 1 percent of

such authorized end strength; and

(2) shall be counted as part of the increase for that armed

force for that fiscal year authorized under subsection (c)(1).

* * * * * * *

§ 118. Quadrennial defense review

(a) REVIEW REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall every four

years, øduring a year¿ during the second year following a year

evenly divisible by four, conduct a comprehensive examination (to

be known as a ‘‘quadrennial defense review’’) of the national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program

and policies of the United States with a view toward determining

and expressing the defense strategy of the United States and establishing a defense program for the next 20 years. Each such quadrennial defense review shall be conducted in consultation with the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

* * * * * * *

(d) SUBMISSION OF QDR TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The

Secretary shall submit a report on each quadrennial defense review

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House

of Representatives. The report shall be submitted not later than

September 30 of the year in which the review is conducted. The report shall include the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(14) The national defense mission of the Coast Guard.

ø(14)¿ (15) Any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5—JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

* * * * * * *

§ 153. Chairman: functions

(a) PLANNING; ADVICE; POLICY FORMULATION.—Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President and the Secretary of

Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall be responsible for the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 8—DEFENSE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE FIELD ACTIVITIES

* * * * * * *

462

SUBCHAPTER II—MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE AGENCY

MATTERS

Sec.

201. Certain intelligence officials: consultation and concurrence regarding appointments; evaluation of performance.

ø203. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.¿

203. Director of Missile Defense Agency.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 203. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization¿

§ 203. Director of Missile Defense Agency

If an officer of the armed forces on active duty is appointed to

the position of Director of the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency, the position shall be treated as having been designated by the President as a position of importance

and responsibility for purposes of section 601 of this title and shall

carry the grade of lieutenant general or general or, in the case of

an officer of the Navy, vice admiral or admiral.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 9—DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS

Sec.

221. Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency in

budgeting.

* * * * * * *

ø230. Amounts for declassification of records.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements

(a) PROGRAM ELEMENTS SPECIFIED.—In the budget justification

materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of

Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget

of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the amount requested for activities of the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency shall be set forth in accordance with

program elements governing functional areas as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 224. Ballistic missile defense programs: display of amounts

for research, development, test, and evaluation

(a) REQUIREMENT.—Any amount in the budget submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for any fiscal year for research,

development, test, and evaluation for a Department of Defense missile defense program described in subsection (b) shall be set forth

under the account of the Department of Defense for Defense-wide

research, development, test, and evaluation and, within that account, under the subaccount (or other budget activity level) for the

øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency. (b) TRANSFER CRITERIA.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish criteria for the transfer of responsibility for a ballistic missile defense program from the Director of the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency to the Secretary of a

463

military department. The criteria established for such a transfer

shall, at a minimum, address the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) NOTIFICATION OF TRANSFER.—Before responsibility for a ballistic missile defense program is transferred from the Director of

the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency to the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees notice

in writing of the Secretary’s intent to make that transfer. The Secretary shall include with such notice a certification that the program has met the criteria established under subsection (b) for such

a transfer. The transfer may then be carried out after the end of

the 60-day period beginning on the date of such notice.

(d) CONFORMING BUDGET AND PLANNING TRANSFERS.—When a

ballistic missile defense program is transferred from the øBallistic

Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency to the Secretary of a military department in accordance with this section, the

Secretary of Defense shall ensure that all appropriate conforming

changes are made to proposed or projected funding allocations in

the future-years defense program under section 221 of this title

and other Department of Defense program, budget, and planning

documents.

(e) FOLLOW-ON RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, øbefore a¿ for

each ballistic missile defense program øis¿ transferred from the Director of the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency to the Secretary of a military department, øroles and

responsibilities for research, development, test, and evaluation related to system improvements for that program are clearly defined.¿ responsibility for research, development, test, and evaluation

related to system improvements for that program remains with the

Director.

* * * * * * *

§ 228. Monthly reports on allocation of funds within operation and maintenance budget subactivities

(a) MONTHLY REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit

øto Congress¿ to the congressional defense committees a monthly report on the allocation of appropriations to O&M budget activities

and to the subactivities of those budget activities. Each such report

shall be submitted not later than 60 days after the end of the

month to which the report pertains.

* * * * * * *

ø(e) O&M BUDGET ACTIVITY DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the¿ (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘O&M budget activity’’ means a budget activity

within an operation and maintenance appropriation of the Department of Defense for a fiscal year.

(2) The term ‘‘congressional defense committees’’ means the

Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and

464

the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 230. Amounts for declassification of records

øThe Secretary of Defense shall include in the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department

of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget

of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31) specific identification of the amounts required to carry out programmed activities

during that fiscal year to declassify records pursuant to Executive

Order No. 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note) or any successor Executive

order or to comply with any statutory requirement, or any request,

to declassify Government records. Identification of such amounts in

such budget justification materials shall be in a single display that

shows the total amount for the Department of Defense and the

amount for each military department and Defense Agency.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 23—MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec.

480. Reports to Congress: submission in electronic form.

* * * * * * *

488. Status of female members of the armed forces: annual report.

§ 480. Reports to Congress: submission in electronic form

(a) REQUIREMENT.—Whenever the Secretary of Defense or any

other official of the Department of Defense submits to Congress (or

any committee of either House of Congress) a report that the Secretary (or other official) is required by law to submit, the Secretary

(or other official) øshall, upon request by any committee of Congress to which the report is submitted or referred, provide to Congress (or each¿ shall provide to Congress (or such committee) a

copy of the report in an electronic medium.

* * * * * * *

§ 488. Status of female members of the armed forces: annual

report

(a) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit to

Congress an annual report on the status of female members of the

armed forces. Information in the report shall be shown for the Department of Defense as a whole and separately for each of the Army,

Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

(b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—Each report under subsection (a)

shall include, at a minimum, the following information with respect

to female members:

(1) Access to health care.

(2) Positions open.

(3) Assignment policies.

(4) Joint spouse assignments.

(5) Deployment availability rates.

(6) Promotion and retention rates.

(7) Assignments in nontraditional fields.

465

(8) Assignments to command positions.

(9) Selection for service schools.

(10) Sexual harassment.

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 32—OFFICER STRENGTH AND DISTRIBUTION

IN GRADE

* * * * * * *

§ 525. Distribution of commissioned officers on active duty

in general officer and flag officer grades

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

(2)(A)***

(B) No appointment may be made in a grade above major general

in the Marine Corps if that appointment would result in more than

ø16.2¿ 17.5 percent of the general officers of the Marine Corps on

active duty being in grades above major general.

(5)(A)***

* * * * * * *

(C) This paragraph shall cease to be effective at the end of øSeptember 30, 2003¿ December 31, 2004.

* * * * * * *

(8) An officer while serving in a position designated by the Secretary of Defense as Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, if serving in the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral,

is in addition to the number that otherwise would be permitted for

that officer’s armed force for that grade under paragraph (1) or (2).

Only one officer may be designated as Senior Military Assistant to

the Secretary of Defense for purposes of this paragraph.

* * * * * * *

§ 526. Authorized strength: general and flag officers on active duty

(a) * * *

(b) LIMITED EXCLUSION FOR JOINT DUTY REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) This subsection shall cease to be effective on øOctober 1,

2002¿ December 31, 2004.

ø(c) NOTICE TO CONGRESS UPON CHANGE IN GRADE FOR CERTAIN

POSITIONS.—(1) Not later than 60 days before an action specified

in paragraph (2) may become effective, the Secretary of Defense

shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate

and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report providing notice of the intended action and an analytically based justification for the intended action.

ø(2) Paragraph (1) applies in the case of the following actions:

466

ø(A) A change in the grade authorized as of July 1, 1994, for

a general officer position in the National Guard Bureau, a general or flag officer position in the Office of a Chief of a reserve

component, or a general or flag officer position in the headquarters of a reserve component command.

ø(B) Assignment of a reserve component officer to a general

officer position in the National Guard Bureau, to a general or

flag officer position in the Office of a Chief of a reserve component, or to a general or flag officer position in the headquarters

of a reserve component command in a grade other than the

grade authorized for that position as of July 1, 1994.

ø(C) Assignment of an officer other than a general or flag officer as the military executive to the Reserve Forces Policy

Board.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 35—TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS IN OFFICER

GRADES

* * * * * * *

§ 604. Senior joint officer positions: recommendations to the

Secretary of Defense

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) EXPIRATION.—This section shall cease to be effective at the

end of øSeptember 30, 2003¿ December 31, 2004.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 38—JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 663. Education

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) DURATION OF PRINCIPAL COURSE OF INSTRUCTION AT JOINT

FORCES STAFF COLLEGE.—(1) * * *

(2) In this subsection, the term ‘‘principal course of instruction’’ means any course of instruction offered at the øArmed Forces Staff

College¿ Joint Forces Staff College as Phase II joint professional

military education.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 39—ACTIVE DUTY

* * * * * * *

§ 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major

regional contingencies

(a) * * *

(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members of

the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty at

the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the following:

467

(1) For the Army, ø480,000¿ 484,800. (2) For the Navy, ø376,000¿ 379,457. (3) For the Marine Corps, ø172,600¿ 175,000. (4) For the Air Force, ø358,800¿ 360,795.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 40—LEAVE

Sec.

701. Entitlement and accumulation.

* * * * * * *

709. Voluntary transfers of leave.

* * * * * * *

§ 705. Rest and recuperative absence for qualified enlisted

members extending duty at designated locations

overseas

(a) * * *

(b) The benefits authorized by subsection (a) are—

(1) * * *

(2) a period of rest and ørecuperative¿ recuperation absence

for not more than 15 days and round-trip transportation at

Government expense from the location of the extended tour of

duty to the nearest port in the 48 contiguous States and return, or to an alternate location at a cost not to exceed the cost

of transportation to the nearest port in the 48 contiguous States,

and return.

* * * * * * *

§ 709. Voluntary transfers of leave

(a) PROGRAM.—The Secretary concerned shall, by regulation, establish a program under which leave accrued by a member of an

armed force may be transferred to another member of the same

armed force who requires additional leave because of a qualifying

emergency. Any such transfer of leave may be made only upon the

voluntary written application of the member whose leave is to be

transferred.

(b) APPROVAL OF COMMANDING OFFICER REQUIRED.—Any transfer

of leave under a program under this section may only be made with

the approval of the commanding officer of the leave donor and the

leave recipient.

(c) QUALIFYING EMERGENCY.—In this section, the term ‘‘qualifying

emergency’’, with respect to a member of the armed forces, means a

circumstance that—

(1) is likely to require the prolonged absence of the member

from duty; and

(2) is due to—

(A) a medical condition of a member of the immediate

family of the member; or

(B) any other hardship that the Secretary concerned determines appropriate for purposes of this section.

(d) MILITARY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS.—Regulations prescribed under this section by the Secretaries of the military departVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00489 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
468

ment shall be as uniform as practicable and shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 41—SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS,

DETAILS, AND DUTIES

* * * * * * *

§ 721. General and flag officers: limitation on appointments,

assignments, details, and duties outside an officer’s

own service

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) TREATMENT OF OFFICERS HOLDING MULTIPLE POSITIONS.—

ø(1)¿ If an officer described in subsection (b) simultaneously holds

both a position external to that officer’s armed force and another

position not external to that officer’s armed force, the Secretary of

Defense shall determine whether that officer shall be counted for

the purposes of this section.

ø(2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress an annual report on the number of officers to whom paragraph (1) was

applicable during the year covered by the report. The report shall

set forth the determination made by the Secretary under that paragraph in each such case.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 47—UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER VII—TRIAL PROCEDURE

Sec. Art.

836. 36. President may prescribe rules.

* * * * * * *

852a. 52a. Right of accused to request sentencing by military judge rather than

by members.

* * * * * * *

§ 852a. Art. 52a. Right of accused to request sentencing by

military judge rather than by members

(a) In the case of an accused convicted of an offense by a courtmartial composed of a military judge and members, the sentence

shall be tried before and adjudged by the military judge rather than

the members if, after the findings are announced and before evidence in the sentencing proceeding is introduced, the accused, knowing the identity of the military judge and after consultation with defense counsel, requests orally on the record or in writing that the

sentence be tried before and adjudged by the military judge rather

than the members.

469

(b) This section shall not apply with respect to an offense for

which the death penalty may be adjudged unless the case has been

previously referred to trial as a noncapital case.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 49—MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND

PENALTIES

* * * * * * *

§ 986. Security clearances: limitations

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(e) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than February 1 each year, the

Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed

Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report identifying each waiver issued under subsection (d) during the preceding year with an explanation for each case of the disqualifying

factor in subsection (c) that applied, and the reason for the waiver

of the disqualification.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 54—COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE BENEFITS

Sec.

1061. Survivors of certain Reserve and Guard members.

* * * * * * *

ø1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of National

Guard serving in federally declared disaster.¿

1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of National

Guard serving in federally declared disaster or national emergency.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities:

members of National Guard serving in federally

declared disaster¿

§ 1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities:

members of National Guard serving in federally declared disaster or national emergency

(a) ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBERS.—A member of the National Guard

who, although not in Federal service, is called or ordered to duty

in response to a federally declared disaster or national emergency

shall be permitted to use commissary stores and MWR retail facilities during the period of such duty on the same basis as members

of the armed forces on active duty.

* * * * * * *

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) NATIONAL EMERGENCY.—The term ‘‘national emergency’’

means a national emergency declared by the President or Congress.

* * * * * * *

470

CHAPTER 55—MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE

* * * * * * *

§ 1076a. TRICARE dental program

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(k) ELIGIBLE DEPENDENT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘eligible dependent’’—

(1) * * *

(2) includes any such dependent of a member who dies while

on active duty for a period of more than 30 days or a member

of the Ready Reserve if the dependent is enrolled on the date

of the death of the member in a dental benefits plan established under subsection (a) (or, if not enrolled, if the member

discontinued participation under subsection (f)), except that the

term does not include the dependent after the end of the threeyear period beginning on the date of the member’s death.

* * * * * * *

§ 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children:

plans

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) Except in the case of an emergency or in the case of a person

eligible for health care benefits under section 1086(d)(2) of this title

for whom payment for such services is made under subsection

1086(d)(3) of this title, the Secretary of Defense shall require

preadmission authorization before inpatient mental health services

may be provided to persons covered by this section or section 1086

of this title. In the case of the provision of emergency inpatient

mental health services, approval for the continuation of such services shall be required within 72 hours after admission.

* * * * * * *

(p)(1)(A) Subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense

considers necessary, coverage for medical care under this section

for the dependents øreferred to in subsection (a) of a member of the

uniformed services referred to in section 1074(c)(3) of this title who

are residing with the member¿ described in subparagraph (B), and

standards with respect to timely access to such care, shall be comparable to coverage for medical care and standards for timely access to such care under the managed care option of the TRICARE

program known as TRICARE Prime.

(B) A dependent referred to in subparagraph (A) is—

(i) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a member of

the uniformed services referred to in section 1074(c)(3) of this

title, who is residing with the member; or

(ii) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a member of

the uniformed services with a permanent duty assignment for

which the dependent is not authorized to accompany the member and one of the following circumstances exists:

471

(I) The dependent continues to reside at the location of

the former duty assignment of the member (or residence in

the case of a member of a reserve component ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days), and that location is more than 50 miles, or approximately one hour of

driving time, from the nearest military medical treatment

facility that can adequately provide needed health care.

(II) There is no reasonable expectation the member will

return to the location of the former duty assignment, and

the dependent moves to a location that is more than 50

miles, or approximately one hour of driving time, from the

nearest military medical treatment facility that can adequately provide needed health care.

(q) For purposes of designating institutional and non-institutional

health care providers authorized to provide care under this section,

the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations (in consultation

with the other administering Secretaries) that will, to the extent

practicable and subject to the limitations of subsection (a), so designate any provider authorized to provide care under title XVIII of

the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).

* * * * * * *

§ 1095. Health care services incurred on behalf of covered

beneficiaries: collection from third-party payers

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g)ø(1)¿ Amounts collected under this section from a third-party

payer or under any other provision of law from any other payer for

health care services provided at or through a facility of the uniformed services shall be credited to the appropriation supporting

the maintenance and operation of the facility and shall not be

taken into consideration in establishing the operating budget of the

facility.

ø(2) Not later than February 15 of each year, the Secretary of

Defense shall submit to Congress a report specifying for each facility of the uniformed services the amount credited to the facility

under this subsection during the preceding fiscal year.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 56—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICAREELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND

* * * * * * *

§ 1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions; authority to enter into agreements

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The Secretary of Defense ømay enter into an agreement with

any other administering Secretary¿ shall enter into an agreement

with each other administering Secretary (as defined in section

1072(3) of this title) for participation in the Fund by a uniformed

service under the jurisdiction of that Secretary. øAny¿ Each such

agreement shall require that Secretary to determine contributions

472

to the Fund on behalf of the members of the uniformed service

under the jurisdiction of that Secretary in a manner comparable to

the determination with respect to contributions to the Fund made

by the Secretary of Defense under section 1116 of this title, and

such administering Secretary may make such contributions.

* * * * * * *

§ 1116. Payments into the Fund

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall be

paid from funds available for the health care programs of the participating uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the respective administering Secretaries.¿

(c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall be paid

from funds available for the pay of members of the participating

uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the respective administering Secretaries.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 58—BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS

BEING SEPARATED OR RECENTLY SEPARATED

* * * * * * *

§ 1145. Health benefits

(a) TRANSITIONAL HEALTH CARE.—(1) For the applicable time period described in paragraph (3), a member of the armed forces who

is separated from active duty as described in paragraph (2) (and

the dependents of the member) shall be entitled to receive—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 71—COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY

Sec.

1401. Computation of retired pay.

* * * * * * *

ø1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed services retirees.

ø1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected disabilities:

payment of retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation; contingent authority.¿

1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected disabilities rated

at 60 percent or higher: concurrent payment of retired pay and veterans’

disability compensation.

* * * * * * *

§ 1401a. Adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay to reflect changes in Consumer Price Index

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) FIRST COLA ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS WITH RETIRED PAY

COMPUTED USING FINAL BASIC PAY.—

473

(1) FIRST ADJUSTMENT WITH INTERVENING INCREASE IN BASIC

PAY.—Notwithstanding subsection (b) but subject to subsection

(f)(2), if a person described in paragraph (3) becomes entitled

to retired pay based on rates of monthly basic pay that became

effective after the last day of the calendar quarter of the base

index, the retired pay of the member or former member shall

be increased on the effective date of the next adjustment of retired pay under subsection (b) only by the percent (adjusted to

the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by which— (A) the price index for the base quarter of that year, exceeds

(B) the price index for the calendar quarter immediately

before the calendar quarter in which the rates of monthly

basic pay on which the retired pay is based became effective.

(2) FIRST ADJUSTMENT WITH NO INTERVENING INCREASE IN

BASIC PAY.—If a person described in paragraph (3) becomes entitled to retired pay on or after the effective date of an adjustment in retired pay under subsection (b) but before the effective date of the next increase in the rates of monthly basic pay,

the retired pay of the member or former member shall be increased (subject to subsection (f)(2) as applied to other members

whose retired pay is computed on the current rates of basic pay

in the most recent adjustment under this section), effective on

the date the member becomes entitled to that pay, by the percent (adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by

which—

(A) the base index, exceeds

(B) the price index for the calendar quarter immediately

before the calendar quarter in which the rates of monthly

basic pay on which the retired pay is based became effective.

(d) FIRST COLA ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS WITH RETIRED PAY

COMPUTED USING HIGH-THREE.—Notwithstanding subsection (b)

but subject to subsection (f)(2), the retired pay of a member or

former member of an armed force who first became a member of

a uniformed service before August 1, 1986, or on or after August

1, 1986, if the member or former member did not elect to receive a

bonus under section 322 of title 37 and whose retired pay base is

determined under section 1407 of this title shall be increased on

the effective date of the first adjustment of retired pay under subsection (b) after the member or former member becomes entitled to

retired pay by the percent (adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1

percent) equal to the difference between the percent by which—

(1) the price index for the base quarter of that year, exceeds

(2) the price index for the calendar quarter immediately before the calendar quarter during which the member became entitled to retired pay.

(e) PRO RATING OF INITIAL ADJUSTMENT.—Notwithstanding subsection (b) but subject to subsection (f)(2), the retired pay of a member or former member of an armed force who first became a member of a uniformed service on or after August 1, 1986, and elected

to receive a bonus under section 322 of title 37 shall be increased

on the effective date of the first adjustment of retired pay under

subsection (b) after the member or former member becomes entiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00495 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
474

tled to retired pay by the percent (adjusted to the nearest one-tenth

of 1 percent) equal to the difference between— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) PREVENTION OF PAY INVERSIONS.— (1) PREVENTION OF RETIRED PAY INVERSIONS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the monthly retired pay

of a member or a former member of an armed force who initially became entitled to that pay on or after January 1, 1971,

may not be less than the monthly retired pay to which he

would be entitled if he had become entitled to retired pay at

an earlier date based on the grade in which the member is retired, adjusted to reflect any applicable increases in such pay

under this section. In computing the amount of retired pay to

which such a member or former member would have been entitled on that earlier date, the computation shall be based on his

grade, length of service, and the rate of basic pay applicable to

him at that time, except that such computation may not be

based on a rate of basic pay for a grade higher than the grade

in which the member is retired. This subsection does not authorize any increase in the monthly retired pay to which a

member was entitled for any period before October 7, 1975.

(2) PREVENTION OF COLA INVERSIONS.—The percentage of the

first adjustment under this section in the retired pay of any person, as determined under subsection (c)(1), (c)(2), (d), or (e),

may not exceed the percentage increase in retired pay determined under subsection (b)(2) that is effective on the same date

as the effective date of such first adjustment.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled

uniformed services retirees

ø(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary concerned shall pay to each eligible disabled uniformed services retiree a monthly amount determined under subsection (b). If the provisions of subsection (a) of

section 1414 of this title become effective in accordance with subsection (f) of that section, payments under this section shall be terminated effective as of the month beginning on the effective date

specified in subsection (e) of that section.

ø(b) AMOUNT.—The amount to be paid to an eligible disabled uniformed services retiree in accordance with subsection (a) is the following:

ø(1) For payments for months beginning with February 2002

and ending with December 2002, the following:

ø(A) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as total, $300.

ø(B) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 90 percent,

$200.

ø(C) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 80 percent or 70

percent, $100.

ø(D) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 60 percent, $50.

475

ø(2) For payments for months beginning with January 2003

and ending with September 2004, the following:

ø(A) For any month for which the retiree has a quali- fying service-connected disability rated as total, $325.

ø(B) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 90 percent,

$225.

ø(C) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 80 percent,

$125.

ø(D) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 70 percent,

$100.

ø(E) For any month for which the retiree has a quali- fying service-connected disability rated as 60 percent, $50.

ø(3) For payments for months after September 2004, the following:

ø(A) For any month for which the retiree has a quali- fying service-connected disability rated as total, $350.

ø(B) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 90 percent,

$250.

ø(C) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 80 percent,

$150.

ø(D) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying service-connected disability rated as 70 percent,

$125.

ø(E) For any month for which the retiree has a quali- fying service-connected disability rated as 60 percent, $50.

ø(c) ELIGIBLE MEMBERS.—An eligible disabled uniformed services

retiree referred to in subsection (a) is a member of the uniformed

services in a retired status who— ø(1) completed at least 20 years of service in the uniformed

services that are creditable for purposes of computing the

amount of retired pay to which the member is entitled; and

ø(2) has a qualifying service-connected disability.

ø(d) QUALIFYING SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY DEFINED.—In

this section, the term ‘‘qualifying service-connected disability’’ means a service-connected disability that— ø(1) was incurred or aggravated in the performance of duty

as a member of a uniformed service, as determined by the Secretary concerned; and

ø(2) is rated as not less than 60 percent disabling— ø(A) by the Secretary concerned as of the date on which

the member is retired from the uniformed services; or

ø(B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs within four

years following the date on which the member is retired

from the uniformed services.

ø(e) STATUS OF PAYMENTS.—Payments under this section are not

retired pay.

ø(f) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—Payments under this section for any fiscal year shall be paid out of funds appropriated for pay and allowances payable by the Secretary concerned for that fiscal year.

ø(g) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

476

ø(1) The term ‘‘service-connected’’ has the meaning given

that term in section 101 of title 38.

ø(2) The term ‘‘disability rated as total’’ means—

ø(A) a disability that is rated as total under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or

ø(B) a disability for which the scheduled rating is less

than total but for which a rating of total is assigned by

reason of inability of the disabled person concerned to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities.

ø(3) The term ‘‘retired pay’’ includes retainer pay, emergency

officers’ retirement pay, and naval pension.

ø§ 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have serviceconnected disabilities: payment of retired pay and

veterans’ disability compensation; contingent authority

ø(a) PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION.—Subject to subsection (b), a member or former member of the uniformed

services who is entitled to retired pay (other than as specified in

subsection (c)) and who is also entitled to veterans’ disability compensation is entitled to be paid both without regard to sections

5304 and 5305 of title 38, subject to the enactment of qualifying

offsetting legislation as specified in subsection (f).

ø(b) SPECIAL RULE FOR CHAPTER 61 CAREER RETIREES.—The retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with

20 years or more of service otherwise creditable under section 1405

of this title at the time of the member’s retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, but only to the

extent that the amount of the member’s retired pay under chapter

61 of this title exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the

member would have been entitled under any other provision of law

based upon the member’s service in the uniformed services if the

member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.

ø(c) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) does not apply to a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title at the time

of the member’s retirement.

ø(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

ø(1) The term ‘‘retired pay’’ includes retainer pay, emergency

officers’ retirement pay, and naval pension.

ø(2) The term ‘‘veterans’ disability compensation’’ has the

meaning given the term ‘‘compensation’’ in section 101(12) of

title 38.

ø(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—If qualifying offsetting legislation (as defined in subsection (f)) is enacted, the provisions of subsection (a)

shall take effect on—

ø(1) the first day of the first month beginning after the date

of the enactment of such qualifying offsetting legislation; or

ø(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the calendar year in which such legislation is enacted, if that date is

later than the date specified in paragraph (1).

477

ø(f) EFFECTIVENESS CONTINGENT ON ENACTMENT OF OFFSETTING

LEGISLATION.—(1) The provisions of subsection (a) shall be effective

only if—

ø(A) the President, in the budget for any fiscal year, proposes the enactment of legislation that, if enacted, would be

qualifying offsetting legislation; and

ø(B) after that budget is submitted to Congress, there is enacted qualifying offsetting legislation.

ø(2) In this subsection:

ø(A) The term ‘‘qualifying offsetting legislation’’ means legislation (other than an appropriations Act) that includes provisions that— ø(i) offset fully the increased outlays to be made by reason of the provisions of subsection (a) for each of the first

10 fiscal years beginning after the date of the enactment

of such legislation;

ø(ii) expressly state that they are enacted for the purpose of the offset described in clause (i); and

ø(iii) are included in full on the PayGo scorecard.

ø(B) The term ‘‘PayGo scorecard’’ means the estimates that

are made by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office

and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget

under section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(d)) with respect to the

ten fiscal years following the date of the enactment of the legislation that is qualifying offsetting legislation for purposes of

this section.¿

§ 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher:

concurrent payment of retired pay and veterans’

disability compensation

(a) PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION.—Subject to subsection (b), a member or former member of the uniformed

services who is entitled for any month to retired pay and who is also

entitled for that month to veterans’ disability compensation for a

qualifying service-connected disability (hereinafter in this section referred to as a ‘‘qualified retiree’’) is entitled to be paid both for that

month without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38. For fiscal years 2003 through 2006, payment of retired pay to such a member or former member is subject to subsection (c).

(b) SPECIAL RULES FOR CHAPTER 61 DISABILITY RETIREES.—

(1) CAREER RETIREES.—The retired pay of a member retired

under chapter 61 of this title with 20 years or more of service

otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title at the time

of the member’s retirement is subject to reduction under sections

5304 and 5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the

amount of the member’s retired pay under chapter 61 of this

title exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member

would have been entitled under any other provision of law

based upon the member’s service in the uniformed services if the

member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.

(2) DISABILITY RETIREES WITH LESS THAN 20 YEARS OF SERVICE.—Subsection (a) does not apply to a member retired under

chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 years of service otherVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00499 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
478

wise creditable under section 1405 of this title at the time of the

member’s retirement.

(c) PHASE-IN OF FULL CONCURRENT RECEIPT.—For fiscal years

2003 through 2006, retired pay payable to a qualified retiree shall

be determined as follows:

(1) FISCAL YEAR 2003.—For a month during fiscal year 2003,

the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified retiree is the

amount (if any) of retired pay in excess of the current baseline

offset plus the following:

(A) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans’

disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected

disability rated as total, $750.

(B) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans’

disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected

disability rated as 90 percent, $500.

(C) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans’

disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected

disability rated as 80 percent, $250.

(D) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans’

disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected

disability rated as 70 percent, $250.

(E) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans’

disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected

disability rated as 60 percent, $125.

(2) FISCAL YEAR 2004.—For a month during fiscal year 2004,

the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified retiree is the

sum of—

(A) the amount specified in paragraph (1) for that qualified retiree; and

(B) 23 percent of the difference between (i) the current

baseline offset, and (ii) the amount specified in paragraph

(1) for that member’s disability.

(3) FISCAL YEAR 2005.—For a month during fiscal year 2005,

the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified retiree is the

sum of—

(A) the amount determined under paragraph (2) for that

qualified retiree; and

(B) 30 percent of the difference between (i) the current

baseline offset, and (ii) the amount determined under paragraph (2) for that qualified retiree.

(4) FISCAL YEAR 2006.—For a month during fiscal year 2006,

the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified retiree is the

sum of—

(A) the amount determined under paragraph (3) for that

qualified retiree; and

(B) 64 percent of the difference between (i) the current

baseline offset, and (ii) the amount determined under paragraph (3) for that qualified retiree.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) RETIRED PAY.—The term ‘‘retired pay’’ includes retainer

pay, emergency officers’ retirement pay, and naval pension.

(2) VETERANS’ DISABILITY COMPENSATION.—The term ‘‘veterans’ disability compensation’’ has the meaning given the term

‘‘compensation’’ in section 101(13) of title 38.

479

(3) SERVICE-CONNECTED.—The term ‘‘service-connected’’ has

the meaning given that term in section 101(16) of title 38.

(4) QUALIFYING SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY.—The term ‘‘qualifying service-connected disability’’ means a service-connected disability or combination of service-connected disabilities

that is rated as not less than 60 percent disabling by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

(5) DISABILITY RATED AS TOTAL.—The term ‘‘disability rated

as total’’ means— (A) a disability, or combination of disabilities, that is

rated as total under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or

(B) a disability, or combination of disabilities, for which

the scheduled rating is less than total but for which a rating of total is assigned by reason of inability of the disabled

person concerned to secure or follow a substantially gainful

occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities.

(6) CURRENT BASELINE OFFSET.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘current baseline offset’’ for

any qualified retiree means the amount for any month that

is the lesser of— (i) the amount of the applicable monthly retired pay

of the qualified retiree for that month; and

(ii) the amount of monthly veterans’ disability compensation to which the qualified retiree is entitled for

that month.

(B) APPLICABLE RETIRED PAY.—In subparagraph (A), the

term ‘‘applicable retired pay’’ for a qualified retiree means

the amount of monthly retired pay to which the qualified

retiree is entitled, determined without regard to this section

or sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38), except that in the

case of such a retiree who was retired under chapter 61 of

this title, such amount is the amount of retired pay to

which the member would have been entitled under any

other provision of law based upon the member’s service in

the uniformed services if the member had not been retired

under chapter 61 of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 74—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY

RETIREMENT FUND

* * * * * * *

§ 1465. Determination of contributions to the Fund

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) At the same time that the Secretary of Defense makes the determination required by paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the amount of the Treasury contribution to

be made to the Fund for the next fiscal year under section

1466(b)(2)(D) of this title. That amount shall be determined in the

same manner as the determination under paragraph (1) of the total

amount of Department of Defense contributions to be made to the

480

Fund during that fiscal year under section 1466(a) of this title, except that for purposes of this paragraph the Secretary, in making

the calculations required by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of that

paragraph, shall use the single level percentages determined under

subsection (c)(4), rather than those determined under subsection

(c)(1).

(c)(1) Not less often than every four years, the Secretary of Defense shall carry out an actuarial valuation of Department of Defense military retirement and survivor benefit programs. Each actuarial valuation of such programs shall include—

(A) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age normal

cost method) of a single level percentage of basic pay for members of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active

duty (other than active duty for training) or full-time National

Guard duty (other than full-time National Guard duty for

training only), to be determined without regard to section 1414

of this title; and

(B) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age normal

cost method) of a single level percentage of basic pay and of

compensation (paid pursuant to section 206 of title 37) for

members of the Ready Reserve of the armed forces (other than

the Coast Guard and other than members on full-time National Guard duty other than for training) who are not otherwise described by subparagraph (A), to be determined without

regard to section 1414 of this title.

Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of subsection (b)(1) and section 1466(a) of this title.

* * * * * * *

(4) Whenever the Secretary carries out an actuarial valuation

under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include as part of such

valuation the following:

(A) A determination of a single level percentage determined in

the same manner as applies under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), but based only upon the provisions of section 1414

of this title.

(B) A determination of a single level percentage determined in

the same manner as applies under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), but based only upon the provisions of section 1414

of this title.

Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of subsection (b)(3).

ø(4)¿ (5) Contributions to the Fund in accordance with amortization schedules under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be made as provided in section 1466(b) of this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 1466. Payments into the Fund

(a) * * *

(b)(1) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of the

Treasury shall promptly pay into the Fund from the General Fund

of the Treasury the amount certified to the Secretary by the Secretary of Defense under paragraph (3). Such payment shall be the

contribution to the Fund for that fiscal year required by øsections

481

1465(a) and 1465(c)¿ sections 1465(a), 1465(b)(3), 1465(c)(2), and

1465(c)(3) of this title.

(2) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of Defense

shall determine the sum of the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) The amount for that year determined by the Secretary of

Defense under section 1465(b)(3) of this title for the cost to the

Fund arising from increased amounts payable from the Fund

by reason of section 1414 of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 75—DECEASED PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—DEATH BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

§ 1491. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) SUPPORT.—øTo provide a¿(1) To support a funeral honors detail under this section, the Secretary of a military department may

provide the following:

ø(1) Transportation, or reimbursement for transportation,

and expenses for a person who participates in the funeral honors detail and is not a member of the armed forces or an employee of the United States.¿

(A) For a person who participates in a funeral honors detail

(other than a person who is a member of the armed forces not

in a retired status or an employee of the United States), either

transportation (or reimbursement for transportation) and expenses or the daily stipend prescribed under paragraph (2).

ø(2) Materiel, equipment, and training for¿ (B) For members

of a veterans organization or other organization referred to in

subsection (b)(2) and for members of the armed forces in a retired status, materiel, equipment, and training.

ø(3) Articles of clothing for¿ (C) For members of a veterans

organization or other organization referred to in subsection

(b)(2), articles of clothing that, as determined by the Secretary

concerned, are appropriate as a civilian uniform for persons

participating in a funeral honors detail.

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe annually a flat rate

daily stipend for purposes of paragraph (1)(A). Such stipend shall

be set at a rate so as to encompass typical costs for transportation

and other miscellaneous expenses for persons participating in funeral honors details who are members of the armed forces in a retired status and other persons are not members of the armed forces

or employees of the United States.

(3) A stipend paid under this subsection to a member of the

armed forces in a retired status is in addition to any compensation

482

to which the member is entitled under section 435(a)(2) of title 37

and any other compensation to which the member may be entitled.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 76—MISSING PERSONS

* * * * * * *

§ 1501. System for accounting for missing persons

(a) OFFICE FOR MISSING PERSONNEL.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish within the Office of the Secretary of Defense

an office to have responsibility for Department of Defense policy relating to missing persons. Such office shall be known as the Defense

Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office. Subject to the authority,

direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the responsibilities of the office shall include—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the office is provided sufficient military and civilian personnel levels, and sufficient

funding, to enable the office to fully perform its complete range of

missions. The Secretary shall ensure that Department of Defense

programming, planning, and budgeting procedures are structured

so as to ensure compliance with the preceding sentence for each fiscal year.

(B) For any fiscal year, the number of military and civilian personnel assigned or detailed to the office may not be less than the

number requested in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2003, unless a level below such number is expressly required by law.

(C) For any fiscal year, the level of funding allocated to the office

within the Department of Defense may not be below the level requested for such purposes in the President’s budget for fiscal year

2003, unless such a level of funding is expressly required by law.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 79—CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

Sec.

1551. Correction of name after separation from service under an assumed name.

* * * * * * *

1559. Personnel limitation.

* * * * * * *

§ 1559. Personnel limitation

(a) LIMITATION.—During fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, the

Secretary of a military department may not carry out any reduction

in the number of military and civilian personnel assigned to duty

with the service review agency for that military department below

the baseline number for that agency until—

(1) the Secretary submits to Congress a report that—

(A) describes the reduction proposed to be made;

(B) provides the Secretary’s rationale for that reduction;

and

483

(C) specifies the number of such personnel that would be

assigned to duty with that agency after the reduction; and

(2) a period of 90 days has elapsed after the date on which

the report is submitted.

(b) BASELINE NUMBER.—The baseline number for a service review

agency under this section is— (1) for purposes of the first report with respect to a service review agency under this section, the number of military and civilian personnel assigned to duty with that agency as of January 1, 2002; and

(2) for purposes of any subsequent report with respect to a

service review agency under this section, the number of such

personnel specified in the most recent report with respect to that

agency under this section.

(c) SERVICE REVIEW AGENCY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘service review agency’’ means— (1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the Army Review Boards Agency;

(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the Board for

Correction of Naval Records; and

(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, the Air

Force Review Boards Agency.

CHAPTER 81—CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

§ 1588. Authority to accept certain voluntary services

(a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT SERVICES.—Subject to subsection (b)

and notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Secretary concerned may accept from any person the following services:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) Voluntary services as a proctor for administration to secondary school students of the test known as the ‘‘Armed Services

Vocational Aptitude Battery’’.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 87—DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Sec.

1741. Policies and programs: establishment and implementation.

* * * * * * *

ø2410h.¿ 1747. Acquisition fellowship program.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2410h.¿ § 1747. Acquisition fellowship program

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

484

CHAPTER 88—MILITARY FAMILY PROGRAMS AND

MILITARY CHILD CARE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—MILITARY CHILD CARE

* * * * * * *

§ 1798. Child care services and youth program services for

dependents: financial assistance for providers

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) BIENNIAL REPORT.—(1) Every two years the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the exercise of authority

under this section. The report shall include an evaluation of the effectiveness of that authority for meeting the needs of members of

the armed forces or employees of the Department of Defense for

child care services and youth program services. The report may include any recommendations for legislation that the Secretary considers appropriate to enhance the capability of the Department of

Defense to meet those needs.

ø(2) A biennial report under this subsection may be combined

with the biennial report under section 1799(d) of this title into a

single report for submission to Congress.¿

§ 1799. Child care services and youth program services for

dependents: participation by children and youth

otherwise ineligible

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) BIENNIAL REPORT.—(1) Every two years the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the exercise of authority

under this section. The report shall include an evaluation of the effectiveness of that authority for achieving the objectives set out

under subsection (c). The report may include any recommendations

for legislation that the Secretary considers appropriate to enhance

the capability of the Department of Defense to attain those objectives.

ø(2) A biennial report under this subsection may be combined

with the biennial report under section 1798(d) of this title into a

single report for submission to Congress.¿

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING AND EDUCATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 101—TRAINING GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

§ 2010. Participation of developing countries in combined

exercises: payment of incremental expenses

(a) * * *

485

ø(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report

each year, not later than March 1, containing— ø(1) a list of the developing countries for which expenses

have been paid by the United States under this section during

the preceding year; and

ø(2) the amounts expended on behalf of each government.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 103—SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING

CORPS

* * * * * * *

§ 2107. Financial assistance program for specially selected

members

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h)(1) øNot more than 29,500 cadets and midshipmen appointed

under this section may be in the financial assistance programs at

any one time.¿ The Secretary of Defense shall determine the number of cadets and midshipmen appointed under this section who

may be in the financial assistance programs at any one time in

each military department.

* * * * * * *

(i) The Secretary of each military department shall seek to achieve

an increase in the number of agreements entered into under this section so as to achieve an increase, by the 2006–2007 academic year,

of not less than 400 in the number of cadets or midshipmen, as the

case may be, enrolled under this section, compared to such number

enrolled for the 2002–2003 academic year. In the case of the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary shall seek to ensure that not less

than one-third of such increase in agreements under this section are

with students enrolled (or seeking to enroll) in programs of study

leading to a baccalaureate degree in nuclear engineering or another

appropriate technical, scientific, or engineering field of study.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 105—ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION

PROGRAM

* * * * * * *

§ 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates

(a) BONUS AUTHORIZED.—(1) A person described in subsection (b)

who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and ending on December 31, ø2002¿ 2003, executes a written agreement in

accordance with subsection (c) to accept an appointment as a nurse

officer may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary

concerned, be paid an accession bonus of not more than $5,000. The

bonus shall be paid in periodic installments, as determined by the

486

Secretary concerned at the time the agreement is accepted, except

that the first installment may not exceed $2,500.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 109—EDUCATIONAL LOAN REPAYMENT

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 2173. Education loan repayment program: commissioned

officers in specified health professions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) CERTAIN PERSONS INELIGIBLE.—øParticipants of the Armed

Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance

program under subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title and students¿ Students of the Uniformed Services University of the Health

Sciences established under section 2112 of this title are not eligible

for the repayment of an education loan under this section.

(e) LOAN REPAYMENTS.—(1) * * *

(2) For each year of obligated service that a person agrees to

serve in an agreement described in subsection (b)(3), the Secretary

of the military department concerned may pay not more than

$22,000 on behalf of the person. This maximum amount shall be

increased annually by the Secretary of Defense effective October 1

of each year by the percentage equal to the percent increase in the

average annual cost of educational expenses and stipend costs of a

single scholarship under the Armed Forces Health Professions

Scholarship and Financial Assistance program. øThe total amount

that may be repaid on behalf of any person may not exceed an

amount determined on the basis of a four-year active duty service

obligation.¿

* * * * * * *

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND

PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 131—PLANNING AND COORDINATION

Sec.

2201. Apportionment of funds: authority for exemption; excepted expenses.

* * * * * * *

2214a. Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement accounts to research and development accounts for major acquisition programs.

* * * * * * *

§ 2214a. Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement accounts to research and development accounts for

major acquisition programs

(a) TRANSFER AUTHORITY WITHIN MAJOR PROGRAMS.—Subject to

subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may transfer amounts provided in an appropriation Act for procurement for a covered acquisiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00508 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
487

tion program to amounts provided in the same appropriation Act for

research, development, test, and evaluation for that program.

(b) CONGRESSIONAL NOTICE-AND-WAIT.—A transfer may be made

under this section only after— (1) the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees notice in writing of the Secretary’s intent to make such

transfer, together with the Secretary’s justification for the transfer; and

(2) a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date of such

notification.

(c) LIMITATIONS.—From amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense for any fiscal year for procurement— (1) the total amount transferred under this section may not exceed $250,000,000; and

(2) the total amount so transferred for any acquisition pro- gram may not exceed $20,000,000.

(d) COVERED ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered acquisition program’’ means an acquisition program of the

Department of Defense that is— (A) a major defense acquisition program for purposes of chapter 144 of this title; or

(B) any other acquisition program of the Department of

Defense—

(i) that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as a covered acquisition program for purposes of this section; or

(ii) that is estimated by the Secretary of Defense to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, test, and evaluation of more than $140,000,000

(based on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars) or an eventual

total expenditure for procurement of more than

$660,000,000 (based on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars.)

(e) TRANSFER BACK OF UNUSED TRANSFERRED FUNDS.—If funds

transferred under this section are not used for the purposes for

which transferred, such funds shall be transferred back to the account from which transferred and shall be available for their original purpose.

(f) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.—The transfer authority provided in

this section is in addition to any other transfer authority available

to the Secretary of Defense.

CHAPTER 137—PROCUREMENT GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

§ 2304a. Task and delivery order contracts: general authority

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS.—(1) A task or delivery order may

not increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the task or delivery order contract under which the order is issued. The scope,

period, or maximum value of the contract may be increased only by

modification of the contract.

(2) Unless use of procedures other than competitive procedures is

authorized by an exception in subsection (c) of section 2304 of this

488

title and approved in accordance with subsection (f) of such section,

competitive procedures shall be used for making such a modification.

(3) Notice regarding the modification shall be provided in accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act

(41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of the Small Business Act (15

U.S.C. 637(e)).

ø(f) INAPPLICABILITY TO CONTRACTS FOR ADVISORY AND ASSIST- ANCE SERVICES.—Except as otherwise specifically provided in section 2304b of this title, this section does not apply to a task or delivery order contract for the procurement of advisory and assistance

services (as defined in section 1105(g) of title 31).¿

(f) LIMITATION ON CONTRACT PERIOD.—The base period of a task

order contract or delivery order contract entered into under this section may not exceed five years unless a longer period is specifically

authorized in a law that is applicable to such contract. The contract

may be extended for an additional 5 years (for a total contract period of not more than 10 years) through modifications, options, or

otherwise.

* * * * * * *

§ 2304b. Task order contracts: advisory and assistance services

ø(a) AUTHORITY TO AWARD.—(1) Subject to the requirements of

this section, section 2304c of this title, and other applicable law,

the head of an agency may enter into a task order contract (as defined in section 2304d of this title) for procurement of advisory and

assistance services.

ø(2) The head of an agency may enter into a task order contract

for procurement of advisory and assistance services only under the

authority of this section.

ø(b) LIMITATION ON CONTRACT PERIOD.—The period of a task

order contract entered into under this section, including all periods

of extensions of the contract under options, modifications, or otherwise, may not exceed five years unless a longer period is specifically authorized in a law that is applicable to such contract.¿

(a) IN GENERAL.—A task order contract (as defined in section

2304d of this title) for procurement of advisory and assistance services shall be subject to the requirements of this section, sections

2304a and 2304c of this title, and other applicable provisions of

law.

ø(c)¿ (b) CONTENT OF NOTICE.—The notice required by section 18

of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and

section 8(e) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)) shall reasonably and fairly describe the general scope, magnitude, and duration of the proposed task order contract in a manner that would

reasonably enable a potential offeror to decide whether to request

the solicitation and consider submitting an offer.

ø(d) REQUIRED CONTENT OF SOLICITATION AND CONTRACT.—(1)

The solicitation for the proposed task order contract shall include

the information (regarding services) described in section 2304a(b)

of this title.

ø(2) A task order contract entered into under this section shall

contain the same information that is required by paragraph (1) to

be included in the solicitation of offers for that contract.¿

489

(c) REQUIRED CONTENT OF CONTRACT.—A task order contract described in subsection (a) shall contain the same information that is

required by section 2304a(b) to be included in the solicitation of offers for that contract.

ø(e)¿ (d) MULTIPLE AWARDS.—(1) The head of an agency may, on

the basis of one solicitation, award separate task order contracts

øunder this section¿ described in subsection (a) for the same or

similar services to two or more sources if the solicitation states

that the head of the agency has the option to do so.

(2) If, in the case of a task order contract for advisory and assistance services to be entered into øunder this section¿, the contract

period is to exceed three years and the contract amount is estimated to exceed $10,000,000 (including all options), the solicitation

shall—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(f) CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS.—(1) A task order may not increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the task order contract under which the order is issued. The scope, period, or maximum value of the contract may be increased only by modification

of the contract.

ø(2) Unless use of procedures other than competitive procedures

is authorized by an exception in subsection (c) of section 2304 of

this title and approved in accordance with subsection (f) of such

section, competitive procedures shall be used for making such a

modification.

ø(3) Notice regarding the modification shall be provided in accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of the Small Business Act

(15 U.S.C. 637(e)).

ø(g) CONTRACT EXTENSIONS.—(1) Notwithstanding the limitation

on the contract period set forth in subsection (b) or in a solicitation

or contract pursuant to subsection (e), a task order contract entered

into by the head of an agency under this section may be extended

on a sole-source basis for a period not exceeding six months if the

head of such agency determines that—

ø(A) the award of a follow-on contract has been delayed by

circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time

the initial contract was entered into; and

ø(B) the extension is necessary in order to ensure continuity

of the receipt of services pending the award of, and commencement of performance under, the follow-on contract.

ø(2) A task order contract may be extended under the authority

of paragraph (1) only once and only in accordance with the limitations and requirements of this subsection.¿

ø(h)¿ (e) INAPPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS.—This section

does not apply to a contract for the acquisition of property or services that includes acquisition of advisory and assistance services if

the head of an agency entering into such contract determines that,

under the contract, advisory and assistance services are necessarily

incident to, and not a significant component of, the contract.

490

ø(i)¿ (f) ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES DEFINED.—In this

section, the term ‘‘advisory and assistance services’’ has the meaning given such term in section 1105(g) of title 31.

* * * * * * *

§ 2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4)(A) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary of Defense may obligate funds for procurement of an end item under a

multiyear contract for the purchase of property only for procurement

of a complete and usable end item.

(B) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary of Defense

may obligate funds appropriated for any fiscal year for advance procurement under a multiyear contract for the purchase of property

only for the procurement of those long-lead items necessary in order

to meet a planned delivery schedule for complete major end items

that are programmed under the contract to be acquired with funds

appropriated for a subsequent fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

§ 2327. Contracts: consideration of national security objectives

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) WAIVER.—(1)(A) If the Secretary of Defense determines under

paragraph (2) that entering into a contract with a firm or a subsidiary of a firm described in subsection (b) is not inconsistent with

the national security objectives of the United States, the head of

an agency may enter into a contract with such firm or subsidiary

øafter the date on which such head of an agency submits to Congress a report on the contract¿ if in the best interests of the Government.

ø(B) A report under subparagraph (A) shall include the following:

ø(i) The identity of the foreign government concerned.

ø(ii) The nature of the contract.

ø(iii) The extent of ownership or control of the firm or subsidiary concerned (or, if appropriate in the case of a subsidiary,

of the firm that owns the subsidiary) by the foreign government concerned or the agency or instrumentality of such foreign government.

ø(iv) The reasons for entering into the contract.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 138—COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH NATO

ALLIES AND OTHER COUNTRIES

* * * * * * *

491

SUBCHAPTER II—OTHER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

Sec.

2350a. Cooperative research and development agreements: NATO organizations;

allied and friendly foreign countries.

* * * * * * *

2350m. Administrative services and support for foreign liaison officers.

* * * * * * *

§ 2350f. Procurement of communications support and related supplies and services

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on

Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives copies of all documents evidencing an arrangement entered into under subsection (a) not later

than 45 days after entering into such an arrangement.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 2350k. Relocation within host nation of elements of armed

forces overseas

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days

after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report specifying—

ø(1) the amount of the contributions accepted by the Secretary during the preceding fiscal year under subsection (a)

and the purposes for which the contributions were made; and

ø(2) the amount of the contributions expended by the Secretary during the preceding fiscal year and the purposes for

which the contributions were expended.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 2350m. Administrative services and support for foreign liaison officers

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND SUPPORT.—The Secretary of Defense may provide administrative services and support

for foreign liaison officers performing duties while such officers temporarily are assigned to components or commands of the armed

forces. Such administrative services and support may include base

or installation operation support services, office space, utilities,

copying services, fire and police protection, and computer support.

The Secretary may provide such administrative services and support with or without reimbursement, as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(b) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority under this section

shall expire on September 30, 2005.

CHAPTER 139—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Sec.

492

2351. Availability of appropriations.

* * * * * * *

2359a. Technology Transition Initiative.

2359b. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program.

* * * * * * *

§ 2359a. Technology Transition Initiative

(a) INITIATIVE REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense, acting

through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,

and Logistics, shall carry out an initiative, to be known as the Technology Transition Initiative (hereinafter in this section referred to as

the ‘‘Initiative’’), to facilitate the rapid transition of new technologies

from science and technology programs of the Department of Defense

into acquisition programs of the Department for the production of

such technologies.

(b) OBJECTIVES.—The Initiative shall have the following objectives:

(1) To accelerate the introduction of new technologies into appropriate acquisition programs.

(2) To successfully demonstrate new technologies in relevant

environments.

(3) To ensure that new technologies are sufficiently mature for

production.

(c) MANAGEMENT OF INITIATIVE.—(1) The Initiative shall be managed by a senior official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense designated by the Secretary (hereinafter in this section referred to as

the ‘‘Manager’’). In managing the Initiative, the Manager shall report directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

(2) The Secretary shall establish a board of directors (hereinafter

in this section referred to as the ‘‘Board’’), composed of the acquisition executive of each military department, the members of the Joint

Requirements Oversight Council, and the commander of the Joint

Forces Command. The Board shall assist the Manager in managing

the Initiative.

(3) The Secretary shall establish, under the auspices of the Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, a

panel of highly qualified scientists and engineers. The panel shall

advise the Under Secretary on matters relating to the Initiative.

(d) DUTIES OF MANAGER.—The Manager shall have following duties:

(1) To identify, in consultation with the Board, promising

technologies that have been demonstrated in science and technology programs of the Department.

(2) To identify potential sponsors in the Department to undertake the transition of such technologies into production.

(3) To work with the science and technology community and

the acquisition community to develop memoranda of agreement,

joint funding agreements, and other cooperative arrangements

to provide for the transition of such technologies into production.

(4) Provide funding support for projects selected under subsection (e).

(e) JOINTLY FUNDED PROJECTS.—(1) The acquisition executive of

each military department shall identify technology projects of that

493

military department to recommend for funding support under the

Initiative and shall submit to the Manager a list of such recommended projects, ranked in order of priority. Such executive shall

identify such projects, and establish priorities among such projects,

using a competitive process, on the basis of the greatest potential

benefits in areas of interest identified by the Secretary of that military department.

(2) The Manager, in consultation with the Board, shall select

projects for funding support from among the projects on the lists

submitted under paragraph (1). From the funds made available to

the Manager for the Initiative, the Manager shall provide funds for

each selected project in an amount determined by mutual agreement

between the Manager and the acquisition executive of the military

department concerned, but not less than 50 percent of the total cost

of the project.

(3) The acquisition executive of the military department concerned

shall manage each project selected under paragraph (2) that is undertaken by the military department. Memoranda of agreement,

joint funding agreements, and other cooperative arrangements between the science and technology community and the acquisition

community shall be used in carrying out the project if the acquisition executive determines that it is appropriate to do so to achieve

the objectives of the project.

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR PROGRAM ELEMENT.—In the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the

budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the

amount requested for activities of the Initiative shall be set forth in

a separate program element within amounts requested for research,

development, test, and evaluation for Defense-wide activities.

(g) DEFINITION OF ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE.—In this section, the

term ‘‘acquisition executive’’, with respect to a military department,

means the official designated as the senior procurement executive

for that military department under section 16(3) of the Office of

Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(3)).

§ 2359b. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program

(a) PROGRAM REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall carry

out a program to provide opportunities for the increased introduction of innovative and cost-saving technology in acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. The program, to be known as

the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘Challenge Program’’), shall provide any person or activity within or outside the Department of Defense with the

opportunity to propose alternatives, to be known as challenge proposals, at the component, subsystem, or system level of an existing

Department of Defense acquisition program that would result in improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, or

operational capability of that acquisition program.

(b) PANEL.—(1) In carrying out the Challenge Program, the Secretary shall establish a panel of highly qualified scientists and engineers (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘Panel’’) under

the auspices of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The duty of the Panel shall be to carry out

evaluations of challenge proposals under subsection (c).

494

(2) A member of the Panel may not participate in any evaluation

of a challenge proposal under subsection (c) if at any time within

the previous five years that member has, in any capacity, participated in or been affiliated with the acquisition program for which

the challenge proposal is submitted.

(c) EVALUATION BY PANEL.—(1) Under procedures prescribed by

the Secretary, a person or activity within or outside the Department

of Defense may submit challenge proposals to the Panel.

(2) The Panel shall carry out an evaluation of each challenge proposal submitted under paragraph (1) to determine each of the following criteria:

(A) Whether the challenge proposal has merit.

(B) Whether the challenge proposal is likely to result in improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, or

operational capability at the component, subsystem, or system

level of the applicable acquisition program.

(C) Whether the challenge proposal could be implemented

rapidly in the applicable acquisition program.

(3) If the Panel determines that a challenge proposal satisfies

each of the criteria specified in paragraph (2), the person or activity

submitting that challenge proposal shall be provided an opportunity

to submit such challenge proposal for a full review and evaluation

under subsection (d).

(d) FULL REVIEW AND EVALUATION.—(1) Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, for each challenge proposal submitted for

a full review and evaluation as provided in subsection (c)(3), the office carrying out the applicable acquisition program, and the prime

system contractor carrying out such program, shall jointly conduct

a full review and evaluation of the challenge proposal.

(2) The full review and evaluation shall, independent of the determination of the Panel under subsection (c)(2), determine each of the

matters specified in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of such subsection.

(e) ACTION UPON FAVORABLE FULL REVIEW AND EVALUATION.—(1)

Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, each challenge proposal determined under a full review and evaluation to satisfy each

of the criteria specified in subsection (c)(2) shall be considered by

the prime system contractor for incorporation into the applicable acquisition program as a new technology insertion at the component,

subsystem, or system level.

(2) The Secretary shall encourage the adoption of each challenge

proposal referred to in paragraph (1) by providing suitable incentives to the office carrying out the applicable acquisition program

and the prime system contractor carrying out such program.

(f) ACCESS TO TECHNICAL RESOURCES.—The Secretary shall ensure that the Panel (in carrying out evaluations of challenge proposals under subsection (c)) and each office and prime system contractor (in conducting a full review and evaluation under subsection

(d)) have the authority to call upon the technical resources of the

laboratories, research, development, and engineering centers, test

and evaluation activities, and other elements of the Department.

(g) ELIMINATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—In carrying out

each evaluation under subsection (c) and full review under subsection (d), the Secretary shall ensure the elimination of conflicts of

interest.

495

(h) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to Congress, with the

submission of the budget request for the Department of Defense for

each fiscal year during which the Challenge Program is carried out,

a report on the Challenge Program for that fiscal year. The report

shall include the number and scope of challenge proposals submitted, evaluated, subjected to full review, and adopted.

(i) SUNSET.—The authority to carry out this section shall terminate on September 30, 2007.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 141—MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT

PROVISIONS

Sec.

2381. Contracts: regulations for bids.

* * * * * * *

2397. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures.

* * * * * * *

2403. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team.

* * * * * * *

§ 2397. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish tailored rapid acquisition and deployment procedures for items urgently needed to react to an enemy threat or to respond to significant and urgent safety situations.

(b) PROCEDURES.—The procedures established under subsection

(a) shall include the following:

(1) A process for streamlined communications between the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the acquisition community, and the testing community.

(2) A process for expedited technical, programmatic, and financial decisions.

(3) An expedited procurement and contracting process.

(c) SPECIFIC STEPS TO BE INCLUDED.—The procedures established

under subsection (a) shall provide for the following:

(1) The commander of a unified combatant command may notify the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the need for

an item described in subsection (a) that is currently under development.

(2) The Chairman may request the Secretary of Defense to use

rapid acquisition and deployment procedures with respect to the

item.

(3) The Secretary of Defense shall decide whether to use such

procedures with respect to the item and shall notify the Secretary of the appropriate military department of the decision.

(4) If the Secretary of Defense decides to use such procedures

with respect to the item, the Secretary of the military department shall prepare a funding strategy for the rapid acquisition

of the item and shall conduct a demonstration of the performance of the item.

(5) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall immediately evaluate the existing capability of the item (but under

such evaluation shall not assess the capability of the item as reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00517 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
496

gards to the function the item was originally intended to perform).

(6) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall review the

evaluation of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation

and report to the Secretary of Defense regarding whether the capabilities of the tested item are able to meet the urgent need for

the item.

(7) The Secretary of Defense shall evaluate the information

regarding funding and rapid acquisition prepared pursuant to

paragraph (4) and approve or disapprove of the acquisition of

the item using the procedures established pursuant to subsection (a).

(d) LIMITATION.—The quantity of items of a system procured

using the procedures established under this section may not exceed

the number established for low-rate initial production for the system, and any such items shall be counted for purposes of the number of items of the system that may be procured through low-rate

initial production.

* * * * * * *

§ 2399. Operational test and evaluation of defense acquisition programs

(a) CONDITION FOR PROCEEDING BEYOND LOW-RATE INITIAL PRODUCTION.—(1) * * *

(2) In this subsection, the term ‘‘major defense acquisition program’’ ømeans—¿ means a conventional weapons system that—

(A) øa conventional weapons system that¿ is a major system

within the meaning of that term in section 2302(5) of this title;

and

* * * * * * *

§ 2403. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team

The Secretary of Defense shall establish a quick-reaction special

projects acquisition team, the purpose of which shall be to advise

the Secretary on actions that can be taken to expedite the procurement of urgently needed systems. The team shall address problems

with the intention of creating expeditious solutions relating to— (1) industrial-base issues such as the limited availability of

suppliers;

(2) compliance with acquisition regulations and lengthy procedures;

(3) compliance with environmental requirements;

(4) compliance with requirements regarding small-business

concerns; and

(5) compliance with requirements regarding the purchase of

products made in the United States.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 146—CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF

CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS

Sec.

497

2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.

* * * * * * *

ø2469a. Use of competitive procedures in contracting for performance of depotlevel maintenance and repair workloads formerly performed at certain

military installations.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required

studies and reports before conversion to contractor performance

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) NOTIFICATION OF DECISION.—(1) If, as a result of the completion of the examinations under subsection (b)(3), a decision is made

to change the commercial or industrial type function that was the

subject of the analysis to performance by the private sector, the

Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing

that decision. The report shall contain the following:

ø(A) The date when the analysis of that commercial or industrial type function for possible change to performance by the

private sector was commenced.

ø(B) An indication that the examinations required under

subsection (b)(3) have been completed.

ø(C) The Secretary’s certification that the Government calculation of the cost of performance of the function by Department of Defense civilian employees is based on an estimate of

the most cost effective manner for performance of the function

by Department of Defense civilian employees.

ø(D) The number of Department of Defense civilian employees who were performing the function when the analysis was

commenced, the number of such employees whose employment

was terminated or otherwise affected in implementing the most

efficient organization of the function, and the number of such

employees whose employment would be terminated or otherwise affected by changing to performance of the function by the

private sector.

ø(E) The Secretary’s certification that the factors considered

in the examinations performed under subsection (b)(3), and in

the making of the decision to change performance, did not include any predetermined personnel constraint or limitation in

terms of man years, end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number of employees.

ø(F) The Secretary’s certification that the examination required by subsection (b)(3)(A) as part of the analysis demonstrates that the performance of the function by the private

sector will result in savings to the Government over the life of

the contract.

ø(G) A statement of the potential economic effect of the

change on each affected local community, as determined in the

examination under subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii).

ø(H) The Secretary’s certification that the entire analysis is

available for examination.

ø(I) A schedule for completing the change to performance of

the function by the private sector.

498

ø(2) If the commercial or industrial type function to be changed

to performance by the private sector is performed at a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under section 2474(a)

of this title or an Army ammunition plant— ø(A) the report required by this subsection shall also include

a description of the effect that the performance and administration of the resulting contract will have on the overhead

costs of the center or ammunition plant, as the case may be;

and

ø(B) notwithstanding paragraph (3), the change of the function to contractor performance may not begin until at least 60

days after the submission of the report.

ø(3) The change of the function to contractor performance may

not begin until after the submission of the report required by this

subsection.¿

(c) SUBMISSION OF ANALYSIS RESULTS.—(1) Upon the completion

of an analysis of a commercial or industrial type function described

in subsection (a) for possible change to performance by the private

sector, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report

containing the results of the analysis, including the results of the examinations required by subsection (b)(3).

(2) The report shall also contain the following:

(A) The date when the analysis of the function was commenced.

(B) The Secretary’s certification that the Government calculation of the cost of performance of the function by Department of

Defense civilian employees is based on an estimate of the most

cost effective manner for performance of the function by Department of Defense civilian employees.

(C) The number of Department of Defense civilian employees

who were performing the function when the analysis was commenced and the number of such employees whose employment

was or will be terminated or otherwise affected by changing to

performance of the function by the private sector or by implementation of the most efficient organization of the function.

(D) The Secretary’s certification that the factors considered in

the examinations performed under subsection (b)(3), and in the

making of the decision regarding changing to performance of

the function by the private sector or retaining performance in

the most efficient organization of the function, did not include

any predetermined personnel constraint or limitation in terms

of man years, end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or

maximum number of employees.

(E) A statement of the potential economic effect of implementing the decision regarding changing to performance of the

function by the private sector or retaining performance in the

most efficient organization of the function on each affected local

community, as determined in the examination under subsection

(b)(3)(B)(ii).

(F) A schedule for completing the change to performance of

the function by the private sector or implementing the most efficient organization of the function

(G) In the case of a commercial or industrial type function

performed at a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence

designated under section 2474(a) of this title or an Army amVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00520 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
499

munition plant, a description of the effect that the manner of

performance of the function, and administration of the resulting

contract if any, will have on the overhead costs of the center or

ammunition plant, as the case may be.

(H) The Secretary’s certification that the entire analysis is

available for examination.

(3)(A) If a decision is made to change the commercial or industrial type function that was the subject of the analysis to performance by the private sector, the change of the function to contractor

performance may not begin until after the submission of the report

required by paragraph (1).

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of a commercial or industrial type function performed at a Center of Industrial

and Technical Excellence designated under section 2474(a) of this

title or an Army ammunition plant, the change of the function to

contractor performance may not begin until at least 60 days after

the submission of the report.

* * * * * * *

§ 2464. Core logistics capabilities

(a) NECESSITY FOR CORE LOGISTICS CAPABILITIES.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The core logistics capabilities identified under paragraphs (1)

and (2) shall include øthose capabilities that are necessary to maintain and repair the weapon systems¿ those logistics capabilities (including acquisition logistics, supply management, system engineering, maintenance, and modification management) that are necessary

to sustain the weapon systems and other military equipment (including mission-essential weapon systems or materiel not later

than four years after achieving initial operational capability, but

excluding systems and equipment under special access programs,

nuclear aircraft carriers, and commercial items described in paragraph (5)) that are identified by the Secretary, in consultation with

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as necessary to enable

the armed forces to fulfill the strategic and contingency plans prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under section

153(a) of this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 2465. Prohibition on contracts for performance of firefighting or security-guard functions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department may waive the prohibition under subsection (a) regarding contracting for the performance of security-guard functions at a military installation or facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary

if such functions—

(1) are or will be performed by members of the armed forces

in the absence of a waiver; or

500

(2) were not performed at the installation or facility before

September 11, 2001.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2469a. Use of competitive procedures in contracting for

performance of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads formerly performed at certain military installations

ø(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

ø(1) The term ‘‘closed or realigned military installation’’ means a military installation where a depot-level maintenance

and repair facility was approved in 1995 for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C.

2687 note).

ø(2) The term ‘‘military installation’’ includes a former military installation that was a military installation when it was

approved in 1995 for closure or realignment under the Defense

Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and that has been

closed or realigned under the Act.

ø(3) The terms ‘‘realignment’’ and ‘‘realigned’’ mean a decision under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990 that results in both a reduction and relocation of functions and civilian personnel positions.

ø(b) COVERED DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORK- LOADS.—Except as provided in subsection (c), this section applies

with respect to any depot-level maintenance and repair workload

that—ø(1) was performed as of January 1, 1997, at a military installation that was approved in 1995 for closure or realignment

under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990

and that has been closed or realigned under the Act; and

ø(2) is proposed to be converted from performance by Department of Defense personnel to performance by a private sector

source.

ø(c) EXCEPTIONS.—This section shall not apply with respect to— ø(1) a depot-level maintenance and repair workload that is

to be consolidated to another military installation (other than

a closed or realigned military installation) as a result of a base

closure or realignment action or a decision made by the Secretary concerned or the Defense Depot Maintenance Council;

ø(2) a workload necessary to maintain a core logistics capability identified under section 2464 of this title; or

ø(3) any contract originally entered into before November 18,

1997.

ø(d) CONDITIONS AND SOLICITATION.—A solicitation of offers for

the performance of any depot-level maintenance and repair workload described in subsection (b) may be issued, and a contract may

be awarded pursuant to such a solicitation, only if the following

conditions are met with respect to the contract and the solicitation

specifically states the conditions:

ø(1) The source selection process used in the case of the solicitation and contract permits the consideration of offers submitted by private sector sources and offers submitted by public

sector sources.

501

ø(2) The source selection process used in the case of the solicitation and contract requires that, in the comparison of offers, there be taken into account— ø(A) the fair market value (or if fair market value cannot be determined, the estimated book value) of any land,

plant, or equipment from a military installation that is

proposed by a private offeror to be used to meet a specific

workload (whether these assets are provided to the offeror

by a local redevelopment authority or by any other source

approved by an official of the Department of Defense); and

ø(B) the total estimated direct and indirect costs that

will be incurred by the Department of Defense and the

total estimated direct and indirect savings (including overhead) that will be derived by the Department of Defense.

ø(3) The cost standards used to determine the depreciation

of facilities and equipment shall, to the maximum extent practicable, provide identical treatment to all public and private

sector offerors.

ø(4) Any offeror, whether public or private, may offer to perform the workload at any location or locations selected by the

offeror and to team with any other public or private entity to

perform that workload at one or more locations, including a

Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated

under section 2474 of this title.

ø(5) No offeror may be given any preferential consideration

for, or in any way be limited to, performing the workload inplace or at any other single location.

ø(e) CONTRACTS FOR MULTIPLE WORKLOADS.—(1) A solicitation

may be issued for a single contract for the performance of multiple

depot-level maintenance and repair workloads described in subsection (b) only if— ø(A) the Secretary of Defense determines in writing that the

individual workloads cannot as logically and economically be

performed without combination by sources that are potentially

qualified to submit an offer and to be awarded a contract to

perform those individual workloads;

ø(B) the Secretary submits to Congress a report setting forth

the determination together with the reasons for the determination; and

ø(C) the solicitation of offers for the contract is issued more

than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary submits the

report.

ø(2) The Comptroller General shall review each report submitted

under paragraph (1)(B) and, not later than 30 days after the report

is submitted to Congress, shall submit to Congress the Comptroller

General’s views regarding the determination of the Secretary that

is set forth in the report, together with any other findings that the

Comptroller General considers appropriate.

ø(f) COMPETITIVE PROCEDURES REQUIRED.—Section 2304(c)(7) of

this title shall not be used as the basis for an exception to the requirement to use competitive procedures for any contract for a

depot-level maintenance and repair workload described in subsection (b).

ø(g) REVIEWS OF COMPETITIVE PROCEDURES.—If a solicitation of

offers for a contract for, or award of, any depot-level maintenance

502

and repair workload described in subsection (b) is issued, the

Comptroller General shall—

ø(1) within 45 days after the issuance of the solicitation, review the solicitation and report to Congress on whether the

solicitation—

ø(A) provides substantially equal opportunity for public

and private offerors to compete for the contract without regard to the location at which the workload is to be performed; and

ø(B) is in compliance with the requirements of this section and all applicable provisions of law and regulations;

and

ø(2) within 45 days after any contract or award resulting

from the solicitation is entered into or made, review the contract or award, including the contracting or award process, and

report to Congress on whether—

ø(A) the procedures used to conduct the competition—

ø(i) provided substantially equal opportunity for

public and private offerors to compete for the contract

without regard to the location at which the workload

is to be performed; and

ø(ii) were in compliance with the requirements of

this section and all applicable provisions of law and

regulations;

ø(B) appropriate consideration was given to factors other

than cost in the selection of the source for performance of

the workload; and

ø(C) the contract or award resulted in the lowest total

cost to the Department of Defense for performance of the

workload.

ø(h) RESOLUTION OF WORKLOAD AWARD OBJECTIONS.—Any public

or private entity may, pursuant to procedures established by the

Secretary, object to a solicitation of offers under this section for the

performance of any depot-level maintenance and repair workload,

or the award or proposed award of any workload pursuant to such

a solicitation. The Secretary may designate a qualified individual

or entity to review the objection; however, the Secretary shall not

designate the Source Selection Authority or any individual from the

same military department as the Source Selection Authority to review the objection. The Secretary shall take appropriate action to

address any defect in the solicitation or award in the event that the

objection is sustained.

ø(i) OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTS AWARDED PUBLIC ENTITIES.—The

Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned may not impose on

a public sector entity awarded a contract for the performance of

any depot-level maintenance and repair workload described in subsection (b) any requirements regarding management systems, reviews, oversight, or reporting that are significantly different from

the requirements used in the performance and management of

other similar or identical depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the entity, unless the requirements are specifically provided in the solicitation for the contract or are necessary to ensure

compliance with the terms of the contract.¿

* * * * * * *

503

§ 2474. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: designation; public-private partnerships

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM PERCENTAGE

LIMITATION.—(1) * * *

(2) The funds referred to in paragraph (1) are funds available to

the military departments and Defense Agencies for depot-level

maintenance and repair workloads øfor fiscal years 2002 through

2005¿.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 147—COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND

OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES

Sec.

2482. Commissary stores: operation.

* * * * * * *

2494. Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare, and recreation programs.

* * * * * * *

§ 2492. Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access

and purchase restrictions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit to

Congress an annual report describing the host nation laws and the

treaty obligations of the United States, and the conditions within

host nations, that necessitate the use of quantity or other restrictions on purchases in commissary and exchange stores located outside the United States.¿

§ 2493. Fisher Houses: administration as nonappropriated

fund instrumentality

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(f) SPECIAL AUTHORITY FOR NAVY.—The Secretary of the Navy

shall provide base operating support for Fisher Houses associated

with health care facilities of the Navy. The level of the support

shall be equivalent to the base operating support that the Secretary provides for morale, welfare, and recreation category B community activities (as defined in regulations, prescribed by the Secretary, that govern morale, welfare, and recreation activities associated with Navy installations).

ø(g) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than January 15 of each year,

the Secretary of each military department shall submit to Congress

a report describing the operation of Fisher Houses and Fisher

Suites associated with health care facilities of that military department. The report shall include, at a minimum, the following:

ø(1) The amount in the fund established by that Secretary

under subsection (d) as of October 1 of the previous year.

504

ø(2) The operation of the fund during the preceding fiscal

year, including—

ø(A) all gifts, fees, and interest credited to the fund; and

ø(B) all disbursements from the fund.

ø(3) The budget for the operation of the Fisher Houses and

Fisher Suites for the fiscal year in which the report is submitted.¿

(f) BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.—The Secretary of a military department may provide base operating support for Fisher Houses associated with health care facilities of that military department.

* * * * * * *

§ 2494. Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare,

and recreation programs

(a) AUTHORITY FOR UNIFORM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT.—

Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, funds appropriated to the Department of Defense and available for morale,

welfare, and recreation programs may be treated as nonappropriated funds and expended in accordance with laws applicable to the expenditures of nonappropriated funds. When made available for morale, welfare, and recreation programs under such regulations, appropriated funds shall be considered to be nonappropriated funds for all purposes and shall remain available

until expended.

(b) CONDITIONS ON AVAILABILITY.—Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may be made available to support a morale,

welfare, or recreation program only if the program is authorized to

receive appropriated fund support and only in the amounts the program is authorized to receive.

(c) CONVERSION OF EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS.—(1) The Secretary

of Defense may identify positions of employees in morale, welfare,

and recreation programs within the Department of Defense who are

paid with appropriated funds whose status may be converted from

the status of an employee paid with appropriated funds to the status

of an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality.

(2) The status of an employee in a position identified by the Secretary under paragraph (1) may, with the consent of the employee,

be converted to the status of an employee of a nonappropriated fund

instrumentality. An employee who does not consent to the conversion

may not be removed from the position because of the failure to provide such consent.

(3) The conversion of an employee from the status of an employee

paid by appropriated funds to the status of an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality shall be without a break in service for the concerned employee. The conversion shall not entitle an

employee to severance pay, back pay or separation pay under subchapter IX of chapter 55 of title 5, or be considered an involuntary

separation or other adverse personnel action entitling an employee

to any right or benefit under such title or any other provision of law

or regulation.

(4) In this subsection, the term ‘‘an employee of a nonappropriated

fund instrumentality’’ means an employee described in section

2105(c) of title 5.

505

CHAPTER 148—NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND

INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE REINVESTMENT, AND

DEFENSE CONVERSION

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER III—PROGRAMS FOR DEVELOPMENT, APPLICATION, AND SUPPORT OF DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGIES

Sec.

2511. Defense dual-use critical technology program.

* * * * * * *

2520. Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of homeland security.

* * * * * * *

§ 2520. Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of homeland security

The Secretary of Defense shall enter into an agreement with an

independent, nonprofit, technology-oriented entity that has demonstrated the ability to facilitate the transfer of defense technologies,

developed by both the private and public sectors, to aid Federal,

State, and local first responders. Under the agreement the entity

shall develop and deploy technology items and equipment, through

coordination between Government agencies and private sector, commercial developers and suppliers of technology, that will enhance

public safety and shall— (1) work in coordination with the InterAgency Board for

Equipment Standardization and Interoperability;

(2) develop technology items and equipment that meet the

standardization requirements established by the Board;

(3) evaluate technology items and equipment that have been

identified using the standards developed by the Board and

other state-of-the-art technology items and equipment that may

benefit first responders;

(4) identify and coordinate among the public and private sectors research efforts applicable to national security and homeland security;

(5) facilitate the timely transfer of technology items and

equipment between public and private sources;

(6) eliminate redundant research efforts with respect to technologies to be deployed to first responders;

(7) expedite the advancement of high priority projects from research through implementation of initial manufacturing; and

(8) establish an outreach program, in coordination with the

Board, with first responders to facilitate awareness of available

technology items and equipment to support crisis response.

SUBCHAPTER IV—MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

* * * * * * *

§ 2521. Manufacturing Technology Program

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) FIVE-YEAR PLAN.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall øprepare

a five-year plan for the program which establishes—

506

ø(A) the overall manufacturing technology goals, milestones,

priorities, and investment strategy for the program; and

ø(B) for each of the five fiscal years covered by the plan, the

objectives of, and funding for the program by, each military

department and each Defense Agency participating in the program.

ø(2) The plan shall include the following:

ø(A) An assessment of the effectiveness of the program, including a description of all completed projects and status of implementation.

ø(B) An assessment of the extent to which the costs of

projects are being shared by the following:

ø(i) Commercial enterprises in the private sector.

ø(ii) Department of Defense program offices, including

weapon system program offices.

ø(iii) Departments and agencies of the Federal Government outside the Department of Defense.

ø(iv) Institutions of higher education.

ø(v) Other institutions not operated for profit.

ø(vi) Other sources.¿ prepare and maintain a five-year

plan for the program.

(2) The plan shall establish the following:

(A) The overall manufacturing technology objectives, milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the program.

(B) The specific objectives of, and funding for the program by,

each military department and each Defense Agency participating in the program.

(3) The plan shall be updated øannually¿ biennially and shall be

included in the budget justification documents submitted in support of the budget of the Department of Defense øfor a fiscal year¿

for each even-numbered fiscal year (as included in the budget of the

President submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31).

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER V—MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE

POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of

goods other than United States goods

(a) LIMITATION ON CERTAIN PROCUREMENTS.—The Secretary of

Defense may procure any of the following items only if the manufacturer of the item satisfies the requirements of subsection (b):

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) BALL BEARINGS AND ROLLER BEARINGS.—Ball bearings

and roller bearings, in accordance with subpart ø225.71¿

225.70 of part 225 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, as in effect on øOctober 23, 1992¿ April 27,

2002. In this section the term ‘‘ball bearings and roller bearings’’ includes unconventional or hybrid ball and roller bearVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00528 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
507

ings and cam follower bearings, ball screws, and other derivatives of ball and roller bearings.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER VI—DEFENSE EXPORT LOAN GUARANTEES

* * * * * * *

§ 2540. Establishment of loan guarantee program

(a) * * *

(b) COVERED COUNTRIES.—The authority under subsection (a) applies with respect to the following countries:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) A country that, as determined by the Secretary of Defense

in consultation with the Secretary of State, assists in combatting drug trafficking organizations or foreign terrorist organizations.

* * * * * * *

(d) REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State,

whenever the Secretaries consider such action to be warranted, shall

jointly submit to the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign

Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Armed Services and

International Relations of the House of Representatives a report

enumerating those countries to be added or removed under subsection (b).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 152—ISSUE OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND

FACILITIES

* * * * * * *

§ 2563. Articles and services of industrial facilities: sale to

persons outside the Department of Defense

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CONDITIONS FOR SALES.—(1) * * *

(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the condition in paragraph (1)(A) and subsection (a)(1) that an article or service must

be not available from a United States commercial source in the

case of a particular sale if the Secretary determines that the waiver is necessary for reasons of national security øand notifies Congress regarding the reasons for the waiver¿.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 155—ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND SERVICES

* * * * * * *

508

§ 2611. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance

of foreign gifts and donations

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(e) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—If the total amount of funds accepted under subsection (a) in any fiscal year exceeds $2,000,000, the Secretary shall notify Congress of the amount of those donations for

that fiscal year. Any such notice shall list each of the contributors

of such amounts and the amount of each contribution in that fiscal

year.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 157—TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

§ 2634. Motor vehicles: transportation or storage for members on change of permanent station or extended

deployment

(a) * * *

ø(b)(1) In lieu of transportation authorized by this section, if a

member is ordered to make a change of permanent station to a foreign country and the laws, regulations, or other restrictions imposed by the foreign country or the United States preclude entry

of a motor vehicle described in subsection (a) into that country, or

would require extensive modification of the vehicle as a condition

to entry, the member may elect to have the vehicle stored at the

expense of the United States at a location approved by the Secretary concerned.

ø(2) If a member is transferred or assigned in connection with a

contingency operation to duty at a location other than the permanent station of the member for a period of more than 30 consecutive days, but the transfer or assignment is not considered a

change of permanent station, the member may elect to have a

motor vehicle described in subsection (a) stored at the expense of

the United States at a location approved by the Secretary concerned.¿

(b)(1) When a member receives a vehicle storage qualifying order,

the member may elect to have a motor vehicle described in subsection (a) stored at the expense of the United States at a location

approved by the Secretary concerned. In the case of a vehicle storage

qualifying order that is to make a change of permanent station,

such storage is in lieu of transportation authorized by subsection

(a).

(2) In this subsection, the term ‘‘vehicle storage qualifying order’’

means any of the following:

(A) An order to make a change of permanent station to a foreign country in a case in which the laws, regulations, or other

restrictions imposed by the foreign country or by the United

States either—

(i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in subsection (a) into that country; or

(ii) would require extensive modification of the vehicle as

a condition to entry.

509

(B) An order to make a change of permanent station to a nonforeign area outside the continental United States in a case in

which the laws, regulations, or other restrictions imposed by

that area or by the United States either—

(i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in subsection (a) into that area; or

(ii) would require extensive modification of the vehicle as

a condition to entry.

(C) An order under which a member is transferred or assigned in connection with a contingency operation to duty at a

location other than the permanent station of the member for a

period of more than 30 consecutive days but which is not considered a change of permanent station.

* * * * * * *

(h) In this section:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The term ‘‘nonforeign area outside the continental United

States’’ means any of the following: the States of Alaska and

Hawaii, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern

Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 159—REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL

PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF NONEXCESS PROPERTY

Sec.

2661. Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real property.

* * * * * * *

2684a. Agreements to limit encroachments and other constraints on military training, testing, and operations.

* * * * * * *

2694a. Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource conservation.

* * * * * * *

§ 2677. Options: property required for military construction

projects

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c)(1) Before acquiring an option on real property under subsection (a), the Secretary of a military department shall review the

most recent inventory of real property assets published by the Resolution Trust Corporation under section 21A(b)(11)(F) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1441a(b)(11)(F)) and determine whether any real property listed in the inventory is suitable

for use by the military department for the purposes for which the

real property is sought.

ø(2) The requirement for the review referred to in paragraph (1)

shall terminate on September 30, 1996.¿

* * * * * * *

510

§ 2680. Leases: land for special operations activities

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) REPORTS.—Not later than March 1 of each year, the Secretary

of Defense shall submit to the Committee on øthe¿ Armed Services

of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House

of Representatives a report that—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 2684a. Agreements to limit encroachments and other constraints on military training, testing, and operations

(a) AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of a military department may enter into an agreement with a private entity described in subsection (b) to address the use or development of real

property in the vicinity of a military installation for purposes of— (1) limiting any development or use of the property that

would otherwise be incompatible with the mission of the installation; or

(2) preserving habitat on the property in a manner that is

compatible with both— (A) current or anticipated environmental restrictions that

would or might otherwise restrict, impede, or otherwise

interfere, whether directly or indirectly, with current or anticipated military training, testing, or operations on the installation; and

(B) current or anticipated military training, testing, or

operations on the installation.

(b) COVERED PRIVATE ENTITIES.—A private entity referred to in

subsection (a) is any private entity that has as its stated principal

organizational purpose or goal the conservation, restoration, or preservation of land and natural resources, or a similar purpose or goal,

as determined by the Secretary concerned.

(c) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.— Chapter 63 of title 31 shall not apply to any agreement entered into

under this section.

(d) ACQUISITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY AND INTERESTS.—(1) An agreement with a private entity under this section—

(A) may provide for the private entity to acquire all right,

title, and interest in and to any real property, or any lesser interest in the property, as may be appropriate for purposes of

this section; and

(B) shall provide for the private entity to transfer to the

United States, upon the request of the United States, any property or interest so acquired.

(2) Property or interests may not be acquired pursuant to an

agreement under this section unless the owner of the property or interests, as the case may be, consents to the acquisition.

(3) An agreement under this section providing for the acquisition

of property or interests under paragraph (1)(A) shall provide for the

sharing by the United States and the private entity concerned of the

costs of the acquisition of the property or interests.

511

(4) The Secretary concerned shall identify any property or interests to be acquired pursuant to an agreement under this section. The

property or interests shall be limited to the minimum property or interests necessary to ensure that the property concerned is developed

and used in a manner appropriate for purposes of this section.

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may accept on behalf of the United States any property or

interest to be transferred to the United States under paragraph

(1)(B).

(6) The Secretary concerned may, for purposes of the acceptance

of property or interests under this subsection, accept an appraisal

or title documents prepared or adopted by a non-Federal entity as

satisfying the applicable requirements of section 301 of the Uniform

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of

1970 (42 U.S.C. 4651) or section 355 of the Revised Statutes (40

U.S.C. 255) if the Secretary finds that the appraisal or title documents substantially comply with the requirements.

(e) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary concerned may require such additional terms and conditions in an

agreement under this section as the Secretary considers appropriate

to protect the interests of the United States.

(f) FUNDING.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), funds authorized to be appropriated for operation and maintenance of the

Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Defense-wide activities, including funds authorized to be appropriated for the Legacy Resources Management Program, may be used to enter into agreements under this section.

(2) In the case of a military installation operated primarily with

funds authorized to be appropriated for research, development, test,

and evaluation, funds authorized to be appropriated for the Army,

Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Defense-wide activities for research, development, test, and evaluation may be used to enter into

agreements under this section with respect to the installation.

* * * * * * *

§ 2694a. Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource conservation

(a) AUTHORITY TO CONVEY.—The Secretary of a military department may convey to an eligible recipient described in subsection (b)

any surplus real property that—

(1) is under the administrative control of the Secretary;

(2) is suitable and desirable for conservation purposes;

(3) has been made available for public benefit transfer for a

sufficient period of time to potential claimants; and

(4) is not subject to a pending request for transfer to another

Federal agency or for conveyance to any other qualified recipient for public benefit transfer under the real property disposal

processes and authorities established pursuant to the Federal

Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.

471, et seq.).

(b) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS.—The conveyance of surplus real property under subsection (a) may be made to any of the following:

(A) A State or political subdivision of a State.

512

(B) A nonprofit organization that exists for the primary

purpose of conservation of natural resources on real property.

(c) REVISIONARY INTEREST AND OTHER DEED REQUIREMENTS.—(1)

The deed of conveyance of any surplus real property conveyed under

subsection (a) disposed of under this subsection shall require the

property to be used and maintained for the conservation of natural

resources in perpetuity. If the Secretary of the military department

that made the conveyance determines at any time that the property

is not being used or maintained for such purpose, then, at the option of the Secretary, all or any portion of the property shall revert

to the United States.

(2) The deed of conveyance may permit the recipient of the

property—

(A) to convey the property to another eligible entity described

in subsection (b), subject to the approval of the Secretary of the

military department that made the conveyance and subject to

the same covenants and terms and conditions as provided in

the deed from the United States; and

(B) to conduct incidental revenue-producing activities on the

property that are compatible with the use of the property for

conservation purposes.

(3) The deed of conveyance may contain such additional terms,

reservations, restrictions, and conditions as the Secretary of the

military department considers appropriate to protect the interests of

the United States.

(d) RELEASE OF COVENANTS.—The Secretary of the military department that conveys real property under subsection (a), with the

concurrence of the Secretary of Interior, may grant a release from

a covenant included in the deed of conveyance of the property under

subsection (c) on the condition that the recipient of the property pay

the fair market value, as determined by the Secretary of the military

department, of the property at the time of the release of the covenant. The Secretary of the military department may reduce the

amount required to be paid under this subsection to account for the

value of the natural resource conservation benefit that has accrued

to the United States during the period the covenant was in effect,

if the benefit was not taken into account in determining the original

consideration for the conveyance.

(e) LIMITATIONS.—A conveyance under subsection (a) shall not be

used in settlement of any litigation, dispute, or claim against the

United States, or as a condition of allowing any defense activity

under any Federal, State, or local permitting or review process. The

Secretary of a military department may make a conveyance under

subsection (a), with the restrictions specified in subsection (c), to establish a mitigation bank, but only if the establishment of the mitigation bank does not occur in order to satisfy any condition for permitting military activity under a Federal, State, or local permitting

or review process.

(f) CONSIDERATION.—In fixing the consideration for the conveyance of real property under subsection (a) or in determining the

amount of any reduction of the amount to be paid for the release

of a covenant under subsection (d), the Secretary of the military department concerned shall take into consideration any benefit that

513

has accrued or may accrue to the United States from the use of such

property for the conservation of natural resources.

(g) RELATION TO OTHER CONVEYANCE AUTHORITIES.—(1) The Secretary of a military department may not make a conveyance under

this section of any real property to be disposed of under a base closure law in a manner that is inconsistent with the requirements and

conditions of the base closure law.

(2) In the case of real property on Guam, the Secretary of a military department may not make a conveyance under this section unless the Government of Guam has been first afforded the opportunity to acquire the real property as authorized by section 1 of Public Law 106–504 (114 Stat. 2309).

(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the

Northern Marianas, and the territories and possessions of the

United States.

(2) The term ‘‘base closure law’’ means the following:

(A) Section 2687 of this title.

(B) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments

and Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 (10 U.S.C.

2687 note).

(C) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10

U.S.C. 2687 note).

(D) Any other similar authority for the closure or realignment of military installations that is enacted after the date

of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2003.

§ 2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses

relating to certain real property transactions

(a) * * *

(b) COVERED TRANSACTIONS.—Subsection (a) applies to the following transactions involving real property under the control of the

Secretary of a military department:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) The conveyance of real property under section 2694a of

this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 160—ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

* * * * * * *

§ 2701. Environmental restoration program

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) SERVICES OF OTHER AGENCIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary

may enter into agreements on a reimbursable or other basis

with any other Federal agency, øwith any State or local government agency, or with any Indian tribe,¿ any State or local

514

government agency, any Indian tribe, or any nonprofit conservation organization to obtain the services of the agency to

assist the Secretary in carrying out any of the Secretary’s responsibilities under this section. Services which may be obtained under this subsection include the identification, investigation, and cleanup of any off-site contamination resulting

from the release of a hazardous substance or waste at a facility

under the Secretary’s jurisdiction.

* * * * * * *

ø(3) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘Indian tribe’’

has the meaning given such term in section 101(36) of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(36)).¿

(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

(A) The term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ has the meaning given such

term in section 101(36) of Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42

U.S.C. 9601(36)).

(B) The term ‘‘nonprofit conservation organization’’

means any non-governmental nonprofit organization whose

primary purpose is conservation of open space or natural

resources.

* * * * * * *

(k) UXO PROGRAM MANAGER.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall

establish a program manager who shall serve as the single point of

contact in the Department of Defense for policy and budgeting issues

involving the characterization, remediation, and management of explosive and related risks with respect to unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents at defense

sites (as such terms are defined in section 2710 of this title) that

pose a threat to human health or safety.

(2) The Secretary of Defense may delegate this authority to the

Secretary of a military department, who may delegate the authority

to the Under Secretary of that military department. The authority

may not be further delegated.

(3) The program manager may establish an independent advisory

and review panel that may include representatives of the National

Academy of Sciences, nongovernmental organizations with expertise

regarding unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, or

munitions constituents, the Environmental Protection Agency, States

(as defined in section 2710 of this title), and tribal governments. If

established, the panel would report annually to Congress on

progress made by the Department of Defense to address unexploded

ordnance, discarded military munitions, or munitions constituents

at defense sites and make such recommendations as the panel considered appropriate.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 165—ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

Sec.

2771. Final settlement of accounts: deceased members.

* * * * * * *

515

2773a. Departmental accountable officials.

* * * * * * *

ø2784. Management of credit cards.¿

2784. Management of purchase cards.

* * * * * * *

2787. Reports of survey.

* * * * * * *

§ 2773a. Departmental accountable officials

(a) DESIGNATION.—(1) The Secretary of Defense may designate as

a ‘‘departmental accountable official’’ any civilian employee of the

Department of Defense or member of the armed forces under the

Secretary’s jurisdiction who is described in paragraph (2). Any such

designation shall be in writing.

(2) An employee or member of the armed forces described in this

paragraph is an employee or member who is responsible in the performance of the employee’s or member’s duties for providing to a certifying official of the Department of Defense information, data, or

services that are directly relied upon by the certifying official in the

certification of vouchers for payment.

(b) PECUNIARY LIABILITY.—(1) The Secretary of Defense may impose pecuniary liability on a departmental accountable official to

the extent that an illegal, improper, or incorrect payment results

from the information, data, or services that that official provides to

a certifying official and upon which the certifying official directly

relies in certifying the voucher supporting that payment.

(2) The pecuniary liability of a departmental accountable official

under this subsection for such an illegal, improper, or incorrect payment is joint and several with that of any other officials who are

pecuniarily liable for such payment.

(c) RELIEF FROM LIABILITY.—The Secretary of Defense shall relieve a departmental accountable official from liability under subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that the illegal, improper, or

incorrect payment was not the result of fault or negligence by that

official.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2784. Management of credit cards

ø(a) MANAGEMENT OF CREDIT CARDS.—The Secretary of Defense,

acting through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), shall

prescribe regulations governing the use and control of all credit

cards and convenience checks that are issued to Department of Defense personnel for official use. Those regulations shall be consistent with regulations that apply Government-wide regarding use

of credit cards by Government personnel for official purposes.

ø(b) REQUIRED SAFEGUARDS AND INTERNAL CONTROLS.—Regulations under subsection (a) shall include safeguards and internal

controls to ensure the following:

ø(1) That there is a record in the Department of Defense of

each holder of a credit card issued by the Department of Defense for official use, annotated with the limitations on

amounts that are applicable to the use of each such card by

that credit card holder.

516

ø(2) That the holder of a credit card and each official with

authority to authorize expenditures charged to the credit card

are responsible for—

ø(A) reconciling the charges appearing on each statement of account for that credit card with receipts and

other supporting documentation; and

ø(B) forwarding that statement after being so reconciled

to the designated disbursing office in a timely manner.

ø(3) That any disputed credit card charge, and any discrepancy between a receipt and other supporting documentation

and the credit card statement of account, is resolved in the

manner prescribed in the applicable Government-wide credit

card contract entered into by the Administrator of General

Services.

ø(4) That payments on credit card accounts are made

promptly within prescribed deadlines to avoid interest penalties.

ø(5) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment on

credit card accounts are properly recorded.

ø(6) That records of each credit card transaction (including

records on associated contracts, reports, accounts, and invoices)

are retained in accordance with standard Government policies

on the disposition of records.¿

§ 2784. Management of purchase cards

(a) MANAGEMENT OF PURCHASE CARDS.—The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),

shall prescribe regulations governing the use and control of all purchase cards and convenience checks that are issued to Department

of Defense personnel for official use. Those regulations shall be consistent with regulations that apply Government-wide regarding use

of purchase cards by Government personnel for official purposes.

(b) REQUIRED SAFEGUARDS AND INTERNAL CONTROLS.—Regulations under subsection (a) shall include safeguards and internal

controls to ensure the following:

(1) That there is a record in the Department of Defense of

each holder of a purchase card issued by the Department of Defense for official use, annotated with the limitations on amounts

that are applicable to the use of each such card by that purchase card holder.

(2) That the holder of a purchase card and each official with

authority to authorize expenditures charged to the purchase

card are responsible for—

(A) reconciling the charges appearing on each statement

of account for that purchase card with receipts and other

supporting documentation; and

(B) forwarding that statement after being so reconciled to

the designated disbursing office in a timely manner.

(3) That any disputed purchase card charge, and any discrepancy between a receipt and other supporting documentation and

the purchase card statement of account, is resolved in the manner prescribed in the applicable Government-wide purchase

card contract entered into by the Administrator of General

Services.

517

(4) That payments on purchase card accounts are made

promptly within prescribed deadlines to avoid interest penalties.

(5) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment on

purchase card accounts are properly recorded.

(6) That records of each purchase card transaction (including

records on associated contracts, reports, accounts, and invoices)

are retained in accordance with standard Government policies

on the disposition of records.

(7) That an annual review is performed of the use of purchase

cards issued by the Department of Defense to determine whether

each purchase card holder has a need for the purchase card.

(8) That the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense

and the military services perform periodic audits with respect

to the use of purchase cards issued by the Department of Defense to ensure that such use is in compliance with regulations.

(9) That appropriate annual training is provided to each purchase card holder and each official with responsibility for overseeing the use of purchase cards issued by the Department of

Defense.

(c) PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.—The Secretary shall provide in

the regulations prescribed under subsection (a)— (1) that procedures are implemented providing for appropriate punishment of employees of the Department of Defense

for violations of such regulations and for negligence, misuse,

abuse, or fraud with respect to a purchase card, including dismissal in appropriate cases; and

(2) that a violation of such regulations by a person subject to

chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice)

is punishable as a violation of section 892 of this title (article

92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

* * * * * * *

§ 2787. Reports of survey

(a) REGULATIONS.—Under such regulations as the Secretary of

Defense may prescribe, any officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or

Marine Corps or any civilian employee of the Department of Defense

designated by the Secretary may act upon reports of surveys and

vouchers pertaining to the loss, spoilage, unserviceability,

unsuitability, or destruction of, or damage to, property of the United

States under the control of the Department of Defense.

(b) FINALITY OF ACTION.—Action taken under subsection (a) is

final, except that action holding a person pecuniarily liable for loss,

spoilage, destruction, or damage is not final until approved by the

Secretary.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 169—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

* * * * * * *

518

§ 2810. Construction projects for environmental response actions

ø(a) Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may carry

out a military construction project not otherwise authorized by law

(or may authorize the Secretary of a military department to carry

out such a project) if the Secretary of Defense determines that the

project is necessary to carry out a response action under chapter

160 of this title or under the Comprehensive Environmental

Reponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601

et seq.).¿

(a) AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION

PROJECTS.—The Secretary concerned may carry out a military construction project not otherwise authorized by law if the Secretary determines that the project is necessary to carry out a response under

chapter 160 of this title or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et

seq.).

(b)ø(1) When a decision is made to carry out a military construction project under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report in writing to the appropriate committees of Congress

on that decision.¿ CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—(1) When a decision is made to carry out a military construction project under this

section that exceeds the amount specified in section 2805(b)(1) of

this title, the Secretary concerned shall submit a report in writing

to the appropriate committees of Congress on that decision. Each

such report shall include—

(A) the justification for the project and the current estimate

of the cost of the project; and

(B) the justification for carrying out the project under this

section.

(2) The project may then be carried out only after the end of the

21-day period beginning on the date the notification is received by

such committees.

(c) RESPONSE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘response øaction¿’’ has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).

* * * * * * *

§ 2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island,

Hawaii

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) USE OF ACCOUNT.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3)ø(A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the Ford Island

Improvement Account to the following funds:

ø(i) The Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(1) of this title.

ø(ii) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied

Housing Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(2)

of this title.¿ (A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the

Ford Island Improvement Account to the Department of Defense

519

Housing Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a) of

this title.

(B) Amounts transferred under subparagraph (A) to øa fund¿ the

Fund referred to in that subparagraph shall be available in accordance with the provisions of section 2883 of this title for activities

authorized under subchapter IV of this chapter at Ford Island.

* * * * * * *

§ 2815. Joint use military construction projects: annual evaluation

(a) * * *

(b) ANNUAL EVALUATION.—In the case of the budget submitted

under section 1105 of title 31 øfor fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal

year thereafter¿ for any fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall

include in the budget justification materials submitted to Congress

in support of the budget a certification by each Secretary concerned

that, in evaluating military construction projects for inclusion in

the budget for that fiscal year, the Secretary concerned evaluated

the feasibility of carrying out the projects as joint use military construction projects.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

§ 2828. Leasing of military family housing

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), expenditures for

the rental of housing units under subsection (a) (including the cost

of utilities, maintenance, and operation) may not exceed $12,000

per unit per year, as adjusted from time to time under paragraph

(5).

* * * * * * *

(e)(1)***

* * * * * * *

ø(3) In addition to the 450 units of family housing referred to in

paragraph (1) for which the maximum lease amount is $25,000 per

unit per year, the Secretary of the Army may lease not more than

800 units of family housing in Korea subject to that maximum

lease amount.¿

(3) In addition to the 450 units of family housing referred to in

paragraph (1) for which the maximum lease amount is $25,000 per

unit per year, the Secretary of the Army may lease in Korea—

(A) not more than 1,175 units of family housing subject to

that maximum lease amount; and

(B) not more than 2,400 units of family housing subject to a

maximum lease amount of $35,000 per unit per year.

* * * * * * *

520

SUBCHAPTER IV—ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR

ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY HOUSING

Sec.

2871. Definitions.

* * * * * * *

ø2874. Leasing of housing to be constructed.¿

2874. Leasing of housing.

* * * * * * *

ø2879. Interim leases.¿

* * * * * * *

ø2883. Department of Defense Housing Funds.¿

2883. Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund.

* * * * * * *

§ 2871. Definitions

In this subchapter:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) The term ‘‘Fund’’ means the øDepartment of Defense

Family Housing Improvement Fund or the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund¿

Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund established

under section 2883(a) of this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 2872a. Utilities and services

(a) * * *

(b) COVERED UTILITIES AND SERVICES.—The utilities and services

that may be furnished under subsection (a) are the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(11) Firefighting and fire protection services.

(12) Police protection services.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2874. Leasing of housing to be constructed

ø(a) BUILD AND LEASE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary concerned

may enter into contracts for the lease of military family housing

units or military unaccompanied housing units to be constructed

under this subchapter.¿

§ 2874. Leasing of housing

(a) LEASE AUTHORIZED.—(1) The Secretary concerned may enter

into contracts for the lease of housing units that the Secretary determines are suitable for use as military family housing or military

unaccompanied housing.

(2) The Secretary concerned shall utilize housing units leased

under paragraph (1) as military family housing or military unaccompanied housing, as appropriate.

* * * * * * *

521

§ 2875. Investments

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION REQUIRED.—Amounts in the

øDepartment of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the

Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund¿ Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund

may be used to make a cash investment under this section in an

eligible entity only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on

the date the Secretary of Defense submits written notice of, and

justification for, the investment to the appropriate committees of

Congress.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2879. Interim leases

øPending completion of a project to acquire or construct military

family housing units or military unaccompanied housing units

under this subchapter, the Secretary concerned may provide for the

interim lease of such units of the project as are complete. The term

of a lease under this section may not extend beyond the date of the

completion of the project concerned.¿

§ 2880. Unit size and type

(a) * * *

(b) INAPPLICABILITY OF LIMITATIONS ON SPACE BY PAY GRADE.—

(1) * * *

(2) The regulations prescribed under section 2856 of this title

shall not apply to any military unaccompanied housing unit acquired or constructed under this subchapter øunless the unit is located on a military installation¿.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2883. Department of Defense Housing Funds

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There are hereby established on the books

of the Treasury the following accounts:

ø(1) The Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund.

ø(2) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied

Housing Improvement Fund.

ø(b) COMMINGLING OF FUNDS PROHIBITED.—(1) The Secretary of

Defense shall administer each Fund separately.

ø(2) Amounts in the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund may be used only to carry out activities under this

subchapter with respect to military family housing.

ø(3) Amounts in the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund may be used only to carry out

activities under this subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied housing.

ø(c) CREDITS TO FUNDS.—(1) There shall be credited to the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund the following:

ø(A) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to that Fund.

522

ø(B) Subject to subsection (f), any amounts that the Secretary of Defense transfers, in such amounts as provided in appropriation Acts, to that Fund from amounts authorized and

appropriated to the Department of Defense for the acquisition

or construction of military family housing.

ø(C) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of property or facilities under section 2878 of this title for the purpose of carrying out activities under this subchapter with respect to military family housing.

ø(D) Income derived from any activities under this subchapter with respect to military family housing, including interest on loans made under section 2873 of this title, income

and gains realized from investments under section 2875 of this

title, and any return of capital invested as part of such investments.

ø(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers

to that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title, subject

to the restrictions on the use of the transferred amounts specified in that section.

ø(2) There shall be credited to the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund the following:

ø(A) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to that Fund.

ø(B) Subject to subsection (f), any amounts that the Secretary of Defense transfers, in such amounts as provided in appropriation Acts, to that Fund from amounts authorized and

appropriated to the Department of Defense for the acquisition

or construction of military unaccompanied housing.

ø(C) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of property or facilities under section 2878 of this title for the purpose of carrying out activities under this subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied housing.

ø(D) Income derived from any activities under this subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied housing, including interest on loans made under section 2873 of this title,

income and gains realized from investments under section

2875 of this title, and any return of capital invested as part of

such investments.

ø(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers

to that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title, subject

to the restrictions on the use of the transferred amounts specified in that section.¿

§ 2883. Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is hereby established on the books of

the Treasury an account to be known as the Department of Defense

Housing Improvement Fund (in this section referred to as the

‘‘Fund’’).

(b) CREDITS TO FUND.—There shall be credited to the Fund the

following:

(1) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to the Fund.

(2) Subject to subsection (e), any amounts that the Secretary

of Defense transfers, in such amounts as are provided for in appropriation Acts, to the Fund from amounts authorized and appropriated to the Department of Defense for the acquisition or

523

construction of military family housing or military unaccompanied housing.

(3) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of property or facilities under section 2878 of this title for the purpose of carrying

out activities under this subchapter with respect to military

family housing or military unaccompanied housing.

(4) Income derived from any activities under this subchapter

with respect to military family housing or military unaccompanied housing, income and gains realized from investments

under section 2875 of this title, and any return of capital invested as part of such investments.

(5) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers to

the Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title, subject to

the restrictions on the use of the transferred amounts specified

in that section.

ø(d)¿ (c) USE OF AMOUNTS IN øFUNDS¿ FUND.—(1) In such

amounts as provided in appropriation Acts and except as provided

in subsection ø(e)¿ (d), the Secretary of Defense may use amounts

in the øDepartment of Defense Family Housing Improvement¿

Fund to carry out activities under this subchapter with respect to

military family housing, including activities required in connection

with the planning, execution, and administration of contracts entered into under the authority of this subchapter. The Secretary

may also use for expenses of activities required in connection with

the planning, execution, and administration of such contracts funds

that are otherwise available to the Department of Defense for such

types of expenses.

ø(2) In such amounts as provided in appropriation Acts and except as provided in subsection (e), the Secretary of Defense may

use amounts in the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund to carry out activities under

this subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied housing,

including activities required in connection with the planning, execution, and administration of contracts entered into under the authority of this subchapter. The Secretary may also use for expenses

of activities required in connection with the planning, execution,

and administration of such contracts funds that are otherwise

available to the Department of Defense for such types of expenses.¿

ø(3)¿ (2) Amounts made available under this subsection shall remain available until expended. The Secretary of Defense may

transfer amounts made available under this subsection to the Secretaries of the military departments to permit such Secretaries to

carry out the activities for which such amounts may be used.

ø(e)¿ (d) LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS.—The Secretary may not

incur an obligation under a contract or other agreement entered

into under this subchapter in excess of the unobligated balance, at

the time the contract is entered into, of the Fund ørequired to be

used to satisfy the obligation¿.

ø(f)¿ (e) NOTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR TRANSFERS.—A transfer of

appropriated amounts to øa Fund under paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B)

of subsection (c)¿ the Fund under subsection (b)(2) may be made

only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date the

Secretary of Defense submits written notice of, and justification for,

the transfer to the appropriate committees of Congress.

524

ø(g)¿ (f) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF BUDGET AUTHORITY.—The

total value in budget authority of all contracts and investments undertaken using the authorities provided in this subchapter shall

not exceed— (1) ø$850,000,000¿ $1,700,000,000 for the acquisition or construction of military family housing; and

(2) ø$150,000,000¿ $300,000,000 for the acquisition or construction of military unaccompanied housing.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Army

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 305—THE ARMY STAFF

* * * * * * *

§ 3038. Office of Army Reserve: appointment of Chief

(a) * * *

(b) APPOINTMENT.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Until øOctober 1, 2003¿ December 31, 2004, the Secretary of

Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with respect

to the appointment of an officer as Chief of Army Reserve if the

Secretary of the Army requests the waiver and, in the judgment of

the Secretary of Defense—

(A) the officer is qualified for service in the position; and

(B) the waiver is necessary for the good of the service.

Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 307—THE ARMY

Sec.

3061. Regulations.

* * * * * * *

3084. Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade.

* * * * * * *

§ 3084. Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade

The Chief of the Veterinary Corps of the Army serves in the grade

of brigadier general. An officer appointed to that position who holds

a lower grade shall be appointed in the grade of brigadier general.

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

525

CHAPTER 403—UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

* * * * * * *

§ 4342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution

(a) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets of the Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last day of

the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army under subsection (j). Subject

to that limitation, cadets are selected as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) For purposes of the limitation in subsection (a) establishing

the aggregate authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets, the Secretary of the Army may for any year ø(beginning with the 2001– 2002 academic year)¿ permit a variance in that limitation by not

more than one percent. In applying that limitation, and any such

variance, the last day of an academic year shall be considered to

be graduation day.

(j)(1) Beginning with the 2003–2004 academic year, the Secretary

of the Army may prescribe annual increases in the cadet strength

limit in effect under subsection (a). For any academic year, any such

increase shall be by no more than 100 cadets or such lesser number

as applies under paragraph (3) for that year. Such annual increases

may be prescribed until the cadet strength limit is 4,400. However,

no increase may be prescribed for any academic year after the 2007– 2008 academic year.

(2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under paragraph (1)

with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not later than

the date on which the budget of the President is submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for the fiscal year beginning in

the same year as the year in which that academic year begins.

Whenever the Secretary prescribes such an increase, the Secretary

shall submit to Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall state the amount of the increase in the cadet strength limit

and the new cadet strength limit, as so increased, and the amount

of the increase in Senior Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title.

(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the cadet

strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the increase (if

any) for the preceding academic year in the total number of cadets

enrolled in the Army Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this title who have entered into an agreement under section 2104 or 2107 of this title.

(4) In this subsection, the term ‘‘cadet strength limit’’ means the

authorized maximum strength of the Corps of Cadets of the Academy.

* * * * * * *

§ 4357. Acceptance of guarantees with gifts for major

projects

(a) ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY.—øSubject to subsection (c), the Secretary¿ The Secretary of the Army may accept from a donor or doVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00547 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
526

nors a qualified guarantee for the completion of a major project for

the benefit of the Academy.

* * * * * * *

ø(c) NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE.—The Secretary of the

Army may not accept a qualified guarantee under this section for

the completion of a major project until after the expiration of 30

days following the date upon which a report of the facts concerning

the proposed guarantee is submitted to Congress.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 407—SCHOOLS AND CAMPS

* * * * * * *

§ 4416. Academy of Health Sciences: admission of civilians

in physician assistant training program

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(f) ANNUAL REPORT.—(1) Each year, the Secretary shall submit

to Congress a report on the exchange of services under this section

during the year. The report shall contain the following:

ø(A) The number of civilian students who receive instruction

at the Academy under this section.

ø(B) An assessment of the benefits derived by the United

States.

ø(2) Reports are required under paragraph (1) only for years during which an agreement is in effect under this section.¿

* * * * * * *

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND

PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 453—ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

Sec.

4831. Custody of departmental records and property.

* * * * * * *

ø4835. Reports of survey.¿

* * * * * * *

ø§ 4835. Reports of survey

ø(a) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Army may

prescribe, any officer of the Army or any civilian employee of the

Department of the Army designated by him may act upon reports

of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the loss, spoilage,

unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction of or damage to property of the United States under the control of the Department of

the Army.

ø(b) Action taken under subsection (a) is final, except that action

holding a person pecuniarily liable for loss, spoilage, destruction, or

damage is not final until approved by the Secretary or the Secretary’s designee. The Secretary may designate officers of the Army

527

or civilian employees of the Department of the Army to approve

such action.¿

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Navy and Marine Corps

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 506—HEADQUARTERS, MARINE CORPS

* * * * * * *

§ 5045. Deputy Commandants

There are in the Headquarters, Marine Corps, not more than

øfive¿ six Deputy Commandants, detailed by the Secretary of the

Navy from officers on the active-duty list of the Marine Corps.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 513—BUREAUS; OFFICE OF THE JUDGE

ADVOCATE GENERAL

§ 5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief

(a) * * *

(b) APPOINTMENT.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Until øOctober 1, 2003¿ December 31, 2004, the Secretary of

Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with respect

to the appointment of an officer as Chief of Naval Reserve if the

Secretary of the Navy requests the waiver and, in the judgment of

the Secretary of Defense— (A) the officer is qualified for service in the position; and

(B) the waiver is necessary for the good of the service.

Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

* * * * * * *

§ 5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of

Commander

(a) * * *

(b) APPOINTMENT.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Until øOctober 1, 2003¿ December 31, 2004, the Secretary of

Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with respect

to the appointment of an officer as Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, if the Secretary of the Navy requests the waiver and, in the

judgment of the Secretary of Defense—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

528

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 544—TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS

* * * * * * *

§ 5721. Temporary promotions of certain Navy lieutenants

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE POSITIONS.—ø(1)¿ An appointment under this section may only be made for service in a position designated by the Secretary of the Navy for purposes of this

section. The number of positions so designated may not exceed 325.

ø(2) Whenever the Secretary makes a change to the positions

designated under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit notice

of the change in writing to Congress.¿

* * * * * * *

PART III—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 603—UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

* * * * * * *

§ 6954. Midshipmen: number

(a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen (determined for any year as of the day before the last day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be prescribed

by the Secretary of the Navy under subsection (h). Subject to that

limitation, midshipmen are selected as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h)(1) Beginning with the 2003–2004 academic year, the Secretary

of the Navy may prescribe annual increases in the midshipmen

strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For any academic year,

any such increase shall be by no more than 100 midshipmen or

such lesser number as applies under paragraph (3) for that year.

Such annual increases may be prescribed until the midshipmen

strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase may be prescribed for

any academic year after the 2007–2008 academic year.

(2) Any increase in the midshipmen strength limit under paragraph (1) with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not

later than the date on which the budget of the President is submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for the fiscal year

beginning in the same year as the year in which that academic year

begins. Whenever the Secretary prescribes such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a notice in writing of the increase.

The notice shall state the amount of the increase in the midshipmen

strength limit and the new midshipmen strength limit, as so increased, and the amount of the increase in Senior Navy Reserve OfVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00550 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
529

ficers’ Training Corps enrollment under each of sections 2104 and

2107 of this title.

(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the midshipmen strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the total number

of midshipmen enrolled in the Navy Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this title who have entered

into an agreement under section 2104 or 2107 of this title.

(4) In this subsection, the term ‘‘midshipmen strength limit’’ means the authorized maximum strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen.

* * * * * * *

§ 6975. Acceptance of guarantees with gifts for major

projects

(a) ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY.—øSubject to subsection (c), the Secretary¿ The Secretary of the Navy may accept from a donor or donors a qualified guarantee for the completion of a major project for

the benefit of the Naval Academy.

* * * * * * *

ø(c) NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE.—The Secretary of the

Navy may not accept a qualified guarantee under this section for

the completion of a major project until after the expiration of 30

days following the date upon which a report of the facts concerning

the proposed guarantee is submitted to Congress.¿

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Air Force

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 805—THE AIR STAFF

* * * * * * *

§ 8038. Office of Air Force Reserve: appointment of Chief

(a) * * *

(b) APPOINTMENT.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Until øOctober 1, 2003¿ December 31, 2004, the Secretary of

Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with respect

to the appointment of an officer as Chief of Air Force Reserve if the

Secretary of the Air Force requests the waiver and, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense—

(A) the officer is qualified for service in the position; and

(B) the waiver is necessary for the good of the service.

Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

* * * * * * *

530

PART III—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 903—UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

* * * * * * *

§ 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution

(a) The authorized strength of Air Force Cadets of the Academy

(determined for any year as of the day before the last day of the

academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force under subsection (j). Subject to that limitation, Air Force Cadets are selected as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(j)(1) Beginning with the 2003–2004 academic year, the Secretary

of the Air Force may prescribe annual increases in the cadet

strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For any academic year,

any such increase shall be by no more than 100 cadets or such lesser number as applies under paragraph (3) for that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed until the cadet strength limit is

4,400. However, no increase may be prescribed for any academic

year after the 2007–2008 academic year.

(2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under paragraph (1)

with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not later than

the date on which the budget of the President is submitted to Congress under sections 1105 of title 31 for the fiscal year beginning in

the same year as the year in which that academic year begins.

Whenever the Secretary prescribes such an increase, the Secretary

shall submit to Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall state the amount of the increase in the cadet strength limit

and the new cadet strength limit, as so increased, and the amount

of the increase in Senior Air Force Reserve Officers’ Training Corps

enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title.

(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the cadet

strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the increase (if

any) for the preceding academic year in the total number of cadets

enrolled in the Air Force Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps

program under chapter 103 of this title who have entered into an

agreement under section 2104 or 2107 of this title.

(4) In this subsection, the term ‘‘cadet strength limit’’ means the

authorized maximum strength of Air Force Cadets of the Academy.

* * * * * * *

§ 9356. Acceptance of guarantees with gifts for major

projects

(a) ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY.—øSubject to subsection (c), the Secretary¿ The Secretary of the Air Force may accept from a donor or

donors a qualified guarantee for the completion of a major project

for the benefit of the Academy.

* * * * * * *

531

ø(c) NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE.—The Secretary of the

Air Force may not accept a qualified guarantee under this section

for the completion of a major project until after the expiration of

30 days following the date upon which a report of the facts concerning the proposed guarantee is submitted to Congress.¿

* * * * * * *

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND

PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 953—ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

Sec.

9831. Custody of departmental records and property.

* * * * * * *

ø9835. Reports of survey.¿

* * * * * * *

ø§ 9835. Reports of survey

ø(a) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force

may prescribe, any officer of the Air Force designated by him may

act upon reports of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the loss,

spoilage, unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction of or damage to property of the United States under the control of the Department of the Air Force.

ø(b) Action taken under subsection (a) is final, except that action

holding a person pecuniarily liable for loss, spoilage, destruction, or

damage is not final until approved by the Secretary or an officer

of the Air Force designated by him.¿

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Reserve Components

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND

ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1007—ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE

COMPONENTS

* * * * * * *

§ 10217. Non-dual status technicians

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) PERMANENT LIMITATIONS ON NUMBER.—(1) * * *

(2) øEffective October 1, 2002, the¿ The total number of non-dual

status technicians employed by the National Guard may not exceed

1,950. If at any time øafter the preceding sentence takes effect¿ the

532

number of non-dual status technicians employed by the National

Guard exceeds the number specified in the limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense shall require that the

Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both,

take immediate steps to reduce the number of such technicians in

order to comply with such limitation.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1011—NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

* * * * * * *

§ 10506. Other senior National Guard Bureau officers

(a) ADDITIONAL GENERAL OFFICERS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3)(A)***

* * * * * * *

(D) Until øOctober 1, 2003¿ December 31, 2004, the Secretary of

Defense may waive clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) with respect to

the appointment of an officer as Director, Army National Guard, or

as Director, Air National Guard, if the Secretary of the military department concerned requests the waiver and, in the judgment of

the Secretary of Defense—

(i) the officer is qualified for service in the position; and

(ii) the waiver is necessary for the good of the service.

Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1201—AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND

DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE

* * * * * * *

§ 12004. Strength in grade: reserve general and flag officers

in an active status

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f)(1) A general or flag officer who is on active duty but who is

not counted under section 526(a) of this title by reason of section

526(b)(2)(B) of this title shall also be excluded from being counted

under subsection (a).

(2) This subsection shall cease to be effective on the date specified

in section 526(b)(3) of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1203—ENLISTED MEMBERS

* * * * * * *

533

§ 12103. Reserve components: terms

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast

Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, a nonprior-service person who is qualified for induction for active duty

in an armed force and who is not under orders to report for induction into an armed force under the Military Selective Service Act

(50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), except as provided in section

6(c)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of such Act, may be enlisted in the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, or as a Reserve for service

in the Army Reserve, Naval Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine

Corps Reserve, or Coast Guard Reserve, for a term of not less than

six years nor more than eight years. Each person enlisted under

this subsection shall perform an initial period of active duty for

training of not less than twelve weeks to commence insofar as practicable within ø270 days¿ one year after the date of that enlistment.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1209—ACTIVE DUTY

* * * * * * *

§ 12302. Ready Reserve

(a) * * *

(b) To achieve fair treatment as between members in the Ready

Reserve who are being considered for recall to duty without their

consent, consideration shall be given to—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such policies and procedures as he considers necessary to carry out this subsection. øHe

shall report on those policies and procedures at least once a year

to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.¿

* * * * * * *

ø(d) Whenever one or more units of the Ready Reserve are ordered to active duty, the President shall, on the first day of the second fiscal year quarter immediately following the quarter in which

the first unit or units are ordered to active duty and on the first

day of each succeeding six-month period thereafter, so long as such

unit is retained on active duty, submit a report to the Congress regarding the necessity for such unit or units being ordered to and

retained on active duty. The President shall include in each such

report a statement of the mission of each such unit ordered to active duty, an evaluation of such unit’s performance of that mission,

where each such unit is being deployed at the time of the report,

and such other information regarding each unit as the President

deems appropriate.¿

* * * * * * *

534

§ 12310. Reserves: for organizing, administering, etc., reserve components

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) DUTIES RELATING TO DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) A Reserve may perform duties described in paragraph (1)

øonly—

ø(A) while assigned to the Department of Defense Consequence Management Program Integration Office; or

ø(B) while assigned¿ only while assigned to a reserve component rapid assessment element team and performing those duties within the geographical limits of the United States, its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, and the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1223—RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR

SERVICE

* * * * * * *

§ 12731. Age and service requirements

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person is entitled,

upon application, to retired pay computed under section 12739 of

this title, if the person—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) performed the last øeight¿ six years of qualifying service

while a member of any category named in section 12732(a)(1)

of this title, but not while a member of a regular component,

the Fleet Reserve, or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve; and

* * * * * * *

PART III—PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF

OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS

LIST

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1405—PROMOTIONS

* * * * * * *

§ 14301. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: general

rules

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(g) A reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the

Air Force who is in an inactive status is eligible (notwithstanding

subsection (a)) for consideration for promotion to major general by

535

a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title if

the officer— ø(1) has been in an inactive status for less than one year as

of the date of the convening of the promotion board; and

ø(2) had continuously served for at least one year on the reserve active status list or the active duty list (or a combination

of both) immediately before the officer’s most recent transfer to

an inactive status.¿

(g) BRIGADIER GENERALS.—(1) An officer who is a reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the Air Force who is not eligible for consideration for promotion under subsection (a) because the

officer is not on the reserve active status list (as required by paragraph (1) of that subsection for such eligibility) is nevertheless eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of major general by

a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title if— (A) as of the date of the convening of the promotion board, the

officer has been in an inactive status for less than one year; and

(B) immediately before the date of the officer’s most recent

transfer to an inactive status, the officer had continuously

served on the reserve active status list or the active-duty list (or

a combination of the reserve active status list and the activeduty list) for at least one year.

(2) An officer who is a reserve component brigadier general of the

Army or the Air Force who is on the reserve active status list but

who is not eligible for consideration for promotion under subsection

(a) because the officer’s service does not meet the one-year-of-continuous-service requirement under paragraph (2) of that subsection is

nevertheless eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of

major general by a promotion board convened under section

14101(a) of this title if—

(A) the officer was transferred from an inactive status to the

reserve active status list during the one-year period preceding

the date of the convening of the promotion board;

(B) immediately before the date of the officer’s most recent

transfer to an active status, the officer had been in an inactive

status for less than one year; and

(C) immediately before the date of the officer’s most recent

transfer to an inactive status, the officer had continuously

served for at least one year on the reserve active status list or

the active-duty list (or a combination of the reserve active status

list and the active-duty list).

* * * * * * *

§ 14317. Officers in transition to and from the active-status

list or active-duty list

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF OFFICERS IN PAY GRADE O–7 TO INACTIVE STATUS.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a reserve officer

on the active-status list in the grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) is transferred to an inactive status after having

been recommended for promotion to the grade of major general or

rear admiral under this chapter, or after having been found qualified for Federal recognition in the grade of major general under title

536

32, but before being promoted, the officer shall retain promotion eligibility and, if otherwise qualified, may be promoted to the higher

grade after returning to an active status.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1407—FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR

PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION

Sec.

14501. Failure of selection for promotion.

* * * * * * *

14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical reasons.

* * * * * * *

§ 14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical

reasons

(a) If the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that the evaluation of the physical condition of a Reserve officer and determination of the officer’s entitlement to retirement or

separation for physical disability require hospitalization or medical

observation and that such hospitalization or medical observation

cannot be completed with confidence in a manner consistent with

the officer’s well-being before the date on which the officer would

otherwise be required to be separated, retired, or transferred to the

Retired Reserve under this title, the Secretary may defer the separation, retirement, or transfer of the officer under this title.

(b) A deferral under subsection (a) of separation, retirement, or

transfer to the Retired Reserve may not extend for more than 30

days after completion of the evaluation requiring hospitalization or

medical observation.

* * * * * * *

PART IV—TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1606—EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR

MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE

* * * * * * *

§ 16133. Time limitation for use of entitlement

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the period during which

a person entitled to educational assistance under this chapter may

use such person’s entitlement expires (1) at the end of the ø10-

year¿ 14-year period beginning on the date on which such person

becomes entitled to such assistance, or (2) on the date the person

is separated from the Selected Reserve, whichever occurs first.

* * * * * * *

537

CHAPTER 1609—EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions officers serving in Selected Reserve with

wartime critical medical skill shortages

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only in the

case of a person first appointed as a commissioned officer before

January 1, ø2003¿ 2004.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 216 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1992 AND 1993

SEC. 216. MANAGEMENT OF NAVY MINE COUNTERMEASURES PROGRAMS.

(a) RESPONSIBILITY.—Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition and Technology shall have the primary responsibility

for developing and testing naval mine countermeasures systems

during fiscal years 1996 øthrough 2003¿ through 2008.

* * * * * * *

STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,

TEST, AND EVALUATION

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 246. PILOT PROGRAM FOR REVITALIZING THE LABORATORIES

AND TEST AND EVALUATION CENTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) PILOT PROGRAM.—(1) The Secretary of Defense may carry out

a pilot program to demonstrate improved cooperative relationships

with universities and other private sector entities for the performVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00559 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
538

ance of research and development functions, and to demonstrate

improved efficiency in the performance of the research, development,

test, and evaluation functions of the Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

(4) The Secretary may carry out the pilot program at each selected laboratory and center øfor a period of three years beginning

not later than March 1, 1999.¿ until March 1, 2008.

(b) REPORTS.—(1) * * *

(2) øPromptly after the expiration of the period for participation

of a laboratory or center in the pilot program, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a final report on the participation

of the laboratory or center in the pilot program. The report shall

contain¿ Not later than December 31 of each year, the Secretary of

Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities of the pilot program during the preceding fiscal year. Each such report shall contain, for each laboratory or center in the pilot program, the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Not later than March 1, 2007, the Secretary of Defense shall

submit to the committees referred to in paragraph (2) the Secretary’s

recommendation as to whether, and to what extent, the authority to

carry out the pilot program should be extended.

* * * * * * *

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the ‘‘Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999’’.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND

LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—Using amounts appropriated

pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section

2404(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and

carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in

the following table:

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States

Agency Installation or location Amount

Chemical Demilitarization ................ Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland ........................ $223,950,000

539

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States—Continued

Agency Installation or location Amount

Newport Army Depot, Indiana .............................. ø$191,550,000¿

$293,853,000

*******

Total ............................ ø$727,616,000¿

$829,919,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

(a) * * *

(b) LIMITATION OF TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.—

Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 of

title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section

2401 of this Act may not exceed—

(1) * * *

(2) ø$162,050,000¿ $264,353,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2401(a) for the construction of the

Ammunition Demilitarization Facility at Newport Army Depot,

Indiana); and

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances

* * * * * * *

PART II—NAVY CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2851. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP

PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA.

(a) EASEMENT AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of the Navy may

grant an easement, in perpetuity, to the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Agency’’)

over a parcel of real property at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of approximately 340 acres to permit

the recipient of the øeasement to construct, operate, and maintain,

notwithstanding any provision of State law to the contrary, a restricted access highway.¿ easement to construct, operate, and maintain a restricted access highway, notwithstanding any provision of

State law that would otherwise prevent the Secretary from granting

the easement or the Agency from constructing, operating, or maintaining the restricted access highway. The area covered by the easement shall include slopes and all necessary incidents thereto.

* * * * * * *

540

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3159. PANEL TO ASSESS THE RELIABILITY, SAFETY, AND SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR STOCKPILE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) REPORT.—Not later than October 1 of 1999 and 2000, and not

later than øFebruary 1, 2002,¿ February 1 of 2002 and 2003, the

panel shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth its findings and conclusions resulting from the review and assessment carried out for the year

covered by the report. The report shall be submitted in classified

and unclassified form.

* * * * * * *

(g) TERMINATION OF PANEL.—The panel shall terminate øthree

years after the date of the appointment of the member designated

as chairman of the panel.¿ April 1, 2003.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2002

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,

TEST, AND EVALUATION

* * * * * * *

541

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 232. PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION.¿

SEC. 232. PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) INTERNAL DOD REVIEWS.—(1) The officials and elements of

the Department of Defense specified in paragraph (2) shall on an

ongoing basis— (A) * * *

(B) provide to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of

the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense

Agency any comments on such matters as considered appropriate.

* * * * * * *

(f) DEMONSTRATION OF CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES.—(1) The Director of the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense

Agency shall develop a plan for ensuring that each critical technology for a missile defense program is successfully demonstrated

in an appropriate environment before that technology enters into

operational service as part of a missile defense program.

(2) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense shall monitor the development of the plan

under paragraph (1) and shall submit to the Director of the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency any

comments regarding that plan that the Director of Operational

Test and Evaluation considers appropriate.

(g) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT.—(1) At the conclusion

of each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Comptroller General of

the United States shall assess the extent to which the øBallistic

Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency achieved the

goals established under subsection (c) for such fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

(h) ANNUAL OT&E ASSESSMENT OF TEST PROGRAM.—(1) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall each year assess

the adequacy and sufficiency of the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency test program during the preceding fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances

* * * * * * *

542

SEC. 602. BASIC PAY RATE FOR CERTAIN RESERVE COMMISSIONED

OFFICERS WITH PRIOR SERVICE AS AN ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER.

(a) SERVICE CREDIT.—Section 203(d) of title 37, United States

Code, is amended—

(1) * * *

(2) by striking ‘‘active service as a warrant officer or as a

warrant officer and øan¿ enlisted member’’ and inserting ‘‘service described in paragraph (2)’’; and

* * * * * * *

TITLE XIV—ARMED FORCES

RETIREMENT HOME

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1410. CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

OF OBSOLETE PROVISIONS.

(a) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Section 1520 (24 U.S.C. 420), relating to disposition of effects

of deceased persons and unclaimed property, is amended—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘Directors’’ both places it appears and inserting ‘‘Director of the facility’’.

* * * * * * *

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITION.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This division may be cited as the ‘‘Military

Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002’’.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXI—ARMY

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—Using amounts appropriated

pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section

2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property

and carry out military construction projects for the installations

and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set

forth in the following table:

543

Army: Inside the United States

State Installation or location Amount

Alabama ......................... Anniston Army Depot ........................ $5,150,000

*******

Colorado .......................... Fort Carson ......................................... ø$66,000,000¿

$67,000,000

*******

South Carolina ............... Fort Jackson ....................................... ø$65,650,000¿

$68,650,000

*******

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.

(a) * * *

(b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.—

Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 of

title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section

2101 of this Act may not exceed—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) ø$41,000,000¿ $42,000,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2201(a) for construction of phase 1 of

a barracks complex, Nelson Boulevard, at Fort Carson, Colorado);

(4) ø$36,000,000¿ $39,000,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2201(a) for construction of phase 1 of

a basic combat training complex at Fort Jackson, South Carolina); and

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXII—NAVY

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—Using amounts appropriated

pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section

2204(a)(1), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real property

and carry out military construction projects for the installations

and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set

forth in the following table:

Navy: Inside the United States

State Installation or location Amount

Arizona Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma $22,570,000

*******

Naval Station, Norfolk ................ ø$139,270,000¿ $139,550,000

*******

Total: ......................................... ø$1,058,750,000¿ $1,059,030,000

* * * * * * *

544

SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY.

(a) * * *

(b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.—

Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 of

title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section

2201 of this Act may not exceed—

(1) * * *

(2) ø$33,240,000¿ $33,520,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2201(a) for replacement of a pier, increment I, at Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia); and

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities

Administration

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2814. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON REDUCTION IN LONGTERM FACILITY MAINTENANCE COSTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than January 31,

2005, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a report

on the demonstration program, including the following:

ø(1) A description of all contracts that contain requirements

referred to in subsection (a) for the purpose of the demonstration program.

ø(2) An evaluation of the demonstration program and a description of the experience of the Secretary with respect to

such contracts.

ø(3) Any recommendations, including recommendations for

the termination, continuation, or expansion of the demonstration program, that the Secretary considers appropriate.¿

ø(e)¿ (d) EXPIRATION.—The authority under subsection (a) to include requirements referred to in that subsection in contracts

under the demonstration program shall expire on September 30,

2006.

ø(f)¿ (e) FUNDING.—Amounts authorized to be appropriated for

the Army for a fiscal year for military construction shall be available for the demonstration program under this section in such fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

545

TITLE XXX—REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

AND PREPARATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3007. TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) OTHER CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS.—(1) That Act is further

amended by inserting ‘‘or realignment’’ after ‘‘closure’’ each place it

appears in the following provisions:

(A) Section 2905(b)(3).

(B) Section 2905(b)(5).

(C) Section ø2905(b)(7)(B)(iv)¿ 2905(b)(7)(C)(iv).

* * * * * * *

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE III—OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Department of Defense

Industrial Facilities

* * * * * * *

SEC. 343. ARSENAL SUPPORT PROGRAM INITIATIVE.

(a) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM REQUIRED.—To help maintain the

viability of the Army manufacturing arsenals and the unique capabilities of these arsenals to support the national security interests

of the United States, the Secretary of the Army shall carry out a

demonstration program under this section during fiscal years 2001

øand 2002¿ through 2004 at each manufacturing arsenal of the Department of the Army.

* * * * * * *

(g) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—(1) Not later than July 1 of each

year in which a guarantee issued under subsection (d) is in effect,

the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a report speciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00567 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
546

fying the amounts of loans guaranteed under such subsection during the preceding calendar year. No report is required after fiscal

year ø2002¿ 2004. (2) øNot later than July 1, 2001, the Secretary of the Army shall

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the implementation of the demonstration program.¿ Not later than July

1, 2003, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the congressional

defense committees a report on the results of the demonstration program since its implementation, including the Secretary’s views regarding the benefits of the program for Army manufacturing arsenals and the Department of the Army and the success of the program in achieving the purposes specified in subsection (b). The report shall contain a comprehensive review of contracting at the

Army manufacturing arsenals covered by the program and such

recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate regarding

changes to the program.

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL

POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle G—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 577. NATIONAL GUARD CHALLENGE PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

(b) SOURCES OF FEDERAL SUPPORT.—Subsection (b) of such section is amended—

(1) * * *

(2) by striking ‘‘, except that øFederal¿ Department of Defense expenditures under the program may not exceed

$62,500,000 for any fiscal year’’; and

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances

* * * * * * *

SEC. 612. INCREASE IN MONTHLY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR

MEMBERS OF PRECOMMISSIONING PROGRAMS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CONFORMING AND STYLISTIC AMENDMENTS.—Section 209 of

such title is further amended—

547

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) in subsection (d)—

(A) * * *

(B) by striking ‘‘the same rate as that prescribed by subsection (a)ø,¿’’ and inserting ‘‘a monthly rate prescribed

under subsection (a)’’.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Information Technology

* * * * * * *

SEC. 814. NAVY-MARINE CORPS INTRANET.

(a) * * *

(b) PHASED IMPLEMENTATION.—(1) * * *

(2) Not more than 15 percent of the total number of work stations to be øprovided¿ ordered under the Navy-Marine Corps

Intranet program may be øprovided¿ ordered in the first increment

of implementation of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract.

(3) No work stations in excess of the number permitted by paragraph (2) may be øprovided¿ ordered under the program until— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) DURATION OF NAVY-MARINE CORPS INTRANET CONTRACT.—

Notwithstanding section 2306c of title 10, United States Code, the

Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract may have a term in excess of

five years, but not more than seven years.

ø(i)¿ (j) DEFINITIONS.—(1) In this section, the term ‘‘Navy-Marine

Corps Intranet contract’’ means a contract providing for a longterm arrangement of the Department of the Navy with the commercial sector that imposes on the contractor a responsibility for,

and transfers to the contractor the risk of, providing and managing

the significant majority of desktop, server, infrastructure, and communication assets and services of the Department of the Navy.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE

FORMER SOVIET UNION

* * * * * * *

548

SEC. 1308. REPORTS ON ACTIVITIES AND ASSISTANCE UNDER COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—The report under subsection (a)

in a year shall set forth the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) To the maximum extent practicable, a description of how

revenue generated by activities carried out under Cooperative

Threat Reduction programs in recipient States is being utilized,

monitored, and accounted for.

* * * * * * *

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Program Authorizations,

Restrictions, and Limitations

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 3132. ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL NUCLEAR

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION.¿

SEC. 3132. ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL NUCLEAR

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND MISSILE DEFENSE

AGENCY.

(a) * * *

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTS.—The projects referred to in

subsection (a) shall—

(1) be carried out by the National Nuclear Security Administration and the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency; and

* * * * * * *

(c) PARTICIPATION BY NNSA IN CERTAIN øBMDO¿ MDA ACTIVITIES.—The Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Director of

the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency shall implement mechanisms that increase the cooperative relationship between those organizations. Those mechanisms may include participation by personnel of the National Nuclear Security

Administration in the following activities of the øBallistic Missile

Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency:

(1) Peer reviews of technical efforts.

549

(2) Activities of so-called ‘‘red teams’’.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1998

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,

TEST, AND EVALUATION

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense

Programs

* * * * * * *

SEC. 233. COOPERATIVE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM.

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR NEW PROGRAM ELEMENT.—The Secretary

of Defense shall establish a program element for the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency, to be referred

to as the ‘‘Cooperative Ballistic Missile Defense Program’’, to support technical and analytical cooperative efforts between the

United States and other nations that contribute to United States

ballistic missile defense capabilities. Except as provided in subsection (b), all international cooperative ballistic missile defense

programs of the Department of Defense shall be budgeted and administered through that program element.

* * * * * * *

(c) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAM ELEMENTS.—The program

element established pursuant to subsection (a) is in addition to the

program elements for activities of the øBallistic Missile Defense

Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency required under section 251 of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106; 110 Stat. 233; 10 U.S.C. 221 note).

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

550

Subtitle D—Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits,

and Related Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 644. ANNUITIES FOR CERTAIN MILITARY SURVIVING SPOUSES.

(a) SURVIVOR ANNUITY.—(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay

an annuity to the qualified surviving spouse of each member of the

uniformed services who—

(A) became entitled to retired or retainer pay before September 21, 1972, died before March 21, 1974, and was entitled

to retired or retainer pay on the date of death; or

(B) øwas a member of a reserve component of the Armed

Forces¿ died before October 1, 1978, and at the time of his

death would have been entitled to retired pay under chapter 67

of title 10, United States Code (as in effect before December 1,

1994), but for the fact that he was under 60 years of age.

(2) A qualified surviving spouse for purposes of this section is a

surviving spouse who has not remarried øand who is not eligible

for an annuity under section 4 of Public Law 92–425 (10 U.S.C.

1448 note)¿.

(b) AMOUNT OF ANNUITY.—(1) An annuity under this section

shall be paid at the rate of ø$165¿ $185.58 per month, as adjusted

from time to time under paragraph (3).

ø(2) An annuity paid to a surviving spouse under this section

shall be reduced by the amount of any dependency and indemnity

compensation (DIC) to which the surviving spouse is entitled under

section 1311(a) of title 38, United States Code.¿

(2) The amount of an annuity to which a surviving spouse is entitled under this section for any period shall be reduced (but not

below zero) by any amount paid to that surviving spouse for the

same period under any of the following provisions of law:

(A) Section 1311(a) of title 38, United States Code (relating

to dependency and indemnity compensation payable by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs).

(B) Chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code.

(C) Section 4 of Public Law 92–425 (10 U.S.C. 1448 note).

(3) Whenever after øthe date of the enactment of this Act¿ May

1, 2002, retired or retainer pay is increased under section

1401a(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, each annuity that is

payable under this section shall be increased at the same time and

by the same total percent. øThe amount of the increase shall be

based on the amount of the monthly annuity payable before any reduction under this section.¿

* * * * * * *

(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:

(1) * * *

(2) The term ‘‘surviving spouse’’ has the meaning given øthe

terms ‘‘widow’’ and ‘‘widower’’ in paragraphs (7) and (8)¿ such

term in paragraph (9) of section 1447 of title 10, United States

Code.

(e) PROSPECTIVE APPLICABILITY.—(1) Annuities under this section

shall be paid for months beginning after øthe month in which this

Act is enacted¿ November 1997.

551

(2) No benefit shall accrue to any person by reason of the enactment of this section for any period before øthe first month that begins after the month in which this Act is enacted¿ December 1997. (3) In the case of a person entitled to an annuity under this section who applies for the annuity after the date of the enactment of

this paragraph, such annuity shall be paid only for months beginning after the date on which such application is submitted.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1996

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,

TEST, AND EVALUATION

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense Act of

1995

* * * * * * *

SEC. 234. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE ARCHITECTURE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT.—(1) As part of the annual

report of the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency required by section 224 of Public Law 101–189 (10

U.S.C. 2431 note), the Secretary of Defense shall describe the technical milestones, the schedule, and the cost of each phase of development and acquisition (together with total estimated program

costs) for each core and follow-on theater missile defense program.

* * * * * * *

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

552

Subtitle C—Program Authorizations,

Restrictions, and Limitations

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3131. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT PROGRAM RELATING TO FISSILE

MATERIALS.

ø(a) AUTHORITY.—¿The Secretary of Energy may conduct programs designed to improve the protection, control, and accountability of fissile materials in Russia.

ø(b) SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS.—(1) Not

later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and

thereafter not later than April 1 and October 1 of each year, the

Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report on each obligation during the preceding six months of funds appropriated for

a program described in subsection (a).

ø(2) Each such report shall specify— ø(A) the activities and forms of assistance for which the Secretary of Energy has obligated funds;

ø(B) the amount of the obligation;

ø(C) the activities and forms of assistance for which the Secretary anticipates obligating funds during the six months immediately following the report, and the amount of each such

anticipated obligation; and

ø(D) the projected involvement (if any) of any department or

agency of the United States (in addition to the Department of

Energy) and of the private sector of the United States in the

activities and forms of assistance for which the Secretary of

Energy has obligated funds referred to in subparagraph (A).¿

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1994

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,

TEST, AND EVALUATION

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs

* * * * * * *

SEC. 235. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE MASTER PLAN.

(a) * * *

553

(b) TMD MASTER PLAN.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit

to Congress a report (which shall constitute the TMD master plan)

containing a thorough and complete analysis of the future of theater missile defense programs. The report shall include the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) An evaluation of the cost and relative effectiveness of

each interceptor and sensor under development as part of a

Theater Missile Defense system by the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 243. TRANSFER OF FOLLOW-ON TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS.

(a) * * *

(b) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—The Secretary may waive the provisions

of subsection (a) in the case of a particular program, project, or activity if the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that it is in the national security interest of the United States

to provide management and budget responsibility for that program,

project, or activity through the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency. (c) REPORT REQUIRED.—As a part of the report required by section 231(e), the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense

committees a report identifying— (1) each program, project, and activity with respect to which

the Secretary has transferred management and budget responsibility from the øBallistic Missile Defense Organization¿ Missile Defense Agency in accordance with subsection (a);

* * * * * * *

SECTION 3 OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

SEC. 3. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c)(1) Section 2 shall not apply to the incidental taking of a migratory bird by a member of the Armed Forces during a military

readiness activity authorized by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned.

(2)(A) In this subsection, the term ‘‘military readiness activity’’

includes—

(i) all training and operations of the Armed Forces that relate

to combat; and

(ii) the adequate and realistic testing of military equipment,

vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat use.

(B) The term does not include— (i) the routine operation of installation operating support

functions, such as administrative offices, military exchanges,

commissaries, water treatment facilities, storage facilities,

schools, housing, motor pools, laundries, morale, welfare, and

recreation activities, shops, and mess halls;

(ii) the operation of industrial activities; or

554

(iii) the construction or demolition of facilities used for a purpose described in clause (i) or (ii).

SECTION 4 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973

DETERMINATION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THREATENED SPECIES

SEC. 4. (a) GENERAL.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3)(A) The Secretary, by regulation promulgated in accordance

with subsection (b) and to the maximum extent prudent and

determinable—

ø(A)¿ (i) shall, concurrently with making a determination

under paragraph (1) that a species is an endangered species or

a threatened species, designate any habitat of such species

which is then considered to be critical habitat; and

ø(B)¿ (ii) may, from time-to-time thereafter as appropriate,

revise such designation.

(B)(i) The Secretary may not designate as critical habitat any

lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an

integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines that such plan addresses special management considerations

or protection (as those terms are used in section 3(5)(A)(i)).

(ii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the requirement to consult under section 7(a)(2) with respect to an agency action (as that

term is defined in that section).

(iii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the obligation of the Department of Defense to comply with section 9 of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, including the prohibition preventing extinction

and taking of endangered species and threatened species.

(b) BASIS FOR DETERMINATIONS.—(1) * * *

(2) The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

The Secretary may exclude any area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweight the benefits

of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will

result in the extinction of the species concerned.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 7 OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OVERSEAS

TEACHERS PAY AND PERSONNEL PRACTICES ACT

QUARTERS, QUARTERS ALLOWANCES, AND STORAGE

SEC. 7. (a) * * *

(b) Each teacher (other than a teacher employed in a substitute

capacity) shall be entitled, for each school year for which he perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00576 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
555

forms services as a teacher, to quarters or a quarters allowance

equal to those authorized by øthe Act of June 26, 1930 (5 U.S.C.

118a)¿ section 5912 of title 5, United States Code. If the teacher is

unaccompanied by dependents and is required to reside on a United

States military installation in an overseas area, the teacher may receive a quarters allowance to reside in excess family housing at the

installation notwithstanding the availability single room housing at

the installation.

(c) Each teacher (other than a teacher employed in a substitute

capacity) who is performing services as a teacher at the close of a

school year and agrees in writing to serve as a teacher for the next

school year may be authorized, for the recess period immediately

preceding such next school year— (1) quarters or a quarters allowance equal to those authorized by øthe Act of June 26, 1930 (5 U.S.C. 118a)¿ section 5912

of title 5, United States Code, or

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1402 OF THE DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’

EDUCATION ACT OF 1978

ESTABLISHMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION SYSTEM

SEC. 1402. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d)(1) The Secretary of Defense may provide optional summer

school programs in the defense dependents’ education system.

ø(2) The Secretary shall provide in regulations for fees to be

charged for the students enrolling in a summer school program

under this subsection in amounts determined on the basis of family

income.¿

(2) Individuals eligible to receive a free public education under

subsection (a) may enroll without charge in a summer school program offered under this subsection. Students who are required

under section 1404 to pay tuition to enroll in a school of the defense

dependents’ education system shall also be charged a fee, at a rate

established by the Secretary, to attend a course offered as part of the

summer school program.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1—DEFINITIONS

§ 101. Definitions

In addition to the definitions in sections 1–5 of title 1, the following definitions apply in this title:

(1) The term ‘‘United States’’, in a geographical sense, means

the States and the District of Columbia. The term ‘‘continental

556

United States’’ means the 48 contiguous States and the District

of Columbia.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5—SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

* * * * * * *

§ 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period

of active duty

(a) BONUS AUTHORIZED.—An aviation officer described in subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1, 1989,

and ending on December 31, ø2002¿ 2003, executes a written

agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service for at least

one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as provided in this section.

* * * * * * *

§ 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses

(a) ACCESSION BONUS AUTHORIZED.—(1) A person who is a registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on November

29, 1989, and ending on December 31, ø2002¿ 2003, executes a

written agreement described in subsection (c) to accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for a period of not less

than four years may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the

Secretary concerned, be paid an accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary concerned.

* * * * * * *

§ 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists

(a) SPECIAL PAY AUTHORIZED.—(1) An officer described in subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November 29,

1989, and ending on December 31, ø2002¿ 2003, executes a written

agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one year or

more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary

concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount not to exceed

$15,000 for any 12-month period.

* * * * * * *

§ 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in critically short wartime specialties

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AUTHORITY.—No agreement

under this section may be entered into after December 31, ø2002¿

2003.

§ 302h. Special pay: accession bonus for dental officers

(a) ACCESSION BONUS AUTHORIZED.—(1) A person who is a graduate of an accredited dental school and who, during the period beginning on September 23, 1996, and ending on December 31,

ø2002¿ 2003, executes a written agreement described in subsection

557

(c) to accept a commission as an officer of the armed forces and remain on active duty for a period of not less than four years may,

upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned,

be paid an accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary concerned.

* * * * * * *

§ 302j. Special pay: accession bonus for pharmacy officers

(a) ACCESSION BONUS AUTHORIZED.—A person who is a graduate

of an accredited pharmacy school and who, during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Floyd D. Spence National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 and ending on September 30, 2004, executes a written agreement described in subsection ø(c)¿ (d) to accept a commission as an officer of a uniformed

service and remain on active duty for a period of not less than 4

years may, upon acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession bonus in an amount determined by the

Secretary concerned.

* * * * * * *

§ 305. Special pay: hardship duty pay

(a) * * *

(b) DUTY IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS.—(1) In the case of duty at a location described in paragraph (2) at any time during a month, the

member of a uniformed service performing that duty is entitled to

special pay under this section at a monthly rate of not less than

$240, but not to exceed the monthly rate specified in subsection (a).

For each day of that duty during the month, the member shall receive an amount equal to 1⁄30 of the monthly rate prescribed under

this subsection.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies with respect to duty performed on the

ground in Antarctica or on the Arctic icepack.

ø(b)¿ (c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe

regulations for the provision of hardship duty pay under subsection

(a), including the specific monthly rates at which the special pay

will be available.

* * * * * * *

§ 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to any

reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty reenlistment,

in the armed forces entered into after December 31, ø2002¿ 2003.

* * * * * * *

§ 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the

Selected Reserve

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus may be paid under

this section to any enlisted member who, after December 31,

558

ø2002¿ 2003, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in a

reserve component.

§ 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted

member who, after December 31, ø2002¿ 2003, enlists in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.

* * * * * * *

§ 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve assigned to certain high priority units

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this section

for inactive duty performed after December 31, ø2002¿ 2003.

§ 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for

a reserve obligation agreement entered into after December 31,

ø2002¿ 2003.

* * * * * * *

§ 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or

voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of

the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—A bonus may not be paid

under this section to any person for a reenlistment, enlistment, or

voluntary extension of an enlistment after December 31, ø2002¿

2003.

§ 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus

(a) * * *

(b) BONUS AMOUNTS; PAYMENT.—(1) The amount of a bonus

under this section may not exceed—

(A) ø$5,000¿ $8,000, in the case of a person who enlists for

a period of six years;

(B) ø$2,500¿ $4,000, in the case of a person who, having

never received a bonus under this section, enlists for a period

of three years; and

(C) ø$2,000¿ $3,500, in the case of a person who, having received a bonus under this section for a previous three-year enlistment, reenlists or extends the enlistment for an additional

period of three years.

* * * * * * *

559

(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus may be paid under

this section to any person for an enlistment after December 31,

ø2002¿ 2003.

§ 309. Special pay: enlistment bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) DURATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus shall be paid under this

section with respect to any enlistment in the armed forces made

after December 31, ø2002¿ 2003.

* * * * * * *

§ 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of active duty

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in the

case of officers who, on or before December 31, ø2002¿ 2003, execute the required written agreement to remain in active service.

* * * * * * *

§ 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in the

case of officers who, on or before December 31, ø2002¿ 2003, have

been accepted for training for duty in connection with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval nuclear propulsion

plants.

§ 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) For the purposes of this section, a ‘‘nuclear service year’’ is

any fiscal year beginning before December 31, ø2002¿ 2003.

* * * * * * *

§ 314. Special pay or bonus: qualified enlisted members extending duty at designated locations overseas

(a) COVERED MEMBERS.—This section applies with respect to an

enlisted member of an armed force who—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) has completed a tour of duty (as defined in accordance

with regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned) at a location outside øthe 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia¿ the continental United States that is designated by the

Secretary concerned for the purposes of this section; and

* * * * * * *

560

§ 323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified in a critical military skill

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) MAXIMUM BONUS AMOUNT.—(1) A member may enter into an

agreement under this section, or reenlist or voluntarily extend the

member’s enlistment, more than once to receive a bonus under this

section. However, a member may not receive a total of more than

$200,000 in payments under this section.

(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) on the total bonus payments

that a member may receive under this section does not apply with

respect to an officer who is assigned duties as a health care provider.

(e) CERTAIN MEMBERS INELIGIBLE.—(1) A retention bonus may

not be provided under subsection (a) to a member of the armed

forces who—

ø(1)¿ (A) has completed more than 25 years of active duty;

or

ø(2)¿ (B) will complete the member’s twenty-fifth year of active duty before the end of the period of active duty for which

the bonus is being offered.

(2) The limitations in paragraph (1) do not apply with respect to

an officer who is assigned duties as a health care provider during

the period of active duty for which the bonus is being offered.

* * * * * * *

(i) TERMINATION OF BONUS AUTHORITY.—No bonus may be paid

under this section with respect to any reenlistment, or voluntary

extension of an enlistment, in the armed forces entered into after

December 31, ø2002¿ 2003, and no agreement under this section

may be entered into after that date.

§ 324. Special pay: accession bonus for new officers in critical skills

(a) * * *

(b) DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL OFFICER SKILLS.—ø(1)¿ The Secretary concerned shall designate the critical officer skills for the

purposes of this section. A skill may be designated as a critical officer skill for an armed force under this subsection if—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No agreement under this section may be entered into after December 31, ø2002¿ 2003.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 7—ALLOWANCES

* * * * * * *

§ 403. Basic allowance for housing

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

561

(c) BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING OUTSIDE THE UNITED

STATES.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) In the case of a member who is assigned to duty outside of the

United States, the location or the circumstances of which make it

necessary that the member be reassigned under the conditions of

low-cost or no-cost permanent change of station or permanent

change of assignment, the member may be treated as if the member

were not reassigned if the Secretary concerned determines that it

would be inequitable to base the member’s entitlement to, and

amount of, a basic allowance for housing on the cost of housing in

the area to which the member is reassigned.

* * * * * * *

§ 403b. Cost-of-living allowance in the continental United

States

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(6) The term ‘‘continental United States’’ means the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 409. Travel and transportation allowances: house trailers

and mobile homes

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(e) In this section, the term ‘‘continental United States’’ means

the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 411b. Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in connection with leave between consecutive overseas tours

ø(a)(1)¿ (a) ALLOWANCES AUTHORIZED.—Under uniform regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, a member of a uniformed service stationed outside øthe 48 contiguous States and the

District of Columbia¿ the continental United States who is ordered

to a consecutive tour of duty at the same duty station or who is

ordered to make a change of permanent station to another duty

station outside øthe 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia¿ the continental United States may be paid travel and

transportation allowances in connection with authorized leave from

his last duty station to a place approved by the Secretary concerned, and from that place to his designated post of duty. Such allowances may be paid for the member and for the dependents of

the member who are authorized to, and do, accompany him at his

duty stations.

562

ø(2) Under the regulations referred to in paragraph (1), a member may defer the travel for which the member is paid travel and

transportation allowances under such paragraph until not more

than one year after the date on which the member begins the consecutive tour of duty at the same duty station or reports to another

duty station under the order involved, as the case may be. If the

member is unable to undertake the travel before the end of such

one-year period as a result of duty in connection with a contingency

operation, the member may defer the travel for one additional year

beginning on the date the duty of the member in connection with

the contingency operation ends.¿

(b) AUTHORITY TO DEFER TRAVEL; LIMITATIONS.—(1) Under the

regulations referred to subsection (a), a member may defer the travel

for which the member is paid travel and transportation allowances

under this section until anytime before the completion of the consecutive tour at the same duty station or the completion of the tour

of duty at the new duty station under the order involved, as the case

may be.

(2) If a member is unable to undertake the travel before expiration

of the deferral period under paragraph (1) because of duty in connection with a contingency operation, the member may defer the

travel until not more than one year after the date on which the

member’s duty in connection with the contingency operation ends.

ø(b) The allowances¿ (c) LIMITATION ON ALLOWANCE RATE.— prescribed under this section may not exceed the rate authorized

under section 404(d) of this title. Authorized travel under this section is performed in a duty status.

* * * * * * *

§ 411d. Travel and transportation allowances: transportation

incident to personal emergencies for certain members and dependents

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) In this section, the term ‘‘continental United States’’ means

the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of

members stationed overseas

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

ø(1) The term ‘‘continental United States’’ means the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.

ø(2) The term ‘‘formal education’’ means the following:

ø(A) A secondary education.

ø(B) An undergraduate college education.

ø(C) A graduate education pursued on a full-time basis

at an institution of higher education (as defined in section

101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)).

ø(D) Vocational education pursued on a full-time basis at

a post-secondary vocational institution (as defined in secVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00584 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
563

tion 102(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.

1002(c))).¿

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘formal education’’ means the following:

(A) A secondary education.

(B) An undergraduate college education.

(C) A graduate education pursued on a full-time basis at

an institution of higher education.

(D) Vocational education pursued on a full-time basis at

a postsecondary vocational institution.

(2) The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act

of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).

(3) The term ‘‘postsecondary vocational institution’’ has the

meaning given that term in section 102(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(c)).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 19—ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

§ 1007. Deductions from pay

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) The amount of any damage, or cost of repairs, to arms or

equipment caused by the abuse or negligence of a member of the

øArmy or the Air Force¿ Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, who had the care of, or was using, the property

when it was damaged, shall be deducted from his pay.

* * * * * * *

(i)(1) There shall be deducted each month from the pay of each

enlisted member, warrant officer, and limited duty officer of the

armed forces on active duty øan amount (determined under paragraph (3)) not to exceed $1.00.¿ an amount equal to $1.00 and such

additional amount as may be determined under paragraph (3).

* * * * * * *

(3) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the

Armed Forces Retirement Home Board, shall determine from time

to time øthe amount¿ the additional amount to be deducted under

paragraph (1) from the pay of enlisted members, warrant officers,

and limited duty officers on the basis of the financial needs of the

Armed Forces Retirement Home. øThe amount¿ The additional

amount to be deducted may be fixed at different amounts on the

basis of grade or length of service, or both.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 8003 OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

SEC. 8003. PAYMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE FEDERALLY CONNECTED CHILDREN.

(a) * * *

564

(b) BASIC SUPPORT PAYMENTS AND PAYMENTS WITH RESPECT TO

FISCAL YEARS IN WHICH INSUFFICIENT FUNDS ARE APPRO- PRIATED.—(1) * * *

(2) BASIC SUPPORT PAYMENTS FOR HEAVILY IMPACTED LOCAL

EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(H) ELIGIBILITY FOR HEAVILY IMPACTED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES AFFECTED BY PRIVATIZATION OF MILITARY HOUSING.—

(i) ELIGIBILITY.—For any fiscal year beginning with

fiscal year 2003, a heavily impacted local educational

agency that received a basic support payment under

subparagraph (A) for the prior fiscal year, but is ineligible for such payment for the current fiscal year under

subparagraph (B) or (C), as the case may be, by reason

of the conversion of military housing units to private

housing described in clause (iii), shall be deemed to

meet the eligibility requirements under subparagraph

(B) or (C), as the case may be, for the period during

which the housing units are undergoing such conversion.

(ii) AMOUNT OF PAYMENT.—The amount of a payment to a heavily impacted local educational agency

for a fiscal year by reason of the application of clause

(i), and calculated in accordance with subparagraph

(D) or (E) (as the case may be), shall be based on the

number of children in average daily attendance in the

schools of such agency for the fiscal year.

(iii) CONVERSION OF MILITARY HOUSING UNITS TO

PRIVATE HOUSING DESCRIBED.—For purposes of clause

(i), ‘‘conversion of military housing units to private

housing’’ means the conversion of military housing

units to private housing units pursuant to subchapter

IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, or

pursuant to any other related provision of law.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 9 OF THE RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL

SCHOOL LUNCH ACT

NUTRITIONAL AND OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 9. (a) * * *

(b)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Any child who is a member of a household whose income, at

the time the application is submitted, is at an annual rate which

does not exceed the applicable family size income level of the income eligibility guidelines for free lunches, as determined under

paragraph (1), shall be served a free lunch. Any child who is a

member of a household whose income, at the time the application

565

is submitted, is at an annual rate greater than the applicable family size income level of the income eligibility guidelines for free

lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), but less than or equal

to the applicable family size income level of the income eligibility

guidelines for reduced price lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), shall be served a reduced price lunch. The price charged

for a reduced price lunch shall not exceed 40 cents. For the one-year

period beginning on the date of the enactment of this sentence, the

amount of a basic allowance provided under section 403 of title 37,

United States Code, on behalf of an individual who is a member of

the uniformed services for housing that is acquired or constructed

under the authority of subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10,

United States Code, or any other related provision of law, shall not

be considered to be income for purposes of determining the eligibility

of a child of the individual for free or reduced price lunches under

this Act.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 3—PERSONNEL

Sec.

301. Federal recognition of enlisted members.

* * * * * * *

ø327. General courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.

ø328. Special courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.

ø329. Summary courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.

ø330. Confinement instead of fine.

ø331. Dismissal or dishonorable discharge.

ø332. Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses.

ø333. Execution of process and sentence.¿

327. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: convening authority.

* * * * * * *

§ 326. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: composition, jurisdiction, and procedures

In the National Guard not in Federal service, there are general,

special, and summary courts-martial constituted like similar courts

of the Army and the Air Force. They have the jurisdiction and powers, except as to punishments, and shall follow the forms and procedures, provided for those courts. Punishments shall be as provided by the laws of the respective States and Territories, Puerto

Rico, and the District of Columbia.

ø§ 327. General courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service

ø(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general courtsmartial may be convened by the President or by the governor of a

State or Territory, Puerto Rico or by the commanding general of

the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

ø(b) A general court-martial may sentence to—

ø(1) a fine of not more than $200;

ø(2) forfeiture of pay and allowances;

566

ø(3) a reprimand;

ø(4) dismissal or dishonorable discharge;

ø(5) reduction of a noncommissioned officer to the ranks; or

ø(6) any combination of these punishments.

ø§ 328. Special courts-martial of National Guard not in

Federal service

ø(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary

air base, or other place where troops are on duty, or of a brigade,

regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, separate squadron, or

other detached command, may convene special courts-martial. Special courts-martial may also be convened by superior authority.

ø(b) A special court-martial may not try a commissioned officer.

ø(c) A special court-martial has the same powers of punishment

as a general court-martial, except that a fine imposed by a special

court-martial may not be more than $100 for a single offense.

ø§ 329. Summary courts-martial of National Guard not in

Federal service

ø(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary

air base, or other place where troops are on duty, or of a regiment,

wing, group, detached battalion, detached squadron, detached company, or other detachment, may convene a summary court-martial

consisting of one commissioned officer. The proceedings shall be informal.

ø(b) A summary court-martial may sentence to a fine of not more than $25 for a single offense, to forfeiture of pay and allowances,

and to reduction of a noncommissioned officer to the ranks.

ø§ 330. Confinement instead of fine

øIn the National Guard not in Federal service, a court-martial

may, instead of imposing a fine, sentence to confinement for not

more than one day for each dollar of the authorized fine.

ø§ 331. Dismissal or dishonorable discharge

øIn the National Guard not in Federal service, no sentence of

dismissal or dishonorable discharge may be executed until it is approved by the governor of the State or Territory, Puerto Rico, or

whichever is concerned, or, in the case of the National Guard of the

District of Columbia, by its commanding general.

ø§ 332. Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses

øIn the National Guard not in Federal service, the president of

a court-martial or a summary court officer may—

ø(1) issue a warrant for the arrest of any accused person

who, having been served with a warrant and a copy of the

charges, disobeys a written order by the convening authority to

appear before the court;

ø(2) issue subpenas duces tecum and other subpenas;

ø(3) enforce by attachment the attendance or witnesses and

the production of books and papers; and

ø(4) sentence for refusal to be sworn or to answer, as provided in actions before civil courts.

567

ø§ 333. Execution of process and sentence

øIn the National Guard not in Federal service, the processes and

sentences of its courts-martial shall be executed by the civil officers

prescribed by the laws of the States concerned. In a State where

no provision is made for executing those processes and sentences,

and in the Territories, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia,

the process or sentence shall be executed by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, who shall make a return to the military

officer issuing the process or the court imposing the sentence.¿

§ 327. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: convening authority

(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general, special,

and summary courts-martial may be convened as provided by the

laws of the States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of

Columbia.

(b) In addition to convening authorities as provided under subsection (a), in the National Guard not in Federal service—

(1) general courts-martial may be convened by the President;

(2) special courts-martial may be convened—

(A) by the commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post,

camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place where

troops are on duty; or

(B) by the commanding officer of a division, brigade,

regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, separate squadron, or other detached command; and

(3) summary courts-martial may be convened—

(A) by the commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post,

camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place where

troops are on duty; or

(B) by the commanding officer of a division, brigade,

regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, detached squadron, detached company, or other detachment.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

§ 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities

for civilian youth

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) MATCHING FUNDS REQUIRED.—The amount of assistance

provided under this section to a State program of the National

Guard Challenge Program may not exceed—

ø(1) for fiscal year 1998, 75 percent of the costs of operating

the State program during that year;

ø(2) for fiscal year 1999, 70 percent of the costs of operating

the State program during that year;

ø(3) for fiscal year 2000, 65 percent of the costs of operating

the State program during that year; and

568

ø(4) for fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year, 60

percent of the costs of operating the State program during that

year.¿

(d) MATCHING FUNDS REQUIRED.—The amount of assistance provided under this section to a State program of the National Guard

Challenge Program for a fiscal year may not exceed 75 percent of

the costs of operating the State program during that fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1896 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

MEDICARE SUBVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR MILITARY

RETIREES

SEC. 1896. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(k) EVALUATION AND REPORTS.— (1) * * *

ø(2) REPORT ON EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF DEMONSTRA- TION PROJECT.—Not later than 6 months after the date of the

submission of the final report by the Comptroller General of

the United States under paragraph (1), the administering Secretaries shall submit to Congress a report containing their recommendation as to— ø(A) whether there is a cost to the health care program

under this title in conducting the demonstration project,

and whether the demonstration project could be expanded

without there being a cost to such health care program or

to the Federal Government;

ø(B) whether to extend the demonstration project or

make the project permanent; and

ø(C) whether the terms and conditions of the project

should be continued (or modified) if the project is extended

or expanded.¿

SECTION 4202 OF THE CLINGER-COHEN ACT OF 1996

SEC. 4202. APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO CERTAIN

COMMERCIAL ITEMS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The authority to issue solicitations for purchases of commercial items in excess of the simplified acquisition

threshold pursuant to the special simplified procedures authorized

by section 2304(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, section

303(g)(1) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act

of 1949, and section 31(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended by this section, shall expire January 1, ø2003¿

2004. Contracts may be awarded pursuant to solicitations that

have been issued before such authority expires, notwithstanding

the expiration of such authority.

569

SECTION 4 OF THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL

PROCUREMENT POLICY ACT

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(11) The term ‘‘simplified acquisition threshold’’ means

$100,000, except that such amount may be adjusted by the Administrator every five years to the amount equal to $100,000 in

constant fiscal year 2002 dollars (rounded to the nearest

$10,000).

* * * * * * *

SECTION 553 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

SEC. 553. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL CHARGES OR

FEES FOR ATTENDANCE AT CERTAIN ACADEMIES.

(a) * * *

(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition specified in subsection (a) shall

not apply with respect to any item or service provided to cadets or

midshipmen at an academy named in subsection (c) for which a

charge or fee is imposed as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

øThe Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Transportation, as

the case shall be, shall notify Congress of any change made by an

academy in the amount of a charge or fee authorized under this

subsection.¿

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2000

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle H—Matters Relating to Recruiting

* * * * * * *

SEC. 573. ARMY COLLEGE FIRST PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

(b) DELAYED ENTRY WITH ALLOWANCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.—

Under the pilot program, the Secretary may—

(1) * * *

(2) subject to paragraph (2) of subsection (d) and except as

provided in paragraph (3) of that subsection, pay an allowance

to a person accepted for enlistment under paragraph (1)(A) for

each month of the period during which that person is enrolled

in and pursuing a program described in paragraph (1)(B).

* * * * * * *

570

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH

STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1305. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS

DESTRUCTION.

No fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, and no

funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs

after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for planning, design, or construction of a chemical weapons

destruction facility in Russia until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a certification that there has been— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) a demonstrated commitment from the international community to fund and build infrastructure needed to support and

operate the facilityø.¿.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND

LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—Using amounts appropriated

pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section

2403(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and

carry out military construction projects for the installations and locations inside the United States, and in the amounts, set forth in

the following table:

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States

Agency Installation or location Amount

Chemical Demilitarization ............................ Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky ø$254,030,000¿

$290,325,000

*******

Total ............................................. ø$711,950,000¿

$748,245,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2405. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN

FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROJECTS.

(a) * * *

(b) LIMITATION OF TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.—

Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 of

title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section

2401 of this Act may not exceed—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) ø$231,230,000¿ $267,525,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2401(a) for the construction of a

571

chemical demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot,

Kentucky).

* * * * * * *

SECTION 516 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 516. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) NO COST TO RECIPIENT.—The presentation of a flag under

øhis section¿ this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.

* * * * * * *

MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936

* * * * * * *

TITLE XI—FEDERAL SHIP MORTGAGE INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1104A. (a)***

* * * * * * *

(d)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(4) The Secretary may obtain independent analysis of an application for a guarantee or commitment to guarantee under this title.

* * * * * * *

(f) The Secretary shall charge and collect from the obligor such

amounts as he may deem reasonable for the investigation of applications for a guarantee (including for obtaining independent analysis under subsection (d)(4)), for the appraisal of properties offered

as security for a guarantee, for the issuance of commitments, for

services in connection with the escrow fund authorized by section

1108 and for the inspection of such properties during construction,

reconstruction, or reconditioning: Provided, That such charges shall

not aggregate more than one-half of 1 per centum of the original

principal amount of the obligations to be guaranteed.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XII—WAR RISK INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1205. (a)***

* * * * * * *

(c) INSURANCE OF VESSELS IN SUPPORT OF NATO-APPROVED OPERATIONS.—(1) Upon request made under subsection (b), the Secretary may provide insurance for a vessel, regardless of the country

in which the vessel is registered and the citizenship of its owners,

that is supporting a military operation approved by the North Atlantic Council, including a vessel that is not operating under contract with a department or agency of the United States.

572

(2) If a vessel is insured under paragraph (1) in response to a request made pursuant to an international agreement providing for

the sharing among nations of the risks involved in mutual or joint

operations, the Secretary of Transportation, with the concurrence of

the Secretary of State, may seek from another nation that is a party

to such agreement a commitment to indemnify the United States for

any amounts paid by the United States for claims against such insurance.

(3) Amounts received by the United States as indemnity from a

nation pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be deposited into the insurance fund created under section 1208.

(4) Any obligation of a department or agency of the United States

to indemnify the Secretary or the insurance fund for any claim

against insurance provided under this subsection is extinguished to

the extent of any indemnification received from a nation pursuant

to paragraph (2) with respect to the claim.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

PART III—EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

Subpart D—Pay and Allowances

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 53—PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS

* * * * * * *

§ 5343. Prevailing rate determinations; wage schedules;

night differentials

(a) * * *

(b) The Office of Personnel Management shall schedule full-scale

wage surveys every ø2 years¿ 3 years and shall schedule interim

surveys to be conducted between each 2 consecutive full-scale wage

surveys. The Office may schedule more frequent surveys when conditions so suggestø.¿, based on criteria developed by the Office.

(c) The Office of Personnel Management, by regulation, shall prescribe practices and procedures for conducting wage surveys, analyzing wage survey data, developing and establishing wage schedules and rates, and administering the prevailing rate system. The

regulations shall provide— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) for proper differentials, as determined by the Office, for

duty involving unusually severe working conditions or unusuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00594 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
573

ally severe hazards, and for any hardship or hazard related to

asbestos, such differentials shall be determined by applying occupational safety and health standards consistent with the permissible exposure limit promulgated by the Secretary of Labor

under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970;

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 55—PAY ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER V—PREMIUM PAY

* * * * * * *

§ 5545. Night, standby, irregular, and hazardous duty differential

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) The Office shall establish a schedule or schedules of pay differentials for duty involving unusual physical hardship or hazard,

and for any hardship or hazard related to asbestos, such differentials shall be determined by applying occupational safety and health

standards consistent with the permissible exposure limit promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970. Under such regulations as the Office may prescribe, and for such minimum periods as it determines appropriate,

an employee to whom chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53

of this title applies is entitled to be paid the appropriate differential for any period in which he is subjected to physical hardship or

hazard not usually involved in carrying out the duties of his position. However, the pay differential—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IX—SEVERANCE PAY AND BACK PAY

* * * * * * *

§ 5595. Severance pay

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(4) This subsection applies with respect to severance pay payable

under this section for separations taking effect on or after February

10, 1996, and before October 1, ø2003¿ 2006.

* * * * * * *

Subpart G—Insurance and Annuities

* * * * * * *

574

CHAPTER 89—HEALTH INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

§ 8905a. Continued coverage

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(4)(A)***

(B) This paragraph shall apply with respect to any individual

whose continued coverage is based on a separation occurring on or

after the date of enactment of this paragraph and before—

(i) October 1, ø2003¿ 2006; or

(ii) February 1, ø2004¿ 2007, if specific notice of such separation was given to such individual before October 1, ø2003¿

2006.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 90—LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

§ 9001. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter:

(1) EMPLOYEE.—The term ‘‘employee’’ means—

(A) * * *

(B) an individual described in section 2105(e); øand¿

(C) an individual employed by the Tennessee Valley

Authorityø,¿; and

(D) an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of Defense described in section

2105(c),

but does not include an individual employed by the government of the District of Columbia.

* * * * * * *

§ 9002. Availability of insurance

(a) * * *

(b) DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY REGARDING NONAPPROPRIATED

FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES.—The Secretary of Defense may determine that a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of Defense is covered under this chapter or is covered under

an alternative long-term care insurance program.

ø(b)¿ (c) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—Long-term care insurance

may not be offered under this chapter unless—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c)¿ (d) DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT.—As a condition for obtaining long-term care insurance coverage under this chapter based

on one’s status as a qualified relative, an applicant shall provide

documentation to demonstrate the relationship, as prescribed by

the Office.

575

ø(d)¿ (e) UNDERWRITING STANDARDS.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(e)¿ (f) GUARANTEED RENEWABILITY.—The benefits and coverage

made available to eligible individuals under any insurance contract

under this chapter shall be guaranteed renewable (as defined by

section 7A(2) of the model regulations described in section

7702B(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), including the

right to have insurance remain in effect so long as premiums continue to be timely made. However, the authority to revise premiums under this chapter shall be available only on a class basis

and only to the extent otherwise allowable under section 9003(b).

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992

SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the Secretary

of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates at

the close of fiscal year ø2002¿ 2003.

* * * * * * *

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1997

* * * * * * *

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND

LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—Using amounts appropriated

pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section

2406(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in paragraphs

(2) and (3) of section 2406(b), other amounts appropriated pursuant

to authorizations enacted after this Act for the projects, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and carry out military

construction projects for the installations and locations inside the

United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:

576

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States

Agency Installation or location Amount

Chemical Demilitarization Program ............ Pueblo Chemical Activity, Colorado .............................................. ø$203,500,000¿

$261,000,000

Defense Finance & Accounting Service ....... Charleston, South Carolina ........... $6,200,000

*******

Total: ............................................ ø$549,954,000¿

$607,454,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

(a) * * *

(b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.—

Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 of

title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section

2401 of this Act may not exceed—

(1) * * *

(2) ø$203,500,000¿ $261,000,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2401(a) of this Act for the construction of a chemical demilitarization facility at Pueblo Army

Depot, Colorado); and

* * * * * * *

SECTION 501 OF THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS

ASSISTANCE ACT

SEC. 501. USE OF UNUTILIZED AND UNDERUTILIZED PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND REAL PROPERTY TO ASSIST THE HOMELESS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN PROPERTY DURING EMERGENCIES.—The screening requirements and other provisions of this

section shall not apply to any property that is excess property or surplus property or that is described as unutilized or underutilized

property if the property is subject to a request for conveyance or use

for the purpose of directly supporting activities in response to—

(1) a war or national emergency declared in accordance with

the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.); or

(2) an emergency or major disaster declared in accordance

with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

ø(i)¿ (j) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

577

SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT

SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) TRANSFER AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION

OR PROVISION OF MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary may enter into an agreement to transfer

by deed real property or facilities located at or near an installation

closed or to be closed under this title with any person who agrees,

in exchange for the real property or facilities, to transfer to the

Secretary housing units that are constructed or provided by the

person and located at or near a military installation at which there

is a shortage of suitable housing to meet the requirements of members of the Armed Forces and their dependents. øThe Secretary

may not select real property for transfer under this paragraph if

the property is identified in the redevelopment plan for the installation as items essential to the reuse or redevelopment of the installation.¿

* * * * * * *

SECTION 2914 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND

REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990

SEC. 2914. SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR REALIGNMENTS AND CLOSURES FOR 2005 ROUND;

COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL INSTALLATION FOR CLOSURE.—Notwithstanding paragraph (3),

the decision of the Commission to add a military installation

to the Secretary’s list of installations recommended for closure

must be unanimous, and at least two members of the Commission must have visited the installation during the period of the

Commission’s review of the list.

ø(4)¿ (5) TESTIMONY BY SECRETARY.—The Commission shall

invite the Secretary to testify at a public hearing, or a closed

hearing if classified information is involved, on any proposed

change by the Commission to the Secretary’s recommendations.

ø(5)¿ (6) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.—The Comptroller

General report required by section 2903(d)(5)(B) analyzing the

recommendations of the Secretary and the selection process in

2005 shall be transmitted to the congressional defense committees not later than July 1, 2005.

* * * * * * *

578

ACT OF AUGUST 22, 1972

(Public Law 92–402)

AN ACT To authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 1973 for certain maritime

programs of the Department of Commerce, and for related purposes.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 4. If, after consideration of such comments and views as are

received pursuant to section 3(c), the Secretary finds that the use

of Liberty ships proposed by a State will not violate any Federal

law, contribute to degradation of the marine environment, create

undue interference with commercial fishing or navigation, and is

not frivolous, he may transfer without consideration to the State all

right, title, and interest of the United States in and to any Liberty

ships which are available for transfer under this Act if—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) the transfer would be at no cost to the Government (except for any financial assistance provided under section 7) with

the State taking delivery of such obsolete ships at fleetside of

the National Defense Reserve Fleet in an ‘‘as is-where is’’ condition.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 7. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE TO PREPARE TRANSFERRED

SHIP.

(a) ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary, subject to the availability of appropriations, may provide, to any State to which an obsolete ship is transferred under this Act, financial assistance to prepare the ship for use as an artificial reef, including for— (1) environmental remediation;

(2) towing; and

(3) sinking.

(b) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary shall determine the

amount of assistance under this section with respect to an obsolete

ship based on—

(1) the total amount available for providing assistance under

this section;

(2) the benefit achieved by providing assistance for that ship;

and

(3) the cost effectiveness of disposing of the ship by transfer

under this Act and provision of assistance under this section,

compared to other disposal options for the vessel.

(c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary—

(1) shall require a State seeking assistance under this section

to provide cost data and other information determined by the

Secretary to be necessary to justify and document the assistance; and

(2) may require a State receiving such assistance to comply

with terms and conditions necessary to protect the environment

and the interests of the United States.

SEC. ø7¿ 8. For purposes of sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, the term ‘‘obsolete ship’’ means any vessel owned by the Department of Transportation that has been determined to be of insufficient value for

commercial or national defense purposes to warrant its mainteVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00600 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
579

nance and preservation in the national defense reserve fleet and

has been designated as an artificial reef candidate.

* * * * * * *

(580)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

While we strongly support the overall defense authorization bill,

we would like to express our views on the wisdom of the nuclear

policy that was adopted and some of the amendments on this subject that were not. We agree with the bill’s provision requiring that

the Department of Defense provide the detailed force structure

plan that should have been part of the administration’s Nuclear

Posture Review. We also are pleased that two amendments offered

by Mr. Allen were accepted by the committee. The National Academy of Sciences’ studies called for by those amendments will help

Congress and the Department of Defense understand the shortand long-term effects of the possible use of nuclear earthpenetrators and nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptors. Previous effect studies may not reflect all current information and any

future decision about the utility of these weapons must take their

effects into account.

We are disappointed, however, that the sense of congress contained in Section 1021 was not modified as proposed in the amendment by Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Allen. Further, we believe the

amendments offered by Mr. Spratt and Mr. Allen prohibiting the

development or deployment of nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptors and by Mr. Spratt requiring Congressional notification in

advance of any future underground nuclear test would have improved the quality of our nuclear policy and the strength of the

U.S. negotiating position with Russia and others on security issues.

We all agree that nuclear deterrence remains a critical component

of U.S. national security and that the United States should maintain sufficient nuclear forces to execute its Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). The amendments offered, however, would

have improved the chairman’s mark in three critical ways.

First, the Tauscher-Allen sense of Congress amendment would

have retained the President’s flexibility in his current negotiations

with Russia by removing a minimum requirement of operationallydeployed weapons at 1,700. The amendment would have allowed

him to go lower than that figure if he negotiated a bilateral agreement to that effect. U.S. security is enhanced by encouraging Russia to eliminate as many nuclear weapons as possible. For our own

purposes, retaining a large ‘‘responsive force’’ of non-operationally

deployed nuclear weapons well above the levels required by the

SIOP is counter-productive and costly. It encourages Russia to retain larger stockpiles than it otherwise would and supports the rationale for nuclear build-up of other states like China which are assessing the appropriate size of their nuclear force.

Second, both the Tauscher-Allen amendment and the SprattAllen amendment speak to the need for caution in expanding applications of nuclear use. The Tauscher-Allen sense of Congress would

have focused our policy for countering the very real threat of hard

581

and deeply-buried targets on advanced conventional weapons and

enhanced intelligence. The amendment would not have ruled out

the use of existing nuclear capabilities, but highlighted that the

focus of scientific research and development should be on non-nuclear capabilities first, given the collateral damage involved and

the destabilizing potential of using tactical nuclear options. Similarly, the Spratt prohibition of nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptors would have put Congress on record against an option dismissed twenty years ago when the Reagan administration launched

the Strategic Defense Initiative. We don’t believe the public would

support such nuclear use and this is not an option we should be

advocating in any missile defense program.

Finally, the Spratt amendment on Congressional notification before the conduct of any future underground nuclear test would have

provided critical oversight of any potential change in administration policy. If the administration chooses to resume testing, Congress should have an opportunity to investigate why the test is necessary and the implications of conducting it. The twelve-month notification was designed to accommodate the authorization bill cycle

and does not tie the administration’s hands in any way, as the current test readiness posture is 24–36 months. DOE officials, in fact,

indicate that it will cost tens of millions of dollars and take at least

two years to reduce this to 18 months. Congress has a duty to oversee our deterrence and defense capability; this amendment would

have strengthened our ability to do so.

We all agree on the need to maintain U.S. national security and

the deterrent capability of our nuclear forces. These amendments

would have enhanced both. We look forward to opportunities on the

House floor and in the future to continue to advance these goals.

IKE SKELTON.

JOHN SPRATT.

LANE EVANS.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

MARTY MEEHAN.

TOM ALLEN.

LORETTA SANCHEZ.

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER.

ROBERT A. BRADY.

ROBERT E. ANDREWS.

BARON P. HILL.

JIM LANGEVIN.

RICK LARSEN.

ADAM SMITH.

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD.

(582)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

As the Committee marked up the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the matters put before the members

were appropriate for our consideration with one glaring exception,

Title XIV concerning the Utah Test and Training Range.

We believe that every Member of the House has a stake in the

committee process. If any issue under the jurisdiction of the Armed

Services Committee were to be added to the Chairman’s mark in

another committee, the Armed Services Committee members would

be right to object in the most strenuous terms.

That’s why we feel that the inclusion of title XIV in the chairman’s mark was a procedural foul.

First, when this language was previously introduced as legislation (H.R. 3035–106th Congress and H.R. 2488–107th Congress), it

was referred solely to the Resources Committee. Its lack of success

there is not because it did not have a strong champion or lacked

exposure. It had both but has not passed the House.

Second, language this important and comprehensive deserves one

or more hearings in this committee. It has had none.

Third, the language was inserted into the Chairman’s mark and

not exposed to the regular amendment process. We all know bill

language is more easily adopted when it is included in the mark,

rather than when it is added by amendment.

As to the substance of this legislation, it is important to note

that the proponents of Title XIV and the language of the title have

created confusion as to just what is the Utah Test and Training

Range (UTTR). The UTTR and the adjacent Dugway Proving

Grounds encompass approximately 1.7 million acres withdrawn

from public use and under the administration of the Department

of Defense. Title XIV speaks to not only these 1.7 million acres but

to an additional six million acres of public lands and national forests administered by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture that underlie military airspace for the UTTR.

We believe the following point must be made perfectly clear.

There is no designated or proposed wilderness within the boundaries of the UTTR and the Dugway Proving Grounds. There are

however, 25,000 acres of designated wilderness and several hundred thousand acres of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) on national

forests and public lands beneath military airspace in Utah, and it

is these lands as well as the millions of acres of adjacent public

lands that would be adversely affected by Title XIV.

Even more troubling than that inconsistency and the procedure

used to include Title XIV are the provisions themselves. The military use language of Title XIV is unprecedented and not found in

any other law. Ironically, these provisions set a standard for wilderness management that would provide less protection to the wilderness areas designated by Title XIV than the protections availVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00604 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
583

able to non-designated public lands. Millions of acres of designated

wilderness and millions more acres of public land underlie military

airspace across the United States. None of these lands have or

need the restrictive language that Title XIV would apply to wilderness and public lands in Utah.

Language in Title XIV would strip the authority of the Secretary

of the Interior to determine where and whether facilities and

equipment are placed on public lands within wilderness areas. Another provision allows the Secretary of the Air Force to unilaterally

close or restrict access to wilderness and WSAs outside the boundaries of the UTTR and the Dugway Proving Grounds. These provisions are unprecedented, and no clear rationale has been given to

warrant this change from existing law. Moreover, Title XIV creates

a different standard for access and military use for land in Utah

than is applicable to all other public land areas of the United

States.

Furthermore, Title XIV requires the Secretary of the Interior to

gain the prior concurrence of the Secretary of the Air Force and the

commander-in-chief of the military forces of the State of Utah before developing, maintaining, or revising land use plans required

by Federal law for millions of acres of public lands in Utah. Is it

unwise policy, to say the least, for a Cabinet secretary’s role to be

subordinate to a service secretary and a state military commander.

The bottom line is two fold. All House members have a stake in

preserving the committee process. House rules on committee jurisdiction exist for a reason, and we should abide by them absent

some compelling exceptional justification. None has been provided

here.

Second, it is wrong to ram through any committee contentious

provisions of sweeping scope and substantive import. This wrong

has been exacerbated in this case by the absence of committee

hearings and the legislative legerdemain of embedding a previously

unseen title of the bill in the chairman’s mark.

584

We cannot sanction procedural and substantive transgressions of

this magnitude.

IKE SKELTON.

ROBERT E. ANDREWS.

LANE EVANS.

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER.

MARTY MEEHAN.

VIC SNYDER.

JOHN SPRATT.

SUSAN A. DAVIS.

RICK LARSEN.

SILVESTRE REYES.

JAMES H. MALONEY.

JOHN B. LARSON.

LORETTA SANCHEZ.

BARON P. HILL.

TOM ALLEN.

ROBERT A. BRADY.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY.

ADAM SMITH.

JIM LANGEVIN.

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ.

(585)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE W. TODD AKIN

The Committee’s recently drafted Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization bill contains a number of provisions and initiatives that will greatly benefit our service men and women. These

include initial funding for a joint replacement aircraft for the EA–

6B ‘‘Prowler’’ and funding to initiate a T–45 multi-year procurement contract.

We cannot move quickly enough to replace the EA–6B. Though

the Prowler has served us well for nearly 30 years, all indications

are that 2008 is the target date by which a replacement aircraft

must enter the fleet. If a decision is made this summer, an EA–

18 could readily meet that timeline and at a developmental cost of

approximately $1.6 billion. On the other hand, the years of development necessary to develop the already-accelerated JSF and then

develop a follow-on EA–JSF design indicate that a JSF variant

would not be available until at least 2013, and only at much higher

cost. Knowing this, and given the critical importance of our electronic warfare capabilities, we should not delay further a decision

on replacing the Prowler.

Knowing this, the committee authorized $10 million to support

preliminary risk reduction engineering for an EA–6B replacement.

Given the sustained high operational tempo, and ongoing deterioration, of the Prowler fleet, we cannot move quickly enough toward

a joint follow-on aircraft.

In addition, the committee included $10 million to support a possible multi-year procurement of the Navy’s T–45 ‘‘Goshawk’’ jet

trainer. This is an excellent idea. Given the need to complete modernization of the Navy’s training fleet and the anticipated futureyears funding shortfall in the Navy aviation budget, which becomes

particular difficult beginning in fiscal year 2007, it makes excellent

sense to initiate a three-year procurement contract for T–45s for

fiscal years 2004–06. This would allow us to complete the Navy’s

requirement for 234 T–45s before 2007 and in the process purchase

these aircraft at approximately 25 percent less per unit than if we

did so through the annual budgeting process at eight aircraft per

year.

W. TODD AKIN.

(586)

DISSENTING VIEW OF CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA

MCKINNEY

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2002, H.R. 4546, represents the largest real increase to defense spending since 1966.

This bill contains over $40 billion more spending than last year’s

defense authorization, which too was egregiously large. H.R. 4546

provides for over $383 billion in spending for the Department of

Defense and the weapons programs of the Department of Energy.

Unfortunately this new spending comes at the expense of many

valuable and effective government programs. As the Bush Administration’s tax cut enacted last year has reduced the ability of the

federal government to fully fund many important programs, the

massive increase in defense spending is accompanied by cuts to

programs for job training, drug elimination in public housing, prescription drug benefits, conservation spending, and much more.

Such one-sided spending indicates a misdirected view of our nation’s true national security reflecting a belief that relies on

warfighting capabilities and which neglects the domestic issues and

quality of life that are also essential to a secure nation.

In addition to the singular focus of our national security attention, there are problems within the Pentagon that raise questions

about such immense spending. On September 10, 2001, Defense

Secretary Rumsfeld stated that ‘‘[a]ccording to some estimates, we

cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.’’ Such a lack of financial

accountability not only undermines the integrity of the Pentagon,

it causes severe inefficiencies that cause further financial loss, and

undoubtedly leads to wasteful spending. If there were ever to be activities obscured from the public’s eye, projects pursued without authorization, or other questionable action or spending, how could it

ever be discovered when the level of unaccounted transactions is so

high? In any other arena, either private sector or public, financial

accountability would be insured prior to increasing expenditures,

not the opposite.

Yet the basis for such a large increase in spending is wholly unjustified. The events of September 11, 2001 were a tragedy to the

entire nation. However, the attacks in New York, Pennsylvania,

and Virginia were not prompted by any failure of the United States

military, but instead were the result of a breakdown in our intelligence community. In fact, just this week Yahoo News reported

that CIA Deputy Director of Operation James Pavitt ‘‘dismissed

charges the CIA was caught unaware by September 11 suicide attacks in the United States’’ and that ‘‘[t]he CIA knew the network

led by Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden was planning a major

strike.’’

Similarly, a Washington Post article dated May 3, 2002 stated

‘‘[t]wo months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI agent in Arizona alerted Washington headquarters that several Middle EastVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00608 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
587

erners were training at a U.S. aviation school and recommended

contacting other schools nationwide,’’ and further that ‘‘[l]aw enforcement officials said in retrospect the FBI believes it should

have accelerated the suggested check of U.S. flight schools.’’ The intelligence community has received substantial increases in resources in order to address these shortcomings. As there was no

apparent defense shortcoming, it appears that the increases contained in the defense authorization serve to increase the armed

forces’ ability to wage war in foreign nations, replace regimes such

as Iraq, and accelerate the expansion of war on a worldwide scale.

The increased defense authorization also permits prodigal,

unneeded, and archaic projects and weapons systems to proceed.

One such weapons system is the Crusader, an artillery system

originally intended to defeat Soviet tanks on a large battlefield.

Though it is widely assumed that the U.S. will not confront such

a battle environment, the Army has continued its drive to develop

and procure this weapon. Logistically, this artillery system has

been found to be difficult to transport, and at 40 tons for each the

artillery system and the adjoining resupply vehicle, the Crusader

would be difficult to adhere to the Army’s evolving mobility goals.

In considering the continued pursuit of the Crusader, it is important to note that the prime contractor for this weapon system,

United Defense, is owned by the Carlyle Group, which in turn is

chaired by Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense under

President Ronald Reagan, and which also employs former President George H.W. Bush.

Nonetheless, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has

been reported to be planning to cut this expensive and unnecessary

weapon, thus saving the $475 million earmarked for the Crusader

to be used for other expenditures. I would welcome such an announcement. However, contrary to reports, this defense authorization leads me to believe that the Crusader program will survive.

Included in H.R. 4546 is language that ‘‘directs that there be no

change to the Crusader development schedule, funding or procurement requirements, to include termination.’’ It is unfortunate that,

even when the Pentagon seeks to shelve needless and wasteful programs, this defense authorization and the defense industry are capable of keeping the Crusader and other questionable projects

alive.

Furthermore, this defense authorization charts the course toward

dangerous waters in terms of our nation’s nuclear weapons policy,

the development of missile defense, and environmental stewardship.

Section 1021 of the defense authorization bill details the proposed nuclear policy of the United States, which aptly calls for

sharp reductions in the nation’s nuclear weapons stock. However,

the value of those reductions is lost on the fact that the policy also

calls for the U.S. to ‘‘maintain a responsive force of non-deployed

nuclear weapons for potential contingencies.’’ It is difficult to conceive a contingency where the 1,700 nuclear weapons to which our

stock would be reduced would be insufficient. The maintenance of

such a ready reserve also provokes international concern and would

incur significant future costs to the U.S. in terms of maintenance,

stockpile stewardship and security. Sec. 1021 also encourages the

588

development of new nuclear weapons for the purpose of defeating

hardened and deeply buried targets. This language is an affront to

the Non-Proliferation Treaty that the U.S. has ratified. This provocative section also neglects the physical science that nuclear

weapons would not serve to defeat such buried targets, would have

significant radioactive fallouts, and would hinder U.S. personnel

from conducting damage assessments. It was unfortunate that the

Committee did not pass an amendment offered by Representatives

Ellen Tauscher and Tom Allen that would have improved and removed this dangerous language.

Additionally, Section 1021 urges the Administration to develop a

plan to be able to resume underground nuclear testing within one

year of a decision to conduct such tests. Underground nuclear tests

have not been conducted in the U.S. since September 1992, and

when they have been conducted in other nations, the U.S. has responded with strong rebukes and sanctions. The development of

such a resumption plan is unnecessary, is internationally inflammatory, and is likely not the desire of a majority of Americans. In

sum, Section 1021 sets forth a nuclear weapons policy that is unlikely to insure greater safety for Americans and could result in encouraging other nations to further their own nuclear weapons programs.

With regard to missile defense, H.R. 4546 continues the road to

development of this dangerous and unreliable system. This authorization provides $7.8 billion for missile defense, following on the

nearly $8 billion that was authorized for missile defense last year.

Not only is this an unusually high amount of money to be devoting

to a weapon system of questionable reliability, the need for the

missile shield being sought is not apparent. The CIA’s own National Intelligence Estimate states that North Korea has the greatest and soonest likelihood of attacking the U.S. with a missile, but

that they will be unable to do so before 2015; the same NIE states

that attacks are much more likely using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) via other untraditional routes such as trucks, ships, or

airplanes.

Rather than relying on a missile defense system, which may well

lead America to a false sense of security, missile defense should be

re-shelved, as it was in 1976. Cooperative international arms control and disarmament agreements will be far more effective in advancing peace and security in the years ahead and will cost far less

than a Star Wars type missile shield.

Evidently, the current prevailing concept for missile defense,

known as hit-to-kill, which had garnered the support of many in

this Committee, is not as reliable as had been thought. It was reported a few weeks ago that the Secretary of Defense had given approval to proceed with the study of nuclear-tipped missile defense.

Despite the fact that this concept had already been pursued in the

1960s and 1970s and correctly cancelled, nuclear-tipped missile defense has apparently risen from the dead. An amendment offered

by Representative John Spratt would have prohibited the development of such a missile defense concept. However, the Committee

unfortunately defeated this amendment. While debate in opposition

to the amendment noted the need to provide the Pentagon as much

latitude in pursuing missile defense options, the fact that the atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00610 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
589

mospheric nuclear explosion would cause enormously destructive

electro-magnetic pulses to wreak havoc on both domestic and

space-based electronics, not to mention the horrible human health

impacts from the ensuing radiological fallout, were evidently ignored by a majority of the Committee. Nuclear tipped missile defense was pursued once, and was then cast aside when financial

and other costs were observed to be greater than the benefits. The

Committee should have considered this history when voting on the

amendment, and I find it inevitable that nuclear-tipped missile defense will again find a similar fate.

For a multitude of reasons, the environmental provisions of this

bill are inappropriate and disappointing. The Readiness Subcommittee included in their mark, language that will carve out special exemptions so that the Department of Defense will not have

to adhere to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). First, when the Subcommittee conducted

hearings on these issues, only Administration officials were permitted to testify, and local and state officials and environmental organizations were not provided similar opportunities to share their

viewpoints. With such contentious, wide-ranging, and important

issues under consideration, these stakeholders should have been

given an opportunity to be heard. Second, with regard to the Endangered Species Act, a provision already exists within the law

that would permit the Secretary of Defense to request a waiver

from compliance with the ESA for purposes of national security.

The Defense Department has never made use of this provision, and

with such an avenue for relief currently available, there is no reason that the law should be amended.

Finally, parliamentary rules of Congress provide for sequential

referral to multiple committees for issues that span the jurisdiction

of more than one committee for good reason. In this case, the Resources Committee has jurisdiction over these important environmental laws, and the opportunity for this committee to conduct

hearings on these law changes should not have been circumvented.

In addition to the exemptions of these two important wildlife protection laws, Title XIV of the Chairman’s mark is a very disappointing foray of the Armed Services Committee into the arena

of public lands management. The Committee never conducted hearings on this specific provision. This section releases hundreds of

thousands of acres from Wilderness Study Areas designation, permits unprecedented entry and activity in wilderness areas, cedes

management authority of public lands to the Secretary of the Air

Force and again denies the appropriate jurisdictional oversight of

the Resources Committee. If the intent of Title XIV was to protect

public land and insure emergency access for the military, there is

undoubtedly a more democratic and comprehensive approach that

could have been taken.

In an issue that was addressed by an amendment offered, and

then withdrawn, by Representative Lindsey Graham, the Department of Energy has dangerously discarded the idea of immobilizing

plutonium obtained through the dismantling of Russian and American nuclear weapons. The pursuit of the mixed-oxide (MOX) alternative, whereby the excess plutonium is not encased in a non-reactive, immobile matrix, but instead is processed into a fuel that enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:35 May 07, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00611 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\WAISREPT\HR436.107 txed01 PsN: txed01
590

ergy companies can use in nuclear power generation is unwise. The

safer and more sensible approach to this issue would have been for

the DOE and the Savannah River Site to pursue the immobilization alternative, maintain a set of alternatives in case any proposed

solution proves technically unfeasible, and not to provide a subsidy

to the nuclear industry in the form of this MOX fuel.

As was the case with last year’s authorization consideration,

Representative Loretta Sanchez offered an amendment to permit

service women and female military dependents to obtain privately

funded abortions in overseas military hospitals. In this amendment

medical practitioners in these hospitals who choose not to conduct

such procedures would not have been required to conduct them.

Though the Supreme Court has affirmed a woman’s right to obtain

an abortion, the Committee sees fit to maintain its own discretion

of this constitutional right, and did not approve of this amendment.

It is unfortunate that service women and female dependents must

now choose between seeking abortions that can be unsafe or illegal

in foreign nations, or otherwise forfeit their rights to privacy by the

necessity of informing superior officers when seeking military

transport to a location suitable for abortion procedures.

Though it deeply troubles me that one of the first acts of our

President after declaring this War On Terrorism was to sign an Executive Order denying promised high deployment overtime pay to

our service men and women, the overall mark that was reported

from the Personnel Subcommittee is commendable. The bill provides for a 4.1 percent across-the-board pay raise that aptly recognizes the hard work and dedication of our nation’s service personnel. This pay raise will also serve to aid in the recruitment and

retention of personnel, as the increase is consistently above private

sector pay increases. Additionally, the Personnel mark provides for

higher raises for certain specialties and for non-commissioned officers, thereby improving force strength in essential fields and compensating many of tomorrow’s leaders. Though I have dissented in

this Act, I greatly respect the individual members of our armed

services for their service and sacrifice in the name of our nation.

Additionally, the Personnel Subcommittee included language

that will permit the payment of concurrent receipt for some retired

military personnel who are also disabled veterans. For too long disabled veterans have been forced to choose between their retirement

pay and their well-deserved disability benefits. Though H.R. 4546

provides only for immediate concurrent receipt to veterans who are

rated 60 percent disabled or greater, I believe that the Committee

has made an improvement from the previous ban on concurrent receipt and I hope that the program will continue to be expanded to

provide concurrent receipt to all retired military personnel who are

also disabled veterans. I doubt anyone would question that they

have earned it.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY.

Æ