U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

79–608

" ! SENATE 107TH CONGRESS

2d Session

REPORT

2002

107–151

Calendar No. 370

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

REPORT

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2514]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

MAY 15 (legislative day, MAY 9), 2002.—Ordered to be printed

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

(107th Congress, 2d Session)

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

JACK REED, Rhode Island

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BILL NELSON, Florida

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

JOHN WARNER, Virginia

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

DAVID S. LYLES, Staff Director

JUDITH A. ANSLEY, Republican Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Purpose of the bill .................................................................................................... 1

Committee overview and recommendations .......................................................... 2

Explanation of funding summary .................................................................... 5

Accrual funding of civilian personnel benefits ............................................... 13

Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 17

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 17

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 17

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 17

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 106) ......... 17

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 18

Pilot program on sales of manufactured articles and services of certain Army industrial facilities without regard to availability from

domestic sources (sec. 111) .................................................................... 39

Army Aircraft ............................................................................................ 39

UH–60 Blackhawk (multiyear procurement) ................................... 39

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications .............................................. 39

Aircraft survivability equipment ...................................................... 39

Airborne command and control ......................................................... 40

Avionics support equipment .............................................................. 39

Army Missiles ............................................................................................ 40

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System rocket .............................. 40

Army Ammunition ..................................................................................... 40

50-caliber Saboted Light Armor Penetrator ..................................... 40

155mm high explosive projectiles ..................................................... 41

Wide Area Munition ........................................................................... 41

Bunker Defeat Munition .................................................................... 41

Modern demolition initiators ............................................................. 41

Special equipment for ammunition depots ....................................... 41

Conventional ammunition demilitarization ..................................... 42

Other Army Procurement ......................................................................... 42

Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles .................................................... 42

Heavy armored sedan ........................................................................ 42

Army data distribution system (data radio) .................................... 42

Area common user modification program ........................................ 43

Night vision devices ........................................................................... 43

Combat support medical .................................................................... 43

Training devices, non-system ............................................................ 44

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 44

Navy Aircraft ............................................................................................. 68

F/A–18E/F aircraft ............................................................................. 68

V–22 Osprey aircraft advance procurement .................................... 68

Airborne low frequency sonar ........................................................... 68

Navy joint primary aircraft training system ................................... 69

EA–6B aircraft modifications ............................................................ 70

AV–8B precision targeting pod ......................................................... 71

F/A–18 aircraft modifications ............................................................ 71

P–3 aircraft modifications ................................................................. 71

Fleet aircrew simulator training ....................................................... 72

Navy Weapons ........................................................................................... 72

Hellfire missiles .................................................................................. 72

Weapons industrial facilities ............................................................. 72

Close-in Weapons System modifications .......................................... 72

Gun mount modifications .................................................................. 73

Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition ..................................................... 73

Page

IV

Title I—Procurement—Continued

Subtitle C—Navy Programs—Continued

Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition—Continued

120mm High Explosive Anti-Tank cartridges ................................. 73

155mm High Explosive M795 ........................................................... 73

Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion ......................................................... 73

Future aircraft carrier procurement ................................................. 73

Submarine refueling overhauls ......................................................... 74

Large deck amphibious ship replacement ........................................ 75

Landing craft air cushion service life extension program ............... 75

Other Navy Procurement .......................................................................... 75

Ship integrated condition assessment system ................................. 75

Stainless steel sanitary spaces .......................................................... 76

Electronic warfare program change .................................................. 76

Joint engineering data management information and control system ................................................................................................... 76

SPQ–9B radar .................................................................................... 77

Improving efficiency on ships through food service technology ...... 77

Integrated bridge to improve ship situational awareness .............. 77

Submarine combat control system .................................................... 77

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system ........................................... 78

Submarine training device modifications ......................................... 78

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

Auto test equipment systems ............................................................ 78

Lightweight multi-band satellite terminals ..................................... 78

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 79

C–130J aircraft program (sec. 131) .......................................................... 94

Pathfinder programs (sec. 132) ................................................................ 94

Oversight of acquisition for defense space programs (sec. 133) ..... 95

Leasing of tanker aircraft (sec. 134) ........................................................ 95

Air Force Aircraft ...................................................................................... 96

C–17 aircraft trainers ........................................................................ 96

C–17 aircraft interim contractor support ......................................... 96

EC–130J aircraft program ................................................................. 96

CV–22 Osprey aircraft advance procurement .................................. 97

B–2 Spirit bomber .............................................................................. 98

B–52 bomber ....................................................................................... 98

F–16 aircraft modifications ............................................................... 98

C–5 aircraft avionics modernization program ................................. 98

C–130 aircraft modifications ............................................................. 99

KC–135 aircraft boom operator weapons system trainer ........ 100

Upgrades to Air National Guard targeting pods ............................. 100

Air Force Ammunition .............................................................................. 100

Sensor-fuzed weapon .......................................................................... 100

MJU–52/B infrared countermeasures ............................................... 100

Air Force Missiles ...................................................................................... 101

Minuteman III modifications ............................................................ 101

Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite program ................ 101

Defense Support Program mobile terminal displays ....................... 101

Titan space boosters ........................................................................... 102

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle mission assurance ................ 102

Other Air Force Procurement ................................................................... 102

Spacelift range system (space) .......................................................... 102

Panoramic night vision goggles ......................................................... 102

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 102

Defense-Wide Programs ............................................................................ 110

Global information grid ..................................................................... 110

Avionics enhanced situational awareness ........................................ 110

EC–130J Commando Solo spares ...................................................... 110

SEAL Delivery Vehicles ..................................................................... 111

Multiband Multimission Radios ........................................................ 111

Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher ....................................... 111

Low Profile Night Vision Goggle ....................................................... 111

Modular Integrated Communications Helmet system .................... 112

Special Operations Craft-Riverine .................................................... 112

Advanced night vision system ........................................................... 112

M48 protective masks ........................................................................ 112

M12 decontamination system ............................................................ 113

Page

V

Title I—Procurement—Continued

Subtitle E—Other Matters—Continued

Defense-Wide Programs—Continued

Chemical-Biological Protective Shelter ............................................ 113

Other Items of Interest ............................................................................. 113

Abrams tank program ........................................................................ 113

Accelerated chemical demilitarization .............................................. 114

Chemical demilitarization secondary waste disposal ...................... 114

Acquisition programs at the National Security Agency .................. 115

Advanced Aviation Institutional Training Simulator ..................... 115

Armored Security Vehicle .................................................................. 116

Hydra 70 rocket .................................................................................. 116

Vessels for tactical sealift .................................................................. 117

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................................... 119

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 119

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 119

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 121

Basic seismic research program for support of national requirements

for monitoring nuclear explosions (sec. 211) ....................................... 121

Advanced SEAL Delivery System (sec. 212) ........................................... 121

Army experimentation program regarding design of the Objective

Force (sec. 213) ...................................................................................... 123

Subtitle C—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 123

Annual operational assessments and reviews of ballistic missile defense program (sec. 221) ........................................................................ 123

Report on Midcourse Defense program (sec. 222) ................................... 124

Report on Air-based Boost program (sec. 223) ........................................ 125

Report on Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) program

(sec. 224) ................................................................................................. 126

References to new name for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(sec. 225) ................................................................................................. 126

Subtitle D—Improved Management of Department of Defense Test and

Evaluation Facilities ..................................................................................... 126

Department of Defense Test and Evaluation Resource Enterprise

(sec. 231) ................................................................................................. 128

Transfer of testing funds from program accounts to infrastructure

accounts (sec. 232) ................................................................................. 129

Increased investment in test and evaluation facilities (sec. 233) .......... 130

Uniform financial management system for Department of Defense

test and evaluation facilities (sec. 234) ................................................ 132

Test and evaluation workforce improvements (sec. 235) ....................... 133

Compliance with test and evaluation master plan requirements (sec.

236) ......................................................................................................... 134

Report on implementation of Defense Science Board recommendations (sec. 237) ....................................................................................... 134

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 135

Pilot programs for revitalizing Department of Defense laboratories

(sec. 241) ................................................................................................. 135

Technology transition initiative (sec. 242) .............................................. 136

Encouragement of small business and nontraditional defense contractors to submit proposals potentially beneficial for combating terrorism (sec. 243) ..................................................................................... 138

Vehicle fuel cell program (sec. 244) ......................................................... 139

Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program (sec.

245) ......................................................................................................... 140

Additional Matters of Interest ......................................................................... 141

Science and technology initiatives ........................................................... 141

Merit-based selection procedures ............................................................. 142

Army ........................................................................................................... 143

Science and technology for the Objective Force ............................... 155

Fundamental research for Army transformation ............................ 156

Materials research for the Objective Force ...................................... 156

Applied materials research for the Objective Force ........................ 156

Army missile research ....................................................................... 156

Interactive training technologies ...................................................... 157

Advanced coatings research .............................................................. 157

Fastening and joining research ......................................................... 157

21st Century Truck ............................................................................ 157

Page

VI

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Army—Continued

Advanced manufacturing technology ................................................ 158

Tungsten penetrators ......................................................................... 158

Portable hybrid power systems ......................................................... 158

Landmine detection technologies ...................................................... 158

Environmental restoration technologies ........................................... 158

Geosciences and atmospheric research ............................................. 159

Stationary fuel cell initiative ............................................................ 159

Personal navigation for the Objective Force warrior ...................... 159

Unmanned aerial vehicle data links ................................................. 159

Multi-fuel auxiliary power units ....................................................... 159

Combat vehicle technology ................................................................ 159

Mobile parts hospital ......................................................................... 160

Rapid prototyping ............................................................................... 160

Aircrew coordination training ........................................................... 160

Echelon surveillance and reconnaisance .......................................... 160

Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Demonstration .................. 160

Low-cost interceptor technology ........................................................ 160

Supercluster Distributed Memory Technology ................................ 161

Family of Systems Simulation .......................................................... 161

Advanced Tank Armament System .................................................. 161

Army technology for environmental enhancement .......................... 162

Javelin ................................................................................................. 162

Armored systems modernization—engineering development ......... 162

Joint Simulation System Core Program ........................................... 162

Automatic test equipment development ........................................... 162

Multi-mode top attack threat simulators ......................................... 163

Studies and analyses ......................................................................... 163

Battle Labs cooperative research ...................................................... 163

Aerostat for missile defense .............................................................. 163

Aircraft engine component improvement program .......................... 164

Technology for language training ..................................................... 164

Information Systems Security ........................................................... 164

Navy ........................................................................................................... 164

Robotic countermine technology ........................................................ 178

Marine mammal detection and mitigation ....................................... 178

Corrosion research ............................................................................. 178

Data fusion ......................................................................................... 178

Advanced power systems ................................................................... 179

Polymer composites research ............................................................ 179

Bioenvironmental hazards research ................................................. 179

Navy materials research .................................................................... 179

Electronics research for naval applications ..................................... 179

Low acoustic signature motors and propulsors ............................... 179

Ship service fuel cell technology ....................................................... 179

Unmanned surface vehicles ............................................................... 180

Multifunction antenna systems ........................................................ 180

Laser welding and cutting for ship manufacturing ......................... 180

Ocean modeling research for mine and expeditionary warfare ...... 181

Aviation survivability ........................................................................ 181

Gas turbine engine electric start to reduce ship maintenance ....... 181

Surface vessel torpedo tubes ............................................................. 181

Electromechanical actuators ............................................................. 182

Reducing maintenance by improving brushes on electric motors .. 182

Reducing unspecified development ................................................... 182

Lightweight 155mm howitzer ........................................................... 182

Navy fuel cell technology demonstration ......................................... 183

Facilities improvement ...................................................................... 183

Urban operations environment research .......................................... 183

Duplication of research and development efforts ............................ 184

Power node control centers ................................................................ 184

Initiative to reduce destroyer life cycle costs ................................... 184

Standard missile advanced optical correlator .................................. 184

Submarine combat systems modernization ...................................... 185

Elimination of redundant studies ..................................................... 185

Lightweight torpedo development ..................................................... 186

Page

VII

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Navy—Continued

Outboard system improvements ....................................................... 186

SEARAM ship self-defense system ................................................... 186

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system ........................................... 186

Radar absorbing tiles for ship self-defense ...................................... 187

Navy integrated human resources strategy ..................................... 187

Navy studies and analyses ................................................................ 187

Combating terrorism wargaming and research ............................... 187

F/A–18E/F engine durability improvements .................................... 188

Precision target aided navigation ..................................................... 188

Improving information provided to the warfighter ......................... 188

Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems ................. 188

Interoperability support of the warfighter ....................................... 189

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Tactical Control System ........................ 189

Modeling and simulation ................................................................... 189

Maritime manufacturing technology ................................................ 190

Air Force .................................................................................................... 190

Aerospace materials manufacturing and research .......................... 204

Lithium ion batteries for unmanned vehicles .................................. 204

Wireless ISR technology .................................................................... 204

Space technology research ................................................................. 204

Cyber security research ..................................................................... 204

Aluminum aerostructures .................................................................. 205

Crew systems and personnel research ............................................. 205

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in controlled airspace ........................... 205

Advanced spacecraft technology ........................................................ 206

Advanced Wideband System satellite program ............................... 206

Low-cost autonomous attack system ................................................ 207

B–2 Spirit bomber .............................................................................. 207

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

Space-based Infrared System-High component ............................... 208

Deployable oxygen systems ............................................................... 208

Integrated medical information technology system ......................... 208

Fixed aircrew standardized seats ..................................................... 209

Aircrew rescue signaling systems ..................................................... 209

Common low observable verification system ................................... 209

Maglev upgrade program ................................................................... 210

Joint directed energy combat operations and employment ............ 210

Air Force studies and analyses ......................................................... 210

Theater airborne reconnaissance system improvements ................ 210

Global Positioning System Jammer Detection and Location .......... 210

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

Multi-sensor command and control constellation ............................ 211

Global Positioning System satellite program ................................... 212

Spacelift range system ....................................................................... 213

Manufacturing technologies .............................................................. 213

Defense-wide .............................................................................................. 213

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency fundamental research .............................................................................................. 228

University research initiatives .......................................................... 229

Nanotechnology incentive fund ......................................................... 229

Medical free electron laser ................................................................ 229

Computing systems and communications technology ..................... 230

Chemical-Biological Defense Program funding ................................ 230

Tactical technology ............................................................................. 232

Materials and electronics technology ............................................... 232

Weapons of mass destruction defeat technology .............................. 232

Combating Terrorism Technology Support Working Group ........... 232

Wafer-scale planarization technology ............................................... 233

Bottom Anti-Reflective Coatings for circuit boards ......................... 233

Nanophotonics systems fabrication facility ...................................... 233

Wide-bandgap semiconductor ............................................................ 233

Vehicle fuel cell program ................................................................... 233

Technology transition initiatives ...................................................... 234

Instructional technologies for first responders ................................ 234

Unexploded ordnance remediation ................................................... 235

Page

VIII

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Defense-wide—Continued

Ballistic missile defense systems engineering ................................. 235

Ballistic missile defense test and evaluation ................................... 235

Arrow ................................................................................................... 235

High power discriminator radar ....................................................... 235

Midcourse systems engineering and integration ............................. 236

Small kill vehicle technology development ...................................... 237

Sea-based boost defense ..................................................................... 237

Space-based boost defense ................................................................. 237

Airborne Laser .................................................................................... 237

Airborne Infrared Surveillance system ............................................ 237

Russian-American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) solar arrays ... 238

Technical studies and analyses ......................................................... 238

Information security scholarship program ....................................... 239

Information security .......................................................................... 239

National Imagery and Mapping Agency feature level database .... 239

Intelligent spatial technologies ......................................................... 239

Broadcast-Request Imagery Technology Experiment ...................... 240

Laser additive manufacturing initiative .......................................... 240

Advanced technologies for special operations .................................. 240

Joint Threat Warning System ........................................................... 241

Embedded Integrated Broadcast Service Receivers ........................ 241

Test and evaluation science and technology program ..................... 241

Central test and evaluation investment program ........................... 241

Live fire test and training ................................................................. 242

Other Items of Interest ............................................................................. 242

Crusader artillery system .................................................................. 242

Future launch and spacelift concepts ............................................... 242

Hybrid engine military vehicles ........................................................ 243

Magdalena Ridge Observatory .......................................................... 244

Patents and licensing ......................................................................... 244

National Consortium for Biodefense ................................................. 245

Patriot Advanced Capability-3 .......................................................... 245

Rotorcraft external airbag protection system .................................. 245

Sensor instrumentation ..................................................................... 246

Space-based Laser .............................................................................. 246

Treatment of decompression sickness .............................................. 246

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 247

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 247

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 287

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 303) ............................................. 287

Range enhancement initiative fund (sec. 304) ........................................ 287

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 287

Enhancement of authority on cooperative agreements for environmental purposes (sec. 311) .................................................................... 287

Modification of authority to carry out construction projects for environmental responses (sec. 312) ............................................................. 287

Increased procurement of environmentally preferable products and

services (sec. 313) ................................................................................... 288

Cleanup of unexploded ordnance on Kaho’olawe Island, Hawaii (sec.

314) ......................................................................................................... 289

Subtitle C—Defense Dependents’ Education ................................................. 290

Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of

members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian

employees (sec. 331) ............................................................................... 290

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 332) ..................... 290

Options for funding dependent summer school programs (sec. 333) ..... 290

Comptroller General study of adequacy of compensation provided

for teachers in the Department of Defense Overseas Dependents’

Schools (sec. 334) ................................................................................... 291

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 291

Use of humanitarian and civic assistance funds for reserve component members of Special Operations Command engaged in activities related to clearance of landmines (sec. 341) ................................. 291

Calculation of five-year period of limitation for Navy-Marine Corps

Intranet contract (sec. 342) ................................................................... 291

Page

IX

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued

Subtitle D—Other Matters—Continued

Reimbursement for Reserve intelligence support (sec. 343) .................. 292

Clarification of required core logistics capabilities (sec. 344) ................ 292

Rebate agreements under the special supplemental food program

(sec. 345) ................................................................................................. 292

Additional Matters of Interest ......................................................................... 293

Anti-corrosion initiative ............................................................................ 293

Enhanced secure communications to reserve components ..................... 294

Foreign currency fluctuation .................................................................... 294

Personal gear for service members .......................................................... 294

Training range enhancement initiative ................................................... 294

Travel ......................................................................................................... 296

Army ........................................................................................................... 296

Battlefield mobility enhancers .......................................................... 296

Information operations ...................................................................... 296

Aviation training backlog .................................................................. 296

Utilities privatization ........................................................................ 297

Facilities sustainment ....................................................................... 297

Navy ........................................................................................................... 297

Ship depot maintenance .................................................................... 297

Improved shipboard combat information center .............................. 297

Submarine broadcast support ........................................................... 298

Mark-45 overhauls ............................................................................. 298

Critical infrastructure protection for Navy and Marine Corps ...... 298

Configuration management for Navy weapons systems ................. 298

Air Force .................................................................................................... 298

Air Force flying hour program .......................................................... 298

Combat air patrols ............................................................................. 299

Spacelift range system ....................................................................... 300

Utilities costs ...................................................................................... 300

Defense-Wide ............................................................................................. 300

Joint recruiting and advertising ....................................................... 300

Training and qualification shortfalls ................................................ 301

Procurement Technical Assistance Program .................................... 301

Logistics reengineering ...................................................................... 301

Cultural and historic activities ......................................................... 301

Base information system ................................................................... 301

C3 and Intelligence Mission and Analysis Fund ............................. 302

Psychological operations .................................................................... 302

Commander in Chief for Homeland Security ................................... 303

Studies ................................................................................................ 303

Commercial imagery to support military requirements ................. 303

Guard and Reserve Components .............................................................. 305

Army information operations ............................................................ 305

Antiterrorism/force protection access control ................................... 305

Initial issue ......................................................................................... 305

Air Force Reserve Command server consolidation .......................... 305

National Guard support for test and evaluation ............................. 305

Air National Guard medical equipment ........................................... 306

Miscellaneous Additional Items of Interest .................................................... 306

Formerly Used Defense Sites ................................................................... 306

Drug interdiction and counterdrug activities .......................................... 306

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 307

Aerial refueling fee-for-service ................................................................. 307

Air Force supersonic ranges ..................................................................... 307

Army ammunition plants .......................................................................... 307

C–130 aircraft force structure .................................................................. 308

Commissary benefit ................................................................................... 308

Department of Defense support to the Interallied Confederation of

Reserve Officers and the Interallied Confederation of Medical Reserve Officers .......................................................................................... 309

Formerly Used Defense Site at Waikoloa and Waimea, Hawaii Island ......................................................................................................... 309

Funding for efforts to address environmental impacts of unexploded

ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents ......................................................................................................... 309

Improved justification of service training budgets ................................. 310

Page

X

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued

Other Items of Interest—Continued

‘‘Starship’’ repair plan ............................................................................... 310

Status of the Uniform National Discharge Standards ........................... 311

Training of Navy and Marine Corps units for the global war on

terrorism and to support the global naval forces presence policy ..... 311

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 313

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 313

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 313

Authority to increase strength and grade limitations to account for

reserve component members on active duty in support of a contingency operation (sec. 402) ..................................................................... 313

Increased allowance for number of Marine Corps general officers

in grades above major general (sec. 403) ............................................. 314

Increase in authorized strengths for Marine Corps officers on active

duty in the grade of colonel (sec. 404) .................................................. 314

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 314

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 314

End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 314

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 315

Fiscal year 2003 limitation on non-dual status technicians (sec. 414) . 316

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

Authorization of appropriations for military personnel (sec. 421) ........ 316

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 317

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 317

Extension of certain requirements and exclusions applicable to service of general and flag officers on active duty in certain joint

duty assignments (sec. 501) .................................................................. 317

Extension of authority to waive requirement for significant joint duty

experience for appointment as a chief of a reserve component or

a National Guard director (sec. 502) .................................................... 317

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Policy ........................................ 317

Time for commencement of initial period of active duty for training

upon enlistment in reserve component (sec. 511) ............................... 317

Authority for limited extension of medical deferment of mandatory

retirement or separation of reserve component officer (sec. 512) ...... 318

Subtitle C—Education and Training .............................................................. 318

Increase in authorized strengths for the service academies (sec. 521) . 318

Subtitle D—Decorations, Awards, and Commendations ............................... 318

Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations to certain

persons (sec. 531) ................................................................................... 318

Korea Defense Service Medal (sec. 532) .................................................. 318

Subtitle E—National Call to Service .............................................................. 318

National call to service (sec. 541 and 542) .............................................. 318

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 319

Biennial surveys on racial, ethnic, and gender issues (sec. 551) .......... 319

Leave required to be taken pending review of a recommendation

for removal by a board of inquiry (sec. 552) ........................................ 319

Stipend for participation in funeral honors details (sec. 553) ............... 320

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 320

Career progression of military astronauts .............................................. 320

Human resources strategy and community support planning .............. 320

Integrated personnel readiness system ................................................... 320

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ....................................... 323

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 323

Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2003 (sec. 601) ............................... 323

Rate of basic allowance for subsistence for enlisted personnel occupying single Government quarters without adequate availability

of meals (sec. 602) .................................................................................. 323

Basic allowance for housing in cases of low-cost or no-cost moves

(sec. 603) ................................................................................................. 323

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 323

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for

reserve forces (sec. 611) ......................................................................... 323

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for

certain health care professionals (sec. 612) ......................................... 324

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear

officers (sec. 613) .................................................................................... 324

Page

XI

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits—Continued

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays—Continued

One-year extension of other bonus and special pay authorities (sec.

614) ......................................................................................................... 324

Increased maximum amount payable as multiyear retention bonus

for medical officers of the Armed Forces (sec. 615) ............................. 324

Increased maximum amount payable as incentive special pay for

medical officers of the Armed Forces (sec. 616) .................................. 324

Assignment incentive pay (sec. 617) ........................................................ 324

Increased maximum amounts for prior service enlistment bonus (sec.

618) ......................................................................................................... 325

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 325

Deferral of travel in connection with leave between consecutive overseas tours (sec. 631) ............................................................................... 325

Transportation of motor vehicles for members reported missing (sec.

632) ......................................................................................................... 325

Destinations authorized for Government-paid transportation of enlisted personnel for rest and recuperation upon extending duty

at designated overseas locations (sec. 633) .......................................... 325

Vehicle storage in lieu of transportation to United States territory

outside Continental United States (sec. 634) ...................................... 326

Subtitle D—Retirement and Survivor Benefits Matters ............................... 326

Phased-in authority for concurrent receipt of military retired pay

and veterans’ disability compensation for certain service-connected

disabled veterans (sec. 641) .................................................................. 326

Increased retired pay for enlisted reserves credited with extraordinary heroism (sec. 642) ...................................................................... 326

Expanded scope of authority to waive time limitations on claims

for military personnel benefits (sec. 643) ............................................. 326

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 327

Additional authority to provide assistance for families of members

of the Armed Forces (sec. 651) .............................................................. 327

Time limitation for use of Montgomery GI Bill entitlement by members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 652) ................................................ 327

Status of obligation to refund educational assistance upon failure

to participate satisfactorily in Selected Reserve (sec. 653) ................ 327

Prohibition on acceptance of honoraria by personnel at certain Department of Defense schools (sec. 654) ................................................ 327

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 327

Reserve personnel compensation program review .................................. 327

Title VII—Health Care ............................................................................................ 329

Eligibility of surviving dependents for TRICARE dental program benefits after discontinuance of former enrollment (sec. 701) ................. 329

Advance authorization for inpatient mental health services (sec. 702) 329

Continued TRICARE eligibility of dependents residing at remote locations after departure of sponsors for unaccompanied assignments

(sec. 703) ................................................................................................. 329

Approval of Medicare providers as TRICARE providers (sec. 704) ....... 329

Claims information (sec. 705) ................................................................... 329

Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund

(sec. 706) ................................................................................................. 330

Technical corrections relating to transitional health care for members

separated from active duty (sec. 707) ................................................... 330

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 330

Research on war-related illnesses ............................................................ 330

Reserve health care ................................................................................... 330

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 333

Subtitle A—Major Defense Acquisition Programs ......................................... 333

Buy-to-budget acquisition of end items (sec. 801) .................................. 333

Report to Congress on incremental acquisition of major systems (sec.

802) ......................................................................................................... 333

Pilot program for spiral development of major systems (sec. 803) ........ 334

Improvement of software acquisition processes (sec. 804) ..................... 335

Independent technology readiness assessments (sec. 805) .................... 336

Timing of certification in connection with waiver of survivability

and lethality testing requirements (sec. 806) ...................................... 337

Subtitle B—Procurement Policy Improvements ............................................. 337

Performance goals for contracting for services (sec. 811) ...................... 337

Page

XII

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters—Continued

Subtitle B—Procurement Policy Improvements—Continued

Grants of exceptions to cost or pricing data certification requirements

and waivers of cost accounting standards (sec. 812) .......................... 337

Extension of requirement for annual report on defense commercial

pricing management improvement (sec. 813) ...................................... 339

Internal controls on the use of purchase cards (sec. 814) ...................... 339

Assessment regarding fees paid for acquisitions under other agencies’

contracts (sec. 815) ................................................................................ 340

Pilot program for transition to follow-on contracts for certain prototype projects (sec. 816) .......................................................................... 340

Waiver authority for domestic source or content requirements (sec.

817) ......................................................................................................... 341

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 341

Extension of the applicability of certain personnel demonstration

project exceptions to an acquisition workforce demonstration

project (sec. 821) .................................................................................... 341

Moratorium on reduction of the defense acquisition and support

workforce (sec. 822) ............................................................................... 341

Extension of contract goal for small disadvantaged businesses and

certain institutions of higher education (sec. 823) .............................. 342

Mentor-protege program eligibility for HUBZone small business concerns and small business concerns owned and controlled by servicedisabled veterans (sec. 824) .................................................................. 342

Repeal of requirements for certain reviews by the Comptroller General (sec. 825) ......................................................................................... 342

Multiyear procurement authority for purchase of dinitrogen tetroxide,

hydrazine, and hydrazine-related products (sec. 826) ........................ 342

Multiyear procurement authority for environmental services for military installations (sec. 827) ................................................................... 342

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 343

Consolidation of contract requirements ................................................... 343

Management of electromagnetic spectrum in the acquisition process .. 344

Polyacrylonitrile carbon fibers ................................................................. 344

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 347

Time for submittal of report on quadrennial defense review (sec.

901) ......................................................................................................... 347

Increased number of deputy commandants authorized for the Marine

Corps (sec. 902) ...................................................................................... 347

Base operating support for Fisher Houses (sec. 903) ............................. 347

Prevention and mitigation of corrosion (sec. 904) ................................... 347

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 349

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 349

Transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................................. 349

Reallocation of authorizations of appropriations from ballistic missile

defense to shipbuilding (sec. 1002) ....................................................... 349

Authorization of appropriations for continued operations for the war

on terrorism (sec. 1003) ......................................................................... 352

Authorization of emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal

year 2002 (sec. 1004) ............................................................................. 353

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal

year 2003 (sec. 1005) ............................................................................. 353

Development and implementation of financial management enterprise architecture (sec. 1006) ................................................................ 354

Departmental accountable officials in the Department of Defense

(sec. 1007) ............................................................................................... 354

Department-wide procedures for establishing and liquidating personal pecuniary liability (sec. 1008) ..................................................... 354

Travel card program integrity (sec. 1009) ............................................... 355

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 355

Number of Navy surface combatants in active and reserve service

(sec. 1021) ............................................................................................... 355

Plan for fielding the 155-millimeter gun on a surface combatant

(sec. 1022) ............................................................................................... 356

Report on initiatives to increase operational days of Navy ships (sec.

1023) ....................................................................................................... 356

Subtitle C—Reporting Requirements .............................................................. 357

Page

XIII

Title X—General Provisions—Continued

Subtitle C—Reporting Requirements—Continued

Repeal and modification of various reporting requirements applicable

with respect to the Department of Defense (sec. 1031) ...................... 357

Annual report on hardened and deeply buried targets (sec. 1032) ....... 360

Revision of date of annual report on counterproliferation activities

and programs (sec. 1033) ...................................................................... 360

Quadrennial quality of life review (sec. 1034) ........................................ 360

Subtitle D—Homeland Defense ....................................................................... 361

Homeland security activities of the National Guard (sec. 1041) ........... 361

Conditions for use of full-time reserves to perform duties relating

to defense against weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1042) .............. 361

Weapon of mass destruction defined for purposes of the authority

for use of Reserves to perform duties relating to defense against

weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1043) ............................................. 362

Report on Department of Defense homeland defense activities (sec.

1044) ....................................................................................................... 362

Strategy for improving preparedness of military installations for incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1045) ................... 362

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 363

Continued applicability of expiring governmentwide information security requirements to the Department of Defense (sec. 1061) ............. 363

Acceptance of voluntary services of proctors for administration of

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (sec. 1062) ................... 364

Extension of authority to sell aircraft and aircraft parts for use

in responding to oil spills (sec. 1063) ................................................... 364

Amendments to impact aid program (sec. 1064) .................................... 364

Additional Matters of Interest ......................................................................... 364

Improved management of Department of Defense contracting for

services ................................................................................................... 364

Information technology investments for functional area applications .. 366

Defense Emergency Response Fund ........................................................ 368

Modernization of strategic systems ......................................................... 393

Stand off surveillance camera .................................................................. 393

Aerospace propulsion research ................................................................. 393

Air Force defensive information operations ............................................ 393

SINCGARS family of radios ..................................................................... 394

Major equipment for hardened and deeply buried targets .................... 394

C3I Intelligence programs ........................................................................ 394

Management and organizational headquarters ...................................... 394

Air Force tactical deception personnel .................................................... 394

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 395

Comptroller General study of Special Operations Command forces

language requirements, training and proficiencies ............................. 395

Department of Defense STARBASE Program ........................................ 395

Title XI—Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Policy ................................ 397

Extension of authority to pay severance pay in a lump sum (sec.

1101) ....................................................................................................... 397

Extension of voluntary separation incentive pay authority (sec. 1102) 397

Extension of cost sharing authority for continued FEHBP coverage

of certain persons after separation from employment (sec. 1103) ..... 397

Eligibility of nonappropriated funds employees to participate in the

Federal Employees Long-Term Care Insurance Program (sec.

1104) ....................................................................................................... 397

Increased maximum period of appointment under the experimental

personnel program for scientific and technical personnel (sec.

1105) ....................................................................................................... 397

Qualification requirements for employment in Department of Defense

professional accounting positions (sec. 1106) ...................................... 398

Housing benefits for unaccompanied teachers required to live at

Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba (sec. 1107) ............................. 398

Title XII—Matters Relating to Other Nations ...................................................... 399

Subtitle A—Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the Former

Soviet Union .................................................................................................. 399

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds

(sec. 1201) ............................................................................................... 399

Funding allocations (sec. 1202) ................................................................ 399

Authorization of use of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for

projects and activities outside the Former Soviet Union (sec. 1203) . 399

Page

XIV

Title XII—Matters Relating to Other Nations—Continued

Subtitle A—Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the Former

Soviet Union—Continued

Waiver of limitations on assistance under programs to facilitate Cooperative Threat Reduction and nonproliferation (sec. 1204) ............ 400

Additional Matters of Interest ......................................................................... 400

Cooperative Threat Reduction with the States of the Former Soviet

Union ...................................................................................................... 400

Pilot program for scientific exchange with the countries of the

Former Soviet Union ............................................................................. 401

Subtitle B—Other Matters ....................................................................... 401

Administrative support and services for coalition liaison officers (sec.

1211) ............................................................................................................... 401

Use of Warsaw Initiative funds for travel of officials from partner

countries (sec. 1212) .............................................................................. 402

Support of United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect and monitor

Iraqi weapons activities (sec. 1213) ...................................................... 402

Arctic and Western Pacific environmental cooperation program (sec.

1214) ....................................................................................................... 402

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations ............................................... 403

Explanation of funding tables ......................................................................... 403

Fiscal Year 2003 Authorization of Appropriations for Military Construction .... 423

Title XXI—Army ...................................................................................................... 423

Summary ........................................................................................................... 423

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec.

2101) ....................................................................................................... 423

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 423

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) .................. 423

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) ................................. 423

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2002 projects

(sec. 2105) ............................................................................................... 423

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project

(sec. 2106) ............................................................................................... 424

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1999 project

(sec. 2107) ............................................................................................... 424

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1997 project

(sec. 2108) ............................................................................................... 424

Title XXII—Navy ..................................................................................................... 425

Summary ........................................................................................................... 425

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec.

2201) ....................................................................................................... 425

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 425

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 425

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 425

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 projects

(sec. 2205) ............................................................................................... 425

Title XXIII—Air Force ............................................................................................. 427

Summary ........................................................................................................... 427

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.

2301) ....................................................................................................... 427

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 427

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 427

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 427

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 427

Training facilities for military operations in urban terrain .................. 427

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies ................................................................................ 429

Summary ........................................................................................................... 429

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 429

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2402) .................. 429

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403) ................................................. 429

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2404) .............. 429

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 429

Bio-defense research laboratory facility at Fort Detrick ........................ 429

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Investment Program .............. 431

Summary ........................................................................................................... 431

Authorized North Atlantic Treaty Organization construction and land

acquisition projects (sec. 2501) ............................................................. 431

Page

XV

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Investment Program—Continued

Summary—Continued

Authorization of appropriations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(sec. 2502) ............................................................................................... 431

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 433

Summary ........................................................................................................... 433

Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land acquisition

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 433

Title XXVII—Expiration and Extension of Authorizations .................................. 435

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified

by law (sec. 2701) ................................................................................... 435

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2000 projects (sec.

2702) ....................................................................................................... 435

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1999 projects (sec.

2703) ....................................................................................................... 435

Effective date (sec. 2704) .......................................................................... 435

Title XXVIII—General Provisions .......................................................................... 437

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing

Changes ......................................................................................................... 437

Lease of military family housing in Korea (sec. 2801) ........................... 437

Repeal of source requirements for family housing construction overseas (sec. 2802) ....................................................................................... 437

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 437

Agreements with private entities to enhance military training, testing, and operations (sec. 2811) ............................................................. 437

Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource conservation (sec. 2812) ....................................................................................... 438

Modification of demonstration program on reduction in long-term

facility maintenance costs (sec. 2813) .................................................. 438

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 439

Conveyance of certain lands in Alaska no longer required for National Guard purposes (sec. 2821) ........................................................ 439

Land conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky (sec. 2822) ........................ 439

Modification of authority for land transfer and conveyance, Naval

Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine (sec. 2823) .............. 439

Land conveyance, Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts (sec.

2824) ....................................................................................................... 440

Land conveyance, Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island (sec. 2825) ... 440

Land exchange, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado (sec. 2826) ............. 440

Land acquisition, Boundary Channel Drive Site, Arlington, Virginia

(sec. 2827) ............................................................................................... 440

Land conveyances, Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field, Nevada

(sec. 2828) ............................................................................................... 441

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 441

Transfer of funds in lieu of acquisition of replacement property for

National Wildlife Refuge system in Nevada (sec. 2841) ..................... 441

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 441

Accompanied tours in Korea ..................................................................... 441

Aircraft carrier basing plans .................................................................... 442

Availability of excess lands for school construction ................................ 442

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and

Other Authorizations ........................................................................................... 443

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 443

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 443

Atomic energy defense activities .............................................................. 443

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 460

Weapons activities ..................................................................................... 460

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................... 464

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 465

Office of Administrator ............................................................................. 465

Defense Environmental Management (sec. 3102) ................................... 465

Other Defense Activities (sec. 3103) ........................................................ 467

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal (sec. 3105) ........................................... 469

Subtitle B—Recurring General Provisions ..................................................... 469

Reprogramming (sec. 3121) ...................................................................... 469

Limits on minor construction projects (sec. 3122) .................................. 470

Limits on construction projects (sec. 3123) ............................................. 470

Page

XVI

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs—Continued

Subtitle B—Recurring General Provisions—Continued

Fund transfer authority (sec. 3124) ......................................................... 470

Authority for conceptual and construction design (sec. 3125) ............... 470

Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction activities

(sec. 3126) ............................................................................................... 471

Funds available for all national security programs of the Department

of Energy (sec. 3127) ............................................................................. 471

Availability of funds (sec. 3128) ............................................................... 471

Transfer of defense environmental management funds (sec. 3129) ...... 471

Transfer of weapons activities funds (sec. 3130) .................................... 471

Subtitle C—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 472

Availability of funds for environmental cleanup reform (sec. 3131) ..... 472

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (sec. 3132) ......................................... 473

Database to track notification and resolution phases of significant

finding investigations (sec. 3133) ......................................................... 473

Requirements for specific request for new or modified nuclear weapons (sec. 3134–3135) .............................................................................. 474

Limitation on availability of funds for program to eliminate weapons

grade plutonium production (sec. 3136) ............................................... 475

Subtitle D—Proliferation Matters ................................................................... 475

Administration of program to eliminate weapons grade plutonium

production in Russia (sec. 3151) ........................................................... 475

Security of nuclear materials and facilities worldwide (sec. 3152) ....... 476

Repeal of requirement for reports on obligation of funds for programs

on fissile materials in Russia (sec. 3153) ............................................. 477

Expansion of annual reports on status of nuclear Materials Protection, Control and Accounting program (sec. 3154) .............................. 477

Export Control Operations program ........................................................ 477

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 478

Indemnification of Department of Energy contractors (sec. 3161) ........ 478

Worker health and safety rules for Department of Energy facilities

(sec. 3162) ............................................................................................... 478

One-year extension of authority of Department of Energy to pay

voluntary separation incentive payments (sec. 3163) ......................... 478

Support for public education in the vicinity of Los Alamos National

Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3164) ..................................................... 479

Subtitle F—Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium at Savannah

River, South Carolina ................................................................................... 479

Disposition of weapons-usable plutonium at Savannah River, South

Carolina (sec. 3181–3183) ..................................................................... 479

Engineering, construction, and project management ............................. 482

Disposition of special nuclear material from the Rocky Flats Site ....... 482

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 485

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201) .............................. 485

Authorization of appropriations for the Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program in the Corps of Engineers (sec. 3202) ............... 485

Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................ 485

Departmental Recommendations .................................................................... 485

Committee Action ............................................................................................. 485

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................... 486

Regulatory Impact ............................................................................................ 486

Changes in Existing Law ................................................................................. 486

Additional Views of Senator Jean Carnahan ........................................................ 487

Additional Views of Senator John McCain ............................................................ 488

Minority Views of Senators John Warner, Bob Smith, James M. Inhofe,

Rick Santorum, Pat Roberts, Wayne Allard, Tim Hutchinson, and Jeff

Sessions ................................................................................................................. 494

Minority Views of Senator Wayne Allard .............................................................. 498

Calendar No. 370

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 107–151

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 FOR MILITARY

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL

YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MAY 15 (legislative day, MAY 9), 2002.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed Services,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany S. 2514]

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original

bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 2003 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed

Forces, and for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do

pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

This bill would:

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003;

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year

2003;

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces

for fiscal year 2003;

(4) impose certain reporting requirements;

2

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative

authority, and make certain changes to existing law;

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003; and

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2003.

Committee overview and recommendations

The events following September 11, 2001, have once again shown

that the U.S. military is the most capable fighting force in the

world. The success of our forces in Afghanistan has been remarkable. Osama bin Laden—if he is alive at all—is on the run and in

hiding. Many of his al Qaeda terrorists have been captured or

killed. The Taliban regime that harbored them is no more, and a

new government is in place. Nations around the world have been

put on notice: America is determined to protect itself from more attacks and to bring terrorists to justice.

The excellence behind that success was not built in months. The

success of our forces in Afghanistan is a tribute to the men and

women of the Armed Forces and the investments in national defense that Congress and the Department of Defense have made

over many years. Future success on the battlefield will likewise depend upon the success of Congress and the Department in preparing, training, and equipping our military for tomorrow’s missions.

The administration’s fiscal year 2003 budget request of $396.8

billion for national security activities includes an increase of $48.0

billion over the fiscal year 2002 level, the largest increase in defense spending in two decades. The committee will do all in its

power, as it has done in the past, to ensure that our forces have

the resources, tools and technologies that they need to deter and,

if necessary, prevail in future conflicts.

At the same time, the committee has a responsibility to ensure

that the resources our taxpayers provide for the national defense

are spent wisely. More than a year into office, the administration

has completed a Quadrennial Defense Review as required by law,

but still has not complied with the statutory requirements to provide Congress with a National Security Strategy and an Annual

Report outlining detailed plans for the size, structure, shape, or

transformation of our military. In the absence of such planning, the

committee is concerned that the Department of Defense will have

difficulty establishing a clear vision for the future of our Armed

Forces.

In the first 41 days of congressional session this year, the committee held 41 hearings to examine the administration’s budget request and related issues. During the course of these hearings, the

committee identified five priorities to guide its actions in developing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003:

(1) Continue the improvements in the compensation and quality

of life of the men and women in the Armed Forces, retirees and

their families.

3

(2) Sustain the readiness of the military services to conduct the

full range of their assigned missions, including current and future

operations against international terrorism.

(3) Improve the efficiency of Defense Department programs and

operations and apply the savings toward high-priority programs.

(4) Improve the ability of the Armed Forces to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

(5) Promote the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the

threats of the 21st century.

First and foremost, the committee recommendations would improve the compensation of our men and women in uniform by authorizing a 4.1 percent pay raise, with an additional targeted pay

raise for the mid-career force. The committee recommendations

would improve the conditions in which members of the Armed

Forces live and work by authorizing $640.0 million above the budget request to improve and replace military facilities. In accordance

with the Budget Resolution reported by the Senate Budget Committee, the committee also recommends a provision that would address a longstanding inequity in the compensation of military retirees by authorizing the concurrent receipt of military retired pay

and veterans disability compensation by certain military retirees.

Finally, the committee recommendations would authorize a new assignment incentive pay of up to $1,500 per month to reward military members who agree to serve in difficult-to-fill assignments.

The committee recommendations would take an important step to ensure the readiness of our military forces by setting aside $10.0

billion, as requested by the administration, to fund ongoing operations in the war against international terrorism during fiscal year

2003. The committee recommendations would also add funding to

address shortfalls in a number of key readiness accounts. These

funding increases include: $126.0 million for the improvement of

military training ranges; $228.6 million for aircraft, ship, and Navy

gun depot maintenance; $176.2 million for maintenance of Air

Force flight line facilities and Army buildings; $45.0 million for ammunition to meet new training requirements and supplement war

reserve stocks; and $55.0 million to address the Army’s aviation

training backlog. The committee recommendations would also help

lessen the burden on some of the Department’s high demand, low

density assets by authorizing $110.0 million for the purchase of an

additional EC–130J Commando Solo aircraft and $114.0 million for

modifications to EA–6B electronic warfare aircraft.

Legislation enacted by the committee last year set a goal for the

Department to achieve an additional $1.7 billion of savings in fiscal

year 2003 by implementing improved management practices for the

$50.0 billion spent annually on services contracts. The committee

has built on this initiative by recommending a provision that would

establish additional goals for increased competition and increased

use of performance-based services contracting, a change which

should result in additional savings in the future. The committee

also recommends provisions that would improve the efficiency of

DOD programs and operations by requiring the Department to develop a comprehensive financial management enterprise architecture; establishing a framework for the Department to develop a disciplined approach to evolutionary acquisition programs; addressing

4

recurring problems with the abuse of purchase cards and travel

cards by military and civilian personnel; and requiring the Department to address longstanding problems in the development and acquisition of software.

The committee recommendations would take a significant step

toward addressing nontraditional threats by providing in excess of

$10.0 billion for combating terrorism initiatives, as requested by

the Department. In addition, the committee recommendations include an increase of $199.7 million to enhance the security of our

nuclear materials and nuclear weapons; an increase of $42.7 million in funding for the U.S. Special Operations Command; and an

increase of $30.5 million for defense against chemical and biological

weapons and other efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction

(WMD). The committee also recommends legislative provisions that

would require DOD to take a more comprehensive approach to installation preparedness for WMD attacks; authorize the Secretary

to expand cooperative threat reduction activities beyond the countries of the Former Soviet Union; and authorize the use of National

Guard personnel in State status to assist in border security.

Finally, the committee continued its effort to promote the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of the 21st century by adding more than $1.1 billion to the Navy’s shipbuilding

accounts to refuel a nuclear submarine and pay for advance procurement of an aircraft carrier, a Virginia-class submarine, a

DDG–51 class destroyer, and an LPD–17 class amphibious transport dock. The committee recommendations would promote the

transformation of the Army by adding $105.0 million of funding for

research and development on the Army Future Combat System,

adding more than $100.0 million for science and technology needed

to help the Army achieve its Objective Force, and by providing

$96.3 million for nine additional Blackhawk helicopters. The committee recommendations would advance the transformation of the

Air Force by fully funding the $5.2 billion requested by the Department for the F–22, the $3.5 billion requested for continued research

and development on the Joint Strike Fighter, and the more than

$1.0 billion requested for unmanned aerial vehicles.

The committee also recommends a number of legislative initiatives to promote military transformation. These include: an initiative to address major shortcomings in the Department’s test and

evaluation infrastructure that have led to inadequate testing of

major weapons systems; a technology transition initiative to ensure

that new technologies developed in the Department’s science and

technology programs are rapidly fielded in weapons systems for our

warfighters; and a nanotechnology initiative to ensure that the Department has a focused approach to this emerging area of technology. The committee recommendations would also add more than

$170.0 million to the Department’s science and technology budget,

bringing the Department closer to the Secretary’s goal of devoting

3 percent of all defense funds to the programs that promise to

bring us the revolutionary technologies that will be needed to prevail in future conflicts.

Today, America’s Armed Forces are capable and ready to help

keep the peace, deter traditional and nontraditional threats to our

security and our vital interests around the world, and win any conflict decisively. Working together, Congress and the executive

5

branch must build on the considerable strengths of our military

forces and their record of success by preserving a high quality of

life for U.S. forces and their families, sustaining readiness, and

transforming the Armed Forces to meet the threats and challenges

of tomorrow. The committee believes that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 would take an important step

in that direction.

Explanation of funding summary

The administration’s budget request for the national defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 2003 was $396.8 billion, of which $300.4 billion was for programs that require specific

funding authorization. According to the estimating procedures used

by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the amount requested

was $396.3 billion. The funding summary table that follows uses

the budget authority as calculated by CBO.

The following table summarizes both the direct authorizations

and equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2003 defense

programs. The columns relating to the authorization request do not

include funding for the following items: pay and benefits for military personnel, military construction authorizations provided in

prior years, and other small portions of the defense budget that are

not within the jurisdiction of this committee or that do not require

an annual authorization.

Funding for all programs authorized in the bill is reflected in the

columns related to the budget authority request and the total budget authority implication of the authorizations in this bill. The committee recommends funding authorizations totaling $393.3 billion

in budget authority for fiscal year 2003.

The funding level recommended by the committee is within the budget authority level of $393.4 billion for the national defense

function recommended in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget

for Fiscal Year 2003 reported by the Senate Committee on the

Budget.

This funding level is $3.1 billion below the level requested by the

administration in the fiscal year 2003 budget request using the

CBO budget authority levels that were incorporated into the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2003 reported by

the Senate Committee on the Budget.

This $3.0 billion adjustment reflects an increase of $516.0 million

in mandatory spending to increase the military retirement benefits

of retirees who also receive veterans disability benefits, and a decrease of $3.5 billion to reflect the proper accounting for civilian retirement and health benefits under current law. Both of these are

discussed in detail elsewhere in this report.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Accrual funding of civilian personnel benefits

The President’s budget proposed shifting the financing obligation

of various federal civilian employee health and retirement benefits

from the Office of Personnel Management to the federal departments and agencies employing those civilians, including the Department of Defense, on an accrual basis. Although this proposal

would not have affected the benefits due to federal employees and

would not have purchased any additional defense capabilities, it resulted in a $3.3 billion increase in the budget authority requested

for the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2003 compared to the

funding that would have been required to implement the same defense programs under current law. For the entire national defense

function, the accounting increase in fiscal year budget authority

levels was $3.5 billion.

Implementation of the President’s proposal requires enactment of

legislation that is not in the jurisdiction of this committee. Such

legislation has not yet been enacted. In addition, the Concurrent

Resolution on the Budget reported by the Senate Committee on the

Budget rejected the proposed shift to accrual funding for future retirement and health benefits for current federal employees, and reduced the discretionary funding for the national defense function

by $3.5 billion. Similar reductions were made to the discretionary

funding requests of non-defense agencies.

Therefore, the bill reported by the committee has adjusted the

funding requested by the President for the national defense function for fiscal year 2003 by $3.5 billion in order to comply with the

Budget Resolution. This adjustment would not reduce the amount

of funding requested and available for defense programs in fiscal

year 2003 net of this proposed accounting change, nor would it result in any reduction in benefits available to federal civilian employees of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy,

or other agencies.

The following table summarizes the adjustments made to specific

accounts throughout this bill to continue funding these benefits

under the procedures contained in current law.

14

15

(17)

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

Explanation of tables

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance

for the funding authorized in title I of this Act. The tables also display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year

2003 budget request for procurement programs and indicate those

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased

the requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not

exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in the Department of Defense’s budget justification documents) without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.

Unless noted in the report, funding changes to the budget request

are made without prejudice.

Funds transferred to the accounts in this title from the Defense

Emergency Response Fund (DERF) are displayed on the tables that

follow as increases to the amount requested for those programs in

the procurement accounts. Programs for which funds were transferred from the DERF are annotated to indicate that funds were

originally requested in the DERF.

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, Defense (sec.

106)

The budget request for the Army included $1.5 billion for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program: $974.2 million for operation and maintenance; $302.7 million for research and

development; and $213.3 million for procurement. The request also

included $167.6 million for military construction described elsewhere in this report. These funds were requested in an Army account, contrary to the requirements of current law.

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

total requested level of funding, although only in the account required by law: Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense.

18

Section 1521(f) of title 50, United States Code, requires that

funds for this program shall not be included in the budget accounts

for any military department. The committee is concerned that

funds for chemical demilitarization have been requested in the

Army budget accounts, contrary to the requirements of current law.

The committee expects the Department of Defense to comply with

the law by requesting chemical demilitarization funds in a Department of Defense account.

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Pilot program on sales of manufactured articles and services of certain Army industrial facilities without regard

to availability from domestic sources (sec. 111)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the

authorization for a single Army industrial facility to sell manufactured articles and services to commercial contractors providing

weapons systems to the Department of Defense. The provision extends this pilot program through fiscal year 2004.

The intent of the pilot program is to allow Army industrial facilities to contract and team for additional workload, even if the products are available from commercial services, in order to utilize

more fully the existing capacity at Army Ammunition Plants

(AAPs). The committee understands that the pilot program has resulted in some increased revenue for AAPs ($16.1 million as of

March 2002). The committee believes, however, that as revenue

from commercial sources rises, the need for the Army to continue

a directly appropriated subsidy to AAPs for underutilized capacity

should decline. Therefore, the provision also includes a requirement

that, once annual revenues from the pilot program exceed $20.0

million, 0.05 percent of the AAPs’ Underutilized Plant Capacity

budget shall be transferred to the following fiscal year’s funding for

demilitarization of conventional ammunition. Finally, the provision

directs the Department of Defense Inspector General to review the

pilot program and report to Congress on its utility.

Army Aircraft

UH–60 Blackhawk (multiyear procurement)

The budget request included $153.4 million for 12 UH–60L

Blackhawk helicopters. At planned acquisition rates, the Army will

not meet its required number of 1,680 Blackhawk helicopters until

fiscal year 2011. The committee recommends an increase of $96.3

million for nine additional UH–60L helicopters to be fielded in ac- cordance with Army priorities, a total authorization of $249.7 million.

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications

The budget request included $382.1 million for modifications to

the CH–47 heavy lift helicopters. The CH–47 Chinook helicopter is

the Army’s only active heavy cargo helicopter and is a key element

in the contingency corps. This program extends the CH–47F airframe service life, introduces an open electronic architecture, and

upgrades the aircraft engines. The committee notes that the Army’s

fiscal year 2003 budget request for CH–47 helicopter modernization

did not include funds for crew safety enhancements such as crashworthy rotating and transversing crew seats. The committee notes

that there is commercially available, off-the-shelf equipment to fulfill this immediate requirement. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for crash-worthy seats for CH–47 modifications, a total authorization of $386.1 million.

Aircraft survivability equipment

The budget request included no funds for aircraft survivability

equipment. Without fiscal year 2003 funding, the production line

40

for the AN/AVR–2A, the only laser detecting set in production for

the Department of Defense, will be closed. The Army has an approved operational requirement for over 3,000 laser detecting sets,

but to date only 1,058 have been purchased. Failure to fund additional laser detecting sets will result in increased risk for loss of

aircrew and aircraft to proliferating threat laser-aided systems.

The committee therefore recommends $8.0 million for the production of AN/AVR–2A laser detecting sets.

Airborne command and control

The budget request included $27.7 million for the Army Airborne

Command and Control System (A2C2S). With this funding the

Army intended to accelerate this critical program to enter into lowrate initial production toward the end of fiscal year 2003. The committee now understands that development and testing requirements will prevent such an ambitious schedule. Accordingly, the

Army has requested that funding be transferred from procurement

to research and development to fund those activities. The committee recommends the transfer of $10.0 million from Aircraft Procurement, Army to PE 64818 and a decrease of the remaining

$17.7 million to Aircraft Procurement, Army.

Avionics support equipment

The budget request included $7.5 million for the Aviator’s Night

Vision Imaging System (ANVIS). The ANVIS is critical to the aviators’ ability to operate at night and in low-light conditions. The

fiscal year 2003 budget request would procure 694 systems, only

two-thirds of the quantity procured in fiscal year 2002 and less

than half of the quantity planned for fiscal year 2004. The committee notes an outstanding requirement for nearly 2,500 ANVIS

and believes that the safety and effectiveness of Army aviators demand a higher procurement rate. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, a total authorization of $12.5

million.

Army Missiles

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System rocket

The budget request included $29.7 million for the procurement of

108 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) rockets. The

GMLRS replaces the current Multiple Launch Rocket System

(MLRS) rockets, integrating a guidance and control package and a

new rocket motor to achieve greater range and precision. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for additional

GMLRS rockets, a total authorization of $44.7 million.

Army Ammunition

50-caliber Saboted Light Armor Penetrator

The budget request included $4.4 million to procure .50-caliber Saboted Light Armor Penetrators (SLAPs), $4.1 million for the

Army and $265,000 for the Marine Corps. The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million to procure additional .50-caliber SLAP rounds, $4.0 million to support the Army’s transVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.017 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
41

formation plan, and $300,000 to complete the Marine Corps’ full

approved acquisition objective (AAO).

155mm high explosive projectiles

The budget request included $30.2 million for high explosive projectiles fired from 155mm howitzers. The committee recommends

an increase of $1.0 million to purchase additional rounds to augment war reserve stocks.

Wide Area Munition

The budget request included $12.5 million for procurement of 383

Hornet munitions. In an October 2001 report, the Department of

Defense Inspector General (IG) found that: (1) the Wide Area Munition (WAM) program has experienced cost increases of 330 percent and schedule slips of more than five years; (2) performance requirements have been lowered and no longer meet user needs; (3)

operational effectiveness has not been demonstrated; (4) the Army

did not perform tests to ensure safety before producing and deploying the WAM; and (5) requirements were built on past threat assessments that are no longer valid. The Army reviewed the program in response to the IG’s report and revalidated the need for

the planned WAM fielding requirement.

The committee believes that the Army has failed to exercise adequate oversight of the WAM program, especially over WAM performance requirements and demonstrated effectiveness. The committee therefore recommends a reduction of $6.0 million for the

WAM.

Bunker Defeat Munition

The budget request included $7.8 million to procure the Bunker

Defeat Munition (BDM), a single-shot, portable, disposable munition used against earth and timber field fortifications. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to procure additional BDMs in support of contingency operations and training.

Modern demolition initiators

The budget request included $28.0 million for modern demolition

initiators (MDIs). MDIs are non-electric detonators that are used to

initiate munitions and explosives. MDIs provide a safer, more reliable detonation system while decreasing time on target. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to procure additional MDIs.

Special equipment for ammunition depots

The budget request included $4.8 million for unique, low density

equipment items specifically designed and manufactured for use in

ammunition depots. This funding represents a $4.0 million decrease from fiscal year 2002 levels. The committee believes that

continued support for ammunition depot operations, including specialized equipment, is important for the continuation of ammunition production and demilitarization efforts. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for Ammunition Peculiar Equipment, Army.

42

Conventional ammunition demilitarization

The budget request included $50.0 million for the demilitarization of ammunition. The committee is concerned about the sizeable

backlog of ammunition that must be demilitarized and therefore

recommends an increase of $10.0 million to Procurement of Ammunition, Army for additional demilitarization.

Other Army Procurement

Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles

The budget request included $242.8 million for the Family of

Heavy Tactical Vehicles (FHTV), of which $34.3 million was for the

Movement Tracking System (MTS). The Army needs a capability to

track the location of vehicles, communicate with vehicle operators,

and redirect movements based on battlefield requirements. MTS

provides that critical capability. The committee notes that MTS is

required immediately by Army Reserve units supporting the

digitized Counter-Attack Corps, but MTS for those units will not be

fielded for several more years. In light of the recent mobilization

of numerous Army Reserve units, the committee believes that the

time line should be shortened and recommends an additional $9.0

million, a total of $43.3 million for MTS, and a total allocation of

$251.8 million for FHTV.

Heavy armored sedan

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund

(DERF), Counter-Terrorism and Force Protection Activity, included

$10.7 million for procurement of heavy armored sedans, including

Heavy Armored Vehicles (HAV) and Light Armored Vehicles (LAV).

The budget request also included $581,000 for the same program,

reflecting a total request of $11.3 million. The Army identified an

overlap of six vehicles between the budget request and the DERF.

In addition, the Army stated that 15 of the vehicles would be applied to ‘‘as yet unidentified force protection threats and vehicle replacements due to anticipated damage OCONUS.’’ The committee,

based on a systematic assessment of requirements, does not believe

that the Army has justified funding these 21 additional vehicles.

Once justified, the committee will consider authorizing additional

funding for additional vehicles. The committee therefore recommends a decrease of $2.4 million in this activity to reflect the

overlap and unjustified requirement. The committee recommends

that the remaining $8.9 million be transferred to Other Procurement, Army, Line 18.

Army data distribution system (data radio)

The budget request included $74.8 million for the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS). EPLRS is the critical mobile data radio required to establish the Army’s tactical Internet

and is a key enabler for network-centric warfare. The committee

recommends an increase of $10.0 million for additional EPLRS, a

total authorization of $84.8 million.

43

Area common user modification program

The budget request included $75.9 million for modifications to

the Area Common User System (ACUS) and its migration to the

Army’s Warfighting Information Network. This program supports

the downsizing of ACUS legacy systems through the procurement

and fielding of the Single Shelter Switch (SSS) and the High Mobility Digital Group Multiplexer Assemblage (HMDA) systems. The

budget request funded no SSSs nor HMDAs, leaving the Army well

short of its requirements for these systems. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for the procurement of additional SSS and HMDA systems, a total authorization

of $100.9 million.

Night vision devices

The budget request included $60.5 million for night vision de- vices. Of this amount, $7.3 million is for the procurement of the

AN/PVS–7 night vision device and the AN/PVS–14 monocular night

vision device (MNVD). The AN/PVS–7 and the AN/PVS–14 systems

enable the individual soldier to see, understand, and act first during night and low-light conditions. These systems will support

Army counterterrorism and force protection efforts while continuing to provide current forces with continued nighttime dominance. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for

additional AN/PVS–7 and AN/PVS–14 night vision devices, a total authorization of $70.5 million.

Combat support medical

The budget request included $21.0 million for field medical

equipment and Deployable Medical Systems (DEPMEDS). The committee supports the Army’s initiative to modernize its combat support medical capability for combat casualty care.

The Army’s $21.0 million request included $8.3 million for field

medical equipment which would modernize the medical equipment

components for clinical diagnostic treatment and prevention. However, the committee notes that the Army’s request does not include

funds for the rapid intravenous (IV) infusion pumps. The rapid IV

infusion pump is a miniature, portable, lightweight pump specifically designed for life-saving intravenous fluid resuscitation by a

medic in the field to restore blood pressure of victims with severe

blood loss or dehydration. The committee notes that this type of device is critical to soldier battlefield survivability.

The Army’s $21.0 million request for combat support medical also included $12.7 million for DEPMEDS. DEPMEDS modernizes

non-medical equipment such as temper tents and shelters, environmental control units, and water distribution systems for hospital

platforms. The committee notes that the Army’s fiscal year 2003

budget request includes a $1.3 million request for surgical medical

temper tents, a 45 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2002

level. Surgical medical temper tents offer medical personnel and

surgical teams shelter to provide medical and trauma care to soldiers in forward deployed sites.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.7 million for additional rapid IV infusion pumps and $5.0 million for additional

DEPMEDS, a total authorization of $31.7 million.

44

Training devices, non-system

The budget request included $111.7 million for the Non-System

Training Devices (NSTD) program. The NSTD program introduces

realistic and effective simulative training devices into the individual and unit training setting. NSTD items include the multiple

integrated laser engagement system (MILES), enhanced tower simulator (ETOS), and the engagement skills trainer (EST).

The EST is a marksmanship trainer and individual and crewserved weapons simulator. It is particularly suited to the training

of Army National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers with limited

access to live firing ranges and is a high priority for those components.

Fort Knox has a requirement for an instrumentation system and

automated after-action review capability to evaluate training proficiency in a military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) environment. The committee notes that the current training system requires a large number of military observer controllers (OC) to observe and evaluate training. A range instrumentation system

would instead allow many of these personnel to return to their primary duties, helping to alleviate the stress on Army operating

tempo. The committee, therefore, recommends $4.0 million for the

engagement skills trainer and $1.4 million for Fort Knox range instrumentation, a total authorization of $117.1 million.

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

Navy Aircraft

F/A–18E/F aircraft

The budget request included $3.2 billion to buy 44 F/A–18E/F

aircraft under a multiyear procurement program.

The Navy structured the multiyear contract to permit variations

in quantity within a specified quantity range. Last year the Navy

bought 48 aircraft. Two years ago, the Navy had planned to buy

48 aircraft in fiscal year 2003.

The Navy wants to buy F/A–18E/F aircraft at higher rates than

are supported in this budget in order to allow the retirement of F– 14 fighters and S–3 aircraft that are being used primarily as tanker aircraft earlier than under current production plans. In fact, despite significant shortfalls in the fiscal year 2003 budget request in

the ship recapitalization area, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)

has recommended applying any additional resources to the F/A– 18E/F program before building more ships.

The committee agrees with the CNO that recapitalizing aviation

is a high priority. Further, the committee believes that greater efficiency can be maintained if the Navy were to continue buying F/

A–18E/F aircraft at level rates until the Navy’s inventory requirements are met. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $240.0 million to buy four more F/A–18E/F aircraft, for a

total production of 48 aircraft in fiscal year 2003.

V–22 Osprey aircraft advance procurement

The budget request included $60.3 million in advance procurement for 13 V–22 Osprey aircraft in fiscal year 2004. Section 123

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

(Public Law 107–107) restricts the procurement of V–22 Osprey

aircraft to the minimum sustaining rate of 11 aircraft until the

Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the Department of

Defense has completed specific operational testing successfully. According to information provided to the committee, the Department

will conduct an operational assessment in fiscal year 2003 but will

not begin the operational evaluation until late fiscal year 2004,

continuing into fiscal year 2005.

Since procurement of no more than 11 V–22 aircraft in fiscal

year 2004 would be consistent with staying at the minimum sustaining rate until that testing is complete, the committee recommends a decrease of $9.2 million in advance procurement, a

total authorization of $51.1 million.

Airborne low frequency sonar

The budget request included $86.9 million to pay for various nonrecurring charges and production support items for the MH–60R

helicopter program. The budget does not include any such funding

for the AN/AQS–22 airborne low frequency sonar (ALFS), a dipping

sonar system that will be part of the MH–60R helicopter’s equipment. The Navy competitively selected ALFS to outfit the MH–60R

fleet.

The Navy intends to use the MH–60R to replace two helicopters:

(1) the SH–60R, which currently fills needs for antisubmarine warfare capability on cruisers, destroyers and frigates; and (2) SH–

69

60F, which performs similar functions and provides other administrative support to aircraft carriers.

The Navy plans to begin production of the MH–60R helicopter in

fiscal year 2004. There is a requirement for non-recurring funds in

fiscal year 2003 to redesign circuit card assemblies to eliminate obsolete parts, upgrade power amplifiers, and qualify a second source

for the ALFS cable. Such efforts could lead to significant reductions

in total life cycle costs. Therefore, the committee recommends an

increase of $5.0 million to pay for non-recurring activities to support ALFS production in fiscal year 2004.

Navy joint primary aircraft training system

The budget request included no funding for continued Navy procurement of the joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS) to

support Navy training requirements. The budget also included no

funding for JPATS trainers to allow the Navy to take fuller advantage of JPATS aircraft already bought.

The Navy had planned to buy JPATS aircraft throughout the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). Last year, the Navy decided

that its existing trainer, the T–34C, has sufficient service life remaining to allow the Navy to delay any additional JPATS procurement until later in the FYDP, specifically fiscal year 2007.

The Navy has been a partner in this joint program with the Air

Force, although the Air Force began buying the aircraft five years

before the Navy. The committee remains concerned that the Navy

is willing to take such a course of action in a joint program, where

its actions obviously force the Air Force to absorb greater costs

than the Air Force had originally planned.

The Navy provided a report to Congress explaining the decision

to interrupt JPATS production. The report indicated that: (1) they

had not changed their position on the remaining useful life on the

T–34C trainers; (2) the Navy would use JPATS trainers already

bought to provide training services for the naval flight officer pipeline; and (3) the Navy still did not need to buy any more JPATS

aircraft until later in the FYDP. Nevertheless, the Chief of Naval

Operations (CNO) submitted a list of priority items that should be

budgeted if additional funds were made available. The CNO’s list

ranked additional funding of JPATS trainer procurement as number seven on a list of 101 items. The CNO indicated that JPATS

purchases now would ‘‘enable earlier transition out of aging T–34

aircraft.’’

The committee continues to believe that the improved aircrew

survivability offered by the ejection seat-equipped JPATS aircraft

is an important factor warranting continued purchases of the trainer by the Navy. The T–34C aircraft that would otherwise be used

for training are aging and will be an increasing burden on operating and support costs for the Navy. The committee, therefore,

recommends an increase of $39.0 million to buy six JPATS aircraft

for the Navy. Continued purchases by the Navy would mean fielding a more efficient and safer primary aircraft training system. The

committee also recommends an additional $7.0 million to buy operational flight trainers to support training operations using JPATS

already procured, for a total authorization of $46.0 million.

70

EA–6B aircraft modifications

The budget request included $137.6 million for modifications to

the EA–6B aircraft, including $60.3 million for buying and installing new wing center sections for 15 aircraft. The budget request

did not include any funding to buy additional ALQ–99 band 9/10

transmitters or USQ–113 communications receivers/jammers. The

EA–6B aircraft is one of the Department’s principal high demand/

low density (HD/LD) assets. This designation translates into a need

to take special measures to ensure that the systems achieve higher

readiness rates to increase their availability and reduce demands

on already stressed maintenance support personnel.

The Navy has identified, through recent fatigue life inspection of

EA–6B aircraft, the need to buy and install additional wing center

section replacements. Until these modifications are completed, 51

of the fleet of 124 aircraft will be subject to restricted flight operations. The Navy has indicated that, with additional funds, they

could modify and return an additional four aircraft to full operational flying envelope. Therefore, the committee recommends an

additional $40.0 million to buy and install new EA–6B wing center

sections.

The Navy would use additional ALQ–99 band 9/10 transmitters

to replace older band 9 transmitters. The ALQ–99 Band 9/10 transmitter uses digital electronics while the older band 9 transmitters

employ analog technology that is much less reliable. The newer

band 9/10 transmitters would also extend the frequency coverage

available compared to the band 9 transmitters. The Navy needs the

expanded frequency ranges and capabilities of the ALQ–99 band 9/

10 transmitters to counter the electronic protection techniques used

in a wide variety of threat systems. The Navy informs the committee that an additional $37.0 million

would allow them to finish buying all of the ALQ–99 band 9/10

transmitters they need before the contractor closes the production

line. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $37.0

million to buy ALQ–99 Band 9/10 transmitters.

The EA–6B aircraft use the USQ–113 communications receivers/

jammers to monitor and jam communications in the very high frequency (VHF) and ultra high frequency (UHF) portions of the radio

frequency spectrum. These systems allow the EA–6B to deny an

enemy critical command and control capability and reduce an adversary’s ability to maintain situational awareness. With additional

funds, the Navy could buy additional USQ–113 V(3) versions of the

system to outfit more of the fleet of aircraft and improve equipment

maintainability and operational capability. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $37.0 million to buy additional

USQ–113 V(3) communications receivers/jammers.

In total, the committee recommends an additional authorization

of $114.0 million for the EA–6B program, recognizing that this HD/

LD aircraft deserves special attention in keeping the fleet healthy

while the Department decides how it intends to recapitalize this

airborne electronic aircraft fleet.

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000

(Public Law 106–65), Congress provided an increase of $5.0 million

to initiate a joint service (Navy/Air Force) analysis of alternatives

to examine a replacement for the aging EA–6B aircraft. The comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.022 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
71

mittee is aware that the services will shortly present their preferred alternatives to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The committee encourages the Department to move forward with a preferred alternative or alternatives to ensure that the vital capabilities that the EA–6B fleet

currently provides will continue to be available to future combatant

commanders.

AV–8B precision targeting pod

The budget request included $32.2 million for modifications to

the AV–8B aircraft but included no funding for Litening II precision targeting pods. The Marine Corps began acquisition of these

pods to provide the AV–8B with the ability to use precision-guided

weapons. Although no funds were included in the budget request,

the Marine Corps has identified buying additional Litening II pods

as a high priority item to continue outfitting Marine Corps AV–8B

squadrons with this capability. The committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million for the procurement of Litening II targeting

pods, a total authorization for AV–8B aircraft modifications of

$87.2 million.

F/A–18 aircraft modifications

The budget request included $421.7 million for modifications to

the F/A–18 aircraft and $11.7 million for the engineering change

proposal 583 (ECP–583) for the Marine Corps’ F/A–18A aircraft.

These funds were identified primarily for installation of kits procured in previous years.

ECP–583 is an upgrade package that consists of new avionics

hardware allowing the older F/A–18A to process and utilize updated versions of F/A–18C/D software and accessories. This change

gives these older aircraft capabilities comparable to Lot 17 F/A– 18C aircraft, particularly the ability to perform precision strike

missions.

Since the Marine Corps’ F/A–18A aircraft are slated to remain in

the inventory until replaced by the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the

committee believes that the Marine Corps should upgrade more of

the F/A–18A inventory with improved capability. Therefore, the

committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for the procurement of additional ECP–583 to continue the Marine Corps’ F/

A–18A aircraft modernization.

P–3 aircraft modifications

The budget request included $102.7 million for modifications to

the P–3 aircraft, which included $72.4 million for the procurement

of four anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) kits. The

AIP modification has greatly expanded the capabilities of the P–3

aircraft, giving it particular capability to operate against surface

targets in coastal regions. These upgrades include better ability to

provide standoff surveillance and targeting. The AIP makes these

aircraft very attractive to fleet and battle group commanders to

supplement the capabilities offered by other high demand, low density (HD/LD) forces. The committee recommends an increase of

$14.0 million for the procurement of one additional AIP kit for the

P–3 aircraft.

72

Fleet aircrew simulator training

The budget request included $442.3 million in Navy aircraft common ground equipment, including $79.5 million for the fleet aircrew simulator trainer (FAST). These funds would be used to buy

four high-fidelity, networked F/A–18C tactical flight trainers, to include: mission brief/debrief stations; instructor-operator stations;

and commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) software to enable sharing of

common distributed databases. Since much of the tactically relevant training is done in two-ship formations, it would appear prudent to buy fewer stations and see whether the potential training

payoff is realized before expanding the capability to simulate fourship formations. The committee understands that, because there

may be maintenance and other single station down times, buying

a two-station suite could have limitations. Therefore, the committee

recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in common ground equipment to buy a three-station FAST system. If this capability were

to prove beneficial in operation, the committee would entertain a

request to buy additional stations.

Navy Weapons

Hellfire missiles

The budget request included no funding for the procurement of

AGM–114 Hellfire missiles. The Department of the Navy uses

Hellfire missiles as a primary attack weapon for both the Marine

Corps AH–1W attack helicopter and the Navy MH–60 helicopter.

The committee understands that the fiscal year 2002 Hellfire inventory is only 54 percent of the inventory objective. Although no

funds were included in the budget request, the Navy and Marine

Corps have identified buying additional Hellfire missiles as a high

priority item to mitigate against further erosion in the inventory

level from training expenditures and from retirements due to shelf

life expirations. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0

million for the procurement of AGM–114 Hellfire missiles.

Weapons industrial facilities

The budget request included $17.7 million for various activities

at government-owned, contractor-operated weapons industrial facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to

accelerate the facilities restoration program at the Allegany Ballistics Laboratory.

Close-in Weapons System modifications

The budget request included $32.2 million for modifications to

the Close-in Weapons System (CIWS) for surface ship self-defense.

The basic CIWS is an effective weapon for defense against antiship cruise missiles. An upgrade, called the ‘‘Block 1B’’ modification, enhances these capabilities, improves the reliability of the system, and expands the target set to include other threats, such as

that posed by small boats. Because of the importance of providing

these capabilities to the fleet, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for procurement and installation of Block 1B

modifications in CIWS mounts.

73

Gun mount modifications

The budget request included $8.4 million in gun mount modifications, including: (1) $3.7 million for the procurement and installation of modifications to surface ship five-inch, 54-caliber gun

mounts; and (2) $2.0 million for procurement and installation of

safety and reliability improvements for minor caliber guns including the 25-millimeter, MK–38 gun. The budget request included no

funds for the procurement of additional 25-millimeter, MK–38

guns.

The five-inch gun provides the only gunfire support from the sea

for the Marine Corps and comprises a part of the layered, ship selfdefense system. The five-inch gun mount modification program provides gun safety updates, shock-hardens the gun and mount for future munitions, modifies five-inch, 54-caliber guns to 62-caliber,

and develops a rotatable pool of gun mounts for the cruiser conversion and ship overhaul programs.

Additional funding for five-inch gun mount modifications would

help prevent a break in production for procurement of modification

kits for the cruiser conversion program and allow continuation of

other ordnance alterations. The committee recommends an increase

of $10.0 million for the five-inch gun mount modifications program.

The 25-millimeter, MK–38 gun is mounted on Navy and Coast

Guard vessels to provide a gun capability against small boats. The

Navy has identified a requirement for procurement of additional

guns for the vessels providing port security for homeland defense.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

for procurement and installation of 25-millimeter, MK–38 guns on

Navy and Coast vessels, a total authorization for gun mount modifications of $23.4 million.

Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition

120mm High Explosive Anti-Tank cartridges

The budget request includes $23.2 million for the 120mm High

Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) anti-tank and air defense multi-purpose round. The committee recommends an increase of $8.7 million

for the Marine Corps to procure additional cartridges to meet war

reserve shortfalls.

155mm High Explosive M795

The budget request included $23.7 million for purchases of the

155mm High Explosive (HE) M795 projectile for the Marine Corps,

an extended range projectile to augment and ultimately replace

current, shorter range cargo projectiles. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to procure additional 155mm

HE M795 projectiles.

Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion

Future aircraft carrier procurement

The budget request included $243.7 million for advance procurement of CVNX–1, the next generation nuclear powered aircraft carrier. The fiscal year 2001 budget request and the fiscal year 2002

amended budget request projected asking for full funding for this

74

ship in fiscal year 2006. This plan was based on an acquisition

strategy that included using advance construction activities before

fiscal year 2006. Congress approved the Navy’s advance construction plan for CVNX–1 in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

The Navy’s fiscal year 2003 budget request would result in a significant cost increase and at least a one-year delay in the delivery

of CVNX–1 compared to previous plans.

After submitting the 2003 budget request, the Navy provided the

committee with information that indicated that restoring fiscal

year 2003 funding would enable the Navy to begin the work necessary to support the Navy’s previous plan. The additional Navy information identifies a Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) funding profile which would result in savings of over $200.0 million for

the total cost of the ship.

The committee believes that the Navy should take reasonable actions to save funds in the shipbuilding account. Additionally, restoring the delivery schedule of CVNX–1 would underscore the importance of the aircraft carrier. Aircraft carriers have, once again,

demonstrated their vital importance to U.S. national security during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. During the early

days of that operation, up to three carriers were engaged and the

operational commander in chief used one of these carriers as a

platform for launching Special Operations missions into Afghanistan. The aircraft carriers responded quickly to the operational

commander’s requirements and conducted continuous joint combat

operations as directed by the operational commander in chief.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $229.0 million

to begin restoring the original delivery schedule for CVNX–1 at a

total ship cost less than that presumed in the FYDP.

Submarine refueling overhauls

The budget request included $271.3 million for refueling a single

Los Angeles-class attack submarine.

The 1999 ‘‘Attack Submarine Study’’ conducted by the Joint

Chiefs of Staff concluded that the Navy needed to have a minimum

of 68 attack submarines in fiscal year 2015 to meet requirements

defined by the regional commanders in chief and the national intelligence community. The Navy is building new attack submarines at

a rate of only one per year in the Future Years Defense Program

(FYDP) and will need to accelerate that rate to meet requirements

for the better capability that will be afforded by the new Virginiaclass submarines.

In the near-term, the only action the Navy could take to sustain

submarine force levels would be to refuel, rather than retire, Los

Angeles-class attack submarines that have many years of useful

service life remaining. The Navy has indicated that there is an additional Los Angeles-class attack submarine that is due for refueling in fiscal year 2003. The yards capable of conducting such a refueling will be unable to accept additional work in fiscal year 2004.

Absent obtaining additional funding for fueling in fiscal year 2003,

the Navy would be forced to scrap this boat. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million to refuel an addiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.024 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
75

tional attack submarine in fiscal year 2003 and extend its useful

life in the fleet.

Large deck amphibious ship replacement

The budget request included $10.0 million for advance procurement plans for LHD–9, a ship to replace an aging LHA–1 Tarawaclass amphibious assault ship. The budget documentation indicated

that the Navy would seek authorization for LHD–9 in fiscal year

2008.

LHD–8, already under construction, is scheduled to replace one

of the retiring Tarawa-class ships. The committee received testimony that the Navy will complete, in the next few months, an

analysis of alternatives to determine the specifications for ships to

replace the remaining four Tarawa-class ships that will reach 35

years of ship life between 2011 and 2015. The Navy’s study activities are included in a program called the ‘‘LHA Replacement’’ or

LHA(R) program.

The Navy identified a need for additional research and development funds to continue LHA(R) operational requirements and preliminary concept design activities. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in LHD–1 advance procurement and an increase of $10.0 million in PE 64567N to continue

LHA(R) operational requirements development and preliminary

concept design activities.

Landing craft air cushion service life extension program

The budget request included $67.6 million for inducting three

landing craft air cushion (LCAC) vehicles into a service life extension program (SLEP). This SLEP effort is designed to increase the

life of the LCACs by 20 years and provide them with increased capability. This capability expansion includes enhanced command,

control and navigation capabilities and increased operational range

and lift capacity.

The Marine Corps has indicated that accelerating this program

would be a high priority if additional funds were to be made available. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $22.0

million to induct another LCAC into the SLEP in fiscal year 2003.

Other Navy Procurement

Ship integrated condition assessment system

The budget request included no funds for procurement of integrated condition assessment systems (ICAS) for surface ships.

ICAS remotely monitors the operating parameters of machinery

throughout a ship, analyzes the collected data, and alerts operators

to potential performance problems. ICAS has the potential to: (1)

reduce the hours required to measure, analyze and report machinery operations; (2) reduce total operating costs; and (3) improve

operational availability. ICAS has been installed in a number of

surface ships and is performing well. The committee recommends

an increase of $11.0 million for procurement and installation of

ICAS in surface ships.

76

Stainless steel sanitary spaces

The budget request included $123.4 million for procurement and

installation of various items of ship support equipment costing less

than $5.0 million. The budget did not include funding specifically

for providing stainless steel sanitary spaces for backfitting on existing Navy ships. The use of stainless steel sanitary spaces could result in lower life cycle costs and improved quality of life for sailors.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million

to accelerate the procurement and installation of the stainless steel

sanitary spaces on Navy ships.

Electronic warfare program change

The budget request included $168.8 million for development, procurement and installation of the advanced integrated electronic

warfare system (AIEWS). Of that amount, $25.9 million was included in PE 64757N for research and development; $15.8 million

was included in Other Procurement, Navy (OPN) to buy and install

one AIEWS in an active duty ship; and $127.2 million was included

in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) to buy and install

eight AIEWSs in new construction ships.

The Navy recently terminated the AIEWS effort and announced

a restructuring of surface ship electronic warfare programs. The

Navy has decided to focus on upgrading the SLQ–32 systems presently installed in Navy ships rather than developing and procuring

a new system. As part of that restructuring, the Navy has asked

to transfer:

(1) $25.9 million within PE 64757N from AIEWS development to development of SLQ–32 system improvements as part

of the shipboard electronic warfare system improvement program; and (2) $1.6 million of the OPN funding to PE 64757N for the

shipboard electronic warfare system improvement program.

The Navy has indicated that the remaining OPN funding is excess to current requirements. The Navy has taken no position on

what should happen with the SCN funding.

An electronic countermeasures suite is vital to the layered defenses of surface combatants. Therefore, the committee directs the

Secretary of the Navy to ensure that, for any new construction

ships previously scheduled to receive the AIEWS, the Navy outfits

those ships with a suitable replacement system of at least equal capability to that installed in other ships of the same ship class.

Therefore, the committee authorizes: (1) an increase of $1.6 million

in PE 64757N; (2) the requested realignment of $25.9 million within that program element from AIEWS to electronic warfare system

improvement; and (3) a decrease of $15.8 million in OPN. In addition, the committee authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to apply

the SCN funds to buy and install electronic warfare equipment as

directed above.

Joint engineering data management information and control system

The budget request included no funding for the joint engineering

data management information and control system (JEDMICS) program. JEDMICS is the joint Department of Defense (DOD) system

77

for permanently storing, managing and controlling digital engineering drawings and associated technical data. JEDMICS replaced

labor-intensive, inefficient manual and semi-automated engineering

drawing repositories with automated central repositories for all engineering and manufacturing information for DOD weapons systems.

The committee is concerned that, without additional funding, the

Navy may not be able to ensure that engineering and technical

data for weapons systems in JEDMICS are aligned with the exact

configuration of weapons systems and their spare parts being used

in the fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$3.0 million to continue verification of the JEDMICS databases.

SPQ–9B radar

The budget request included $27.1 million in gunfire control equipment, including $14.4 million for procurement of SPQ–9B radars. The SPQ–9B provides surface ships with a gunfire control

radar that also enhances ship self-defense capabilities. Developing

and fielding a solid state transmitter has the potential to reduce

life cycle costs and improve performance of this radar. Therefore,

the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to design,

build, test and integrate a solid state transmitter into the SPQ–9B

radar.

Improving efficiency on ships through food service technology

The budget request included $9.8 million for procurement and installation of smart ship-type systems for AEGIS system ships. The

aim of these systems is to improve the quality of service for personnel serving aboard ship.

The Navy has successfully tested a program to provide an advanced food service technology system aboard two non-combatant

ships. The Navy is now testing the system on an AEGIS cruiser.

The committee believes that the system has the potential to significantly reduce the time required for food service and reduce demands on personnel to support ship food service operations. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for procurement and installation of the advanced food service technology

system.

Integrated bridge to improve ship situational awareness

The budget request included $14.8 million for procurement and

installation of eight integrated bridge system upgrades for AEGIS

system ships. The integrated bridge system, by automating navigation and ship control functions, improves situational awareness and

provides continuous updates to displays which previously required

manual updates. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0

million to accelerate the procurement and installation of the integrated bridge system.

Submarine combat control system

The budget request included $46.3 million for procurement and

installation of various items of equipment to modernize submarine

combat control systems. Upgrading submarines to a common comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.026 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
78

bat control system configuration should help improve fleet operational readiness and reduce life cycle costs. Such upgrades could

also lead to improved war fighting capability. For example, replacing older weapons’ launch control systems with newer equipment

would help eliminate single points of failure for self-defense. The

committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate

the procurement and installation of submarine combat control systems upgrades.

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system

The budget request included $28.0 million for anti-ship missile

decoy systems, including $12.3 million for procuring 40 new

NULKA decoys. Procuring additional NULKA decoys would ensure

that fleet installations remain on a reasonable schedule, would

keep production rates above the minimum sustaining level, and

would achieve more reasonable unit production costs. The committee recommends an increase of $10.8 million for the NULKA

procurement program to purchase additional decoys.

Submarine training device modifications

The budget request included $17.3 million to procure submarine

training device modifications. The Navy has critical training requirements to support submarines in the fleet and is beginning to

use performance support systems that would enhance training

quality opportunities. The committee understands that the Navy is

using such systems to support operator training and diagnostics for

submarine Tomahawk launch systems. The committee believes that

the Navy could use these systems more extensively to provide onthe-job operation, maintenance and troubleshooting support normally provided by journeymen and advanced schoolhouse training.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

to expand the use of performance support systems in conducting

submarine training.

Marine Corps Procurement

Auto test equipment systems

The budget request included $0.9 million for the third echelon

test system (TETS). TETS is a portable, automated tester that provides diagnostic testing and fault isolation capability for communications, electronic, and ground weapons systems, such as the

tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire-guided missile (TOW); Light

Armored Vehicle (LAV); and the target location designation and

hand-off system. The committee understands that the Marine

Corps has recently increased the requirement for TETS to support

high-powered lasers and track/motorized vehicle platforms. However, the Marine Corps has not requested funding to buy the test

equipment to meet this requirement. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for additional TETS to meet

these new requirements.

Lightweight multi-band satellite terminals

The budget request included $1.0 million to continue purchasing

lightweight multi-band satellite terminals for Marine Corps comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.026 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
79

munications battalions to support all combat echelons. Having

these terminals would allow the communications battalions to provide reliable communications to highly mobile combat elements in

addition to reducing operations and support costs. The committee

recommends an increase of $5.0 million for buying additional lightweight multi-band satellite terminals.

SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

C–130J aircraft program (sec. 131)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Air Force to enter into a multiyear contract to purchase C–130J aircraft and variants of the C–130J, subject to the

C–130J completing the process to achieve certification for worldwide over-water capability.

The Air Force has indicated that the recently announced overall

airlift roadmap assumes approval of the Air Force’s request to approve multiyear procurement authority for the C–130J. Such purchases would include purchases for the Marine Corps. The Air

Force has estimated that buying 64 C–130Js (40 for the Air Force

and 24 for the Marine Corps) under a multiyear contract would

save more than $650 million.

The committee recognizes that the Air Force will not complete

final C–130J operational test and evaluation until early in fiscal

year 2004. The Air Force, however, is buying the C–130J as a commercial item. The aircraft has already achieved FAA certification.

In addition, the delay in operational testing has been caused primarily by added requirements for defensive systems that were not

part of the original program.

The C–130J has been performing well in interim operational assessments, and operational squadrons are already flying the aircraft successfully. Therefore, the committee believes that the possibility of achieving the promised savings outweighs any risk remaining in the testing program once over-water capability clearance is

achieved.

Pathfinder programs (sec. 132)

The Air Force has designated a number of ‘‘pathfinder’’ pilot programs for spiral development and acquisition reform. Among those

identified as pathfinders are large significant programs such as the

Global Positioning System, the Space-based Radar and the Global

Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. The committee encourages the

Air Force to continually look for new ways to reduce the time that

it takes to acquire weapons systems. However, the committee believes that certain minimum standards for oversight should apply

to these programs.

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to determine by February 1,

2003, which pathfinder programs the Air Force intends to conduct

as spiral development programs. The committee directs the Secretary to submit a spiral development plan to the Secretary of Defense for each of the selected programs in accordance with the requirements of section 803. For the pathfinder programs that are

not selected and approved for spiral development, the committee

provision would require the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to assess the pathfinder program acquisition plans and report the results of these assessments

to the committee no later than May 15, 2003.

95

Oversight of acquisition for defense space programs (sec.

133)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to maintain oversight of

space program acquisition and require the Secretary of Defense to

submit to Congress by March 15, 2003 a detailed plan on how oversight by OSD and the Joint Staff will be accomplished. The Defense

Department’s space acquisition programs are among the most important programs in the Department because they are critical to

maintaining and improving the surveillance, communications and

situational awareness needed to support U.S. military forces.

Currently, however, a number of defense space programs are experiencing significant problems with cost growth and schedule slippage, and at least some of the problems appear to be connected

with the oversight and management of the programs. For example,

in December 2001 the Space-based Infrared System-High (SBIRSHigh) program sustained a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach when the

unit cost estimate for the program increased by more than 70 percent, indicating more than $2.0 billion in cost growth. The program

has also experienced an 18- to 24-month schedule slip. An independent review team established by the Air Force found significant

problems with the oversight and management of the SBIRS-High

program, including less-than-optimal systems engineering and requirements development processes. The Advanced Extremely High

Frequency (AEHF) program has also been experiencing delays and

cost overruns.

In February 2002, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics delegated oversight authority over

all major defense space programs to the Under Secretary of the Air

Force. In testimony to the Strategic Subcommittee on March 20,

2002, the Under Secretary stated his intent to significantly alter

most of the existing processes by which the OSD oversees space

programs, including the Integrated Product Team and Defense Acquisition Executive Summary processes. The committee believes

that the Office of the Secretary of Defense should maintain a

strong oversight role for space programs because of their military

importance and their inherently joint nature.

Leasing of tanker aircraft (sec. 134)

The Air Force has stated that it has a requirement for additional

tanker aircraft but has not budgeted funds for the acquisition of

such aircraft until fiscal year 2008. Section 8159 of the Department

of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 gave the Secretary of the Air Force discretion to enter into leases for up to 100

Boeing 767 aircraft for use as tanker aircraft but provided no funds

for that purpose.

Section 8159 required the Secretary to submit a report to the

congressional defense committees outlining any plans for implementing the provision at least 30 days before entering into any

lease arrangement under this authority. The Secretary indicated on

February 12, 2002, that he would not take any action without first

coming to both the authorization committees and the appropriations committees to have money authorized and appropriated.

96

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of the Air Force to submit the report required by section

8159 and obtain authorization and appropriation of funds necessary to enter a lease for such aircraft, in accordance with his

publicly stated commitments to the Congress, before entering such

a lease.

The committee reserves judgement on any particular lease of

tanker aircraft, on the source of funding for such a lease, and on

other specific issues regarding the lease until the Secretary decides

whether to recommend a lease, submits the report required by section 8159, and seeks authorization and appropriation of funds necessary to enter the proposed lease in accordance with the requirements of this provision.

Air Force Aircraft

C–17 aircraft trainers

The budget request included $2.7 billion for buying C–17 aircraft

and various support equipment. The budget, however, included no

funding for maintenance training devices to support additional operating locations for the C–17 aircraft. To maintain core task proficiency, a minimum of three maintenance training devices is required:

(1) an aircraft maintenance systems trainer (AMST);

(2) a trainer evaluation performance aircraft training set

(TEPATS); and

(3) an aircraft engine trainer (AET).

An AMST and TEPATS have been funded in recent years, but an

AET is required to complete the set of maintenance training devices. The Air Force also needs to make software enhancements to

the AMST and TEPATS devices. The committee recommends an increase of $11.3 million for C–17 aircraft modifications including

$9.2 million for the procurement of an AET training device and

$2.1 million for software enhancements.

C–17 aircraft interim contractor support

The budget request included $612.5 million for interim contractor

support (ICS) for the C–17 aircraft. The C–17 flexible sustainment

program provides ICS for the airframe, including material management for unique spares, a wartime surge capability, and a process

to incorporate aircraft modifications rapidly into the program. With

additional aircraft being delivered each year, the required funding

for this support is increasing. The amount authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2002 was approximately $71 million greater

than that for fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2003, however, the

budget request is for an increased amount that represents a growth

of almost twice the fiscal year 2002 increase. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $59.7 million to sustain the previously established growth in C–17 ICS, a total authorization of

$552.8 million.

EC–130J aircraft program

The budget request included no funds to purchase EC–130J aircraft to support modernization of the Commando Solo aircraft

97

squadron whose mission is to engage in psychological operations

activities. The Commando Solo aircraft is designed to jam local

radio and television station broadcasts and inject programming

from our psychological operations forces. Using the Commando

Solo, our forces disseminate our message to the local population

and prevent them from hearing only the word of an adversary. In

testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, the Commander in Chief, Special Operations Command,

singled out this unit’s contribution in Operation Enduring Freedom.

An Air National Guard unit operates the Commando Solo aircraft for the Special Operations Command. This unit has six EC–

130 Commando Solo aircraft. The currently funded program includes providing the unit with three EC–130J Commando Solo aircraft, leaving the unit to operate a mix of three EC–130J and three

EC–130E aircraft for at least six years.

While any such unit getting new equipment faces some overlap

period, the longer the transition period stretches out, the greater

the demand on training ground support personnel, pilots, operators

and maintenance personnel. This situation is particularly difficult

for the unit operating Commando Solo aircraft, because the aircraft

have been heavily tasked and fit the definition of a ‘‘high demand/

low density,’’ or HD/LD unit.

The current Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) would provide newer EC–130J aircraft to replace the three remaining older

EC–130E aircraft at a rate of one per year, starting in fiscal year

2006. Adding an EC–130J this year would permit the Air Force

and SOCOM to accelerate this replacement by at least a year. This

initiative fits with the committee’s efforts to help alleviate the pressure on HD/LD units. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $110.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force to buy

one C–130J aircraft and convert it to the EC–130J Commando Solo

configuration.

CV–22 Osprey aircraft advance procurement

The budget request included $10.1 million in advance procurement for two CV–22 Osprey aircraft in fiscal year 2004. Section 123

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

(Public Law 107–107) restricts the procurement of V–22 Osprey

aircraft to the minimum sustaining rate of 11 aircraft until the

Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the Department of

Defense has completed specific operational testing successfully. According to information provided to the committee, the Department

will conduct an operational assessment in fiscal year 2003 but will

not begin the operational evaluation until late in fiscal year 2004,

continuing into fiscal year 2005.

Procuring more than 11 V–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2004 would

be inconsistent with staying at the minimum sustaining rate until

that testing is complete. The committee recommends advance procurement in Aircraft Procurement, Navy, to support buying 11

MV–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2004. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.1 million, leaving no advance procurement funding for CV–22 aircraft.

98

B–2 Spirit bomber

The budget request included $72.1 million in funding for Aircraft

Procurement, Air Force, line 24 for the B–2 bomber. The research

and development request for the B–2 bomber inadvertently in- cluded $25.2 million that should have been included in the procurement account to buy Airborne Integrated Terminals (AIT) for UHF

satellite communications. The committee recommends a $25.2 million decrease in B–2 research and development in PE 64240F and

a corresponding increase in procurement for the B–2 in PE 11127F,

a total authorization of $97.3 million.

B–52 bomber

The budget request for fiscal year 2003 contained no funding for

procurement for the B–52 bomber. The committee recommends

$20.0 million for PE 11113 for the B–52 for the Electronic Countermeasures Improvement (ECMI) program to continue the upgrades

for the current ALQ–172 electronic countermeasures system. The

ECMI provides better situational awareness, ground and in-flight

reprogramming capability, and improved reliability and maintainability over the current system. The Air Force has not included

funding for any of the ECMI kits in fiscal year 2003. Without funding for 2003, the production line would have to shut down for one

year, which would result in increased per unit costs and would

delay the ECMI by two years. The B–52 bomber, although the oldest bomber in the Air Force, once again demonstrated its value

through its performance in Afghanistan. Only by a continued commitment to modernization and upgrade programs can the B–52 be

relied upon for the next 35 years as planned.

F–16 aircraft modifications

The budget request included $265.0 million for modifications to

the F–16 aircraft, but it included no funding for continuing a program to replace engines of block 42 F–16 aircraft with the F100– PW–229 engine. This re-engining program would enable Air National Guard units flying the block 42 F–16 aircraft to have comparable speed, thrust, and maneuverability with other F–16 aircraft, allowing full integration into the Expeditionary Air Force

structure. Such a modification would also increase the reliability

and maintainability of these aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million for F100–PW–229 engines

for block 42 F–16 aircraft, a total authorization of $325.0 million

for F–16 aircraft modifications.

C–5 aircraft avionics modernization program

The budget request included $86.0 million in procurement for C–

5 aircraft modifications, including $78.1 million for the avionics

modernization program (AMP).

The budget request also included $277.8 million in PE 41119F

for operational system development for the C–5 aircraft, including

$41.7 million for AMP development.

After the Defense Department submitted the budget request, the

service conducted an integrated risk assessment. That assessment

concluded that the Air Force had underestimated the time required

to complete development and testing and needed to restructure the

99

AMP effort. The Air Force has informed the committee that their

restructuring plan includes a need to shift some of the procurement

budget request for fiscal year 2003 to research and development to

complete development and testing. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $26.6 million in C–5 aircraft modification

procurement and a corresponding increase of $26.6 million in PE

41119F for C–5 aircraft operational system development.

C–130 aircraft modifications

The budget request included $138.5 million for modifications to

the C–130 aircraft. The committee recommends an overall increase

of $38.0 million, a total authorization of $176.5 million.

The budget request included $18.4 million for the enhanced traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS). This modification

is required by the Air Force Navigation and Safety Master Plan

and global air traffic management mandates. Meeting these requirements is essential for aircraft to maintain worldwide, unrestricted airspace access. Because of the essential contribution that

TCAS can make to aircraft safety, the committee recommends an

increase of $15.0 million to accelerate installation of TCAS for C–

130s.

The budget request included no funding for quick engine change

(QEC) kits for the T56 engines used in Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) MC–130E, AC–130H, or AM–130P aircraft. AFSOC units currently face the difficulty of using and maintaining five different versions of T56 QECs across the AFSOC C–

130 fleet. These versions are neither compatible nor interchangeable, greatly complicating the required logistics. These differences

could be eliminated if the MC–130E and AC–130H aircraft received

an oil cooler augmentation (OCA) and if the MC–130P aircraft received both the OCA and a generator modification. The committee,

therefore, recommends an increase of $13.0 million to procure T56

QEC kits for the AFSOC C–130 fleet.

The budget request included no funding for prototyping and testing an eight-bladed propeller and a new electronic control system.

The propeller system is designed to increase available thrust and

improve reliability and maintainability. The Navy has invested

$45.0 million in an eight-bladed propeller for the E–2 and C–2 aircraft, both of which have T56 engines similar to the C–130 fleet.

Navy testing of an E–2 outfitted with this system is scheduled to

finish later this year.

If the Air Force were to conduct a test with a C–130 aircraft

using the new propeller system, they would have the basis upon

which to decide whether to program the rest of the C–130 fleet for

a propeller upgrade program. Such testing could evaluate claims of

significant savings in operating and support costs. If these estimates are correct, the fact that the Air Force operates a large fleet

of C–130 aircraft could translate into substantial benefits to the operating forces. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$10.0 million to conduct the prototyping and testing of an eightbladed propeller and a new electronic control system for the C–130

aircraft.

100

KC–135 aircraft boom operator weapons system trainer

The budget request included $108.7 million for modifications to

the C–135 aircraft, including modifications to the KC–135 air refueling aircraft. The budget did not include any funding for a new

boom operator weapons system trainer (BOWST).

The Air Force has indicated that the current system for training

boom operators is obsolete and unreliable. If it fails, the air crews

would have to conduct this critical training on actual sorties. In addition, the Air Force expects that if they deploy the new BOWST,

air crews will actually be able to supplant some of the actual training sorties that now provide training that is impossible to conduct

on the current ground training equipment. For example, the Air

Force expects that new boom operators will require only six actual

aircraft sorties to achieve initial qualification instead of nine. The

committee believes that these savings would be significant. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million for the

procurement of the BOWST, a total authorization of $115.2 million

in C–135 aircraft modifications.

Upgrades to Air National Guard targeting pods

The budget request included $349.5 million for miscellaneous

production charges related to Air Force aircraft but included no

funding to modify existing Litening II precision targeting pods deployed in the Air National Guard F–16 fleet.

The Air National Guard has identified a candidate upgrade program that would install a new forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor in the Litening II pod. This upgraded FLIR would have higher

reliability than current systems, thereby reducing the demands on

maintenance personnel. The new FLIR would also yield capability

improvements, including doubled detection range, automatic target

tracking and multiple target tracking. The committee recommends

an increase of $20.0 million for procurement of Litening II targeting pod improvements.

Air Force Ammunition

Sensor-fuzed weapon

The budget request included $106.0 million for the sensor-fuzed

weapon, a cluster munition used against land combat vehicles. The

committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to achieve a

more economic order quantity rate and to lower the overall unit

cost.

MJU–52/B infrared countermeasures

The budget request did not include funding for MJU–52/B infrared (IR) countermeasures for F–15 aircraft. However, Air Combat

Command has validated a compelling requirement to field an expendable countermeasure for F–15s as soon as possible. Therefore,

the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million to purchase

additional MJU–52/B IR countermeasures. These countermeasures

would provide Air Force F–15s with new defensive capabilities to

deny sophisticated infrared missile-seekers, thereby increasing survivability.

101

Air Force Missiles

Minuteman III modifications

The budget request included $580.7 million in PE 11213F for

modifications to the Minuteman III (MMIII) land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). The committee recommends an additional $23.2 million to ensure that the multi-part MMIII modernization program remains on track. Two elements of the modernization effort, the Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) and

the Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP), must move in tandem.

However, recent labor rate increases in the PRP and GRP have led

to a mismatch in the tandem production rates of these two components.

The additional funds would also support the purchase of shipping

and storage containers and container inserts to allow the Air Force

to download the MMIII ICBMs to a single warhead configuration,

consistent with the Nuclear Posture Review. The committee urges

the Air Force to continue to download the MMIII ICBMs as quickly

as possible so that all MMIII warheads are in a single warhead

configuration by 2007.

Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite program

The budget request included $94.5 million for Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite procurement in PE

33604F. Due to the slip of the AEHF program’s Critical Design Review schedule, however, the Air Force has indicated that the proposed fiscal year 2003 procurement funding will not be required to

carry out the program in fiscal year 2003. Therefore, the committee

recommends a reduction of $94.5 million in PE 33604F.

Defense Support Program mobile terminal displays

The Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites are the space

component of the nation’s current early warning system for ballistic

missile launches. These satellites detect intercontinental ballistic

missile launches against the U.S. and can also detect the launch

of short-range ballistic missiles. The system provided early warning

of Iraqi SCUD missile launches to soldiers and civilians during the

Desert Storm conflict.

Currently, the more capable Space-based Infrared System-High

(SBIRS-High) is in line to replace the DSP satellites, the first of

which was launched in the 1970’s. Significant cost and schedule

problems with SBIRS-High, however, have called into question

whether a replacement system for DSP will be ready on time.

In the meantime, the mobile ground terminal displays for DSP,

which provide an important means to receive DSP missile warning

data, have become obsolete and are no longer supportable. If any

of the displays were to fail in the future, the nation’s ability to detect and warn of ballistic missile launches would be degraded.

Given the likelihood that DSP will be required to serve longer than

anticipated because of the SBIRS-High problems, it is prudent to

ensure DSP systems are adequately funded and modernized.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.1 million

for procurement of new display units for DSP mobile ground terminals.

102

Titan space boosters

The budget request included $335.3 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force for the Titan space booster. The committee recommends a reduction of $20.0 million as a result of program execution delays.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle mission assurance

The budget request included $158.9 million for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). The EELV is a new, low-cost

commercial-government partnership that will reduce the cost of

launch by 25 to 50 percent. The Wideband Gapfiller Satellites

(WGS) will be launched using the EELV and will provide critical

and substantially improved communications services. The committee recommends an additional $14.5 million for mission assurance to support the WGS first-of-a-kind as recommended by the

EELV broad area review.

Other Air Force Procurement

Spacelift range system (space)

The budget request contained $108.3 million in Other Procurement, Air Force for spacelift range system (space) to continue range

modernization and recapitalization efforts, a $23.0 million decrease

from the fiscal year 2002 level. In order to support the growing reliance of the United States on space systems and other systems

that rely on the spacelift ranges, the Air Force must ensure that

the ranges can meet the requirements for an automated and standardized spacelift range system. The committee is concerned that

the modernization schedule has not been maintained as originally

planned. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $9.5

million for recapitalization and modernization efforts, including the

planning and scheduling system and adequate spares. The committee recommends a total increase of $29.0 million for spacelift

ranges for procurement, research and development, and operation

and maintenance accounts.

Panoramic night vision goggles

The budget request included $3.8 million to procure night vision

goggles but included no funding to begin buying the next generation device for aviators, the panoramic night vision goggles

(PNVG). The Air Force has informed the committee that the tremendous improvement in field-of-view offered by PNVGs will greatly improve situational awareness, reduce aircrew spatial disorientation, and enable quicker, more accurate target identification.

The improvements directly translate to greatly enhanced aircrew

safety. With the funding Congress provided last year to complete

development, the Air Force will be ready to begin buying the

PNVGs in fiscal year 2003. Because of the tremendous potential for

improved operational capability and safety for aviators using

PNVGs, the committee recommends an increase of $8.1 million to

buy PNVGs.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

Defense-Wide Programs

Global information grid

The budget request included $517.0 million for the Defense Information Services Agency (DISA) to begin the first year of a two-year

program to build the global information grid (GIG) to expand existing bandwidth at key Department of Defense (DOD) sites. The committee supports the aim of the GIG to enhance DOD’s ability to

transmit greater quantities of information more rapidly around the

world but is concerned that the planned execution of almost $1.0

billion over two years is overly ambitious. For example, efforts to

expand information transmission capabilities in the past have been

slowed because, upon attempting to insert new technology, DOD

has discovered that the facilities to house those technologies are inadequate. The committee believes that similar challenges are likely

to arise in a program of this magnitude. Therefore, the committee

recommends a decrease of $115.9 million, reflecting the need for a

more realistic execution schedule. The committee’s recommendation

for fiscal year 2003 totals $401.1 million to support expansion of

the network backbone to the highest priority sites in the continental United States, Europe, and Pacific Command.

Avionics enhanced situational awareness

The budget request included $18.6 million in the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment procurement account for purchasing, integrating, and installing Mission Processors (MPs), Multifunction Displays (MFDs), and Intelligence Broadcast Receivers (IBRs) in Army Special Operations aircraft. The MP and MFD replace obsolete equipment that is no

longer supportable or upgradeable. The IBR allows the pilots to receive the latest intelligence data from national intelligence sources

while conducting their worldwide missions. These three programs

together form a large part of the rotary wing Common Avionics Architecture for Penetration (CAAP) Enhanced Situational Awareness

(ESA) program. Given the fact that the MP and MFD functions are

being handled by antiquated systems that will no longer be supportable in fiscal year 2004, that there is no IBR capability in current aircraft, and that the timetable for the MH47 Service Life Extension Program provides an opportunity to also execute the CAAP

ESA program, the committee recommends an increase of $9.6 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide for SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades

and Sustainment for purchasing, integrating, and installing six additional sets of MPs, MFDs, and IBRs.

EC–130J Commando Solo spares

The budget request did not include any funding for a set of

spares for the EC–130J TV/radio broadcast equipment required for

the Commando Solo psychological operations missions. These spare

parts, including radios, TV converters, and media players, support

the airborne special mission equipment package contained in the

EC–130J. The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million

in Procurement, Defense-Wide for Special Operations Aircraft Support to purchase a set of spares for the EC–130J Commando Solo

mission.

111

SEAL Delivery Vehicles

The budget request did not include funding for procurement of

the SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV). The SDV is a wet submersible

operated by a crew of two that can clandestinely transport up to

four SEALs with their combat gear and mission equipment into

hostile waters. The Special Operations Command considers SDVs

a high priority requirement in order to conduct successful naval

special operations. Additional funding would accelerate procurement of the SDVs required to meet the inventory objective. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide for the MK VIII MOD 1—SEAL Delivery

Vehicle for an additional SDV.

Multiband Multimission Radios

The budget request included $6.0 million in the Special Operations Communications Equipment and Electronics procurement

account for the Multiband Multimission Radio (MBMMR). This

funding should ensure fielding of the radios to approximately 58

percent of the Special Operations Forces (SOF) who have a requirement for the radios. The MBMMR allows SOF teams to communicate on a user-selected frequency utilizing a single radio with embedded communications security. It reduces the communications

combat load by approximately 37 pounds, augmenting or replacing

other radios. The command has stated that, ‘‘MBMMR is required

for SOF operations in the current war on global terrorism.’’ Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide for the Special Operations Communications Equipment and Electronics for the MBMMR.

Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher

The budget request included $3.7 million for the Special Operations Forces Small Arms and Weapons procurement account for

the Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL) systems for

the Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide

for Special Operations Forces Small Arms and Weapons to purchase additional ALGL systems, which provide first-round-hit capability on lightly armored vehicles at ranges beyond 1,500 meters.

The ALGL procurement would provide special operators with an

improved 40mm weapons system capability consisting of a lightweight 40mm grenade launcher, day/night fire control, and mount

(ground and vehicle). The system would replace one that is twice

as heavy, non-man portable, and less accurate.

Low Profile Night Vision Goggle

The budget request did not include funding for Low Profile Night

Vision Goggles (LPNVG) for the Naval Special Warfare Command.

The LPNVG is an image intensification system using folded optics

to reduce the overall system profile. The current goggle system,

whose optics are mounted more than two inches away from the

front of the eye, puts undue strain on the user’s neck when used

in a high-sea state. The LPNVG system moves the center of gravity

closer to the user’s face, reducing fatigue and neck strain associated with long sea transit, and reduces mount failure. The LPNVG

112

also provides a superimposed day image and can accommodate a

Heads-Up Display, which would allow the user to simultaneously

view displays from a Global Positioning System (GPS), Maritime

Forward Looking Infrared Radar (MARFLIR), or other instruments. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in

Procurement, Defense-Wide for Special Operations Forces Small

Arms and Weapons Acquisition for the procurement of approximately 147 additional LPNVGs.

Modular Integrated Communications Helmet system

The budget request did not include funding for the Modular Integrated Communications Helmet (MICH) System. The MICH system

provides the special operations forces with state-of-the-art ballistic

and impact protection while providing an advanced communications capability, which allows Special Forces operators to connect

to a wide range of radios and vehicle, boat and aviation intercoms.

The communications portion of the helmet can also be used separately. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in

Procurement, Defense-Wide for Special Operations Forces Small

Arms and Weapons to purchase approximately 4,250 MICH systems.

Special Operations Craft-Riverine

The budget request did not include any funding for Special Operations Craft-Riverine (SOC–R) procurement. The SOC–R is an airtransportable, armored craft that is capable of carrying special operations forces for insertion, extraction, and reconnaissance missions in riverine environments. SOC–R is more capable and supportable than existing Vietnam-era craft and, unlike the latter,

fully meets operational requirements. Procurement of SOC–Rs

would allow Special Operations Command to accelerate attainment

of its total inventory objective. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide

for Special Operations Forces Combatant Craft Systems to purchase approximately six SOC–R systems.

Advanced night vision system

The budget request included $1.9 million for advanced night vision goggles in the Special Operations Forces Operational Enhancements procurement program for a helmet-mounted goggle system

that includes a state-of-the-art night vision capability, combining

image intensification with thermal imagery. It also allows operators to direct fire on threats detected by thermal signatures and,

in sum, provides the operator with a distinct battlefield advantage.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide for Special Operations Forces Operational Enhancements for an advanced night vision system.

M48 protective masks

The budget request included $125.3 million in the Defense-wide

procurement account for individual protection in the Chemical-Biological Defense Program for equipment and items to protect military personnel from exposure to chemical and biological agents.

The request, however, did not include funding for the M48 mask

113

for AH–64 Apache helicopter crews. The committee recommends an

increase of $500,000 to procure additional M48 masks for Apache

crews.

M12 decontamination system

The budget request included $15.6 million in the Defense-wide

procurement account for decontamination in the Chemical-Biological Defense Program for equipment to decontaminate personnel

and equipment exposed to chemical or biological agents. The request did not include funds for upgrades to the M12 decontamination system, which will eventually be replaced by the Modular Decontamination System (MDS). The committee notes that production

of the MDS is behind schedule. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to procure additional upgrades

for the M12 decontamination system.

Chemical-Biological Protective Shelter

The budget request included $14.9 million in the Defense-wide

procurement account for collective protection in the Chemical-Biological Defense Program to procure 27 Chemical-Biological Protective Shelters (CBPS). The CBPS is a highly mobile, rapidly

deployable shelter system designed for forward medical treatment

in contaminated battlefield environments. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to procure additional Chemical-Biological Protective Shelters to meet the increasing threat of

chemical and biological attack against U.S. military personnel.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Abrams tank program

The budget request included $376.3 million to upgrade M1

Abrams tanks to the M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP)

configuration and $123.7 million to continue the retrofit of M1A2

tanks to the M1A2 SEP configuration.

While retrofit of existing M1A2s to the SEP configuration will

continue in the out-years, the fiscal year 2003 budget request represented the last year of funding for the Abrams upgrade program.

As a result, after 2003, the United States will not be funding production of new or significantly upgraded main battle tanks for the

first time since the end of World War II.

The committee strongly supports the Army’s plan to acquire the

Future Combat Systems for its transformation to the Objective

Force. However, the committee is equally strong in its support for

efforts to recapitalize and selectively modernize the heavy CounterAttack Corps which will be the basis of the Army’s warfighting capability for the next 10 to 20 years until the Objective Force systems are fielded in sufficient numbers to assume that responsibility.

Current Army plans are to retrofit only 419 of the remaining 627

M1A2 tanks to the SEP configuration. The resulting tank fleet will

consist of 966 M1A2 SEP, 208 M1A2, and over 4,000 M1A1 tanks.

Three years ago the Army strongly opposed a proposed plan that

would have resulted in a similar mix of three separate tank configurations, arguing emphatically against the perceived operational

114

and logistical difficulties in supporting that mixture and urging the

committee to ensure that the M1A2 tank fleet would consist of only

the SEP configuration. Now the Army has apparently reversed its

position with what the committee fears is little consideration of the

Army’s own former arguments against such a mixture.

The committee does not understand the rationale for maintaining

208 M1A2 tanks not modernized to the SEP configuration, nor does

it understand the slow pace of the SEP retrofit program. The committee is also concerned with the limited funding being applied to

the electronic obsolescence problem in the tank fleet and to continued updating of the digitization systems in the M1A2 SEP tanks.

The committee directs the Army to present to the congressional

defense committees, no later than March 30, 2003, a plan to accelerate the SEP retrofit program, including the upgrade of the entire

fleet of 627 M1A2 tanks by fiscal year 2009, and to establish an

adequate obsolescence management and technology insertion program. This plan should consider all innovative acquisition means,

including a multiyear procurement and modernization through

spares of electronic modules.

Accelerated chemical demilitarization

The budget request included $1.5 billion for Chemical Agents and

Munitions Destruction. This level of funding supports the schedule

and cost estimated by the Defense Acquisition Board in 2001 for

the chemical demilitarization program. Since that cost estimate,

and since the fiscal year 2003 budget submission was finalized, the

Department of Defense approved a new plan for accelerated destruction of chemical agents at the Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility. In addition, the Army, which serves as the executive

agent for chemical demilitarization, developed a proposal for accelerated destruction and reconfiguration at other chemical stockpile

sites in order to reduce or eliminate the risk of a terrorist attack

against them.

If fully implemented, accelerated destruction could reduce the

schedule for destruction of chemical agents at some sites by an estimated three to five years and could produce life cycle cost savings

estimated as high as $3.0 billion. Accelerated destruction could also

permit the United States to meet its Chemical Weapons Convention destruction deadline for almost all of its stockpile sites instead

of being five or more years out of compliance as is now projected.

The Department of Defense included a request for $300.0 million

for accelerated chemical demilitarization in its fiscal year 2002 supplemental budget request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), but the proposed funding was not approved by OMB.

The committee believes that accelerated demilitarization of

chemical weapons and agents is in the national security interest

and urges the Department of Defense to identify funds to implement accelerated destruction, possibly through a reprogramming

request or a supplemental budget request.

Chemical demilitarization secondary waste disposal

An important element of the chemical demilitarization program

is the safe and efficient disposal of the contaminated by-products

of the chemical weapons destruction process. By-products, otherVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.036 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
115

wise referred to as ‘‘secondary waste,’’ include contaminated charcoal, haloginated plastics, brines, dunnage, and spent decontamination solution. The committee notes that States with chemical weapons stockpiles are working individually with the Department of the

Army to resolve secondary waste disposal issues. As a result, the

commencement and execution of the chemical demilitarization activities at several destruction sites are directly related to the selection of the means by which to dispose of secondary waste.

The safe and timely destruction of the chemical stockpile remains

the primary goal of the chemical demilitarization program. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of the Army to continue

to work with these States to identify and implement solutions for

the disposal of secondary waste using appropriate processes.

Acquisition programs at the National Security Agency

The Senate report accompanying S. 1438 (S. Rept. 107–62) raised

several concerns about acquisition programs at the National Security Agency (NSA). The report noted that the Director of the NSA

has made progress in transforming the NSA. The report, however,

expressed concern that more progress needs to be made in the NSA

processes if the NSA is to achieve the capabilities that the Nation

will require.

The statement of managers accompanying S. 1438 (Conf. Rpt.

107–333) identified a number of specific actions to help improve the

situation at the NSA. The statement of managers also expressed

the view that the NSA should seek the advice of independent, outside experts to assist in guiding its selection of technologies under

this baselining effort. The statement of managers concluded that,

unless the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Community Management Staff (CMS), and the NSA complete the baselining by December 1, 2002, Congress would direct that the NSA’s

modernization effort be designated a major defense acquisition program, with milestone decision authority likely residing with the

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics until initial operational capability (IOC) is achieved.

The committee believes that, although the NSA has been making

some progress since last year, much remains to be done. The committee encourages the NSA, the OSD and the CMS to make greater

progress before December 1, 2002.

Advanced Aviation Institutional Training Simulator

The budget request included $111.7 million for non-system training devices such as the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System 2000 and the Engagement Skills Trainer. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Congress authorized

$5.0 million for the procurement of Advanced Aviation Institutional

Training Simulators (AAITS), yet the Army did not request funding

for AAITS in the fiscal year 2003 budget request. The committee

understands that AAITS provides full-motion, reconfigurable cockpit simulation for AH–64 Apache, UH–60 Blackhawk, and the OH–

58C/D Kiowa Warrior helicopters. The committee believes that the

Army should maximize the use of training simulators and encourages the Army to consider the AAITS as a training platform to improve aviator student safety upon transition to the actual aircraft.

116

Armored Security Vehicle

The budget request included $14.6 million for the Armored Security Vehicle (ASV). The Army has decided to terminate the ASV

program after completion of the multiyear contract in fiscal year

2003. At that time, the Army will have approximately 100 ASVs,

well short of the 602 required for the Counter-Attack Corps and

the forward deployed units in Korea and Europe, and far from the

total requirement of 1940.

By any standard, the ASV has been a success. The vehicle provides ample protection for soldiers in military police units from

anti-personnel land mines and from small arms and crew-served

weapons fire, a serious threat to a soldier standing in the unprotected turret of a High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle,

the Army’s alternative military police vehicle. The ASV can protect

the crew against anti-personnel mines; .50-caliber, armor-piercing

machine gun fire; and 155-millimeter artillery fire at 15 meters. It

is strategically mobile, able to deploy on a C–130 aircraft with 95

percent of its fuel and ammunition. Finally, the tactical mobility of

the ASV is at least equal to, and in some aspects greater than, that

of the Interim Armored Vehicle, a program on which the Army

plans to spend over $6.0 billion.

The committee does not understand the Army’s decision to terminate the ASV and directs the Chief of Staff of the Army to fully

justify the Army’s position to the congressional defense committees

no later than March 30, 2003.

Hydra 70 rocket

The budget request included $22.4 million for the Hydra 70 rocket system, an 83 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. The Army directed this reduction in conjunction with

the planned termination of the program in fiscal year 2004. The

Army’s intent is to replace the Hydra 70 rocket with the Advanced

Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). The committee notes,

however, that the APKWS, currently in research and development,

is not scheduled to be available until 2008 at the earliest.

In the interim, the Army’s plan is to decrease training to extend

the existing Hydra 70 inventory until the APKWS becomes available. The full training requirements for Army units call for an annual expenditure of 179,000 rounds of Hydra 70; at this rate, the

Army’s Hydra 70 inventory would be depleted by 2004.

Compounding the risk associated with planned training shortfalls, the war on terrorism has further accelerated the draw on existing Hydra 70 stocks. During operations in Afghanistan, special

forces and regular military units have relied heavily on the Hydra

70 rocket system to provide fire support to forces on the ground.

Given the importance of the Hydra 70 rocket to both training

and warfighting, the committee does not understand the Army’s

plan to terminate the Hydra 70 program. The committee finds that

the Army may be incurring a significantly high level of risk by this

action. Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Staff of the

Army to fully justify the Army’s position to the congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 2003.

117

Vessels for tactical sealift

The Army and Navy are leasing a commercially built, high-speed

vessel for experiments and exercises which gather data and test

the military utility and suitability of high-speed vessel concepts,

sea-keeping, and tactics. The Marine Corps is leasing a similar vessel for intra-theater tactical lift in the Western Pacific. The Department of Defense will use information collected from all three of

these efforts to assist in determining the requirements for tactical

sealift vessels for the future.

These analyses could very well point toward the need to build

some hull form never before constructed in a U.S. shipyard. If this

were the case, the Department and the U.S. shipbuilding industry

might need to use a different acquisition strategy in acquiring the

vessels, including taking steps to develop the skilled trades required to design and build such vessels. If the Department were to

decide on a hull form never before constructed in a U.S. shipyard,

the committee would encourage the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps

to consider a wider range of acquisition strategies that would reduce risk in acquiring a brand-new type of ship.

(119)

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND

EVALUATION

Explanation of tables

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance

for the funding authorized in title II of this Act. The tables also

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal

year 2003 budget request for research, development, test and evaluation programs and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in

the past, the administration may not exceed the authorized

amounts (as set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in the Department of Defense’s

budget justification documents) without a reprogramming action in

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in the report,

funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice.

Funds transferred to the accounts in this title from the Defense

Emergency Response Fund (DERF) are displayed on the tables that

follow as increases to the amount requested for those programs in

the research and development accounts. Programs for which funds

were transferred from the DERF are annotated to indicate that

funds were originally requested in the DERF.

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

120

121

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS,

RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

Basic seismic research program for support of national

requirements for monitoring nuclear explosions (sec.

211)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of the Air Force, through the Director of the Air Force

Research Laboratory, to manage the Department of Defense program of basic seismic research to support U.S. national requirements for monitoring nuclear explosions. The provision would authorize $20.0 million for this research program. The budget request included $37.6 million for Arms Control Technology in PE 63711BR, a reduction of $25.3 million from the

previous year. The amount requested includes $4.0 million for the

seismic research program, which is not sufficient funding to ensure

mission accomplishment. The committee provision would authorize

$20.0 million of this funding for the seismic research program

needed to support the national requirement to monitor nuclear explosions.

For more than 50 years, the Air Force has had a unique mission

requirement to monitor nuclear explosions around the world. This

mission is assigned to the Air Force Technical Applications Center

(AFTAC) at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. Since the mid– 1990s, newly validated national requirements have substantially

lowered the mandated thresholds for detecting, locating, and identifying nuclear explosions. In order to meet these challenging requirements, AFTAC is currently implementing a program to build

high frequency seismic arrays to monitor areas of national interest.

This program will roughly double the size of the operational U.S.

seismic network.

In order to meet the national requirement to monitor nuclear explosions, it is necessary to conduct basic seismic research to understand the geology and seismic characteristics of each region of concern. This understanding is essential in order to calibrate each

seismic array so the data they receive can be interpreted correctly.

For nearly 40 years, the Air Force has managed this basic seismic

research program, which is conducted by numerous universities

with geological and seismic expertise.

Since this program was transferred to the Department of Defense

in fiscal year 1997, funding requests by the Department for this essential research have been insufficient, and the program has relied

on additional funds provided by Congress to ensure that the mission could be accomplished adequately.

The committee believes $20.0 million is the proper level of funding to ensure mission accomplishment and urges the Department

to program adequate and stable funding in the future to perform

this essential seismic research mission supporting a critical national requirement.

Advanced SEAL Delivery System (sec. 212)

The budget request included $56.5 million for procurement associated with the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), including

$21.8 million for ASDS procurement and $34.7 million for ASDS

122

advance procurement. The ASDS is a miniature, combatant submarine being developed for the covert delivery of naval special operations forces. Unlike existing SEAL delivery vehicles, it transports Navy SEALs to longer ranges in a dry environment, enhancing the operators’ ability to perform. The system includes the ASDS

mini-sub and transport equipment.

Significant technical and financial problems continue to plague

this program. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 required the Department of Defense to review this program and consider elevating it to a higher level of acquisition review. The Department conducted a review and instituted a more

rigorous oversight mechanism but has yet to conduct the overarching integrated product team review of the ASDS program,

which had been scheduled for this year. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed the Comptroller General to review the ASDS program. The Comptroller General’s review of the program indicated that the ASDS program continues to

experience problems associated with performance, technical issues,

mission requirements, and cost and schedule, which, if not resolved, could lead to further cost growth, schedule delays, and an

inability to meet program objectives.

The committee recognizes the technical challenges associated

with developing and fielding this unique system and continues to

support the overall effort to develop a mini-submarine, given the

potential value of such a vehicle for naval special warfare missions.

The committee is increasingly concerned, however, about the program’s technological, cost, and scheduling problems. The committee

does not believe that funding advance procurement items related to

the second boat and procuring sonar for the second boat are justified until problems with the first boat are resolved. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $34.7 million

in the ASDS advance procurement and a decrease of $5.0 million

in the ASDS procurement. In addition, the program has yet to obligate the $13.7 million in fiscal year 2002 advance procurement for

items associated with purchasing the second boat. Again, due to

the fact that the program has not been able to resolve the problems

associated with the first boat, the committee believes that there is

no justification for spending fiscal year 2002 funds on procurement

for the second boat. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to use funds that

were authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2002 for ASDS advance procurement, but are no longer needed for that purpose, for

ASDS research and development in the Special Operations Tactical

Systems Development program, PE 11644BB, and for ASDS procurement activities associated with the first boat; the use of these

funds would be subject to an action in an appropriations act. The

committee also recommends a reduction of the $12.2 million in the

budget request for ASDS research and development in the Special

Operations Tactical Systems Development program, PE 11644BB,

and a $1.5 million reduction in the budget request for ASDS procurement to reflect the use of these funds available from fiscal year

2002.

In order to encourage development of a solution to these technical problems, especially those associated with the batteries, the

123

committee also recommends an increase of $12.0 million for ASDS

procurement for purchase of a lithium ion battery set for the first

boat. The committee believes, however, that the program requires

more attention from the Commander in Chief, Special Operations

Command; the Navy; and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The committee, therefore, recommends that no more than 50 percent of the fiscal year 2003 ASDS procurement funding (excluding

the amount of $12.0 million added for the battery set) be released

before the Secretary of Defense conducts a complete review of the

requirements, mission, management, and cost structure of the

ASDS program and reports to the congressional defense committees on his findings.

Army experimentation program regarding design of the Objective Force (sec. 213)

Section 113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 requires the Secretary of the Army to develop and provide resources for an experimentation program that will provide information on the design of the Objective Force and will include the

formal linkage of the interim brigade combat teams to that experimentation. The committee considers such an experimentation program to be of critical importance to the successful transformation

of the Army to the Objective Force and is concerned that the Secretary of the Army has not taken concrete steps to comply with

that legislation. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision

that would require the Secretary of the Army to submit a report

to Congress on the details of the experimentation program no later

than March 30, 2003, and to fund that experimentation program as

a separate program element in the fiscal year 2004 budget request

submission to Congress.

SUBTITLE C—MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Annual operational assessments and reviews of ballistic missile defense program (sec. 221)

The Missile Defense Agency has discussed the possibility of ‘‘contingency deployments’’ of a number of ballistic missile defense systems in the 2004 time frame, including the Ground-based Midcourse, Sea-based Midcourse, Theater High Altitude Area Defense

(THAAD), and Air-based Boost (or Airborne Laser) systems. The

committee believes that before a decision on ‘‘contingency deployment’’ is made, the Department of Defense should have the best

possible information on the potential operational effectiveness of

the candidate system. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would require the Director of Operational Test and

Evaluation (DOT&E) to conduct annual operational assessments of

the ballistic missile defense systems discussed above and report the

results of these assessments to the Secretary of Defense and Congress by January 15 of each year, beginning in 2003.

In testimony to the committee on March 7, 2002, the committee

chairman asked each of the military service chiefs whether he had

been consulted on the Department’s missile defense budget for fiscal year 2003; each responded that he had not. The committee is

concerned that under the new Missile Defense Agency organization,

124

the military services have not been afforded the opportunity to provide the proper guidance and advice on the missile defense budget.

Therefore, this provision would direct the Joint Requirements

Oversight Council (JROC) to review annually the cost, schedule

and performance criteria for all Missile Defense Agency programs

and assess the validity of the criteria in relation to military requirements. The provision would require the JROC to report the

results of this review to the Secretary of Defense and Congress by

January 15 of each year, beginning in 2003.

Report on Midcourse Defense program (sec. 222)

In a January 2, 2002 memorandum from the Secretary of Defense restructuring the Department’s ballistic missile defense programs, the Secretary stated that the ‘‘special nature of missile defense development, operations, and support calls for non-standard

approaches to both acquisition and requirements generation.’’ As

such, the Secretary has exempted missile defense programs from

the Department’s traditional acquisition directives and processes

that require certain programmatic information be developed to assist in oversight of programs within the Department.

The committee is concerned that the exemption of missile defense

programs from these acquisition processes has also resulted in the

elimination of certain reports to Congress on missile defense programs. These reports are critical to congressional understanding

and oversight for missile defense programs, and are required for all

other major defense acquisition programs. One of the most important ballistic missile defense programs affected by the exemption is

the Midcourse Defense program, which includes both the Groundbased national missile defense system and the Sea-based Midcourse system (formerly known as Navy Theater-Wide). The committee, therefore, recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress, by January 15, 2003,

certain types of programmatic information for the Ground-based

Midcourse program which are required by sections 2431 and 2432

of title 10 United States Code for all major defense acquisition programs and are critical to congressional review and oversight.

Until the fiscal year 2002 budget submission, all information required by sections 2431 and 2432 of title 10, United States Code

had been submitted to Congress for all major ballistic missile defense programs. However, neither the fiscal year 2002 budget submission nor the fiscal year 2003 submission included such information. Both the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Pete Aldridge and the Director of the Missile

Defense Agency Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish have testified

to the committee that they intend to provide Congress with the information it needs. This committee provision, therefore, would establish the minimum congressional requirements for information

on the Midcourse Defense program.

Section 2431 of title 10, United States Code requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress, along with the budget justification, documentation regarding the development and procurement schedules for each weapons system for which funding is requested. The required documentation includes the following:

125

(1) the development schedule, including estimated annual

costs until development is completed; and

(2) the planned procurement schedule, including the best estimate by the Secretary of Defense of the annual costs and

units to be procured until procurement is completed.

This provision would require that this information be provided for

the Midcourse Defense program.

Section 2432 of title 10, United States Code requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress at the end of each quarter

of each fiscal year a report on current major defense acquisition

programs, including the current estimate of program acquisition

unit costs, the reasons for any changes in that estimate, and the

major contracts under the program together with the reasons for

any changes in cost or schedule variances under those contracts.

Additionally, section 2430 of title 10, United States Code defines

major defense acquisition programs to include those acquisition

programs estimated by the Secretary of Defense to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, test and evaluation of more than $300.0 million. The budget request for the Midcourse Defense program exceeds $3.0 billion for fiscal year 2003

alone. Therefore, the committee provision would require that this

information be provided for the Midcourse Defense program.

Finally, section 149 of title 10, United States Code establishes

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) as the

principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics on operational test and evaluation. A primary function for the DOT&E is

oversight of the development of the Test and Evaluation Master

Plan (TEMP) for major defense acquisition programs in accordance

with Department of Defense regulations. The committee provision

would require that the TEMP for the Ground-based Midcourse program be developed in accordance with Departmental regulations

and subsequently provided to Congress.

Report on Air-based Boost program (sec. 223)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress, by January 15, 2003,

certain types of programmatic information for the Air-based Boost

(formerly known as the Airborne Laser) program which are required by sections 2431 and 2432 of title 10 of the United States

Code for all major defense acquisition programs and are critical to

congressional understanding and oversight.

The Air-based Boost program is a well established program

which the Department of Defense has stated could be ready for

‘‘contingency deployment’’ within the next few years and for which

almost $600.0 million has been requested in fiscal year 2003. No

detailed information on the plans for this program has been submitted to Congress, however, in either the fiscal year 2002 or 2003

budget submissions. The information required by this provision for

the Air-based Boost program would be the same as required by section 222 of the committee bill for the Midcourse Defense program.

126

Report on Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) program (sec. 224)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress by January 15, 2003,

certain types of programmatic information for the THAAD program

which are required by sections 2431 and 2432 of title 10 of the

United States Code for all major defense acquisition programs and

are critical to congressional understanding and oversight. The information required by this provision for THAAD would be the same

as required by section 222 for the Midcourse Defense program.

THAAD is a well established program which the Department of

Defense has stated could be ready for ‘‘contingency deployment’’ within the next few years and for which more than $900.0 million

has been requested in fiscal year 2003. No detailed information on

the plans for this program, however, has been submitted to Congress in either the fiscal year 2002 or 2003 budget submissions.

Section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 specifically required the Secretary of Defense to submit

to Congress by February 1, 2002, the estimated total life cycle costs

for each ballistic missile defense program which enters Engineering

and Manufacturing Development (EMD). The Department has

failed to provide such information for THAAD even though THAAD

entered into EMD in calendar year 2000. In addition, the Department has failed to provide estimated total life cycle costs for

THAAD despite repeated requests from Congress, including a letter

to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and

Logistics from the Committee on Armed Services chairman and the

Strategic Subcommittee chairman requesting such information.

Therefore, the recommended provision would place a funding limitation on the THAAD program: no more than 50 percent of the

amount authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2003 for

THAAD may be expended until Congress has received the information required by the provision.

References to new name for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (sec. 225)

In January 2002, the Secretary of Defense directed a reorganization of the Department’s missile defense programs that included

changing the name of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(BMDO) to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would amend existing provisions of law to refer to the MDA vice the BMDO.

SUBTITLE D—IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TEST AND EVALUATION FACILITIES

The annual report of the Department of Defense (DOD) Director

of Operational Test and Evaluation for fiscal year 2001 concludes

that inadequate funding of DOD test and evaluation (T&E) infrastructure has led to inadequate testing of major weapons systems.

The Director’s report states:

During the past decade while T&E infrastructure resources were being reduced, we witnessed an alarming

127

trend of too many programs entering dedicated operational

T&E (OT&E) without having completed sufficient developmental T&E (DT&E). As a result, the services have conducted OT&E on immature systems and the results reflect

the consequences. In recent years, 66 percent of Air Force

programs have stopped operational testing due to a major

system or safety shortcoming. Since 1996, approximately

80 percent of Army systems tested failed to achieve reliability requirements during operational testing. * * * The

acquisition process fails to deliver systems to the

warfighter that meet reliability and effectiveness requirements.

In section 913 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, the committee required the Defense Science Board

(DSB) to assess the resources and capabilities of the test and evaluation facilities of the Department of Defense. The DSB report,

issued in December 2000, supports the Director’s conclusion that

the Department is no longer conducting adequate testing of weapon

systems. The DSB report states:

1. Testing is not being conducted adequately—if systems

are not adequately tested they enter the inventory with latent defects that can be very costly and can impact operational effectiveness.

2. A particularly shocking finding is that there is growing evidence that the acquisition system is not meeting expectations as far as delivering high quality, reliable and effective equipment to our military forces.

3. The lack of testing cannot be blamed on the lack of

facilities; however, limited infrastructure is a contributor

to the lack of interoperability testing.

4. There is an increasing incidence of test waivers.

5. The T&E process is not funded properly—in phasing

or in magnitude

a. Funds are not available early enough

b. Corners are cut in the testing that is done[.]

6. There is not enough government oversight of testing

done by industry. * * *

It appears that we too often fail to carry out adequate

testing. In those cases where the testing is adequate, we

fail to take the corrective actions needed based on the results of that testing. In many cases, we allow our acquisition programs to proceed to their next phases, such as

moving from development or technical testing to operational testing or moving from development into production and deployment with our combat forces, when the test

results we have gathered clearly indicate the systems are

not ready.

The committee believes that the Department of Defense has no

greater duty than to ensure that the weapons systems that it puts

in the hands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will operate as intended in combat situations. Adequate testing of weapons

systems is not an abstract concept: lives depend upon it.

128

For this reason, the committee recommends a series of provisions

to implement the recommendations of the Director of Operational

Test and Evaluation and the report of the Defense Science Board

task force on test and evaluation capabilities.

Department of Defense Test and Evaluation Resource Enterprise (sec. 231)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a

Department of Defense Test and Evaluation Resource Enterprise

(T&E/RE), which shall report to the Director of Operational Test

and Evaluation.

The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated in his

annual report for fiscal year 2001:

The current approach to managing the DOD T&E infrastructure is through centralized oversight by DOT&E and

decentralized funding and management by the Military

Departments and Defense Agencies. Funding and manpower levels for the individual ranges and centers are programmed by the owning service, even though the ranges

may possess unique T&E capabilities which are used primarily by the other services and defense agencies. This approach has led to a reluctance by the owning service to

fully fund and sustain some of these unique capabilities.

The Director noted that the establishment of a T&E/RE to address this problem was the ‘‘most significant recommendation’’ of

the December 2000 report of the Defense Science Board task force

on test and evaluation facilities. The task force explained this recommendation as follows:

Extensive reduction in test facilities and personnel has

been pursued during the last five years. Notwithstanding

this necessary effort, unnecessary duplication of capabilities exists in all three services. * * *

[The] unwillingness of the services to provide adequate

resources for T&E [while] still maintain[ing] substantial

redundant capabilities suggests that a change is needed.

The fundamental concern of T&E facility managers is

how [to] get enough money and manpower to continue

their operations. They compete with other activities within

their services for resources, and with other activities both

within their Services and outside for ‘‘business’’ support.

This does not lead to long-range business planning and, it

is not possible for them to make investment decisions

based on future utilization or business-like return on assets analyses. They have little control over the ‘‘business’’

they manage and are subject to highly variable budgeted

support. * * * Centralized, consolidated management of

T&E facilities within the Department of Defense could

overcome many of these serious problems.

The provision recommended by the committee would implement

the task force recommendation by establishing a centralized T&E/

RE, which would report to the Director of Operational Test and

Evaluation. Under this provision, funding for the investment, operVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.043 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
129

ation and maintenance, development and management of Major

Range Test and Facility Base (MRTFB) facilities and resources

would be transferred to the new T&E/RE. The T&E/RE would also

be responsible for ensuring that test planning and test execution

is conducted by the appropriate military service organizations.

However, the day-to-day operation and management of the test

ranges and facilities and the testing activities carried out at those

ranges and facilities would remain in the hands of the military

services.

The provision would require that the new T&E/RE be established

within one year of the date of enactment. To ensure central oversight over investments in the MRTFB, the provision would require

that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation approve all

investments of $500,000 or more during the one-year transition period.

Transfer of testing funds from program accounts to infrastructure accounts (sec. 232)

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer testing funds from the research and development programs of the military departments and defense agencies to the major test and evaluation investment accounts of the Department of Defense.

The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated in his

annual report for fiscal year 2001:

In the long run, increasing the tempo of testing will require a shift in our current practices for funding and managing test facilities and ranges. * * * At the present time,

defense programs must bear both the cost of their tests

and the overhead costs to maintain the ranges. This has

proven to be a disincentive to testing. The cost to program

managers has risen sharply over the past decade as they

take on the overhead costs of the test ranges; as a result,

program managers seek to minimize the amount (and

therefore the cost) of testing. As they succeed, their success forces the price even higher for each test. * * *

A recent analysis shows that about $2.4 billion in test

costs (previously funded in the MRTFB [Major Range and

Test Facility Base] institutional budgets) have been shifted

to the users since FY90. Eighty-five percent of the shift occurred during the last five years.

As institutional funds have fallen, the test ranges and

centers have sought to recover more costs from users. The

users, in turn, have reduced testing and accepted additional risk to remain within their budgets. Test adequacy

has suffered as a consequence. In FY01, the MRTFB

charged an estimated $250 million per year more to users

than was charged to them prior to FY90. Effectively, this

means that, although users in FY01 collectively paid the

same amount as in FY90, they were doing less testing.

The committee provision would address this problem by shifting

five-eighths of one percent of the budgets of the military departments and defense agencies for Demonstration and Validation, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, and Operational SysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.044 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
130

tems Development (approximately $250.0 million) to the major test

and evaluation investment accounts of the Department. The specific transfers would be as follows:

For the Army: from Demonstration and Validation to PE 64759A, $5.0 million; from Engineering and Manufacturing Development to

PE 64759A, $18.0 million; from Operational Systems Development

to PE 64759A, $6.0 million.

For the Navy: from Demonstration and Validation to PE 64759N, $15.0 million; from Engineering and Manufacturing Development

to PE 64759N, $32.0 million; from Operational Systems Development to PE 64759N, $17.0 million.

For the Air Force: from Demonstration and Validation to PE

64759F, $9.0 million; from Engineering and Manufacturing Development to PE 64759F, $27.0 million; from Operational Systems Development to PE 64759F, $60.0 million.

For Defense-wide: from Demonstration and Validation to PE

64940D8Z, $37.0 million; from Engineering and Manufacturing Development to PE 64940D8Z, $8.0 million; from Operational Systems

Development to PE 64940D8Z, $25.0 million.

The Committee expects that these transfers will not be implemented as an across-the-board reduction on programs undergoing

demonstration and validation, engineering and manufacturing development, or operational development, but will instead be proportionally allocated to such programs on the basis of the projected

test and evaluation costs to be paid by these programs.

The provision would also require the military services to change

their funding policies to ensure that users of the MRTFB are

charged only for the direct costs of testing and are no longer required to pay for overhead costs. The committee anticipates that

the research and development programs of the Department should

recover a significant portion of the funds transferred to the MRTFB

investment accounts through lower overhead rates charged for testing at MRTFB facilities. However, any shortfall of funding resulting from this transfer should not be taken directly from testing

budgets of the programs and shall not be used as a basis for reducing testing requirements for any system. On the contrary, the committee believes that the lower rates charged for testing at MRTFB

facilities should lead to increased testing of Department of Defense

systems.

The committee also recognizes that the elimination of indirect

costs could lead to increased funding needs in test and evaluation

accounts other than the investment accounts to which funds would

be transferred by this provision. The committee urges the Department of Defense Comptroller, in consultation with the Director of

Operational Test and Evaluation, to make any adjustments among

the test and evaluation accounts of the Department of Defense and

the military services that may be needed, pursuant to established

procedures, to ensure that the test ranges and facilities of the Department are able to conduct required operations.

Increased investment in test and evaluation facilities (sec.

233)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the

amount authorized to be appropriated for the Central Test and

131

Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP) of the Department of Defense (PE 64940D8Z) to $251.3 million, an increase of $128.0 million. The increase consists of $70.0 million transferred to the

CTEIP program by section 232; $50.0 million added to the CTEIP

program to increase the Department’s overall level of investment in

its test and evaluation facilities; and $8.0 million that would be

made available for specific technology programs to support testing

and evaluation, as described elsewhere in this report.

Overall, the $251.3 million total provided by the committee recommendations would more than double the amount of funding

available in the CTEIP account and the transfers and increases

made by this bill would more than double the funding available in

the test and evaluation (T&E) investment accounts of the Department as a whole.

In his annual report for fiscal year 2001, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation identified significant deficiencies in

the Department’s T&E infrastructure. The Director’s report states:

When the capabilities of the test ranges are compared

with requirements for testing current and future systems,

significant deficiencies are evident. They limit the ability

to conduct adequate testing of weapons and support systems. Some of the more significant deficiencies are:

Range infrastructure. * * * Miss distance and attitude

measurement systems lack adequate fidelity. Instrumentation shortfalls include limited radar, telemetry, and optical

equipment assets to support multiple simultaneous engagements and insufficient instrumentation to track multiple vehicles. There are no chemical-biological test chambers large enough to accommodate complete systems. A replacement for the self-defense test ship is needed to retain

the capability to demonstrate surface ship cruise missile

defense systems.

Targets and threat representations. Generally, realistic

targets are not available in sufficient numbers to support

the various weapon systems under development. Representative targets for certain anti-ship cruise missile

threats are not available. Deficiencies exist in the quantity

and types of ballistic missile defense targets. Threat representation shortfalls have also been identified. Needs include a vector-scoring capability on full-scale targets and

improved capability for testing infrared missile engagements.

Realistic test environments. New-generation systems

have much more extensive operating footprints than their

predecessors and, therefore, need much larger test ranges

to support full-scale operational scenarios. Space test capabilities are not sufficient to meet space mission area testing requirements. Shallow water ranges for undersea warfare testing are inadequate. Chemical and biological simulators and simulants are not representative of the threat.

Generally, there is a lack of priority and funding for testing of weapon systems in the extremes of their natural operating environments.

132

Interoperability. Interfaces with other systems are not

included in many test plans. Many systems are tested only

on an individual basis. The failure to test systems with

complementary ones in combined scenarios precludes effective assessment of their compatibility and ability to operate together.

The committee believes that the increased funding levels for the

CTEIP program and the test and evaluation investment and modernization accounts of the military services represent the minimum

level needed to address the serious infrastructure problems identified in the Director’s report. For this reason, the committee urges

the Department to maintain these funding levels in future budget

requests.

Uniform financial management system for Department of

Defense test and evaluation facilities (sec. 234)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to implement a single financial management

and accounting system for all test and evaluation (T&E) facilities

of the Department of Defense (DOD).

Section 907 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 required the Secretary to develop a

plan, including a schedule, for establishing a cost-based management information system for DOD laboratories and test and evaluation centers.

Despite this requirement, the annual report of the Director of

Operational Test and Evaluation for fiscal year 2001 states that

cost comparisons between the test and evaluation facilities of military services are difficult ‘‘because there is no common financial

management system among the services.’’ The Defense Science

Board (DSB) Task Force on Test and Evaluation Capabilities

strongly supports this conclusion in its December 2000 report,

which states:

The Task Force found each of the Services uses different

financial management methods to manage the affairs of

their facilities and recommends that DOD implement a

common financial management methodology for all T&E

facilities. * * *

Consistent financial management practices would ease

the problem of interservice range utilization and make it

possible to determine the value of making changes in facilities usage. It would also facilitate more efficient operations. At present we cannot measure either input or output values. * * * Each service has a different financial

management system for T&E.

The provision recommended by the committee would implement

a recommendation of the DSB Task Force by requiring that the

Secretary establish a common financial management methodology

for all T&E facilities. The provision would require that the new

T&E financial management and accounting system be consistent

with the financial management enterprise architecture developed

by the Secretary pursuant to section 1006.

133

One of the objectives of the new financial management methodology would be to enable the Department of Defense to track the

total cost of test and evaluation activities. The committee recognizes that this total cost includes costs incurred by activities outside the test and evaluation facilities of the Department of Defense.

The committee believes that the financial management enterprise

architecture developed by the Department should enable the Department to track such costs.

Test and evaluation workforce improvements (sec. 235)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to develop a plan to ensure that the test and evaluation (T&E)

workforce of the Department of Defense (DOD) is of sufficient size

and has the expertise needed to ensure that the testing of DOD

systems identifies issues of military suitability and effectiveness in

a timely and accurate manner.

The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated in his

annual report for fiscal year 2001:

Infrastructure is not limited to facilities, but also includes people and processes. The DSB [Defense Science

Board] Task Force learned that the issue of human resources—how to attract and retain personnel with the motivation and skill to serve and lead in civilian and military

capacities—is one of the most significant concerns of the

T&E community.

The demographics of T&E show that a large fraction of

its community will soon be eligible to retire. Further, the

downsizing over the last ten years has all but precluded

the recruiting of new talent. As a result, the relationships

established by our T&E community over the years with

universities and the hiring of graduates with skills in new

research areas have suffered.

The provision recommended by the committee would implement

one of the recommendations of the DSB Task Force on Test and

Evaluation Capabilities by requiring the Department to develop a

strategic plan for future human resource requirements of the DOD

test and evaluation community. The plan would establish the number and qualifications of military and civilian personnel needed to

properly staff the test and evaluation community of the Department of Defense and develop specific milestones for achieving a

workforce with the desired composition.

The committee expects the Department to conduct a thorough review of the personnel system to identify any enhanced personnel

flexibility that may be needed to attract and retain quality test and

evaluation personnel. The committee notes that section 4308 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 authorized the Department to establish an acquisition workforce demonstration project. This authority, which enables the Department

to waive certain regulatory requirements and to utilize pay-banding approaches such as those recommended by the Director of

Operational Test and Evaluation in his annual report, has been

utilized only on a small scale to date.

134

Compliance with test and evaluation master plan requirements (sec. 236)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit unauthorized deviations from testing requirements.

The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated in his

annual report for fiscal year 2001:

The December 2000 Defense Science Board Report

noted, ‘‘The systems below Acquisition Category (ACAT) I

in the priority system are being fielded without adequate

testing. Even for the ACAT I programs there is growing

evidence that testing is not being done adequately.’’ ***

One feature of current practice I seek to change is the

services’ ability to waive tests without DOT&E review and

approval. The Defense Science Board strongly recommended that Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5000.2B

be modified to rule out waivers as a unilateral action by

the Service. The current policy allows waivers from criteria

for certification of readiness for operational test (such as

completion of the system safety program) and waivers for

deviation from testing requirements directed by the Test

and Evaluation Master Plan.

In fact, the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Test and

Evaluation (T&E) Capabilities concluded, ‘‘The process of handling

waivers seriously undermines the T&E process—and may have already had negative impact on weapons systems.’’

The provision recommended by the committee would implement

a recommendation of the DSB Task Force by requiring that any deviation from the requirements of a Test and Evaluation Master

Plan be either: (1) approved through the same procedures pursuant

to which the Plan was established (including the approval of the

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation); or (2) approved by

the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense. This provision is not

intended to preclude the certifying official for operational test readiness from approving a test ‘‘limitation of scope’’ where testing to

actual requirements would constitute a regulatory violation or a

safety hazard.

Report on implementation of Defense Science Board recommendations (sec. 237)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to report on the implementation of the recommendations of the December 2000 report of the Defense Science

Board (DSB) Task Force on Test and Evaluation Capabilities.

In addition to the overarching recommendations that would be

implemented by the provisions of this subtitle, the DSB Report contains a number of recommendations regarding specific test and

evaluation investments. These include recommendations on frequency spectrum management, embedded instrumentation, investment in targets, and the use of training facilities and exercises for

test and evaluation events. The committee believes that these recommendations merit detailed review by the Department.

135

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Pilot programs for revitalizing Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 241)

The committee recommends a provision that would re-authorize

and expand a set of pilot programs aimed at improving the quality

of the Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories and test and evaluation centers. In section 246 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 and section 245 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Congress

authorized the Secretary of Defense to establish pilot programs

and, if necessary, waive regulations in order to attract the finest

quality, highly trained technical talent to Department labs and test

centers, enable these facilities to adopt more business-like practices

to increase efficiency, and permit the establishment of new cooperative programs with the private sector to promote technological innovation. The provision would re-authorize these pilot programs for

an additional three years.

The committee notes that support for these types of reforms exists throughout the Department. In testimony to the Emerging

Threats and Capabilities subcommittee, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering noted that he had requested an extension

of the pilot programs through Department channels. At the same

hearing, representatives of the military services all highlighted the

need to attract the best technical workforce possible for the Department’s science and technology enterprise.

Despite this support, the committee notes with concern that the

Department has made limited progress in exploiting these pilot

programs. An Army briefing for the committee stated that, ‘‘Between the personnel and legal communities we have been effectively shut down.’’ An October 2000 Defense Science Board study highlighted a

number of reasons that these pilot programs are critical for the vitality of the labs and test centers. It noted that ‘‘there is a clear

relationship between the technical capabilities of the laboratories

and the capabilities of future U.S. military forces.’’ It concluded

that ‘‘personnel practices of the Federal Civil Service System’’ are

the primary cause for the defense labs’ difficulty in recruiting and

retaining high quality staff. The committee provision seeks to assist the Department in addressing these issues to support the revitalization of the labs.

The committee’s provisions would expand the existing program

so that the Secretary could make use of waivers to: assist the labs

in retaining and shaping the best possible scientific and engineering workforce, enter into partnerships to promote the education of

the next generation of defense technology specialists, and promote

the defense technological industrial base. The provision would also

require the Secretary to report on the barriers encountered in attempting to execute the existing pilot programs and progress being

made to overcome the barriers. The committee directs the Secretary to coordinate these reports between the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and

the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and

Readiness.

136

The committee directs the Comptroller General to review the implementation and execution of the pilot programs. The review shall

examine the pilot programs and assess the extent of utilization of

the authorities, effects of the executed programs in achieving stated revitalization goals, barriers to implementation and execution,

and recommendations for follow-on actions or clarification of authorities.

Additionally, the provision would extend the authorities of the

pilot programs to leverage some of the opportunities that arose

during the limited implementation of the existing pilot programs.

The provision would authorize the Secretary to establish a limited

liability corporation as part of an expansion of public-private partnerships involving the labs and test centers. The committee believes that this type of partnership is in the best interest of the Department and will assist the labs and test centers in improving

their technical capabilities.

Finally, the provision would authorize the Secretary to designate

a total of no more than 30 scientific, technical, and engineering positions across the organizations participating in the pilot program

as positions in the excepted service. This is intended to allow the

labs to attract the finest, highly trained scientific and engineering

talent available. In testimony to the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee, government officials contrasted the different

approaches that the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) use to

fill technical positions. The witnesses noted that NNSA has been

authorized with a number of excepted service positions that they

are using to bring additional expertise into the organization. This

excepted service approach is already used by a number of DOD organizations, including the Defense Intelligence Agency and the

service academies, and was recommended by the service organizations participating in the original pilot program.

Technology transition initiative (sec. 242)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to carry out a technology transition initiative

to facilitate the rapid transition of new technologies from science

and technology programs of the Department of Defense into acquisition programs for the production of the technologies. The committee has had a long-standing concern about the Department’s

ability to effectively and efficiently transition technologies out of

the laboratory and into the hands of the warfighter. Successful and

rapid transition of revolutionary technologies into defense systems

is one of the central aspects of military transformation.

The committee notes that, historically, technology transition has

been stifled by three major issues: leadership, organizational cooperation, and funding. Aggressive leadership and championing of

new technologies from the highest levels of the Department is necessary to overcome organizational and cultural barriers and effect

real technological change. All technology transition depends on the

coordination of technology developers, acquisition program managers, and military users. Successful technology transition is often

associated with programs that have established innovative personnel and technical exchanges, have entered into formal cooperaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.048 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
137

tive agreements, or have made extensive use of technology demonstrations and experimentation. Finally, it is critical that funding

be available to transition science and technology programs that

have achieved required technological maturity. Too often, the Department’s budgeting process moves too slowly to take advantage

of transition opportunities, even if those opportunities develop over

a number of years and within funded Department science and technology programs.

The committee commends the Department for initiating a number of activities to support technology transition. The Navy’s Future Naval Capabilities Integrated Product Teams, Air Force’s Applied Technology Council, and the Advanced Concept Technology

Demonstrations (ACTDs) are excellent examples of involving technology developers and users in the planning and funding of new

technologies in order to promote transition. The Department’s move

toward spiral acquisition policies and growing use of technology

readiness levels are also supportive of technology transition.

In testimony to the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering highlighted the Department’s ACTD program and Quick Reaction fund

as the centerpiece of the DOD technology transition strategy. The

committee supports these efforts, but notes that the majority of

technologies developed both inside and outside of the Department

cannot be transitioned through these limited efforts. Therefore, the

committee’s recommended provision is intended to broaden Departmental efforts at transition, establish high-level leadership, promote organizational cooperation, and provide funding for transition

activities.

The provision requires the Secretary to (1) establish a council

comprised of organizations critical for successful technology transition, in particular the science and technology executives, service acquisition executives, and operational users; (2) develop memoranda

of agreement, joint funding agreements, and other cooperative arrangements for the transition of technologies into production; and

(3) establish a technology transition fund to carry out jointly-funded technology transition projects with the military services.

The committee recommends that joint-funding of these projects

should be contingent upon the development of a specific agreement

between the science and technology, acquisition, and operational

requirements communities which delineates technological maturity

of the program, acquisition strategy of the relevant acquisition program, and a preliminary description of the concept of operational

use of the technology under consideration.

The committee directs each of the military services to designate

a senior official to serve as an advocate for technology transition

within the military service and to work with the DOD Technology

Transition Initiative Manager designated pursuant to this provision. The senior technology transition advocates in the military

services should work to identify and transition both technologies

that are developed within the DOD science and technology programs and technologies that are developed in the private sector.

The committee recommends that the council meet at least semi-annually to review candidate proposals.

138

The committee encourages the Initiative Manager to work with

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics, the Commander of

the Joint Forces Command, and the Director of Operational Test

and Evaluation as the council works to evaluate proposals and

transition technologies. Each of these organization’s areas of responsibility—logistics, experimentation, and test and evaluation— are important factors in developing a successful and rapid transition pathway. The committee also notes that the transition of critical logistical, sustainment and testing technologies are increasingly important to reducing costs and improving the efficiency of

the Department of Defense.

Encouragement of small business and nontraditional defense contractors to submit proposals potentially beneficial for combating terrorism (sec. 243)

The committee recommends a provision that would create a

Small Business Outreach panel to enhance the Department’s ability to utilize small businesses and non-traditional defense contracts

as it works to develop technologies for combating terrorism and

weapons of mass destruction.

The committee notes that in the wake of the terrorist activities

in 2001, an overwhelming number of technology developers have

approached the Department of Defense, Office of Homeland Security, and Congress with proposals for research or technology in support of the war on terrorism. The Department’s broad agency announcement relating to combating terrorism resulted in over

12,000 proposals, many of which have yet to be given a formal

technical evaluation and response.

The provision would establish a panel consisting of government

and private sector experts who would serve as the Department’s

screening committee for technology proposals to combating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The panel would screen

and evaluate research and development proposals that it believes

are likely to make a significant contribution to the government’s efforts to combat terrorism at home and abroad. The committee understands that no panel can fairly be expected to review 12,000

proposals and expects the panel members to apply their professional expertise in screening proposals to determine which submissions merit in-depth review.

The panel would make recommendations to the Under Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on the technical merits of proposals, potential contract sponsors (military service or defense agency) within the Department, recommended funding levels, and transition pathways.

The committee directs the Department to use all available electronic commerce technology to carry out its activities, including

proposal submission, review, response to proposers, and recommendations within the Department. This is consistent with the

Department’s efforts to streamline its procedures and make more

use of electronic transactions in conducting Department business.

The committee also recommends that the Department increase

its outreach efforts to small businesses and non-traditional contractors. This part of the industrial base can and should play a critical

role in the development of technologies to fight terrorism at home

139

and overseas. This is evident in the success that the Department

has achieved in using the Small Business Innovative Research

(SBIR) program to fulfill some of its technology development needs.

The Committee directs the Department to expand its outreach activities using web-based tools, conferences, and other informational

activities to assist small innovative companies in understanding

the Department’s technology goals, funding opportunities and

mechanisms, and management processes.

Vehicle fuel cell program (sec. 244)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to carry out a cost-shared program to identify

and support technological advances that are necessary to develop

fuel cell technology for use in vehicles that would be used by the

Department of Defense. The committee recommends $10.0 million

to carry out the program and directs the Secretary to conduct the

program in cooperation with the Secretary of Energy; other appropriate federal agencies, including the Army; and private industry.

The committee directs the Secretary to ensure that at least half of

the total cost of the program be borne by industry, either in cash

or in kind.

The vehicle fuel cell program shall include development of vehicle propulsion technologies and fuel cell auxiliary power units as

well as pilot demonstration of such technologies as appropriate.

The program shall also include development of technologies necessary to address critical issues such as hydrogen storage and the

need for a hydrogen fuel infrastructure.

Over the last decade, the Department of Defense has supported

the development and utilization of fuel cell technology in three

broad areas: stationary power applications, mobile applications,

and other power applications. The committee believes that significant benefits could be gained from these existing programs that

will have applications for vehicle fuel cell technology. Important objectives of the program established by this provision are to ensure

that critical technology advances are shared among the varied fuel

cell technology programs within the Department and other federal

agencies, and to ensure the maximum leverage of federal funding

for fuel cell technology development across this broad spectrum.

To facilitate cooperation with industry and to leverage the investments of both the federal government and the private sector, the

Secretary shall consider establishment of a Defense Industry Fuel

Cell Partnership. Significant advancements have been made in the

development of fuel cell technology, but the committee believes that

more could be accomplished if this work is done in cooperation with

private industry.

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report to the

congressional defense committees no later than April 30, 2003, that

describes how funding for the vehicle fuel cell program will be expended in fiscal year 2003 and how the program meets the objectives set forth in this provision.

140

Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program (sec. 245)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a

comprehensive program to organize and coordinate nanoscale research and development within the Department of Defense (DOD)

and with appropriate civilian agencies. The committee recognizes

the importance of advances in this field to the genesis of revolutionary military technologies and to military transformation.

The need for an integrated program in nanotechnology research

is predicated on two major considerations. The first is the vast potential for new military capabilities to be derived from nanoscale

research and development. The list of potentially transformative

capabilities enabled by nanotechnology extends to numerous defense needs, including warfighter protection, mobility, information

processing, communication, energy, and cost- and size-reduction of

weapons systems. This potential makes the establishment of a

dedicated program to advance the field, develop applications, and

accelerate the transition of nanoengineered products into the services an imperative.

Secondly, the magnitude of DOD investment in nanoscale research and development has tripled since 1998, reaching over

$200.0 million in the fiscal year 2003 budget request. This request

mirrors investment trends across the entire government and internationally. Given the scale and scope of the DOD and federal commitment to nanotechnology, the committee feels that it is necessary

to coordinate the various programs to ensure completeness, balance, and the minimization of redundancy within the nanotechnology research portfolio.

The provision directs the Department to establish a set of longterm challenges for nanotechnology research, which should be coordinated with and modeled after the Grand Challenges articulated

by the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Specifically, the challenges should represent broad goals or capabilities related to national defense that are not yet attainable given the present state

of nanotechnology, but which may be achieved within a time frame

of several years to several decades. These challenges will provide

the operating framework and benchmarks under which the program will be organized, funded, and evaluated.

The committee directs that each challenge be comprised of a set

of specific technical goals, each with a lead service or defense agency charged with organizing and coordinating research and technology transition in that area. The committee directs the Department to execute, as appropriate, memoranda of agreement, joint

funding agreements, and other cooperative arrangements in order

to optimize coordination and accomplish program goals.

The provision requires an annual report to the Congress to describe the program’s research and coordination activities. The report should review and assess the status and progress of the program with respect to the established challenges and technical

goals; describe the funding levels for each service and defense

agency participating in the program; describe the coordination between the research efforts within the program and with those of civilian agencies and the private sector; evaluate efforts at

transitioning research, technologies, and concepts into military

141

products and uses; and recommend new initiatives, programs,

mechanisms for coordination, or other activities that would facilitate the achievement of program purposes.

The committee also recognizes the important role that Information Analysis Centers (IAC) have played in data collection, analysis, and dissemination within specific areas of science and technology of relevance and interest to the defense community. The

committee believes that the establishment of an IAC for defense

nanotechnology would substantially support the activities of the

program, and recommends that the Secretary of Defense consider

instituting such a center.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF INTEREST

Science and technology initiatives

The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to transform itself to meet the emerging threats of the 21st century. The

committee feels that a robust defense science and technology program is a requirement in order to develop the new systems and

operational concepts that will enable transformation. Unmanned

vehicles, satellite communications, and precision weapons are

transforming today’s military. In the same way, new systems based

on nanotechnology, robotics, and artificial intelligence will transform the military of the future. To ensure that each wave of technological change is sustainable and can be expanded upon, however, it is critical to make the small but stable investments in fundamental and applied research that produce the capabilities of the

future.

The committee fully supports the Department’s stated goal of investing 3 percent of the defense budget into science and technology

programs. The fiscal year 2003 budget request fell short of that

goal. In fact, the budget request would decrease the percentage of

the budget invested in science and technology each consecutive

year, falling to 2.3 percent of the budget by 2007. The committee

urges the Department and each of the military services to achieve

the 3 percent goal as soon as practicable.

To support the transformation of the military, the committee recommendations would provide over $170.0 million for high priority

science and technology programs above the amount requested in

the fiscal year 2003 budget. This includes over $200.0 million in research to support the development of the Army’s Objective Force,

with new technologies such as unmanned ground vehicles, hybrid

electric vehicles, and next generation weapons systems. The committee recommends adding $23.5 million to research programs to

address corrosion problems in platforms, weapons systems, and installations. This research could eventually save the Department

billions of dollars per year in corrosion maintenance and repair

costs.

The committee recommendations would provide an additional

$33.0 million for revolutionary research and technology to meet future cyberthreats. The funding would include extensive investments in scholarship programs to train the next generation of information security specialists. The committee notes that a limiting

factor to technological transformation will be the ability to generate

142

and deliver power on demand to critical military assets. For this

reason, the committee recommends an increase of $41.0 million in

research and development on revolutionary power technologies.

The committee recommendations would also provide an addi- tional $34.0 million for nanotechnology investments. This burgeoning scientific field has the promise to transform technologies

ranging from power systems to aerospace materials to biological

sensors. In addition, the committee recommendations increase Department investments in basic research by nearly $50.0 million.

These fundamental research programs are often performed in collaboration with universities and national laboratories and help

serve to train tomorrow’s scientific leaders.

In addition to these investments, the committee continues to

work to ensure that the Department gets the best return on investment on research dollars. The committee recommendations would

provide an additional $25.0 million for the Department’s technology

transition activities as well as establish a new funding mechanism

and coordinated process for rapid transition of technologies from

the laboratory to the battlefield.

The recommendations for authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2003 would continue the committee’s tradition of strongly

supporting the defense science and technology enterprise. By supporting strong research investments, strengthening our defense

laboratories, and working to speed transition of technologies into

operational systems, the committee hopes to continue and accelerate the transformation of the military.

Merit-based selection procedures

The committee notes that section 2304(j) of title 10, United

States Code, states that it is the policy of Congress that any contract for a program, project, or technology identified in legislation

be entered into through merit-based selection procedures. Section

2374 of title 10 establishes the same policy for the award of any

new grant for research, development, test, or evaluation to a nonFederal Government entity. Each of these provisions states that

the presumption in favor of competitive, merit-based awards may

be overridden only by a provision of law that specifically refers to

section 2304(j) or section 2374, specifically identifies the particular

non-Federal Government entity involved, and specifically states

that the award to that entity is required notwithstanding the policy

favoring merit-based selection.

The committee is concerned that, despite the enactment of section 2304(j) and section 2374, the Department of Defense continues

to award contracts and grants for research and development programs and projects to specific entities without the use of meritbased selection procedures. The committee directs the Department

to use all applicable procedures in the award of any new contract,

grant or other agreement entered into with funds authorized to be

appropriated by this title.

143

The committee directs the Department to make use of memoranda of agreements, cost sharing, and other cooperative arrangements as necessary to ensure that the funds authorized to be appropriated by this title address defense technology development

goals in the most cost effective and technically sound manner.

Army

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

Science and technology for the Objective Force

The Army’s ability to meet an accelerated schedule to deploy Future Combat Systems, Objective Force Warrior, and other elements

of the Objective Force depends on revolutionary technologies being

developed through science and technology investments. The committee strongly supports the goals of Army transformation and

therefore recommends an increase of over $200.0 million for science

and technology investments to support Army transformation.

The committee recommends an additional $20.0 million in PE

63005A for revolutionary vehicle technologies. Of this amount, $7.5

million would be used to accelerate development of components for

hybrid electric drives and hybrid electric vehicles, $5.0 million for

robotic follower vehicles for logistics support missions, and $7.5

million for enhanced active protection systems for combat vehicles.

The committee recommends an additional $33.0 million in PE

63001A for Objective Force Warrior technologies. These funds will

develop enabling technologies that would reduce the load and increase the lethality of the dismounted soldier. Technologies to be

developed include power sources, new materials for body armor,

head-mounted sensors, microrobotic vehicles, signature management systems, portable water purification technologies, communications systems, and lightweight weapons and ammunition.

The committee recommends an additional $7.8 million in PE

63710A for advanced night vision technologies. Of this amount,

$5.0 million would be used for miniaturized sensors for micro air

vehicles, and $2.8 million for enhancing target recognition capabilities of infrared sensor systems.

The committee recommends an additional $20.4 million for new

munitions technologies for the Objective Force. Of this amount,

$2.4 million would be added in PE 62624A for the development of

smaller, lighter, longer range, more lethal warhead technologies,

and $3.0 million would be added for the development of revolutionary countermobility systems. An additional $15.0 million would

be added to PE 63313A for development of long range, loitering

missile technology.

The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million in PE

62786A for new technologies to support heavy airdrop missions.

The ability to deliver supplies and other payloads from high altitudes with great precision is a critical part of a lighter, rapidly

deployable force.

The committee recommends an additional $7.5 million in PE

62712A for the development of airborne landmine detection systems. Low false alarm rate, airborne minefield detection systems

would provide the speed and countermine capabilities necessary for

a highly mobile ground force.

Finally, the committee notes that the transformation of the military will demand a transformed defense industrial base. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 78045A for

new manufacturing technologies that will help affordably meet the

Future Combat System’s accelerated schedule. Technologies to be

developed include manufacturing processes for low-cost, uncooled

infrared sensors, advanced armor systems, microelectromechanical

systems (MEMS), and new munitions technologies.

156

The committee has recommended a number of additional increases for science and technology projects that will support the development of the Objective Force. These are described elsewhere in

the report.

The committee notes with concern that the acceleration in the

schedule for the fielding of components of the Objective Force was

not matched by increases in funding for supporting science and

technology programs. The Army must fully fund these programs to

ensure that transformation will not be limited, incremental, and

unsustainable.

Fundamental research for Army transformation

The budget request included $139.6 million in PE 61102A for

programs to perform the critical fundamental research that will

provide the foundation for Army transformation. The committee

recommends an additional $3.0 million for the development of

novel optoelectronic materials and devices for future communication and display technologies; $1.0 million for genetics research

using animal models to identify critical physiological differences in

personnel that may affect mission performance; and $4.0 million

for research on predicting terrain conditions in support of military

operations.

The committee directs the Army to continue to support basic research efforts and protect research investments, even in the face of

near-term incremental modernization needs and operational costs.

Materials research for the Objective Force

The budget request included $74.9 million in PE 61104A for university and industry research centers. The committee recommends

an increase of $4.0 million in basic research to support the development of objective force technologies. Of this amount, $2.5 million

would be used for research in modeling and simulation of armor

materials design and laser-based materials processing, and $1.5

million would be used for the development of novel ferroelectric

materials for miniaturized microwave electronic devices.

Applied materials research for the Objective Force

The budget request included $18.7 million in PE 62105A for applied research in materials technology. The committee recommends

an increase of $12.5 million for materials research that would contribute to the development of the Objective Force.

Of this amount, $4.0 million would be used for advanced materials processing research in nanomaterials, polymer composites,

metals, ceramics, and superalloys; $2.5 million for research on the

reliability of electronic components in smart munitions and ground

vehicles; $3.0 million for the development of new multifunctional

composite materials and new simulation tools for use in Future

Combat Systems; and $3.0 million for low-cost enabling processing

technologies for multifunctional materials.

Army missile research

The budget request included $31.9 million in PE 62303A for applied research in missile technology. The committee recommends

an increase of $5.0 million for the development of new technologies

157

for the next generation of Army missile systems. Of this amount,

$3.0 million would be used for research on enhanced radar and

command and control technologies to improve surveillance and fire

control capabilities for short range air defense missions. The remaining $2.0 million would be used for development of lightweight

composites for missile chassis to reduce weight and increase the

range of future missile systems.

Interactive training technologies

The budget request included $20.6 million in PE 62308A for applied research on advanced concepts and simulation. The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million for the development

of interactive technologies to support training and mission rehearsal exercises. The committee notes that this program represents an excellent technology transition opportunity building on

the Army’s work at the Institute for Creative Technologies.

Advanced coatings research

The budget request included $55.8 million in PE 62601A for applied research on automotive technologies. As part of an overall initiative in corrosion research and development, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for fundamental research to

study corrosion and to develop corrosion-resistant coatings.

Fastening and joining research

The budget request included $55.8 million in PE 62601A for applied research on combat vehicles and automotive technologies. The

committee recommends an increase of $1.8 million to study and develop new fastening, adhesive, and bonding technologies for improving the safety, quality, and reliability of equipment and machinery in Army systems.

21st Century Truck

The budget request included no funding in PE 62601A for the

21st Century Truck program of the National Automotive Center

(NAC). The committee recommends an increase of $22.0 million for

this program.

Of this amount, $17.0 million would be provided for the 21st

Century Truck base program, and $5.0 million would be provided

for continuation of work on hybrid technology under the Commercially-Based Tactical Truck (COMBATT) program.

The 21st Century Truck program is one of several advanced technology programs that is carried out by the NAC and cost-shared

with industry in support of the Army’s transformation. The primary function of 21st Century Truck is to accelerate development

and fielding of advanced, state-of-the-art information and mobility

technologies into the military’s land warfare systems.

The committee believes the 21st Century Truck program plays a

key role in the Army’s transformation because of its potential to reduce dramatically the fuel use and emissions of medium and heavy

trucks while maintaining or enhancing safety and performance. Integration of advanced commercial technologies, including alternative propulsion technologies, into the Army’s land warfare sysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.054 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
158

tems is a critical ingredient for success of the Army’s transformation.

Because of the importance of advanced technology development

to the Army’s transformation and in order to provide a basis for future decisions, the committee directs the NAC to prepare a report

that describes how its programs are integrated into the Army’s

transformation plan. The NAC shall submit the plan to the congressional defense committees by no later than April 30, 2003.

Advanced manufacturing technology

The budget request included $55.8 million in PE 62601A for applied research in combat vehicle and automotive technology. The

committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for research on

the development of new automotive manufacturing technologies, including developing advanced materials and manufacturing processes, to support Objective Force vehicle goals.

Tungsten penetrators

The budget request included $38.1 million in PE 62624A for applied research in weapons and munitions technology. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for research on

tungsten penetrators for a variety of Future Combat Systems applications. The committee notes that tungsten penetrator materials

have the potential to provide an alternative to depleted uranium

penetrators without reducing the lethality of munitions.

Portable hybrid power systems

The budget request included $27.4 million in PE 62705A for applied research in electronics and electronic devices. The committee

recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development of

small, high energy density power systems that support development of personal soldier communications and hybrid electric vehicles. The committee believes that new power technologies are one

of the fundamental drivers of Army transformation and are critical

to the development of both Future Combat Systems and Objective

Warrior technologies.

Landmine detection technologies

The budget request included $13.2 million in PE 62712A for applied research on countermine systems. The Army has a continuing

mission to improve the speed and lower the false alarm rate of

landmine detection systems. The committee urges the Army to continue to explore all possible technology approaches to landmine detection including acoustic, nuclear, and magnetic techniques. The

committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to develop polymer-based, low-cost, landmine detection systems, and an additional

$3.0 million for acoustic technologies for landmine detection.

Environmental restoration technologies

The budget request included $23.0 million in PE 62720A for applied research to develop environmental technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for applied research

on remediation technologies associated with recovered unexploded

ordnance.

159

Geosciences and atmospheric research

The budget request included $42.9 million in PE 62784A for Military Engineering Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research in the environmental sciences,

including hydrometeorology, climatology, and remote sensing data

fusion techniques. The committee notes that climate and terrain information resulting from geosciences and meteorological research

has been critical during operations in Afghanistan.

Stationary fuel cell initiative

The budget request included $42.9 million in PE 62784A for Military Engineering Technology. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for the development of stationary fuel cell systems to accelerate the deployment of high efficiency, reliable, highquality, environmentally benign power through distributed generation systems.

Personal navigation for the Objective Force warrior

The budget request included $50.3 million in PE 63001A for

Warfighter Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an

increase of $5.0 million to develop microelectromechanical systems

(MEMS)-based combination inertial navigation systems and global

positioning system (INS/GPS) precision location information systems to support soldiers operating in urban environments. The

committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for the development of ultrawideband sensor systems for precise warfighter position and location tracking especially in urban environments.

Unmanned aerial vehicle data links

The budget request included $45.4 million in PE 63003A for

Aviation Advanced Technology. The committee notes that recent

operations have highlighted the need for better integration of unmanned vehicles into military operations, mobile command and

control, and increased situational awareness. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to develop data

links for unmanned aerial vehicles.

Multi-fuel auxiliary power units

The budget request included $229.8 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicles advanced technology development. The committee

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for research to develop

auxiliary power units capable of using a variety of military fuels

to support the development of smaller, lighter vehicles. The committee notes that reducing the cost and logistical burden of providing power to the battlefield is a key component of Army transformation.

Combat vehicle technology

The budget request included $229.8 million in PE 63005A for

Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for research and development on advanced combat vehicle technologies to support the

goals of Army transformation. Of this amount, $3.0 million would

be used for research into corrosion control, lightweight steels,

160

weight and cost reduction, and vehicle architecture optimization.

The remaining $5.0 million would be used for the expansion of the

use of standardized product data sets for design and life cycle support activities.

Mobile parts hospital

The budget request included $229.8 million in PE 63005A for advanced automotive technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the development of a self-contained, mobile manufacturing center that can produce spare parts at the point

of need. The committee notes that this type of mobile maintenance

and logistics support is critical to the transformation of the Army

into a lighter, more rapidly deployable force.

Rapid prototyping

The budget request included $229.8 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicles advanced technology development. The committee

recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research to develop new

rapid prototyping techniques for the design, development and manufacturing of vehicle parts for future Army systems.

Aircrew coordination training

The budget request included $3.5 million in PE 63007A for advanced technologies for manpower, personnel, and training. The

committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for aircrew coordination training.

Echelon surveillance and reconnaissance

The Defense Emergency Response Fund request included $20.0

million in PE 63125A to demonstrate echelons of surveillance and

reconnaissance via sensor suites. The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million to this account, reflecting a concern that this

program is not part of the overall research and development effort

underway by the Army and the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop Future Combat Systems technology. The committee recommends that counterterrorism and force

protection activities to develop sensor networks be coordinated as

part of broader joint and Army efforts.

Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Demonstration

The budget request included $2.9 million for advanced military

engineering technologies. The committee recommends an increase

of $5.0 million in PE 63734A for the Army Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell Demonstration program. New power

sources, including fuel cells, are a necessary component of Army

transformation.

Low-cost interceptor technology

Army theater air and missile defense long-range interceptors are

very capable, but expensive. While some cruise missile threats are

sophisticated, most are not, making it more cost effective to deploy

large numbers of lower-cost, less capable interceptors for less sophisticated threats. The committee agrees that the Low Cost Interceptor (LCI) technology is necessary for theater air and missile deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.056 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
161

fense. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $8.0

million for PE 63308A for the research and development of the LCI

technology. The proposed funding would promote proof-of-concept

LCI flight test demonstrations against a representative low-cost

cruise missile threat.

Supercluster Distributed Memory Technology

The computational resources needed to support the Army’s Theater Missile Defense (TMD) Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

simulations significantly exceed the availability and capability of

existing supercomputers. Supercluster Distributed Memory Technology (SDMT) interconnects a number of commercial, high performance workstations into a parallel processing system that would

be tailored to the performance requirements of modern CFD codes.

CFD software codes have already been written for use with SDMT,

which would have the same power as a traditional supercomputer

at one-tenth the cost. The committee recognizes the importance of

SDMT in the Army’s TMD CFD simulations. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to PE 63308A for

the development and research of SDMT.

Family of Systems Simulation

The budget request included no funding in PE 63308A for Army

Family of System Simulation (FOSSIM). The committee understands that FOSSIM provides a common infrastructure for integrating simulation models for use in system level engineering analysis as well as a laboratory environment for simulations that support prototyping. As such, FOSSIM can improve the fidelity of modeling and simulations for Army theater air and missile defense systems and provide more thorough assessments to support both operational effectiveness and acquisition efficiency. To ensure the continuation of this important effort, the committee recommends an

increase of $2.0 million for FOSSIM.

Advanced Tank Armament System

The budget request included $124.1 million in PE 63653A for Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) design refinement efforts and for live

fire test and evaluation, initial operational test and evaluation, and

production qualification testing on the nuclear, biological and

chemical reconnaissance vehicle and the mobile gun system. However, there was no funding requested for the Common Remote Sensor Suite (CRS3) for the reconnaissance vehicle and the fire support vehicle.

The current IAV cupola-mounted system limits the weapon field

of fire and the mission equipment package field of view, requiring

the soldier to operate both the primary weapon and the mission

equipment package from an exposed position. The CRS3, however,

allows the soldier to operate both the primary weapon and the mission equipment package from under armor and provides full 360-

degree field of fire and field of view for each system. This is a critical capability for soldier protection and mission effectiveness.

Therefore, the committee recommends $3.0 million for the Common Remote Sensor Suite, a total authorization of $127.1 million.

162

Army technology for environmental enhancement

The budget request included $9.3 million in PE 63779A for demonstrations and validation of environmental quality technology.

The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million to complete

development and validation of the Managing Army Technologies for

Environmental Enhancement (MANATEE) program, an integrated,

environmental-monitoring, management and control system. The

purpose of MANATEE is to manage facility capabilities to prevent

hazardous waste spills and other environmental compliance problems.

Javelin

The budget request included $0.5 million in PE 64611A for Javelin Counter-Active Protection Systems (CAPS) software and hardware improvements. The committee recommends an increase of

$6.5 million for the CAPS program, a total authorization of $7.0

million.

Armored systems modernization—engineering development

The budget request included $59.9 million in PE 64645A to begin

system development and demonstration of the Future Combat Systems (FCS), the centerpiece of the Army’s transformation effort to

create the Objective Force. The committee believes that transformation should be the Army’s highest priority and is concerned

that the Army has not fully funded the necessary research and development effort needed to effect that transformation as quickly as

possible. The committee fully supports the Army’s attempt to field

FCS earlier than previously envisioned, with a first unit equipped

date of 2008 and an initial operational capability of 2010. The committee therefore recommends an additional $105.0 million for FCS,

a total allocation of $164.9 million. This level of funding still leaves

the Army FCS program with a $95.0 million unfunded research

and development requirement for fiscal year 2003.

Joint Simulation System Core Program

The budget request included $24.2 million in PE 64738A for the

Joint Simulation System (JSIMS), the next generation modeling

and simulation tool to support training for the commanders in

chief, their components, Joint Task Force staffs, other joint organizations, Department of Defense agencies, and the services. The

committee notes that additional funding is required for further development of the Common Component Workstation and therefore

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the Common Component Workstation portion of the JSIMS Core Program, a total authorization of $27.2 million.

Automatic test equipment development

The budget request included $11.8 million in PE 64746A for the development of automatic test equipment, including $7.1 million for

the Army Diagnostics Improvement Program (ADIP). ADIP is comprised of embedded diagnostics, the Health and Usage Monitoring

System (HUMS), and anticipatory maintenance. HUMS enables

self-diagnosis of an aviation platform and the automatic notification of platform degradation or failure to the commander and mainVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.057 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
163

tenance personnel. HUMS utilizes advances in electronics, sensors,

and automation to improve the speed and accuracy of aviation

equipment fault isolation resulting in increased savings over the

current labor-intensive process. The Army has validated a potential

for $1.1 billion in savings once HUMS is procured and fielded. The

committee notes that there is a requirement for the HUMS program and urges the Army to accelerate the development of HUMS.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million

for the Health and Usage Monitoring System, a total authorization

of $15.8 million.

Multi-mode top attack threat simulators

The budget request included $15.3 million in PE 64256A for

threat simulator development. The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for the development and fielding of realistic, top

attack, indirect fire weapons system threat simulators and virtual

threat simulations. The committee notes that advanced simulation

technologies are critical for the complex technology development

and training programs that are integral for Army transformation

efforts.

Studies and analyses

The budget request included $22.1 million in PE 65103A for the

RAND Arroyo Center. The committee recommends a decrease of

$5.0 million to this account. The committee notes that the Army

had over $100.0 million in unfunded science and technology requirements to support the development of the Objective Force. The

committee believes that these investments should be a higher priority than further studies addressing the national security debate.

Battle Labs cooperative research

The budget request included $22.6 million in PE 65326A for the

Concepts Experimentation Program. The committee recommends

an increase of $3.0 million for collaboration with university researchers on the development of Future Combat Systems, unmanned robotics, and new and legacy vehicle technologies. The

committee notes that collaboration between the Battle Labs and

the science and technology community and early experimentation

with new technologies and concepts of operation are critical for

technology transition and to accelerate the transformation of the

Army.

Aerostat for missile defense

Aerostat technology is used in the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) system, an airborne

sensor platform which would provide over-the-horizon detection

and tracking for land attack cruise missile defense. However, the

vulnerability of the JLENS aerostat in extreme climatic conditions

is a significant problem for the system. The Aerostat Design and

Manufacturing (ADAM) program advances the performance of the

aerostat in extreme conditions while reducing costs. The committee

agrees that ADAM is important to the JLENS program and recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 12419A for ADAM.

164

Aircraft engine component improvement program

The budget request included $3.7 million in PE 23752A to develop, test, and qualify improvements to aircraft engine components but included no funding to continue the work funded in fiscal

year 2002 to further develop the Universal Full Authority Digital

Engine Control (FADEC) and the Liquid-or-Light-Air (LOLA) Boost

Pump.

The Universal FADEC would apply to all current and future

Army turbine engines, significantly reducing procurement costs

while enhancing engine and aircraft operability. The Army estimates that qualifying and installing the FADEC would result in

cost savings exceeding $100.0 million. More importantly, it would

greatly increase the safety of Army aviators through reduced pilot

workload.

Similarly, installing the LOLA Boost Pump would increase the

safety of Army aviators by preventing potential engine flame-outs

and onboard or post-crash fires. Cost savings are estimated at

$13.0 million for every $1.0 million invested.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

to continue the development and qualification of a Universal

FADEC and an increase of $3.0 million to develop the LOLA Boost

Pump, a total authorization of $11.7 million.

Technology for language training

The Army is deficient in language specialists for certain critical

languages because many specialists are currently dedicated to intelligence functions and therefore are unavailable to interpret for

operational personnel. Computer software is being developed to aid

these operational personnel so that they can converse with inhabitants in the Central Asia region. The software would translate and

develop the vocabulary of the operational personnel while they are

deployed. The committee agrees that the ability to communicate effectively with people from Central Asian countries is imperative.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million

in PE 33028A for development of the technology for specialized

field communication and language training for non-linguist personnel in Central Asian languages.

Information Systems Security

The budget request included $71.9 million in PE 33140A for the

Information Systems Security program. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for the development of information security systems which distribute, protect, and fuse Army

digitized information.

Navy

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

Robotic countermine technology

The budget request included $393.6 million in PE 61153N for

general research addressing naval applications. The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million for research specific to autonomous robotic countermine technology. This technology would support the development of effective countermine capabilities in very

shallow water and in surf zones.

Marine mammal detection and mitigation

The budget request included $393.6 million in PE 61153N for

basic research to support naval applications. The committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for basic research on a system

that would detect the presence of marine mammals and take mitigating action to allow Navy sonar training in the open sea and

littorals to continue. This research is critical in light of recent Navy

studies that have indicated that active sonar training may have a

negative effect on marine mammals.

Corrosion research

The committee notes the huge expense incurred by the Department of Defense annually to pay repair and maintenance costs due

to the effects of corrosion on platforms, weapons systems, facilities,

and other infrastructure. New research in corrosion prevention

technologies, including new materials, paints, coatings, sensors for

inspection and monitoring, and manufacturing technologies can

help to reduce these costs for future systems and develop technologies that can be quickly transitioned into operational systems.

Fundamental research on corrosion processes and corrosion mitigation technologies will also serve in developing technologies for use

in the commercial sector as well as in training the next generation

of corrosion engineers.

In order to support these efforts, and as part of the larger corrosion initiative described in Title III, the committee recommends an

increase of $23.5 million across the Department of Defense in corrosion research. This includes an increase of $5.0 million to PE

61153N for fundamental research on corrosion processes and materials technologies to reduce corrosion; $2.5 million in PE 63236N

for the development of glass technologies to improve the corrosion

resistance of metals; $2.5 million in PE62123N for research on

coating technologies and repair techniques to address corrosion

maintenance and airframe readiness issues; and an additional $4.0

million in PE 63712N for the development of new technologies and

coordination of information on surface coatings and their applications to naval systems.

The committee also recommends an additional $9.5 million in

Army and Air Force corrosion and coating research as described

elsewhere in the report.

Data fusion

The budget request included $89.3 million in PE 62123N for

Force Protection Applied Research. The committee recommends an

increase of $3.0 million for the development of a dedicated data fusion processor and its algorithms, which will lead to the ability to

fuse hyperspectral and panchromatic data.

179

Advanced power systems

The budget request included $89.4 million in PE 62123N for applied research in force protection technologies. The committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for research on materials, including power semiconductors and superconductors, and control

systems to support the development of the next generation of allelectric power systems for the Navy.

Polymer composites research

The budget request included $89.4 million in PE 62123N for applied research in force protection technologies. The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for research on the design and

manufacturing of fiber reinforced polymer composites for naval applications.

Bioenvironmental hazards research

The budget request included $68.9 million in PE 63236N for

Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for bioenvironmental hazards

research, including the development of biosensors and biomarkers.

Navy materials research

The budget request included $68.9 million in PE 62236N for applied research on warfighter sustainment technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for applied research

on ceramic and carbon-based composite materials for use in strategic missiles and hypersonic vehicles.

Electronics research for naval applications

The budget request included $56.3 million in PE 62271N for applied research in radio frequency systems. The committee recommends an increase of $12.5 million for applied research in materials and electronics that will enable future naval technologies. Of

this amount, $2.5 million would be used for research on wide

bandgap semiconductor materials and devices for application in advanced power electronics, communications, and sensor systems;

$3.0 million for research on high brightness electron sources for

vacuum electronics applications; $2.5 million for silicon carbide materials and device research; $1.5 million for advanced semiconductor materials research for high power amplifiers; and $3.0 million for the development of nanoscale magneto-electric structures

and devices for data storage and sensing applications.

Low acoustic signature motors and propulsors

The budget request included $71.3 million in PE 62747N for applied research to support the development of undersea warfare

technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million for research on high power battery systems, motors,

propulsors, and power converters for torpedoes.

Ship service fuel cell technology

The budget request included $57.6 million in PE 63123N for

Force Protection Advanced Technology. The committee supports the

development of energy-efficient power plants for future use on

180

naval vessels to reduce costs. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the development of a ship service fuel cell

power plant to be deployed on future surface combatants.

Unmanned surface vehicles

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund,

Counter Terrorism/Force Protection activity included $36.0 million

for unmanned surface vessels (USVs). These funds would be used

to convert three existing rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs) into

USVs. The Navy believes that such vehicles could be applied to

force protection missions and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) activities. The Navy also believes that such USVs

could be outfitted with weapons to provide security functions in

naval harbor and port facilities. Although the committee believes

that these potential applications are worth exploring, it is not clear

why the Navy needs to convert three RHIBs to USVs before developing the concepts of operations and employment and before conducting a more limited demonstration with a couple of such vessels.

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 million

in this activity. The committee recommends that the remaining

$24.0 million be transferred to PE 63123N, as requested by the Department.

Multifunction antenna systems

The budget request included $65.1 million in PE 63271N for advanced technologies for radio frequency systems. The committee

recommends an additional $2.0 million for modeling and hardware

to support integrated multifunction antenna technologies for current and future naval platforms.

Laser welding and cutting for ship manufacturing

The budget request included no funds in PE 63508N for demonstration and validation of laser welding and cutting to reduce the

cost of building ships. A laser cutting technique was proven

through the maritime technology program as a viable means of reducing the costs of preparing materials for naval ship construction

welding. The Navy is in the process of taking the next step in applying laser cutting techniques to challenging shapes for components for naval ships.

Improvements in laser welding and cutting technology have the

potential to reduce the cost of manufacturing the smaller ship components that require more precision than larger sheets of steel or

aluminum. The current process that cuts small components out of

I-beams creates an amount of useless scrap and is not precise.

More effective use of laser welding and cutting has the potential

to reduce the scrap and cut precise parts by cutting components

from sheets of metal instead of I-beams. Therefore, the committee

recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 63508N to continue

the development and testing of laser welding and cutting to reduce

the cost of ship construction.

181

Ocean modeling research for mine and expeditionary warfare

The budget request included $43.7 million in PE 63782N for various mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology efforts,

including ocean modeling and simulation to provide concept-based

assessments for organic mine countermeasures. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to expand the network of sensors and continue ocean modeling research. The Navy established

a limited network of sensors for ocean modeling and simulation to

collect key information including current and eddy flow, bottom

contour and content, thermal layer behavior, and cold water phenomena. The Navy needs additional sensors to provide effective undersea and expeditionary warfare environmental information in the

form of situational awareness predictions for regional commanders

in chief (CINCs) and tactical commanders.

Aviation survivability

The budget request included $7.5 million in PE 63216N for aviation survivability but included no funding for developing the Navy’s

integrated common display helmet concept. This helmet concept

would consist of a common inner helmet shell to which mission-specific equipment would attach, making it more efficient for the Navy

to field newer technologies. Such a common helmet approach could

help reduce stress on aircrews and make it easier for the Navy to

field newer technologies more efficiently.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63216N for the development and flight evaluation of the Navy common display helmet, a total authorization of $11.5 million for aviation survivability. The committee also encourages the Navy to take

Air Force requirements into account in this development to allow

for joint service applications.

Gas turbine engine electric start to reduce ship maintenance

The budget request included no funds in PE 63513N for demonstration and validation of an electric start system for gas turbine

engines on Navy ships. An electric start capability has the potential to reduce maintenance costs and provide a more flexible emergency start capability for gas turbine generators and propulsion engines. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0

million in PE 63513N for the development and test of electric start

for gas turbine generators and propulsion engines on Navy ships.

Surface vessel torpedo tubes

The budget request included no funds in PE 63513N for developing better torpedo tube technology for surface ships. The Navy

has been managing a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)

project to develop a modular, gas generator launch canister. This

project is employing commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS), automobilestyle air bags for launch energy. Employing such long shelf life

COTS components could greatly reduce the maintenance burden of

keeping air flask-based torpedo tubes in operational condition.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

182

in PE 63513N for the development of an improved launch capability for surface vessel torpedo tubes.

Electromechanical actuators

The budget request included no funds for continuing a Small

Business Innovation Research (SBIR) initiative to replace maintenance-intensive, hydraulic valve actuators with electromechanical

actuators. The SBIR program demonstrated the potential for

electromechanical actuators to increase reliability, decrease maintenance, and reduce total operating costs for ships and submarines.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million

in PE 63561N to continue the SBIR initiative to replace hydraulic

actuators with electromechanical actuators.

Reducing maintenance by improving brushes on electric

motors

The budget request included $1.7 million in PE 63561N to install

a set of advanced metal fiber brushes on a ship service motor generator set in a submarine. Metal fiber brushes have demonstrated,

through a Navy-sponsored, phase II Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, the capability to significantly enhance performance and reduce maintenance costs on Navy motors and generators. The systematic approach for certifying the technology requires certification for varying motor and generator capacities.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million

to test and certify advanced metal fiber brush technology to reduce

maintenance and improve reliability of motors and generators.

Reducing unspecified development

The budget request included $17.7 million in PE 63609N for conventional fuze and warhead package improvements. Of this

amount, $7.0 million is included to initiate unspecified conventional munitions advanced warhead developments. In addition to

the efforts included in PE 63609N, conventional munitions warhead development is included in other procurement and research

and development efforts for specific weapons authorized elsewhere

in this bill.

Warhead improvements to fielded systems based on evolving

threats and correction of reported problem areas are strongly supported by the committee. However, the committee is not inclined to

support what appears to be funding that is duplicated elsewhere in

the budget. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of

$4.0 million in PE 63609N for unspecified warhead development.

Lightweight 155mm howitzer

The budget request included $11.6 million in PE 63635M for developing and testing the lightweight 155mm howitzer. The Marine

Corps is developing this system on its own behalf and on behalf of

the Army to provide greater firepower and mobility for its artillery

forces.

The Marine Corps plans to begin low-rate initial production in

fiscal year 2003, leading to operational testing of production guns

in fiscal year 2004. The committee believes that the potential improvements promised by this howitzer program are important and

183

that the Marine Corps should conduct developmental testing to ensure a smooth transition to a successful operational evaluation.

Such testing should include additional firings and other testing to

demonstrate that endurance and other maintainability goals will

be achieved. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$2.8 million in PE 63635M to conduct additional testing within the

lightweight 155mm howitzer program.

Navy fuel cell technology demonstration

The budget request included $5.1 million in PE 63724N for the

Navy Energy Program. The committee recommends an increase of

$5.0 million for the development of proton exchange membrane

(PEM) fuel cells. PEM fuel cell systems are highly efficient, lowtemperature fuel cells that can operate on traditional hydrocarbon

fuels using an electrochemical process that produces near-zero

emissions. A residential PEM fuel cell system typically provides 5

kW of base load power, with a 10 kW peak load and a 15 kW surge,

which is sufficient to run the electrical systems of a small building.

These attributes make this technology well suited for placement at

military sites and for serving remote or inaccessible locations.

The committee believes that demonstration of these fuel cell systems in stationary applications will also help to advance the state

of technology development for transportation applications, particularly on vehicles that can run on diesel fuel for military applications.

Facilities improvement

The budget request included $2.1 million in PE 63725N for aircrew systems development but included no funding for developing

renewable energy sources for major Navy installations. This program provides the Navy with new civil engineering capabilities

that are required to overcome specific performance limitations of

naval shore facilities while reducing the cost of sustaining the

naval shore infrastructure. The program focuses available resources on satisfying facility requirements where: (1) the Navy is

a major stakeholder; (2) there are no tested, validated commercial,

off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions available; and (3) a timely solution

will not emerge without a Navy-sponsored demonstration and validation. The committee understands that the Office of Naval Research has entered into a partnership to demonstrate solar energy

as a source of electric power and conduct planning and design for

research and demonstration of renewable energy, hydrogen, and

fuel cells. From this partnership, the Navy hopes to derive recurring energy cost savings and to have a more reliable source of energy. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63725N to develop renewable energy sources for major

Navy installations.

Urban operations environment research

The budget request included $24.1 million in PE 63851M for

demonstration and validation of non-lethal weapons. The committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for demonstration

and validation of environmental remediation capabilities to miniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.063 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
184

mize the environmental effects of the use of non-lethal weapons

systems.

Duplication of research and development efforts

The budget request included $81.5 million in PE 64231N for upgrades to Navy command, control, communications, computers and

intelligence (C4I) systems and processes. Included within that

amount was $20.0 million to start a new program, Forcenet, to provide the architecture and building blocks to connect Navy systems

electronically. The budget justification material indicates that the

Navy intends for the program to attempt to create a ‘‘highly adaptive, human-centric, comprehensive system that operates from seabed to space, from sea to land.’’ The new program appears to be

overly ambitious in the ramp-up of funding for such a broadly described effort. It also appears to be premature based on the limited

deployment of a Navy and Marine Corps intranet, the cooperative

engagement concept programs, and the research and development

still required for the seven projects requested in this program element and the naval fires network. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 million in PE 64231N for the

Forcenet program initiation.

Power node control centers

The budget request included no funds for the continued development of power node control centers (PNCC). PNCCs integrate shipboard power functions, including conversion, switching, distribution, and protection. The technology is applicable to all ship classes

and will be a building block of the Navy transition to an all-electric

ship. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 64300N to install, test, and evaluate PNCCs.

Initiative to reduce destroyer life cycle costs

The budget request included no funds in PE 64307N for development, demonstration, and validation of new initiatives to reduce

the manning on Arleigh Burke (DDG–51) class destroyers. Previous

initiatives under the 1995 smart ship project fell short of expectations for reducing manning, but resulted in efficiencies which reduced the crews’ workload.

The committee believes that the Navy could take steps to reduce

the average crew size of 350 personnel by taking advantage of research and development activities already underway as part of the

future destroyer program. Although reduction of crew size is a worthy goal, the development and backfit costs could negate the potential savings. For this reason, the Navy should carefully evaluate

technologies for risk of development and payback in crew reduction

prior to development. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64307N for the development and test

of technologies to reduce destroyer life cycle costs by reducing assigned personnel.

Standard missile advanced optical correlator

The budget request included no funds for the standard missile

advanced optical correlator. Optical correlation enhances the ability

to recognize and track targets. This enhanced ability translates

185

into significantly better performance of ship self-defense systems.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

in PE 64366N for continued development of an optical correlator to

improve the standard missile performance.

Submarine combat systems modernization

The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 64562N to develop and integrate software upgrades to integrate improved weapons capabilities within the various submarine combat control systems (CCSs). This program also develops improvements to submarine hardware which has become increasingly difficult and costly to maintain.

The thrust of the CCS improvement program is the fleet introduction of an improved CCS system within which the Navy will

converge multiple submarine combat system developments into a

single effort to minimize submarine life cycle costs. Current plans

include converging CCS systems for the SSN–688-class, the SSN–

688I-class, and the SSBN–726-class.

Additional funding would allow the Navy to: (1) implement an

engineering change proposal to incorporate into the CCS MK2 software architecture the capability to fire Tactical Tomahawk missiles; and (2) continue converting the CCS MK2 software architecture to a fully commercial design.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 64562N to achieve commonality in combat control systems sooner among all the various submarine classes and configurations within those classes.

Elimination of redundant studies

The budget request included $2.9 million in PE 64567N to commence manpower and training studies for an unspecified future

ship. The Congress has authorized and appropriated significant

funding in previous Navy budget requests for the DD–21 program,

the CVN program, the new attack submarine program, the military

sealift program, and the smart ship program. All of these programs

included components that were supposed to investigate, test and

install methods for reducing manpower and improving training on

Navy ships. Interviews with program managers have revealed that

the Navy does not have an adequate process by which the information gathered and the ‘‘lessons learned’’ from these efforts is made

available to the managers of other ship programs. Although the

committee has fully supported other manpower reduction and

training improvement efforts included in this budget request, the

unspecified effort included in this program element appears redundant to previous and ongoing efforts. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.9 million in PE 64567N for unspecified

manpower and training studies and directs the Secretary of the

Navy to ensure that the Navy makes information on manpower reduction and improvements in training generated within specific

programs available to other program offices with similar requirements.

186

Lightweight torpedo development

The budget request included $7.8 million in PE 64610N to design, integrate, and test the lightweight hybrid torpedo (MK–54

MOD 0). This torpedo would be comprised of hardware and software from the MK–46 torpedo, MK–50 torpedo, and MK–48

ADCAP torpedo. The Navy expects the lightweight hybrid torpedo

to provide performance improvements in shallow water, littoral,

and countermeasure-filled environments.

The committee believes that, with additional funding, the Navy

could develop and test hardware and software design changes that

would realign the lightweight and heavyweight torpedo baselines to

achieve greater commonality. Such commonality could accelerate

the process of implementing future block improvement changes and

should reduce other operating and support costs. Therefore, the

committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 64610N

to achieve these objectives.

Outboard system improvements

The budget request included no funds in PE 64721N for development, demonstration, and validation of improvements to Outboard,

the surface ship signals exploitation and information collection system. The cooperative Outboard logistics upgrade (COBLU) program

was designed in 1995 using analog commercial, off-the-shelf-based

(COTS-based) components. By developing digital enhancements,

the Navy could take advantage of digital technology to permit Outboard to detect and exploit a wider range of signals. Therefore, the

committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64721N

for the development, test, and rapid fielding of COBLU system digital enhancements.

SEARAM ship self-defense system

The budget request included no funds in PE 64755N for demonstration and validation of a ship self-defense system which would

combine the capabilities of the close-in weapons system (CIWS) and

the rolling airframe missile (RAM). On May 4, 2001, the Navy initiated an engineering change proposal (ECP) to upgrade the RAMguided missile weapons system to a SEARAM configuration. The

SEARAM configuration would combine the CIWS radar with an

eleven-round RAM missile launching system. The SEARAM system

would provide surface ships improved detection and kill capabilities

against anti-ship missile threats. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64755N to continue the

development and testing of the SEARAM ECP.

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system

The budget request included $25.9 million for ship self-defense

soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including $1.0 million

to develop an improved capability to prevent loss of the technology

through reverse engineering by developing anti-tamper capability

for the NULKA payload.

The Navy has identified a series of development activities associated with the NULKA system that are required to understand and

deal with emerging threats:

187

(1) an improved payload that would provide radio frequency

coverage of more than one band of the spectrum to deal with

anti-ship missiles;

(2) an expanded anti-tampering program effort;

(3) an improved guidance and propulsion system to allow

more precise positioning of the decoy during operations;

(4) an effort to design an infrared payload to enable NULKA

to deal with newer anti-ship missile homing technologies;

(5) an analysis of NULKA payload effectiveness when operating in a high electromagnetic interference environment

against missile seekers employing low probability of intercept

technologies; and

(6) systems engineering and software support for updating

the NULKA launcher training, system evaluation and test facility.

The committee recommends an increase of $9.2 million for the

NULKA development program to continue these efforts.

Radar absorbing tiles for ship self-defense

The budget request included no funds in PE 64757N for development, demonstration, and validation of applying radar-absorbing

tiles to improve the self-defense capabilities of Navy ships. Radarabsorbing tiles could reduce the ships’ detectability by radars, contributing to ship stealth and self-defense capability. Therefore, the

committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 64757N

for the development and test of radar-absorbing tiles for Navy

ships.

Navy integrated human resources strategy

The budget request included $43.2 million in PE 65013N for information technology development. The committee recommends an

additional $7.0 million to support development of architectures,

processes, web-based tools, and the re-engineering of Navy legacy

systems to improve information management within the Department of the Navy.

Navy studies and analyses

The budget request included $45.4 million in PE 65154N for the

Center for Naval Analyses. The committee recommends a reduction

of $5.0 million to this account. In addition, the committee notes

that the Navy’s science and technology budget was reduced with respect to the fiscal year 2002 budget request and appropriated levels. The committee recommends that the Navy place a higher priority on retaining a stable investment in science and technology

than on studies and analyses programs.

Combating terrorism wargaming and research

The budget request included $50.8 million in PE 65853N for

management, technical, and international support. The committee

recommends an increase of $2.0 million to support the development

of new wargaming techniques, research, and collaboration to support Navy activities in combating terrorism.

188

F/A–18E/F engine durability improvements

The budget request included no funds in PE 24136N for testing

and validating improved components and advanced technologies in

the F/A–18E/F engine, the F414. Such improvements in the F414

compressor and high-pressure turbine have the potential to increase engine durability and thrust. Increased durability would

translate directly to operating and support savings. Increased

thrust would improve current flying performance and provide an

important hedge against future upgrades of the aircraft. Therefore,

the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE

24136N to test core and high-pressure turbine improvements in the

F414 engine.

Precision target aided navigation

The budget request included $94.3 million in PE 24229N for continued development of the Tomahawk weapons system but included

no funding for developing an alterative guidance system called precision target aided navigation (PTAN). The Navy believes that the

PTAN program could lead to a guidance capability that would be

equal to the current system based on the global positioning system

(GPS). Missiles using a PTAN-based approach would, however, not

be vulnerable to an enemy who might be employing GPS jamming

or spoofing defenses. The committee believes that further development of this PTAN capability would be a prudent hedge against

such a possibility. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 24229N to the PTAN development program.

Improving information provided to the warfighter

The budget request included $6.2 million in PE 24575N for development of information system technologies which directly support

the mission planning for tactical commanders. The virtual integration environment for the warfighter uses commercial visualization

and related information technologies interfaced with real-time

databases to evaluate commercial information technology’s integration with databases. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 24575N for the virtual integration environment for the warfighter.

Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems

The budget request included $36.0 million in PE 26623M for Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems, including

$14.6 million for the Marine Corps ground weaponry product improvement program (PIP). The target location designation and

hand-off system (TLDHS) is a modular, man-portable equipment

suite that will provide the ability to acquire targets in a wide range

of weather conditions, day and night. The TLDHS should greatly

improve the ability of Marine Corps operators to call for fire support from aviation, ground, and naval surface fire support assets.

In fiscal year 2003, the Marine Corps expects to reach a fielding

decision for the target hand-off system component of the TLDHS.

Although previous budgets for the ground weaponry PIP have included requests for the TLDHS program, the budget request for fiscal year 2003 included no funds for TLDHS. Additional funding in

189

fiscal year 2003 would permit the Marine Corps to undertake a

number of important development tasks, including: (1) supporting

additional development and testing of the naval surface fire support capability; and (2) incorporating additional close air support

features. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.9

million in PE 26623M for the TLDHS, a total authorization of

$37.9 million.

Interoperability support of the warfighter

The budget request included $3.3 million in PE 35188N for joint

command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, and

surveillance (C4ISR) projects for the joint battle center (JBC). The

Navy established a project in fiscal year 2001 to improve interoperability through reducing total cost of ownership, using commercial

innovations and services, and developing timely requirements relating to homeland security. The committee believes that the Navy

should expand the initial project to support focused actions for the

regional commanders in chief, including improving joint task force

decision-making and rapidly applying new technology for interoperability. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0

million for a strategic interoperability initiative that would allow

the Navy to build upon the solid foundation of the work previously

completed.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Tactical Control System

The budget request included $9.1 million for research and development of the Tactical Control System (TCS), which is being designed to receive, process and disseminate data from all current

and future tactical and high-endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

(UAVs), such as Predator and Global Hawk. The TCS would also

serve as a common command and control system for all UAVs.

The Navy is purchasing Global Hawk UAVs in fiscal year 2003

with the ultimate goal of integrating them into the TCS. The proposed fiscal year budget for TCS, however, does not fund such integration. Therefore, instead of using TCS to support the Global

Hawks, the Navy now plans on using the existing, dedicated Global

Hawk ground stations which are designed to work exclusively with

Global Hawks.

The committee believes that integration of Global Hawk into the

TCS should occur as soon as possible to ensure TCS commonality

within the set of Navy UAVs and recommends that $10.0 million

be added to PE 35204N for this purpose. Furthermore, the committee urges the Air Force to work with the Navy to support the

Navy’s TCS activities.

Modeling and simulation

The budget request included $7.8 million in PE 38601N for Navy

modeling and simulation development activities. The Navy has

been using modeling and simulation to provide important information to make smarter acquisition and program decisions, thereby

reducing the research, development, test and evaluation costs for

Navy programs. The Navy has found that they are able to eliminate a number of acquisition and program possibilities using comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.066 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
190

puter simulation based on validated models. Narrowing the range

of possibilities has yielded proven cost savings.

The committee believes that the Navy could benefit from additional funding to expand these important activities. Therefore, the

committee recommends an increase of $4.7 million in PE 38601N

to continue enhancements to, and usage of, computer modeling and

simulation in Navy research and development activities.

Maritime manufacturing technology

The budget request included $9.9 million in PE 78730N for maritime manufacturing technology. The committee recommends an additional $4.0 million for the development of advanced hardware,

software, and engineering practices for new design and manufacturing technologies to support shipyard and industry needs.

Air Force

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

Aerospace materials manufacturing and research

The budget request included $75.3 million in PE 62102F for applied materials research. The committee recognizes the critical role

that materials research and materials processing technology play

in extending the life of aging equipment, especially by addressing

corrosion issues and in developing the new weapons systems and

platforms that will transform the military. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $14.5 million in funding in this

important research area. Of this amount, $3.0 million would be used for improvements in the manufacturing of specialty aerospace materials; $3.0 million for

the development and application of a high power, tunable, ultraviolet laser processing tool for the fabrication of micro-engineered

components; $2.0 million for the development of wear-resistant,

nanostructured materials that can protect mechanical parts and extend their operational lives; $3.0 million for the development of

multifunctional, durable aircraft coating systems; $2.5 million for

the development of low-cost composite materials for use on unmanned aircraft; and $1.0 million for the development of fire retardant polymer materials.

Lithium ion batteries for unmanned vehicles

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62203F for applied research for the development of lithium ion batteries for use in unmanned air vehicles. The committee notes that

lighter weight and lower cost batteries would provide unmanned

air vehicles programs with many benefits, including increased mission time, increased payload capability, and support future systems

enhancements and expansion.

Wireless ISR technology

The budget request included $75.8 million in PE 62204F for applied research on aerospace sensors. The committee recommends

an increase of $3.0 million for the development of

microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) wireless technology that

enables detection, sensing, and monitoring of hostile threats.

Space technology research

The budget request included $58.6 million in PE62601F for applied research in space technology. The committee recommends an

additional $6.0 million for this research, which includes $3.0 million for the development of clusters of microsatellites for defense

operations; $1.0 million for the development of novel structural materials for large, lightweight space structures; and $2.0 million for

the development of control systems for autonomous space systems.

Cyber security research

The committee notes that cyberattacks are an emerging threat to

both our nation’s defense systems and commercial infrastructure.

The private sector has reported billions of dollars of annual losses

to computer crimes. Network attacks from terrorists, foreign nations, and domestic hackers have compromised defense operations

and threatened the lives of military personnel. The committee

notes that a greater emphasis must be placed on the development

205

of security standards for both commercial and military information

systems, including networks and software. This must be matched

by strong support for the critical research needed to develop safer

and more robust information systems. The committee also notes

the critical need to train more information security specialists to

design, operate, and maintain government and commercial information systems.

As a result of these threats and needs, the committee recommends an additional investment of $33.0 million in Department

of Defense research and training programs in the area of information security. Of this amount, the committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 62702F for applied research in information assurance and network security and $3.0 million for research

toward securing national security information through techniques

including steganography and digital watermarking. The committee

urges the Air Force to robustly fund research in this critical technology area. The budget request included $9.4 million in PE 33140F for information systems security. The committee notes the critical role that

this type of research will play in combating global cyber-terrorist

threats. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5

million for research on computer system vulnerabilities and

threats, including the transition of technology for operational use.

In addition to these programs, the committee also recommends an additional $17.5 million in cybersecurity research and training

as described elsewhere in the report.

Aluminum aerostructures

The budget request included $32.7 million in PE 63112F for aerospace technology development and demonstration. The committee

recommends an increase of $4.0 million for research on the use of

aluminum aerostructures for aerospace components, which improve

processing technologies and reduce installment and life cycle costs.

Crew systems and personnel research

The budget request included $29.7 million in PE 63231F for crew

systems and personnel protection technology. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million to demonstrate new technologies that will enhance logistics and improve design,

deployability, performance and support of current and future weapons systems. The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million

for the development of systems that deliver nitrogen and oxygen for

safe aircraft operation and reduce ground support requirements.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in controlled airspace

The committee is encouraged by the Department’s substantial

commitment to procure Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in fiscal

year 2003 and in future years. In parallel with the procurement of

UAVs, however, technologies and procedures need to be developed

to harmonize the operation of UAVs with the operation of manned

aircraft.

Currently, in order to operate UAVs in the National Air Space

(NAS), the Department must obtain a Certificate of Authorization

from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through a process

206

that can be cumbersome and time consuming. A primary reason for

FAA certification is the prevention of mid-air collisions: FAA rules

require that UAVs provide a ‘‘see and avoid’’ capability comparable

to that of a manned aircraft. Since UAVs are not currently

equipped with an onboard ‘‘see and avoid’’ capability, chase planes

are typically required to ferry UAVs through the NAS, thus complicating such flights.

The Department has begun development of Detect and Avoid

(DAA) technology, which uses low-cost, lightweight optical sensors

to automatically detect aircraft in the vicinity of a UAV, thereby

enabling operator action to avoid a collision. The committee is encouraged by this effort and recommends an increase of $4.0 million

to PE 63270F to fund continuation of DAA technology development,

to demonstrate this technology on the Global Hawk UAV, and to

implement an interim system for the Predator UAV that meets

FAA standards for flight in the NAS without a chase aircraft.

In addition, the committee strongly supports the Department’s

efforts to work with the FAA on this issue and is aware of similar

efforts underway at the National Air and Space Administration

(NASA). Therefore, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence should continue

to support the joint Defense Department/FAA study on integrating

remotely operated aircraft into civil airspace. In addition, the Secretary should broaden the study’s membership to include representatives from NASA and industry and ensure that the study

receives the resources required to expeditiously achieve the goal of

flying UAVs through controlled airspace using the same quick and

efficient procedures that are currently used for manned aircraft.

Advanced spacecraft technology

The budget request for the Air Force included $14.1 million in

PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology research and development. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in

PE 63401F for high specific power thin film multi-junction amorphous silicon solar arrays on flexible substrates for space applications. This technology has the potential to produce solar arrays

that are ten times cheaper and 3 to 5 times lighter than current

solar arrays. The committee further directs the Air Force to study

the potential applications for this technology in ongoing and future

space applications and to submit a report to the Committees on

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on

the results of the study and to identify the potential future applications of this innovative and transformational technology.

Advanced Wideband System satellite program

The budget request included $195.0 million in PE 63436F and

$5.0 million in PE 63845F for research and development for the

Advanced Wideband System (AWS) satellite program. This new

program is a groundbreaking effort to use laser communications

technology in space, thereby increasing the bandwidth of satellite

communications by orders of magnitude. The committee strongly

supports this program, because the Department’s reliance upon

satellite communications is expected to continue to grow rapidly

over the next decade. The committee is concerned, however, that

207

$200.0 million is a large amount of initial funding for a new program, regardless of its importance. Air Force documentation indicates that of this funding, $120.0 million is for concept development

and for laser technology development and integration. An additional $80.0 million is for detailed engineering level pre-acquisition

activities. The committee believes that it is not prudent to conduct

detailed pre-acquisition activities for a program prior to completion

of concept and technology development. Therefore, the committee

recommends a reduction of $80.0 million in PE 63436F.

Furthermore, the committee notes that PE 63436F is an Air

Force science and technology funding line. The funding in this program element, however, is clearly intended to develop a major satellite system. The committee believes it is not appropriate to categorize the program element as science and technology funding.

Therefore, the committee recommends that the remaining $115.0

million in PE 63436F be transferred to PE 63845F, a Demonstration and Validation line.

Low-cost autonomous attack system

The budget request included $38.0 million in PE 63601F for con- ventional weapons technology, including $11.0 million for the lowcost autonomous attack system (LOCAAS). Fiscal year 2003

LOCAAS efforts include flight testing with a live warhead, safe aircraft separation, and continued development of automatic target

recognition algorithms.

The committee believes that LOCAAS offers the potential to

make significant improvements in warfighting capabilities. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

63601F to accelerate LOCAAS development.

B–2 Spirit bomber

The budget request included $225.3 million in PE 64240F for research and development for the Air Force for the B–2 Spirit bomb- er. The Air Force has said $27.0 million is not executable. The committee recommends a $27.0 million decrease, of which $25.2 million

is transferred to Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for the B–2 in line

24, to correct a funding mismatch.

The committee recommends a $10.0 million increase in PE

64240F for low-observability maintenance improvements, a total

authorization of $208.3 million.

Precision location and identification program

The budget request included $65.1 million in PE 64270F for electronic warfare development, including $10.6 million for engineering

and manufacturing development (EMD) for the precision location

and identification (PLAID) program. The PLAID program is intended to lead to modernization of several families of radar warning receivers.

Under the previous schedule, the Air Force had planned to begin

production of PLAID-derivative hardware in fiscal year 2003. However, delays in receiving funding, among others, have pushed operational testing into early fiscal year 2004. This has resulted in a

requirement for additional EMD funding in fiscal year 2003 to conduct further risk reduction activities for PLAID. Because of the poVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.069 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
208

tential for this system to contribute to aircrew and passenger protection in higher threat environments, the committee recommends

an increase of $14.7 million in PE 64270F to fund additional risk

reduction activities.

Space-based Infrared System-High component

The budget request included $814.9 million in PE 64441F for the

Space-based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-High) system. SBIRSHigh is the replacement for the nation’s current space-borne early

warning system for ballistic missile launches. This funding level almost doubles last year’s appropriated funding level of $438.7 million.

The SBIRS-High program sustained a Nunn-McCurdy cost

breach in December 2001 when the unit cost estimate for the program increased by more than 70 percent, indicating more than $2.0

billion in cost growth. The program has also experienced an 18- to

24-month schedule slip. An independent review team established

by the Air Force found significant problems with the management

of the SBIRS-High program, including less than optimal systems

engineering and requirements development processes.

In compliance with the Nunn-McCurdy statute (10 U.S.C. 2433),

the Department of Defense reviewed SBIRS-High and re-certified

the program with a new overall program cost estimate. The required funding for fiscal year 2003 has not yet been agreed upon

by the Department. The committee understands, however, that the

Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Cost Analysis and Improvement

Group (CAIG) recommended re-certification of SBIRS-High assuming a fiscal year 2007 launch for the first satellite. The fiscal year

2003 cost to support such a launch date is approximately $100.0

million less than the amount requested in the budget for SBIRSHigh. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $100.0

million in PE 64441F for SBIRS-High.

Deployable oxygen systems

The budget request included $0.3 million in PE 64617F for developing deployable oxygen-generating systems for supporting

aeromedical aircraft operations. Passenger aircraft that are used by

medical support forces can consume larger quantities of oxygen. As

the Armed Forces deploy onboard oxygen-generating systems

(OBOGS) to most military aircraft, bases no longer need to maintain oxygen-generating capability for the fighting forces. In order to

prevent the strategic airlift forces from having to spend scarce airlift resources carrying large, bulky oxygen-generating systems into

theaters of operation just to support aeromedical aircraft operations, the Air Force needs to develop deployable oxygen systems.

The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $2.5 million

in PE 64617F to accelerate development of a deployable oxygengenerating capability for supporting aeromedical aircraft operations.

Integrated medical information technology system

The budget request included no funding in PE 64617F to continue the integrated medical information technology system

(IMITS). The IMITS development effort is intended to design a new

209

state-of-the-art clinical network architecture that supports electronic multimedia health records through the Air Force Medical

Service. This would include a demonstration of the capability in the

National Tele-radiology project and the Biomedical Surveillance

project. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in

PE 64617F to accelerate IMITS development.

Fixed aircrew standardized seats

The budget request included $0.9 million in PE 64706F for the

development of life support systems, but included no funding for

the continuing development of fixed aircrew standardized seats

(FASS). The FASS program develops modern, standardized aircrew

seats capable of meeting the dynamic load standards required of

commercial carriers. The Air Force is completing standardized seat

design studies and has begun the development of prototype seats.

Given the importance of maintaining acceptable safety standards

in Air Force aircraft, the committee recommends an increase of

$2.5 million in PE 64706F to continue the development of FASS.

Aircrew rescue signaling systems

The budget request included $0.9 million in PE 64706F for the

development of life support systems but included no funding for developing systems to improve survivors’ visibility to rescuers. The

committee understands that the chances of a successful rescue can

be greatly improved if air rescuers are given additional opportunities to see survivors.

The committee believes that the Air Force should investigate the

potential for acquiring or developing improved capability for survivors to draw the attention of air rescuers, including such approaches as streamers, dye markers, and infrared markers. The

committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 64706F

for the Air Force to investigate these issues and conduct testing on

potential candidate systems available on the commercial market.

Common low observable verification system

The budget request included $4.8 million in PE 64762F for continuing development of the common low observable verification system (CLOVerS). CLOVerS would provide maintenance personnel

with a system to verify an aircraft’s stealth capability on the flight

line rather than having to rely only on flying an aircraft across an

instrumented range. The system is designed to allow maintenance

personnel to detect, locate, and resolve small surface defects that

could degrade an aircraft’s stealth capability.

During engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), the

Air Force and the contractor team have realized increased risk in

completing the EMD on schedule. The Air Force requires additional

funding to restructure the program and complete the EMD program in time to begin low-rate initial production in fiscal year

2004. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $13.0

million in PE 64762F to maintain the CLOVerS development

schedule.

210

Maglev upgrade program

The budget request included $46.3 million in PE 64759F for

major test and evaluation investment. As part of the committee’s

overall initiative to support testing and evaluation in the Department of Defense, the committee recommends an additional $2.5

million for the continued development of high-speed test facilities

for development and qualification testing, including flight testing

and lethality impact testing.

Joint directed energy combat operations and employment

The budget request included $46.3 million in PE 64759F for test

and evaluation support. As part of the committee’s test and evaluation initiative, the committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for the development of a coordination plan for technology development and test range usage for testing directed energy weapons systems.

Air Force studies and analyses

The budget request included $25.5 million in PE 65101F for

RAND Project Air Force. The committee recommends a decrease of

$5.0 million to this account. The committee believes that accelerating the modernization of the Air Force by funding science and

technology programs at stable levels is a higher priority than continued studies and analyses.

Theater airborne reconnaissance system improvements

The budget request included no funding for continuing a program

to upgrade the F–16 theater airborne reconnaissance systems

(TARS) capability. The Air Force has identified several improvements that would enhance the ability of the F–16 TARS aircraft to

perform more effectively. These include providing a data link, replacing the current mission tape recorders with a solid state recorder, and expanding the ability to operate in adverse weather by

integrating a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) into the TARS pod.

The Air Force received funding in fiscal year 2002 to acquire two

new pods with solid state recorders and data link capability, one

with electro-optical capability and one with a SAR sensor. However, the Air Force needs additional funding to pay for nonrecurring engineering (NRE) for the data link and ground station

upgrades. The Air Force also could use additional funds to buy

SAR-equipped pods to field an improved all-weather reconnaissance

capability. The committee recommends an increase of $25.2 million

for accelerating these TARS capability improvements, including

$13.6 million in PE 27217F for data link and ground station NRE,

and $11.6 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force to buy additional TARS pods equipped with SAR sensors.

Global Positioning System Jammer Detection and Location

Military personnel rely on the Global Positioning System (GPS)

to support navigation, air control, precision approach and landing,

time-critical targeting and precision engagement under all-weather

conditions. Because of its dependence on GPS, the military must

protect itself from enemy GPS jammers. The GPS Jammer Detection and Location System (JLOC) would identify the location of

211

enemy jammers in order to neutralize their jamming capabilities.

JLOC has completed Phase II of development and is ready to begin

the next phase. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase

of $3.0 million to PE 27247F for the next phase of development for

GPS–JLOC.

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile development

The budget request included $42.1 million in PE 27325F for continued development and testing of the joint air-to-surface standoff

missile (JASSM). JASSM has entered low-rate initial production

and is scheduled to complete initial operational testing and evaluation (IOT&E) in early fiscal year 2003. Testing to date has had impressive results.

The Air Force had planned to develop an extended range cruise

missile (ERCM) to replace the conventional air-launched cruise

missile (CALCM) which is available in only limited numbers. Two

years ago, the Air Force asked for support in accelerating the

ERCM program. Congress provided additional funding for the

ERCM program, but for a number of reasons, the program did not

move forward.

Now the Secretary of the Air Force has decided to proceed with

an extended range version of the JASSM weapon, the JASSM ER,

to meet the ERCM requirements. That decision is dependent on

several factors, including: (1) successful completion of the JASSM

IOT&E; (2) proven JASSM production capability; and (3) the

JASSM prime contractor’s development of an adequate business

case for developing and producing a JASSM ER.

The committee believes that all of the above conditions should be

met in early fiscal year 2003. Given the urgency of augmenting the

current CALCM inventory, the committee believes that the Air

Force should not wait until fiscal year 2004 or later to begin a program to do this. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase

of $15.0 million in PE 27325F to begin JASSM ER development.

Multi-sensor command and control constellation

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund

(DERF), Security, Communications and Information Operations activity included $488.0 million for the multi-sensor command and

control constellation (MC2C) program. The budget request also included $191.1 million in PE 27449F for the same program, reflecting a total request of $679.1 million.

This is a new program effort that now includes the development

of an improved radar system derived from the joint surveillance/

target attack radar system (JSTARS) program. The new radar system is called the multi-platform radar technology insertion program (MP–RTIP). The Air Force intends to field this MP–RTIP

sensor suite on a number of air vehicles, including the Global

Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The Air Force conducted an

analysis and concluded that the newer technology affords the opportunity to consolidate a number of battle management and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions in a smaller

number of platforms types than are currently in service.

The Air Force has concluded that, rather than buying additional

JSTARS aircraft, they will transition the JSTARS mission to a

212

Boeing 767–400ER. The analysis indicates that this aircraft could

accommodate the JSTARS ground moving target indicator (GMTI)

mission and the airborne warning and control system (AWACS) air

moving target indicator (AMTI) mission. The Air Force intends to

pursue a spiral acquisition approach to fielding this MC2C capability, with the first spiral fielding GMTI capability and the second

spiral fielding AMTI capability.

The DERF budget request included $150.0 million within the

$488.0 million in the DERF requests to buy a test bed aircraft and

$100.0 million to integrate MP–RTIP into the B–767 aircraft. The

budget also included $15.0 million for deciding the configuration of

the B–767 that would be common to any fleet of aircraft the Air

Force would acquire. Based on Air Force documentation, however,

this aircraft will have been delivered as much as two years before

the MP–RTIP radar will be delivered and ready to begin aircraft

integration, even with an accelerated MP–RTIP development

schedule.

The committee believes that the Air Force should continue the

accelerated development of MP–RTIP and the other aspects of developing the MC2C program, including deciding on a common configuration. However, the committee sees no reason to support funding to buy an aircraft or conduct MP–RTIP integration until the

sensor development schedule indicates the aircraft and the integration effort need to be funded. Therefore, the committee recommends

a decrease of $250.0 million in this activity. The committee recommends that the remaining $238.0 million be transferred to the

new program element, PE 27449F, as requested by the Department.

Global Positioning System satellite program

The budget request included $324.1 million in PE 35165F for research and development for the Global Positioning System (GPS)

satellite program. This funding included $50.0 million to increase

the power level of the last six GPS Block IIF satellites, making it

more difficult for an enemy to jam the GPS signal. Following the

budget submission, however, the Department of Defense decided

not to increase the overall power level of these satellites, but rather

to add a capability to shift the existing available satellite power between different GPS signals. This, coupled with some modifications

to the GPS user equipment, will provide similar anti-jam capability

at less cost. Under this new plan, the full $50.0 million requested

is no longer needed. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in PE 35165F for Block IIF power level increases.

Furthermore, the impact of shifting the existing available power

between different GPS signals on the full range of GPS users is

still unclear. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in coordination with the Under Secretary of the Air Force, to assess the potential impacts of power shifting between GPS signals on the full

range of GPS receivers, including those carried by ground troops

and vehicles, naval and commercial vessels, and military and civilian aircraft.

213

The committee also understands that recent GPS satellite lifetime calculations have revealed the need to launch an extra GPS

satellite in fiscal year 2003 to reduce the risk of the constellation

dropping below the desired number of on-orbit satellites. Therefore,

the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

35165F for a fiscal year 2003 GPS launch, as requested by the Air

Force.

Spacelift range system

The budget request included $82.1 million in PE 0305182F for

the Air Force for the spacelift range system. The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million for systems engineering support, planning and scheduling systems, and communications systems.

Manufacturing technologies

The budget request included $37.6 million in PE 78011F for

manufacturing technology programs. The committee recommends

an additional $2.0 million for manufacturing technology development and testing of aircraft batteries. The committee notes that

new manufacturing technologies and a robust defense technology

industrial base are critical for both the national economy and for

the rapid transition of new technologies for the military.

Defense-wide

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency fundamental

research

The budget request included $175.6 million for basic research at

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Because

of the importance of DARPA’s fundamental research activities, the

committee recommends an increase of $11.5 million for basic research at universities and in industry. Of this amount, $3.0 million

shall be available for optoelectronics research, $4.0 million for

nanotechnology research for advanced biomedical devices and sensors, $2.0 million for the development and modeling of

nanotechnology-based logic circuits, and $2.5 million for photonic

materials and device research.

Many of the technologies that have enabled our current economic

prosperity and increased our national security have their roots in

university research supported by the DARPA. For example, the

Internet, graphical user interfaces, and global positioning systems

are all the result of long-term, cutting-edge, university-based research, supported decades ago by DARPA. DARPA has been recognized as the high-risk, high-payoff defense agency ever since its inception. The committee, however, is concerned about recent trends

in the agency-sponsored research that appear more shortsighted in

their approach, particularly the emphasis on 12- and 18-month reviews in order to attempt to eliminate non-promising technologies.

The committee supports effective internal oversight and commends DARPA for pursuing truly innovative technologies. However, annual reviews may not be appropriate for all basic and applied defense-related research programs. Additionally, these reviews have a discouraging effect on the intended long-term payoff

of the research and are especially inconsistent with the time

frames and pace of university research. The committee is concerned

that this near-term approach to basic and applied research will

have detrimental consequences on the ability to develop innovative

solutions to future threats. Therefore, the committee urges DARPA

to re-evaluate its policies for reviewing and terminating awards in

scientific and technical areas where the Department of Defense is

dependent on DARPA’s ability to do revolutionary research that requires some time to develop and mature.

The committee notes that the DARPA budget was significantly

increased in the President’s Budget Request and now represents

approximately 25 percent of the overall defense science and technology program. The committee believes that this amount of funding and the critical role that DARPA now plays in transitioning

new technologies, such as Future Combat Systems and Unmanned

Combat Air Vehicles, to the services and in developing revolutionary new capabilities, for example in nanotechnology and artificial intelligence, demand extensive planning and coordination

throughout the Department. In a 1999 report, the Defense Science

Board recommended that DARPA ‘‘plan deliberately for the future’’,

including establishing a ‘‘systemic approach to strategic planning

that provides clear definition of long-term Agency objectives in support of evolving national defense threats.’’ This is especially important in light of new Department activities supporting efforts in

combating terrorism and homeland security.

229

The committee supports this recommendation and directs that

DARPA develop a strategic plan and investment strategy as described by the Defense Science Board. The committee directs that

DARPA communicate that plan to the Director of Defense Research

and Engineering and the Joint Staff and provide a copy of the plan

to Congress with the fiscal year 2004 budget request.

University research initiatives

The budget request included $221.6 million in PE 61103D8Z for

university-based research programs. Fundamental research performed at universities provides the foundation for the next generation of defense technologies and trains the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technology entrepreneurs. Therefore, the

committee recommends an additional $4.0 million to support university research in support of military transformation. The committee recommends an additional $2.0 million for the development

of advanced remote sensing systems for environmental monitoring

and analysis and an additional $2.0 million for the development of

technologies for the optimization of military personnel management.

Nanotechnology incentive fund

The budget request included $175.6 million in PE 61103D8Z for

university research initiatives. As part of the nanotechnology research and development program authorized in section 245, the

committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in this account

for use as a nanotechnology incentive fund to sponsor research performed at universities, in industry, and at government laboratories

and test centers in support of meeting the challenges and goals established by the program.

The committee requires the Director of Defense Research and

Engineering to use this funding for research projects in nanoscale

science and technology. The incentive fund should be used to provide supplemental funding to services and agencies that collaborate

on interagency research teams, projects, and activities in research

areas central to the accomplishment of the challenges and goals of

the program.

Medical free electron laser

The budget request included no funding in PE 62227D8Z for the

medical free electron program due to a transfer of the program to

the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This transfer occurred despite the fact that this program has been developing valuable technology for military medical applications for 18 years, and NIH did

not request or recommend this programmatic change.

Laser medical research is not an area previously managed by

NIH. The committee is concerned that NIH does not have the expertise or institutional culture to manage this unique and important program. The committee directs the Department of Defense to

work with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to ensure that

future funding for this program is requested in the defense budget.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million

for continued work by the Department of Defense on medical free

electron lasers.

230

Computing systems and communications technology

The budget request included $424.9 million in PE 62301E for

computing systems and communications technology, which represents an increase of over $65.0 million to this account. The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million to this account. The

committee believes that the Bio-Surveillance program is redundant

with other efforts currently underway within the government. The

committee also recommends that the new start in the Genisys

database development program be reduced.

Chemical-Biological Defense Program funding

The budget request included $932.9 million for research, development, test and evaluation for the Chemical-Biological Defense Program (CBDP), including $262.2 million in PE 62384BP and $249.8

million in PE 63384BP. This represents an increase of $425.2 million, almost 85 percent above the fiscal year 2002 requested level.

This significant funding increase for homeland security projects is

planned for only one year, with planned funding returning to

$503.4 million in fiscal year 2004 and dropping to $408.1 million

by fiscal year 2007.

The committee recommends a number of specific adjustments to

the chemical and biological defense program funding account.

These adjustments would provide for an overall authorization of

$932.9 million, the amount requested for Chemical-Biological Defense research and development in the budget request.

The committee is concerned that the one-year spike in requested

funding will not be executable in one fiscal year, especially with no

follow-on funding planned through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). Therefore, the committee recommends an overall reduction of $25.0 million in PE 62384BP for applied microbial threat

assessment research and an overall reduction of $25.0 million in

PE 63384BP for new homeland security projects for the biological

counterterrorism research program. The committee also recommends that the Department of Defense adjust its spending plans

to be better defined and more executable across future years.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

602384BP for continued testing of non-toxic, non-corrosive, bio-defense nanoemulsion decontamination material that can act as a

decontaminant for equipment, personnel, structures, terrain and

humans to respond to the threat of biological warfare agents. Such

decontaminants would be less caustic and damaging than current

decontamination solutions.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62384BP for research on efforts to combine nanotechnology and

micro-manufacturing to produce systems for effective detection and

deactivation of biological warfare agents and an increase of $2.5

million to support continued Navy research on portable biological

agent sensors based on nanotechnology. Such nanotechnology holds

promise for wide application in chem-bio defense.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62384BP to support the Army’s development of a rapid detection

system to identify the presence of chemical or biological threat

agents and other toxic pollutants in water. This system would help

231

ensure the safety of water for both military personnel and civilian

populations.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62384BP for continued work on bioinformatics. This funding would

continue an effort to integrate genomic and other biological data

about high-priority pathogens, underlying scientific research and

bioinformatics tools.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE

62384BP for materials fabrication to develop affordable, rapid and

sensitive detectors for biological warfare agents.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million in PE

62384BP for expanded research in diagnosing and treating the

symptoms of exposure to organophosphorus compounds and nerve

agents using ultra-sensitive ion-trap technology and biomarkers to

analyze chemical agents.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62384BP to support Marine Corps efforts to develop, test and field

nanoparticle-based countermeasures, decontamination agents, and

protection technologies for chemical and biological threats.

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

63384BP for equipping and validating a biological process development facility using current Good Manufacturing Practices that can

produce biological materials for Phase I and II clinical testing of

candidate vaccines and therapeutic products to defend against biological warfare agents. Such a facility would help accelerate the

testing of potential medical defenses to biological warfare.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63384BP to support continued rapid development and testing by

the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Working Group of

electrostatic decontamination system technology. This technology

holds potential for rapid and man-portable decontamination of surfaces and sensitive equipment with a non-corrosive, non-toxic technology and could serve both military and non-military users.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.3 million to PE

63384BP to support continued Marine Corps efforts to develop and

demonstrate emergency response technologies for use by first response units such as its Chem-Bio Incident Response Force

(CBIRF). These technologies may also have utility to state and

local first response units.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to PE

63384BP to develop more stable vaccines that are less susceptible

to degradation from temperature and other environmental factors.

Stabilized vaccines would be particularly useful in remote locations

where environmental controls are lacking.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in

63384BP to support Marine Corps efforts for environmental testing, concept-of-operations development, and research and development to rapidly field operational systems utilizing nanotechnologies

that are capable of clearing facilities of chemical and biological

agent contamination.

Finally, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to

PE 63384BP for biological terrorism and agroterrorism risk assessment and prediction, including a comprehensive assessment of poVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.075 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
232

tential biological agents that could be of interest to terrorists for

human or agricultural attacks.

Tactical technology

The budget request included $181.0 million in PE 62702E for applied research in tactical technologies. The committee recommends

a decrease of $10.0 million to this account and recommends that

programs in hypersonics technology and aeronautics technology be

reduced or delayed.

Materials and electronics technology

The budget request included $440.5 million in PE 62712E for applied research in materials and electronics technology, which represents an increase of nearly $100.0 million to this account. The

committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million to this account.

The committee also recommends that new starts in biologicallybased materials and devices and microelectronic device technologies be reduced.

Weapons of mass destruction defeat technology

The budget request included $146.1 million in PE 62716BR for

applied research to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

defeat technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0

million for research on enhancing the blast resistance of concrete

and other structures against terrorist attack. The committee also

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development and

proof of concept demonstration of technology for penetrating and

neutralizing hard and deeply buried targets such as command centers or weapons storage facilities for weapons of mass destruction.

Combating Terrorism Technology Support Working Group

The budget request included $49.0 million in PE 63122D8Z for

the activities of the Combating Terrorism Technology Support

Working Group (TSWG). The committee recommends an additional

$5.0 million for blast mitigation testing, including the development

of new materials for protecting buildings and other infrastructure

and new testing techniques and technologies for the qualification

of new structural designs.

The committee commends TSWG for its leadership in developing

the leading-edge technologies that the Nation uses in the war

against terrorism. TSWG’s successful interagency coordination and

rapid transition of technologies into the hands of warfighters, first

responders, and other personnel should be models for the rest of

the Department of Defense and the Federal Government.

The committee notes the key role the TSWG has played in attempting to find the best technology, including from small businesses and non-traditional defense contractors, available for use in

the fight against terrorism. The committee commends TSWG’s role

in the very successful combating terrorism broad agency announcement of 2001 and urges the group to continue its efforts to evaluate

and fund those proposals it deems meritorious. The committee

notes that many of these proposals would be funded out of the Defense Emergency Response Fund.

233

Wafer-scale planarization technology

Future defense electronic systems require new methods to place

more transistors on ever-shrinking silicon and gallium arsenide

chips. Multiple technologies are being developed for this purpose,

but advancement of planarization technology is not being adequately addressed. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to PE 63175C for research and development

in wafer-scale planarization technology.

Bottom Anti-Reflective Coatings for circuit boards

Bottom Anti-Reflective Coatings (BARC) are used for ultra highdensity circuits to reduce the feature size on circuit boards. If the

BARC program is successful, printed circuit cards could be reduced

in size by as much as 40 percent, ultimately allowing the size and

weight of computers in missile defense components, such as interceptors, to be reduced commensurately. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63175C for BARC.

Nanophotonics system fabrication facility

Nanophotonics is a combination of nanofabrication and photonics

focused on the development of devices embedded in semiconductor

chips that control photons, or light, at the nanometer level.

Photonic hit indicators are used on ballistic missile defense test

targets to determine precisely where the interceptor hits the target.

The nanophotonics systems fabrication facility would focus on the

development, integration, and packaging of devices for photonic

systems, with methods based on those utilized in the integrated circuit industry. The committee believes in the potential of photonic

systems and recommends an increase of $3.7 million in PE 63175C

for the development of a nanophotonics systems fabrication facility.

Wide-bandgap semiconductor

There is an increasing need for semiconductors that can withstand high electricity and high temperature, especially for the compact, lightweight electronics required for ballistic missile defense

systems. The wide-bandgap semiconductor program researches the

use of Gallium Nitride, which can function at higher temperatures

than conventional materials. The committee agrees on the importance of Gallium Nitride as a semiconductor for the projects within

the Missile Defense Agency and in other areas. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63175C for

the wide-bandgap semiconductor program.

Vehicle fuel cell program

The budget request included $25.5 million in PE 63712S for logistics technology demonstrations. As a component of the legislative initiative described elsewhere in this title, the committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to carry out a cost-shared

program to identify and support technological advances that are

necessary to develop fuel cell technology for use in vehicles. The

committee directs that this program be coordinated with the Secretary of Energy, other appropriate federal agencies, and private

industry. The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to

234

ensure that at least half of the total cost of the program be borne

by industry, either in cash or in kind.

The vehicle fuel cell program shall include continued development of fuel cell auxiliary power units and vehicle propulsion technologies as well as pilot demonstration of such technologies as appropriate. The program shall also include development of technologies necessary for a hydrogen fuel infrastructure.

Technology transition initiatives

The budget request included $25.4 million in PE 63826D8Z for

Quick Reaction Special Projects. The committee supports the Department of Defense’s attempts to establish innovative programs to

rapidly transition technologies into operational systems. Section

242 of this title would add an additional $25.0 million in this account only for use as part of the Technology Transition Initiative

authorized by that provision.

The committee directs the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to report to Congress on the execution of the Quick Reaction and Transition Initiative funds, document technology transition successes that resulted as a consequence of the funds, and

make recommendations for new funding mechanisms to further

promote rapid and efficient technology transition.

Instructional technologies for first responders

The budget request included $49.9 million in PE 63832D8Z for

the Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office. The committee recommends an additional $4.0 million for planning, designing, and developing a national network for delivering Weapons of

Mass Destruction (WMD) training and to support research on simulation-based training systems that can improve WMD training.

The committee notes that preparing military medical personnel

to respond effectively to incidents involving use of weapons of mass

destruction is an essential part of a balanced response to new

threats. The Department of Defense must be able to provide continuous training, as well as rapid training updates, to large numbers

of globally distributed personnel, including medics and personnel in

military hospitals. New information technologies are essential to

serve this critical mission.

The committee recommends that the Director of Defense Research and Engineering direct and manage this program. The committee also recommends the formulation of a national strategy to

develop and deliver training materials for this mission. The program’s activities should leverage new information technologies and

adapt to newly available capabilities as well as conform as appropriate to the best commercial and university practices available,

both for the development of the content of the material and for the

technical standards used. Due to recent acceleration of governmentwide efforts in homeland security, the committee directs the Department to work closely with other agencies supporting WMD

training to take advantage of their ability to provide training content and certification and to ensure interoperability of technologies

employed.

235

Unexploded ordnance remediation

The budget request included $28.3 million in PE 63851D8Z for

the Environmental Security Technical Certification Program. The

committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to develop technologies to remediate unexploded ordnance (UXO) and related constituents at active, inactive, closed, transferred, and transferring

ranges. The budget request included $60.5 million in PE 63716D8Z for

the Strategic Environmental Research Program. The committee

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for science and technology

efforts to enhance UXO remediation capabilities.

Ballistic missile defense systems engineering

The budget request included $371.1 million in PE 63880C for

ballistic missile defense systems engineering and integration, an 83

percent increase over last year’s funding level. While the committee

accepts the value of systems engineering, it is not clear why such

a large increase is necessary over last year’s level. Furthermore,

despite repeated queries, the Missile Defense Agency has not adequately explained why such a high funding level is required for

systems engineering and integration or what products are to be delivered with the funding. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $140.0 million in PE 63880C for systems engineering and integration. The remaining funding level of $231.0 million represents 10 percent

growth from the current level.

Ballistic missile defense test and evaluation

The budget request included $382.0 million in PE 63880C for

ballistic missile defense test and evaluation, a decrease of more

than $40.0 million from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2002. The Department of Defense, however, has decided to put a

high priority on ballistic missile defense testing, which the committee strongly supports. It is not clear to the committee why the

requested test and evaluation funding has decreased so substantially given this priority. Therefore, the committee recommends an

increase of $30.0 million in PE 63880C for test and evaluation.

Arrow

The budget request included $66.0 million in PE 63881C for the

Arrow ballistic missile defense system. The Arrow program is a

U.S.-Israeli joint program critical to the defense of Israel against

existing and growing regional ballistic missile threats. The system

would also serve to protect U.S. forces in the region during a conflict and is intended to be interoperable with U.S. theater missile

defense systems. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase

of $40.0 million in PE 63881C for the Arrow program. The committee urges the Department to direct this extra funding toward

Arrow capability and interoperability upgrades.

High power discriminator radar

For a number of years the Department of Defense has pursued

two separate radar development efforts for the Navy Theater-Wide

ballistic missile defense system, now called the Sea-based MidVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.078 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
236

course system. Both efforts, one focusing on X-band radar technology and the other on S-band technology, have lacked a coherent

focus and plan. Congress has repeatedly requested that the Department provide the overall plan for Sea-based Midcourse radar development. Last year’s committee report urged the Ballistic Missile

Defense Organization, now the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), to

focus the radar development efforts and funding on the radar technology that the MDA determines is best suited for ballistic missile

defense. The report also discussed the unique value of X-band

radar technology for ballistic missile defense and quoted Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, who stated that ‘‘in order to do the [ballistic missile defense]

countermeasure problem you are going to need the kind of fine discrimination capability afforded by the X-band.’’

Despite urging by Congress during fiscal year 2002, the Department did not focus on a single radar technology and instead continued to fund both S- and X-band efforts. Furthermore, the X-band

effort was not funded at a level commensurate with making adequate progress. The X-band high power discriminator radar effort

received only $12.0 million in fiscal year 2002, resulting in the termination of many of the engineers working on the program, despite

the fact that the high power discriminator technology is mature

enough to be installed and demonstrated on a ship.

The budget request for fiscal year 2003 included only $15.0 million in PE 63882C for X-band high power discriminator radar development. The committee believes that the X-band high power discriminator radar is essential to any robust near-term Sea-based

Midcourse capability and is concerned that the proposed funding

level is significantly lower than the level required to conduct prototype development and installation on a ship, the logical next step

for the program. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase

of $40.0 million in PE 63882C for X-band high power discriminator

development, leading toward installation of a prototype X-band

high power discriminator radar on an Aegis ship.

Midcourse systems engineering and integration

The budget request included $95.0 million in PE 63882C for Midcourse Defense Segment systems engineering and integration, more

than double the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002 for this

activity. The committee finds it difficult to justify such a large increase in funding when more than $400.0 million of systems engineering and integration funding is already proposed for fiscal year

2003 in the Ballistic Missile Defense System Segment and within

the individual programs which comprise the Midcourse Defense

Segment. Furthermore, the fiscal year 2003 funding request would

support the same activities that were funded in fiscal year 2002,

so such a large increase seems unnecessary. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $45.0 million in PE 63882C for

Midcourse Defense Segment systems engineering and integration

which would still provide a 10 percent increase, after inflation, for

that activity.

237

Small kill vehicle technology development

The potential for enemy decoys and countermeasures poses a significant problem for ballistic missile defense systems. These decoy

devices are often difficult to distinguish from the actual warheads

themselves. However, by placing many small kill vehicles on a single interceptor missile, it may be possible to engage both the warhead and any decoys present; each small kill vehicle is designed to

destroy a different object. To further the development of this concept, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to PE

63882C for small kill vehicle technology development.

Sea-based boost defense

The budget request included $55.0 million in PE 63883C for a

sea-based boost ‘‘critical experiment’’ in fiscal year 2003. However,

the Missile Defense Agency could not identify the experiment, so

it is unlikely that it would actually occur as early as fiscal year

2003. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $55.0

million in PE 63883C for the undefined fiscal year 2003 experiment.

Space-based boost defense

The budget request included $30.0 million in PE 63883C for a

space-based boost ‘‘critical experiment’’ in fiscal year 2003. However, the Missile Defense Agency could not identify the experiment,

so it is unlikely that it would actually occur as early as fiscal year

2003. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $30.0

million in PE 63883C for the undefined fiscal year 2003 experiment.

Airborne Laser

The budget request included $30.0 million in PE 63883C for purchase of the second Airborne Laser prototype aircraft. The committee notes, however, that the first Airborne Laser prototype aircraft is not scheduled to be tested until fiscal year 2005. Furthermore, the first prototype is only a half-power version, and the Missile Defense Agency is not yet able to determine when a full-power

version will become available. Finally, the Airborne Laser program

has experienced significant cost growth, with the cost of the first

prototype aircraft rising to over $1.0 billion from an original estimated cost of less than half that amount.

The committee fully supports the research, development and

testing of the first Airborne Laser aircraft, and believes that a

fully-tested, full power version would be a truly revolutionary

weapons system. The committee also believes, however, that the

Missile Defense Agency should focus on test completion of the first

prototype aircraft before buying the second prototype aircraft.

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $30.0 million

in PE 63883C for the second Airborne Laser aircraft.

Airborne Infrared Surveillance system

The proposed Airborne Infrared Surveillance system (AIRS)

would integrate a high-performance, infrared telescope and data

collection system on a Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

(UAV) or Gulfstream V high altitude aircraft to detect, track and

238

discriminate ballistic missile warheads in the midcourse phase of

flight. The system would also provide infrared detection and detailed imaging of ground targets. The U.S. currently has no nearterm plans to provide infrared tracking and discrimination data to

missile defense systems. The Space-based Infrared System-Low

(SBIRS-Low) satellite system will eventually perform that function;

however, the data quality and resolution of SBIRS-Low may not be

as high as that of AIRS. The Missile Defense Agency also recently

delayed the planned deployment date for SBIRS-Low.

Furthermore, no systems currently provide intelligence data on

the infrared signatures of foreign missile warheads in midcourse.

Such data would be essential in helping predict the difference between an incoming warhead and the decoys surrounding it. Both

the intelligence community and the Missile Defense Agency have

commented on the severe shortage of infrared signature data on

foreign warheads, and the Central Measurements and Signals Intelligence Organization has endorsed AIRS as a near-term solution

to this problem.

The telescope and data collection systems for AIRS have already

been successfully integrated and tested on a test aircraft, and they

performed well during a recent Integrated Flight Test of the

Ground-based Midcourse national missile defense system. Therefore, the committee recommends that $22.0 million be added to PE

63884C for engineering and concept studies for AIRS. The committee also urges the Missile Defense Agency to aggressively pursue this program.

Russian-American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) solar arrays

The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE

63884C to further develop lightweight and flexible amorphous silicon alloy triple-junction thin film technology for lightweight, lowcost, radiation hardened solar arrays with a stainless steel substrate. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to

conduct this effort as a joint U.S.-Russian partnership within the

RAMOS program.

The committee also notes that of the $54.5 million appropriated

for RAMOS in fiscal year 2002, only $2.0 million has been provided

to Russia, primarily because of the lack of an official agreement to

proceed between Russia and the United States. The committee

urges the Department of Defense to work with Russia to sign the

agreement with the Russian Federation on RAMOS as soon as possible so that this important joint program can continue to proceed

toward the planned launch of two satellites in 2006.

Technical studies and analyses

The budget request included $30.0 million in PE 65104D8Z for

technical studies, support and analysis. The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million to this account. The committee

notes that the Department has requested that Congress substantially reduce reporting requirements. The committee also notes that

the goal of defense transformation places modernization programs

at a higher priority than studies and analyses.

239

Information security scholarship program

The budget request included $5.0 million in PE 65710D8Z, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide for the

information assurance scholarship program. This program was established by section 922 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

The committee strongly supports moving forward with this program. Department of Defense officials have indicated that they

fully support the intent of the program to bolster the number of,

and training for, personnel in the Defense Department’s information assurance career field. The committee believes that the Department is being too tentative in its implementation and that

making more funds available would result in more near-term

progress. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million to increase the number of grants and scholarships that the Department

would be able to implement during fiscal year 2003.

Information security

The budget request included $394.3 million in PE 33140G for the

Information Systems Security Program. The committee notes that

the Nation’s military and commercial information systems continue

to be extremely vulnerable to attack; the capability for launching

a catastrophic attack has spread throughout the world to nations,

terrorist groups, and even private individuals. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $33.0 million across the Department’s research and development activities to enhance research

and training to meet these emerging threats. The committee also recommends an additional $4.0 million in PE

33140G to facilitate cooperation for protecting information and information systems so as to increase national awareness of the dynamic threat and strengthen common defense across the Nation.

National Imagery and Mapping Agency feature level database

The U.S. military increasingly relies on data from surveillance

platforms such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and satellites. Data

from these platforms is most useful to the military if it can be

fused together. This enables each individual surveillance platform

to be interoperable with the other platforms, greatly enhancing the

usefulness and accuracy of the surveillance data. To support such

interoperability, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency

(NIMA) is developing a feature level database to enable the fusion

of data from disparate surveillance platforms. The committee supports this effort and recommends an increase of $4.1 million in PE

35102BQ for feature level database development.

Intelligent spatial technologies

The budget request included $115.2 million in PE 35102BQ for

the Defense Imagery and Mapping Program but did not include

continued funding for intelligent spatial technologies for smart

maps, a promising technology that will allow military operators

and planners to better use and integrate geospatial data. The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) has been very supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.080 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
240

portive of this program, assessing it to be of high military value.

However, competing priorities precluded NIMA from continuing

funding for this important capability. The committee recommends

an increase of $1.0 million in PE 35102BQ for the continued development of geospatial data integration technologies.

Broadcast-Request Imagery Technology Experiment

At the request of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM),

the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) began development of

the Broadcast-Request Imagery Technology Experiment (BRITE), a

unique capability to disseminate timely, tailored imagery products

to forward-deployed special operations elements via existing communications architectures. Once development of BRITE was completed, the NRO transferred responsibility for the program to the

National Imagery Mapping Agency (NIMA) for fielding and

sustainment. Now in use in Afghanistan, this system allows soldiers to view satellite imagery data in near real-time and has been

a key asset in our continuing military effort in that region. Despite

its effectiveness, NIMA has not yet funded the fielding of the

BRITE system.

The committee strongly supports BRITE and recommends an in- crease of $4.0 million to PE 35102BQ to facilitate timely fielding

of BRITE to operational elements. In addition, the committee urges

NIMA to fund the fielding of this system in future budget submissions.

Laser additive manufacturing initiative

The budget request included $13.1 million in PE 78011S for manufacturing technology programs. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to develop laser additive manufacturing technologies to produce high performance military and commercial titanium components.

Advanced technologies for special operations

The budget request included $6.7 million in PE 1160279BB for

special operations technology development. In testimony to the

Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, Special Operations Command officials stated that, ‘‘Special Operations Forces

depend on leading edge technology to provide the critical advantage

and to support participation in a growing number of technologically

complex missions and operations.’’ Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the development of new

technologies in established technology thrust areas including signature reduction, communications, unmanned systems, power systems, remote sensing, advanced training systems, bioengineering,

and directed energy weapons.

The committee notes and commends the recent efforts of the U.S.

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to leverage the science and

technology efforts of the military services and defense agencies.

The committee also commends SOCOM on its success in rapidly

transitioning new technologies from both inside and outside the Department of Defense into the hands of warfighters. This transition

success may provide a useful model for many other organizations

within the Department.

241

Joint Threat Warning System

The budget request included no funding for research and development on the Joint Threat Warning System (JTWS) in PE

116404BB. The JTWS is a system that provides force protection,

integrated threat warning, and situational awareness equipment

for Special Operations Forces (SOF). The system supports worldwide ground, maritime, and airborne missions, providing information to operators through the Integrated Broadcast System. The

system will replace current, non-standard, sometimes

unsupportable equipment serving air, maritime, and ground operations. Replacing the old systems with JTWS is a Special Operations Command priority. Therefore, the committee recommends an

increase of $1.8 million for PE 116404BB for research and development of the JTWS.

Embedded Integrated Broadcast Service Receivers

The budget request included no funding for research and development on the embedded Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS) receivers. The embedded IBS receivers offer tactical, real-time intelligence broadcast data to warfighters for threat avoidance and situational awareness. The IBS receivers will replace the current

Multi-mission Advanced Tactical Terminal (MATT) system, which

is approaching the end of its service life due to aging design, parts

obsolescence, producibility issues, and exposure to a harsh operating environment. Replacing the old system with these receivers

is a Special Operations Command priority. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million for PE 116405BB

for Special Operations Intelligence Systems Development/Project

S400.

Test and evaluation science and technology program

The budget request included $6.0 million in PE 63941D8Z for

test and evaluation science and technology programs. As part of the

committee’s overall initiative to support testing and evaluation, the

committee recommends an additional $5.0 million for the development of new technologies to support test and evaluation. This program will allow test technologies to keep pace with evolving weapons technology and is critical to ensuring the capability to test future weapons systems.

Central test and evaluation investment program

The budget request included $123.3 million for the central test

and evaluation investment program (CTEIP). As a component of

the test and evaluation initiative described in this title, section 233

would add $50.0 million and section 232 would transfer an additional $70.0 million to this critical program, which has developed

a coordinated process for making test and evaluation investments

that leverage service programs and encourage joint development

and use of new test capabilities. The committee commends CTEIP

for its efforts to develop new test technologies and instrumentation,

improve interoperability between service efforts, integrate modeling

and simulation into test activities, and provide resources to respond to near-term shortfalls in operational test capabilities.

242

In addition, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for technology development to support test and evaluation. Of

this amount, $3.0 million shall be used for the development of digital imagery motion tools to support testing activities.

The committee also recommends an additional $5.0 million to

support the activities of the Big Crow program. The committee

notes the important role that the Big Crow support aircraft played

in recent operations in Afghanistan. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to update Congress on Department plans for future funding of this important asset, so that it can be a test resource and operational electronic warfare platform for the services.

Live fire test and training

The budget request included $10.1 million in PE 65131D8Z for

live fire testing. As part of the initiative to robustly fund testing

and evaluation in the Department of Defense, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the Live Fire Test and

Training Program. The committee recommends an additional $1.5

million for testing and development of fire fighting training systems.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Crusader artillery system

The budget request included $475.6 million for the Crusader artillery system to complete program definition and risk reduction

and begin system development and demonstration.

During the committee’s markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the Secretary of Defense suddenly

announced his decision to terminate the Crusader program. The

Director of the Office of Management and Budget has informed the

committee of the President’s intention to amend the fiscal year

2003 budget request as it pertains to the Crusader program. The

committee has not had an opportunity to review the reasons for the

decision to terminate the Crusader program with Office of the Secretary of Defense officials or the impact of the decision on the

Army’s future modernization plans with Army officials.

The committee bill recommends $475.6 million for continued research and development of the Crusader, the amount requested in

the fiscal year 2003 budget. The committee will carefully review

the decision to terminate the Crusader program with the Secretary

of Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Army in an upcoming hearing and will meet to determine whether to offer a committee

amendment at the time this bill is debated on the Senate floor.

Future launch and spacelift concepts

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has

identified responsive, low-cost space launch as a key to meeting a

variety of military needs. Recently, the Air Force completed the

Operationally Responsive Spacelift Mission Need Statement, the

first step in the formal requirements process for future launch and

on-orbit systems. The Air Force believes that operationally responsive spacelift is the key enabler for conducting a broad range of future space missions.

243

Working together, the Air Force and the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) also completed a number of joint

studies to help identify and define operational requirements and

concepts and to develop a technology roadmap. Included in the

technology concept study was a range of potential vehicle options

to meet the range of future Air Force and NASA needs. One of the

tasks of the study was to harmonize Air Force and NASA reusable

launch vehicle technology programs against Air Force and NASA

requirements and architectures. The study concluded that, although the needs of the two organizations differ, both can receive

significant benefits by working together toward future launch requirements.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to continue

the process of defining requirements for future operationally responsive spacelift and report back to this committee. The report

shall be provided to the committee no later than February 15,

2003. In the report, the Secretary should assess whether any such

requirement can be met with evolutions of the evolved expendable

launch vehicle (EELV), the shuttle transport system, current generation light launch vehicles, and the current launch infrastructures. In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary should also

look at the comparative maturity, utility, and potential development and operational costs of expendable and reusable launch vehicles alternatives with current launch vehicles. The comparative

analysis should also include launch processes and infrastructure.

In conducting the review the committee directs the Secretary to

continue the cooperative relationship with NASA and explore the

possibility of a joint development project that could meet requirements of each organization. The committee would welcome a jointly

funded proposal to begin such an effort for future spacelift requirements.

Hybrid engine military vehicles

The committee notes that the cost of delivery of fuel within theaters of operation is now estimated at $150 per gallon. The Defense

Science Board has identified this problem as one that the Department of Defense needs to address in order to reduce fuel cost burdens, specifically through aggressive high-level leadership, development of incentives for production and acquisition, and advanced

technology development.

Hybrid engine technology can significantly increase fuel economy

and reduce pollution for military vehicles. Hybrid engine technology is also consistent with efforts to transform the military into

a lighter, lethal, more deployable force. The committee notes that

significant improvements have been made in hybrid technology, but

the transition of this technology into operational systems is limited

by economic factors, including the initial costs of developing new

systems and replacing existing standard engines. The conversion to

hybrid electric systems could benefit all of the services and will

likely require the military to make initial investments.

In order to promote a Department-wide effort to develop military

hybrid vehicle systems, the committee directs the Under Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to conduct a

study of the feasibility of (1) converting 10 percent of the non-comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.083 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
244

bat defense fleet to hybrid vehicles by fiscal year 2009; and (2) converting to an all-hybrid engine fleet for both non-combat and combat vehicles over a longer period. The feasibility study should include a projection of funding requirements, technical milestones

and goals, and planned technology insertions, and should be submitted to Congress along with the fiscal year 2004 budget request.

Magdalena Ridge Observatory

The Magdalena Ridge Observatory is a facility supporting missile

defense testing and evaluation. The facility is used to provide detailed imagery to understand lethality and kill mechanisms during

intercept tests for the national missile defense, Theater High Altitude Area Defense, and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile systems at the White Sands Missile Range and Fort Wingate Launch

Range. The committee is supportive of continued research and development on telescopes and other equipment to support these Department of Defense missions.

Patents and licensing

The ability of the private sector to license and exploit technologies developed internally by Department of Defense (DOD) research and engineering organizations has been a cornerstone of the

nation’s high-tech industry. The licensing agreements established

under legislation such as the Bayh-Dole Act and the StevensonWydler Act have helped fuel our nation’s technical innovation and

have produced many of the defense technologies that the military

uses today.

The committee notes that a recent study by the Director of Defense, Research, and Engineering examined the value of licensing

and patent marketing to DOD laboratories. The report concludes

that licensing of DOD inventions provides three major benefits:

new commercial products available to DOD, new working relationships with private industry, and revenue for DOD laboratories. In

addition, royalty income can provide an excellent incentive to inventors at DOD laboratories and can stimulate technical innovation.

The study also concluded, however, that the Department of Defense does a poor job in managing and marketing its intellectual

property. It notes that DOD receives less than $2.0 million annually from its licensing agreements as compared to the National Institutes of Health, which earns over $45.0 million in royalties annually. The study concludes that ‘‘with more aggressive patent

marketing by the DOD laboratories that licensing could increase,

leading to an increase in royalty income for the labs.’’ This is particularly true for biomedical, advanced electronics, and computer

technologies currently being developed by defense laboratories.

The committee directs the Department to develop a plan and to

report to Congress on specific strategies for marketing its intellectual property more aggressively and for exploiting the findings of

the Director of Defense Research and Engineering’s report. The

plan and subsequent report to the committee should include recommendations on staffing levels for appropriate intellectual property experts, discussion on the role of the Offices of Research and

Technology Applications (ORTAs), descriptions of planned cooperaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.083 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
245

tive activities with the private sector and other government agencies, and analyses of any regulatory or statutory barriers to fully

marketing DOD intellectual property. The report should also forecast the potential for increased revenues to the Department’s laboratories as a result of more aggressive marketing efforts.

National Consortium for Biodefense

The committee recognizes that the threat of bioterrorism and biowarfare is real and growing. Accordingly, the committee urges the

Department of Defense (DOD) to study the feasibility of establishing, on a national basis, a university, public health, and industry consortium on biodefense research and analysis. The consortium would be intended to serve various functions: to evaluate the

potential of various biological threat agents to humans, animals,

and crops; to provide analysis of possible genetic engineering of biological agents; to evaluate possible production and deployment

methods used by terrorists, including the signatures of possible

production facilities; to conduct research in, but not limited to, the

areas of medical microbiology, molecular biology, epidemiology, and

immunological methods for the development of protection against

biological agents; to research early detection, warning, and monitoring of biological outbreaks; to study disinfection of large contaminated areas or buildings; to evaluate technical countermeasures to biological aerosols and agents; and to undertake a program of strategy, policy, and management studies and public education and public health education and training for biodefense, including conflict analysis and resolution in biowarfare and bioterrorism. Such a feasibility study should include a projection of the

costs that would be associated with establishing such a national

consortium.

Patriot Advanced Capability-3

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has considered requesting authority for a multiyear procurement of Patriot

Advanced Capability-3 (PAC–3) missiles. Consistent with its long

support for the deployment of robust theater missile defenses, the

committee encourages the Department to develop a PAC–3 acquisition plan that will maximize production efficiencies and reduce acquisition costs in the future.

Rotorcraft external airbag protection system

Each year, Navy rotorcraft experience an average of 11.4 noncombat related mishaps, with an average of almost 20 fatalities per

year. The Navy accident reviews have classified a large majority of

these mishaps as ‘‘survivable,’’ yet 84 percent of all fatalities occur

in these potentially survivable mishaps. Mishaps over water are

particularly deadly since rotorcraft landing gear provides no cushioning effect on water impact and water quickly envelops the fuselage.

The committee understands that one possible alternative for alleviating this situation is a promising technology that would position

airbags on the underside of the rotorcraft. Such a device would activate in proximity to the ground or water when the aircraft is subjected to an emergency descent.

246

The committee believes the Navy should investigate using this

technology approach to saving lives. The Navy should investigate

whether: (1) the technology has the potential for reducing fatalities

in ‘‘survivable’’ accidents; and (2) the costs and potential weight

penalties would make this an affordable system. Since all military

services operate rotorcraft, the Navy should share the results of its

efforts with the other services.

Sensor instrumentation

Many weapons systems are dependent upon gas turbine engines

for power and propulsion. In order to adequately monitor high temperature components of these systems, new instrumentation must

be developed. The committee encourages the military services to

explore the development of photonic sensor systems for gas turbine

engines in order to increase efficiency, reliability, and performance.

Space-based Laser

The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency is finalizing its Affordable Concept Study for the development of Spacebased Laser technologies. This study was undertaken after the cancellation of the Space-based Laser Integrated Flight Experiment

(IFX) in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 (P.L. 107–117). The committee agrees that a thorough

evaluation is necessary. The committee believes that any plan must

include the preservation of high energy laser risk reduction activities and facilities which, if lost, would be costly to regenerate.

Treatment of decompression sickness

The budget request included no research and development funds

for the investigation of treatments for decompression sickness experienced by submariners or Navy diving personnel when they are

moved suddenly from one atmospheric pressure to another. Decompression sickness would most likely occur as a result of an emergency situation that would not allow for the slow decompression of

gases in the blood and tissues. Current treatment for decompression sickness requires recompression followed by slow decompression in a special chamber. Preliminary results indicate that blood

substitutes have the potential to prevent the adverse effects of sudden recompression, which include neurological injury, muscle and

joint pains, circulatory disaster, heart attack, pulmonary dysfunction, and death. Therefore, the committee strongly supports and encourages Navy development, with private and public partners, of

initiatives which could lead to better treatment and prevention of

decompression sickness.

(247)

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Explanation of tables

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance

for the funding authorized in title III of this Act. The tables also

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal

year 2003 budget request for operation and maintenance (O&M)

programs and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the past,

the administration may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set

forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in the Department of Defense’s budget justification documents) without a reprogramming action in accordance

with established procedures. Unless noted in the report, funding

changes to the budget request are made without prejudice.

The President’s budget request included $20.1 billion in the operation and maintenance title for the Defense Emergency Response

Fund (DERF). Of this amount, $10.1 billion was requested for specific programs and $10.0 billion was requested as unspecified contingency funding for continuing the war on terrorism into fiscal

year 2003. The authorization for this unspecified $10.0 billion,

which would fund the costs of ongoing military operations as well

as the additional pay and benefits of mobilized guard and reserve

personnel, thus involving multiple appropriation accounts, has

been transferred to title X of this Act. Funds transferred to the accounts in this title from the DERF are displayed on the tables that

follow as increases to the amount requested for those programs in

the O&M accounts. Programs for which funds were transferred

from the DERF are annotated to indicate that funds were originally requested in the DERF.

Of the specified $10.1 billion, approximately $4.3 billion was requested for programs that fall in the operation and maintenance

title, including O&M and revolving fund accounts. The committee’s

recommended authorizations for those programs are included in

this title. Authorizations reflecting the committee’s actions on the

balance of the $10.1 billion can be found in their respective titles

of this Act.

The budget request also proposed to change the accounting structure for various health and retirement benefits of federal civilian

employees to an accrual basis. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee did not agree with this proposed change. The

operation and maintenance accounts in this title have been reduced

by $2.3 billion to reflect the appropriate funding levels for defense

programs under current accounting procedures. The authorizations

for revolving and management funds in this title have been reduced by $839.1 million for this same reason. These reductions

would not entail any change to the benefits of federal civilian emVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR151.086 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
248

ployees funded by either direct appropriations or through the working capital funds.

249

250

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

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 303)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

appropriation of $69.9 million from the Armed Forces Retirement

Home Trust Fund for fiscal year 2003.

Range enhancement initiative fund (sec. 304)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

$20.0 million for a Range Enhancement Initiative Fund that is described in more detail in the training range enhancement initiative

section of this title. Amounts in this fund would be available to

purchase restrictive easements, including easements entered into

under agreements with private entities that would directly or indirectly enhance or protect military training operations. The committee has included a provision providing permanent authority to

enter into such agreements in title XVIII of this act. Purchases of

title to lands, as opposed to the purchase of easements, by the military departments for similar purposes would continue to be requested and authorized as military construction projects. The committee intends to evaluate the annual funding levels required for

this fund in future years based on the experience with this fund

in fiscal year 2003.

SUBTITLE B—ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Enhancement of authority on cooperative agreements for

environmental purposes (sec. 311)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to enter into and fund cooperative agreements

with Federal, State and local agencies, as well as Indian tribes, to

obtain services to assist the Secretary in carrying out the Defense

Environmental Restoration Program. This provision would extend

to environmental cooperative agreements the authority granted in

section 2410a of title 10, United States Code, to contract for severable services for a period that begins in one fiscal year and ends

in the next fiscal year.

Modification of authority to carry out construction projects

for environmental responses (sec. 312)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to fund environmental restoration projects

through the Environmental Restoration Accounts of the Department of Defense (DOD).

Since the beginning of the DOD environmental restoration program, restoration projects have been classified as repair and funded through the Department’s Environmental Restoration Accounts.

Earlier this year, the Department interpreted a provision of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 to require

that environmental restoration projects be classified as military

construction. This new interpretation had the effect of imposing notification and funding requirements on environmental restoration

projects that are likely to result in a backlog of projects and an inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00305 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.087 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
288

ability to meet legally enforceable deadlines applicable to such

projects.

The committee directs DOD to fund environmental restoration

projects through the Environmental Restoration Accounts, thereby

reinstating the historic funding approach taken by the Department.

Increased procurement of environmentally preferable products and services (sec. 313)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to establish a program for the acquisition of

procurement items that are environmentally preferable or are

made with recovered materials. At a minimum, the program would

include three elements: (1) the establishment of goals for the increased purchase of procurement items that are environmentally

preferable or are made with recovered materials; (2) a tracking system to enable the Department to monitor its progress in achieving

these goals; and (3) training and education programs that the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to ensure that Department

of Defense (DOD) officials and contractors are aware of these goals.

Last year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report

which criticized the performance of federal agencies, including the

Department of Defense, in purchasing environmentally preferable

products. The report concluded:

Even today, many procuring officials and other federal

purchasers either do not know about or implement the [requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

of 1976] for establishing affirmative procurement programs, particularly promotion and review and monitoring.

***

[Federal agencies] have not developed systems to track

their purchases of such products, relying instead on inadequate estimates. Nor have they put programs in place to

review and monitor progress. * * * [The Department of]

Defense, the largest procuring agency, believes efforts to

monitor and report on recycled-content product purchases

conflict with the streamlining goals of procurement reform.

The committee recognizes that the review and monitoring of purchases of procurement items that are environmentally preferable or

are made with recovered materials entails administrative costs but

agrees with the GAO conclusion that an effective program requires

such review and monitoring. For this reason, the goals and tracking system required by the provision recommended by the committee would apply only to direct DOD purchases of procurement

items, not to products and services purchased by DOD contractors

and subcontractors (even if they are incorporated into procurement

items purchased by the Department). The committee understands

that the administration has modified the Federal Procurement

Data System to collect limited information on products and services

purchased by contractors and subcontractors and encourages the

administration to continue this effort.

The provision would also exclude credit card purchases and other

local purchases that are made outside the Department’s requisitioning system, because the committee understands that the DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.087 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
289

partment currently lacks the ability to track such purchases. The

committee directs the Department to review its local purchasing

practices and take appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the

preference for procurement items that are environmentally preferable or are made with recovered materials.

In addition, the committee directs the Department to conduct a

review of other DOD purchasing practices to determine the extent

to which these practices are consistent with the objective of increasing the procurement of items that are environmentally preferable or are made with recovered materials. At a minimum, the

Secretary should:

(1) review sample purchases of inventory items by the Defense Logistics Agency to determine the type of packaging

being used for such items and the extent to which such packaging is made with recovered materials;

(2) review sample construction and renovation contracts to

determine whether the contracts provide appropriate direction

on the disposal and recycling of materials and/or any preference for the use of products that are made with recovered

materials and other environmentally preferable products;

(3) review sample purchases of information technology products to determine the type of packaging being used for such

items and the extent to which such packaging is made with recovered materials; and

(4) review sample fleet management contracts to determine

the extent to which these contracts provide a preference for the

use of re-refined motor oil.

The results of these reviews should be included in the Secretary’s

initial report required by subsection (d) of this provision.

Cleanup of unexploded ordnance on Kaho’olawe Island, Hawaii (sec. 314)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of the Navy to continue cleanup activities on Kaho’olawe

Island, Hawaii, until the Navy has inspected and assessed 100 percent of the island; cleared 75 percent of the island in accordance

with Tier One standards; and cleared 25 percent of the island in

accordance with Tier Two standards.

Title X of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–139) established the Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration

Trust Fund (the Kaho’olawe Trust Fund) to ensure the clearance

and removal of unexploded ordnance from Kaho’olawe Island, Hawaii. Title X authorized the appropriation of $400.0 million to the

Kaho’olawe Trust Fund to carry out the cleanup.

Finally, Title X provided for the Secretary of the Navy to retain

control over the island ‘‘until either clearance and restoration are

completed or within no more than ten years after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever comes first.’’ The 10-year period established in Title X is scheduled to expire in fiscal year 2003.

Title X was implemented through a May 1994 Memorandum of

Understanding between the United States Department of the Navy

and the State of Hawaii (the MOU). Under the MOU, the Navy

agreed to clear up to 25 percent of the surface of the island to a

290

Tier Two standard and 100 percent of the surface to a Tier One

standard. Tier One and Tier Two standards are defined in the

MOU.

Over the last nine years, Congress has appropriated $307.0 million to the Kaho’olawe Trust Fund. The Navy estimates that: (1)

an additional appropriation of $75.0 million will be needed to

achieve an optimum contractor cleanup effort before the agreement

is closed out; and (2) such an appropriation would enable the Navy

to inspect and assess 100 percent of the island, clear 75 percent of

the island in accordance with Tier One standards, and clear 25 percent of the island in accordance with Tier Two standards before the

scheduled deadline for completion of the cleanup.

The committee understands that when Title X was enacted in

1994, insufficient information was available to the Department of

the Navy and the Congress to include a firm performance standard

for completion of the cleanup effort. After nine years of investigation and remediation, however, the committee believes that a performance standard is now more appropriate than an arbitrary date

as a standard for completion.

Accordingly, the provision recommended by the committee would

override the deadline established in Title X and the MOU for completion of the cleanup. Instead, the committee recommends substituting a performance standard based on the Navy’s estimate of

what it should be able to accomplish over the next year, based on

an optimum contractor cleanup effort.

The committee understands that the objectives established in

this provision will be interpreted in the same manner as similar

objectives in Title X and the MOU, to exclude areas determined to

be inaccessible by the Navy and the Kaho’olawe Island Restoration

Committee.

SUBTITLE C—DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION

Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 331)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

$30.0 million for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance program to local educational agencies that benefit dependents

of service members and Department of Defense civilian employees.

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 332)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

$5.0 million for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance program to local educational agencies that benefit dependents

with severe disabilities.

Options for funding dependent summer school programs

(sec. 333)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to provide dependent summer school programs

on the same financial basis as programs offered during the regular

school year. The recommended provision authorizes the Secretary

291

to charge reasonable fees for all or portions of such summer school

programs to the extent that the Secretary deems appropriate.

Comptroller General study of adequacy of compensation

provided for teachers in the Department of Defense

Overseas Dependents’ Schools (sec. 334)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend from

May 1, 2002 to December 12, 2002 the date for the Comptroller

General to report on a study on whether compensation for teachers

in the Department of Defense dependents’ education program is

adequate for recruiting and retaining high quality teachers, and

whether changes in the methodology for computing teacher pay are

necessary. The recommended provision would also require the

Comptroller General, in carrying out the study, to consider whether

the process for setting teacher compensation is efficient and costeffective.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Use of humanitarian and civic assistance funds for reserve

component members of Special Operations Command

engaged in activities related to clearance of landmines

(sec. 341)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 401(c) of title 10, United States Code, to allow up to 10 percent

of the funding for a fiscal year for humanitarian and civic assistance to be expended for the pay and allowances of reserve component personnel of the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) performing duty in connection with training and activities related to

the clearing of landmines for humanitarian purposes.

Special Operations Forces (SOF) are uniquely qualified to conduct humanitarian demining training, one of their collateral missions. However, in recent years humanitarian demining missions

had to be cancelled as active duty SOF have been unavailable for

assignment to conduct humanitarian demining missions, and the

cost of reserve SOF participation in these missions could not be

funded with humanitarian and civic assistance funds. Allowing humanitarian and civic assistance funds to cover the pay and allowances of reserve component SOCOM personnel would further the

U.S. Government’s foreign and defense policies and would support

the readiness of SOCOM reserve component personnel by providing

critical mission training in language and cultural skills.

Calculation of five-year period of limitation for Navy-Marine

Corps Intranet contract (sec. 342)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Department of Defense to modify the start date of the Navy-Marine

Corps Intranet (NMCI) contract for the purposes of the law which

limits multiyear contracts to five years. Under the provision, the

five-year period would begin on the date that the Under Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L))

and the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Department of Defense jointly approve ordering the ‘‘second increment’’ beyond the

initial test population of additional NMCI work stations. In accordVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.089 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
292

ance with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2002, this approval is contingent upon successful completion of

testing that has been independently validated and approved by the

Institute for Defense Analyses.

The committee recognizes that the Navy may renegotiate the

NMCI contract to take advantage of the authority provided by this

section. The Committee expects that the Secretary of the Navy

would not agree to any such modification unless he determines that

the terms and conditions would be in the best interests of the Department of Defense.

Reimbursement for Reserve intelligence support (sec. 343)

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new

section to Chapter 1003 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the use of operation and maintenance funds of the military departments, combatant commands, and defense agencies to reimburse pay, allowances and other expenses when members of the

National Guard and Reserve provide intelligence or counterintelligence support to such departments, commands or agencies.

Clarification of required core logistics capabilities (sec. 344)

In an October 2001 report, the General Accounting Office (GAO)

recommended that Congress clarify the law with respect to the Department of Defense’s non-maintenance core logistics policies to ensure that the Department maintains the full range of logistics capabilities necessary to support military weapons systems and

equipment in both peacetime and war. The committee believes that

logistics support functions are an integral part of the process of

maintaining military equipment. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision to clarify that core logistics capabilities include acquisition logistics, supply management, system engineering, maintenance, and modification management. The committee is

also concerned that existing Department policies on core logistics

capabilities do not provide sufficient direction about the maintenance of future weapons systems. This limitation inhibits the ability of the public depot system to plan for future work. Current law

requires the Department of Defense to determine the core logistics

requirements for new weapons systems within four years after initial operational capability (IOC). The committee’s provision would

shorten this time period to two years. The committee believes that

this change would improve the Department’s planning for future

workloads in the public and private logistics sectors and allow for

better workload and workforce planning within the public depots.

Rebate agreements under the special supplemental food

program (sec. 345)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts for rebates with producers of food products for the exclusive right to provide food in

Navy Exchange Markets as supplemental food for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Overseas Program. The Secretary already has this authority for products sold in commissary stores.

The recommended provision would also increase the maximum peVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.090 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
293

riod of these exclusive rights contracts from one year to three

years.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF INTEREST

Anti-corrosion initiative

The committee continues to be concerned that the Department of

Defense (DOD) is overlooking efficiencies and improvements to

readiness by its lack of focus on prevention and mitigation of corrosion. Corrosion negatively affects readiness and drains scarce resources, which in turn cause further readiness shortfalls. Readiness

impacts are obvious: the most recent Quarterly Readiness Report

to the Congress (December 2001) stated that ‘‘corrosion is a primary degrader to the maintenance of Marine Corps vehicles,’’ and

that corrosion ‘‘contributes to increased maintenance costs * * *

and to structural damage.’’ A study conducted for the Navy found

that corrosion was a key contributor to ‘‘tired wires’’ in the F–14

aircraft and that improvements would likely improve safety, increase the efficiency of other maintenance efforts, and dramatically

increase aircraft material condition.

The readiness impact of corrosion on facilities has also been documented. A March 1999 study conducted by the Air Force Inspector

General found buildings that had corroded so badly that they could

not be used for munitions operations, further depleting scarce munitions storage space. At one overseas munitions storage area,

trash cans covered corroded ventilator shafts to prevent moisture

from entering the shelter.

The committee notes that the costs of corrosion are also significant. A recent study conducted for the Federal Highway Administration in accordance with the Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century (Public Law 105–178) estimated that the Defense Department’s annual cost of corroded equipment and infrastructure was $20.0 billion. The study also stated that corrosion is ‘‘the number one cost driver in life cycle costs.’’ Another study conducted in

1996 by the DOD Inspector General found that the Air Force spent

approximately $1 billion annually to repair and prevent corrosion

damage on its aircraft alone. Corrosion prevention can make serious progress toward avoiding some of these costs. For example, one

unit alone, the 3rd Force Service Support Group (3D FSSG) of the

III Marine Expeditionary Force, saved $28.4 million over two years

with the Corrosion Rehabilitation Facility it operates at Camp

Kinser, Okinawa. The committee believes corrosion policies can be

better coordinated within DOD. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision, discussed more fully in title IX, to establish

a senior official responsible for anti-corrosion activities. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the Office of the

Secretary of Defense to support these additional policy development

and coordination responsibilities.

In addition, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for current anti-corrosion programs, including $2.0 million for

Operation and Maintenance, Navy to complete testing of ambient

temperature cure glass coatings; $6.0 million for Operation and

Maintenance, Army to continue applications of corrosion prevention

and control coatings for vehicles; and $1.0 million in Operation and

294

Maintenance for each of the four military services to continue testing of promising anti-corrosion technologies.

The committee believes that the services should capitalize on the

opportunities to coordinate existing corrosion treatment programs

with research efforts ongoing in academia to make the best use of

these funds. The committee feels strongly that anti-corrosion efforts

are appropriate throughout the life cycle of facilities and equipment

and recommends further increases of $23.5 million for research and

development programs to support corrosion prevention throughout

the development of new materials, coatings, and manufacturing

techniques. These increases are discussed in greater detail in title

II.

Enhanced secure communications to reserve components

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund included $199.3 million for the reserve components under the overall heading of Commander in Chief Homeland Security. The committee supports information technologies programs for the reserve

components, including particularly secure interstate voice, video,

and data transmission for classified traffic. The committee, nevertheless, does not believe that the full program as contained in the

budget request can be executed within the next fiscal year. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction in funding for National Guard operation and maintenance by $40.0 million and

Army Reserve operation and maintenance by $8.0 million.

Additionally, to facilitate future budget decisions, the committee

requests the future combatant commander for homeland security to

conduct a review of the level to which such secure voice, video, and

data transmission needs to be extended for the National Guard and

Army Reserve. The commander shall report the results of such review to the congressional defense committees no later than April

30, 2003.

Foreign currency fluctuation

The General Accounting Office has estimated that the Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2003 budget request overestimates the

amounts needed to cover foreign currency fluctuation by $615.2

million. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $615.2

million.

Personal gear for service members

The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the

Army National Guard and $4.0 million for the Air National Guard

to purchase individual combat clothing and equipment, including

the Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS). The committee believes that additional outerwear to protect soldiers and

airmen from cold and/or wet weather would improve their morale

and safety in the field.

Training range enhancement initiative

The committee is strongly committed to ensuring that U.S. military services receive the best possible training. The committee is

concerned that funding to maintain and improve training ranges is

scarce, despite numerous requirements. Therefore, the committee

295

recommends an increase of $126.0 million for training range enhancements.

Of this amount, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0

million to establish a Range Enhancement Initiative Fund within

the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). OSD would provide

these funds to the military services as needed to support the purchase of easements for land near military installations, thereby improving combat training. This model has already proven successful

at Fort Bragg, where, under terms of a cooperative agreement, the

Army transferred $8.5 million to outside partners, who provided an

additional $7.0 million in private matching funds. These funds

were used to purchase critical conservation lands near Fort Bragg

which the private partners manage and own. In return, the Army

retains a permanent conservation easement and the right to conduct special forces and airborne training on the land.

The committee understands that many bases still face challenges

ensuring adequate land for training and operations. To address one

such challenge, the committee recommends that the Department of

Defense purchase a restrictive easement that would protect operations at Campbell Army Airfield at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The

committee understands that up to $7.3 million would be required

if no private funds were available. The committee further understands that the potential for partnerships similar to the one at Fort

Bragg exists at other installations. The committee expects OSD to

allocate resources from the Range Enhancement Initiative Fund to

those installations which could realize the highest military value

from such partnerships. The committee has included a provision in

title XXVIII of this act that would provide permanent authorization

for such partnerships. Because the partnerships must be negotiated

with other entities, the committee believes funds appropriated for

these purposes should be available for obligation for more than one

year. The remaining $106.0 million in operation and maintenance

funds would support improvements to Army, Navy, Air Force, and

Marine Corps training ranges. This includes:

$15.7 million for the Army’s integrated training area management efforts;

$13.2 million for improvements to Army live fire ranges and

targeting systems;

$1.2 million for improvements to the Army’s combat training

centers, including civilian support for exercises;

$15.0 million for the Navy to continue to develop and implement the fleet Training Resource Strategy;

$8.0 million for the Navy to increase fleet range operations

support;

$23.5 million for Air Force joint training and deployment

preparation exercises such as Red and Maple Flag and Cope

Thunder;

$300,000 for the Air Force’s Joint Advanced Weapon Scoring

System;

$4.0 million for improved targets, including urban training,

time critical targets, designs, etc.;

$1.2 million for land planning outreach and restoration for

the Air Force;

296

$1.5 million for Air National Guard range emitters;

$2.1 million for Air Force airspace control and information

operations range infrastructure improvements;

$10.4 million to remove range residue and repair supporting

infrastructure ($3.4 million for the active Air Force, $400,000

for the Air Force Reserve, and $6.6 million for the Air National

Guard);

$3.2 million for Air Force security sensor upgrades and facility repairs;

$2.8 million for primary Air Force range training infrastructure;

$1.6 million for the Marine Corps to improve the management, maintenance, and certification of training areas; and

$2.3 million to adequately maintain equipment for combined

arms exercises at 29 Palms, California.

Travel

The budget request included $3.2 billion for the travel of Department of Defense (DOD) employees. The committee recommends a

reduction of $159.8 million to return the DOD travel budget to fiscal year 2002 levels (adjusted for inflation).

Army

Battlefield mobility enhancers

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to Army

operation and maintenance accounts for lightweight tactical utility

vehicles (M-Gators). The committee supports efforts by the Army to

improve casualty evacuation and resupply.

Information operations

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund

(DERF) included $28.1 million for at least six separate Army programs to improve both offensive and defensive information operations. While the committee supports increased information security, the committee finds these requests duplicative. Therefore, the

committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million to the Operation

and Maintenance, Army account.

Aviation training backlog

The committee commends the Army for developing a comprehensive plan to transform its aviation units, including pilot training.

This transformation is complicated by a current significant backlog

in pilot training. In transitioning newer aircraft to the Reserves

and National Guard, pilots must be retrained in the new aircraft.

At the same time, the Aviation School has revised its flight school

curricula to ensure that pilots arrive in their field units at higher

readiness levels, having spent more time in their primary combat

aircraft. Finally, the committee understands that maintenance

challenges have resulted in fewer aircraft available for training

new pilots, creating a short-term training backlog.

The committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million to fund

increased training for pilots from those Reserve and National

Guard units scheduled to transition in fiscal year 2003 and to enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00314 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.092 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
297

hance field unit readiness by increasing active duty pilots’ experience in their combat aircraft and reducing the backlog of pilots

awaiting training.

Utilities privatization

The budget request included $15.3 million to accelerate the

Army’s plan to complete privatization of all utility systems by September 30, 2003, a 141 percent increase over fiscal year 2002 levels. The committee understands that the Army’s utilities privatization efforts have been proceeding more slowly than has been anticipated and believes that significant funding increases would not be

needed. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $8.9

million to the requested amount.

Facilities sustainment

The budget request included $257.3 million for sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) of Army infrastructure, $8.5

million less than fiscal year 2002 levels. This reduction means that

the Army will face even greater challenges as it attempts to sustain and repair its facilities. The reduction is even more troubling

when viewed in conjunction with the decreases in military construction, which fell by $328.3 million between fiscal year 2002 and

fiscal year 2003. The committee is concerned that this decrease

would harm the quality of life and work for Army service members

and would have negative effects on readiness. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $86.0 million to sustain and

maintain existing Army infrastructure.

Navy

Ship depot maintenance

The budget request included $3.5 billion for maintenance of Navy

ships. The committee understands that the ongoing war on terrorism has created additional maintenance needs that were not anticipated at the time the budget was developed. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $90.0 million for ship depot

maintenance.

The committee recognizes that the Navy has a difficult challenge

managing scheduled maintenance when funding is limited and

emergent repairs and new requirements arise. For example, in fiscal year 2002, war-related requirements caused the Navy to shift

the maintenance availability of the USS Scranton into fiscal year

2003. This caused the scheduled maintenance for the USS Annapolis to move into fiscal year 2004 and also moved planned work

among private and public sector shipyards. In planning for depot

maintenance activities for fiscal year 2003, the committee believes

that the Navy should review the impact of past disruptions and

work to enhance the ability of the public and private shipyards to

be able to meet future workloads effectively.

Improved shipboard combat information center

The budget request included $424.0 million for Navy combat

communications. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0

million for improvements to the combat information center (CIC).

298

The CIC integrates tactical data from shipboard sensors to provide

critical, time-sensitive information for use by Tactical Action Officers. Improvements will provide a more user-friendly interface for

computers, speed the transfer of tactical data, and allow the use of

three dimensional targeting information.

Submarine broadcast support

The committee understands that in the past, some Navy communications antennas have been painted with contaminated paints. In

order to prevent environmental contamination and return these antennas to operational status as quickly as possible, the committee

recommends an increase of $1.0 million to accelerate paint removal

from naval communications towers.

Mark-45 overhauls

The budget request did not include any funding for overhauls of

the Mark-45 gun system, the Navy’s primary battery on destroyers

and cruisers. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for maintenance overhauls of Mark-45 gun weapons systems,

to improve their operational availability, readiness, and safety.

Critical infrastructure protection for Navy and Marine

Corps

Implementation of the Department of the Navy’s Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) plan raises the protection level in Navy

and Marine Corps facilities, information processes, and weapons

acquisition activities against terrorist and other attacks. The committee is aware of the requirement to accelerate and complete vulnerability assessments and remediation in the Navy’s mission-critical infrastructures and in the sustaining infrastructures in the private sector. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$6.0 million to implement the next phase of the Navy’s CIP plan.

Configuration management for Navy weapons systems

The committee understands that continued modifications and upgrades to weapons systems present a challenge for supporting logistics and maintenance systems. Managing changes in weapons configuration is critical to ensuring that adequate supplies and technical skills are available for continuous operation of critical ships

and aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$13.5 million for data tracking of platforms and parts, integrating

existing data systems, and improving the Navy’s tracking techniques to enhance the overall readiness of naval weapons systems.

Air Force

Air Force flying hour program

The budget request included $6.2 billion in operation and maintenance funds for flying hours to support Air Force training. This

amount includes a $450.0 million ‘‘wedge’’ to support unspecified

cost increases for spare parts that the Air Force has little data to

support. The committee recommends a decrease of $287.6 million

and has reallocated these funds to other known, high-priority readiness deficiencies.

299

Since the mid-1990s, the Air Staff’s process for determining costs

per flying hour has systemically underestimated actual flying hour

costs. In its fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Air Force assumed

that it would continue to underestimate true flying hour costs by

the past margin of error (9.7 percent, or $450.0 million). One draft

study conducted for the Air Force found that 3.5 percent of the 9.7

percent growth may be due to higher costs from aging equipment.

To explain the remaining 6.2 percent, the Air Staff hypothesized

that higher-than-budgeted inflation accounted for an additional 3.3

percent and that 2.9 percent was due to unanticipated cost drivers

such as safety modifications, expirations of warranties, and other

factors.

The committee believes that the Air Force’s explanation of this

cost increase is oversimplified and insufficient. In particular, the

committee sees no reason why the other services would not also experience similar inflation rates or be equally susceptible to unanticipated cost increases. Neither the Army nor the Navy, however,

included similar unspecified funding requests in their training

budgets.

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 6.2 percent ($287.6 million) to the Air Force flying hour program to be allocated proportionately across aircraft type models in various training accounts. This reduction supports the 3.5 percent increase in

flying hour costs that was based on analysis of empirical data but

denies funding for the Air Force’s inflation and ‘‘other’’ percentage

increases. As stated above, the committee believes these increases

lack sufficient justification and that the Air Force should devote

greater attention to determining the causes of cost growth.

The committee recommends a reallocation of the flying hour

wedge to programs that would improve the Air Force’s understanding of cost drivers and meet actual, validated readiness requirements. This reallocation includes the following increases: (1) $20.0 million to improve maintenance data collection systems to allow for empirical analyses of causes of cost growth;

(2) $138.6 million for critical shortfalls in depot maintenance

to improve the reliability and equipment condition of current

aircraft. Of this amount, the committee recommends that $60.0

million be devoted to repairs for KC–135 aircraft, $11.5 million

be available for engine overhauls for Air Force Special Operations Command MH–53 helicopters, and the remaining $67.1

million directed to other high priority depot-level repairs;

(3) $80.0 million for sustainment, restoration and modernization of infrastructure that directly supports flying readiness, to

include runways, hangars, and flight line maintenance facilities; and

(4) $49.0 million for improvements to Air Force training

ranges as part of the training range enhancement initiative

discussed elsewhere in this report.

Combat air patrols

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund

(DERF) included $1.2 billion for the flying hour costs associated

with continued combat air patrols (CAPs) over major U.S. cities.

The Air Force based its estimate for fiscal year 2003 CAP missions

300

on a heightened alert posture that has since been reduced. At the

new estimated alert level, the Air Force estimates that flying hour

costs for fiscal year 2003 will be $380.0 million. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $820.0 million from the request.

Spacelift range system

The budget request included $281.0 million for Operation and

Maintenance, Air Force for launch facilities. The committee supports the range modernization program and recommends an increase of $11.1 million for metric tracking, for activation of the

Western Range operations control center, and for maintenance

issues at both Eastern and Western Ranges. Delays in the range

modernization programs have resulted in increased operating costs

for legacy systems that have to be maintained for longer periods of

time than originally planned, even while the operations tempo has

increased. Sustainment and operating costs necessary to ensure

adequate levels of range safety have increased.

Utilities costs

The Air Force’s fiscal year 2003 budget request included $392.6

million for utilities purchases, an increase of $61.9 million over inflation. None of the other services projected similar increases in

utilities costs; the Army’s utilities request decreased by $6.6 million, the Navy’s increased by $6.2 million, and the Marine Corps’

increased by only $1,000 over fiscal year 2002 levels. The committee recommends a reduction of $55.0 million to the Air Force operation and maintenance account to bring the growth in Air Force

utilities costs more in line with those of the other services.

Defense-Wide

Joint recruiting and advertising

The budget request included $41.6 million for the Joint Recruiting and Advertising Program (JRAP), an increase of almost $25.0

million over historic execution levels. The committee is concerned

about the execution of such a large increase and recommends a reduction of $24.3 million, returning the JRAP to fiscal year 2001

levels (adjusted for inflation). The committee fully supports the intent and activities of the JRAP but understands that the program

has experienced consistent underexecution, a problem that may

persist given the large increase in funding requested for fiscal year

2003.

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United

States to conduct a study of the Department of Defense’s recruiting

and advertising programs. The study should include an evaluation

of: (1) the justification for each service’s advertising budget request;

(2) metrics used to determine the cost effectiveness of each of the

advertising programs; (3) whether the advertising mediums are appropriate; and (4) the relationship of advertising budgets to recruiting outcomes. The committee directs the Comptroller General to

submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the

House of Representatives a report on the findings of this study and

any recommendations no later than March 31, 2003.

301

Training and qualification shortfalls

The budget request did not include any funding to cover costs associated with increased training requirements and reorganization

of training units to meet current Special Operations Forces (SOF)

training needs. Current operational tempo and transformation programs have increased training requirements, which form the critical backbone of SOF readiness. The Special Operations Command

has a requirement for increased funding for life cycle replacements

for parachute, maritime, trauma resuscitation, and naval special

warfare equipment, and improvements to Special Forces reconnaissance courses to increase the number of students obtaining training. The committee strongly supports increasing and improving

training programs and equipment. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.7 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, Budget Activity 3 for SOF training and qualification shortfalls.

Procurement Technical Assistance Program

The budget request included $19.0 million for the Procurement

Technical Assistance Program (PTAP). The committee has supported the PTAP program since its establishment in 1985. The program provides cost-effective technical assistance to small businesses in the industrial base supporting national defense. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the PTAP program.

Logistics reengineering

The budget request included $2.0 million for the Business Process Reengineering Center (BPRC), which supports the Office of the

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) in proposing process, organizational, and cultural changes in the Department of Defense. The budget request

also included $7.5 million for the Change Management Center,

which also reports to USD(AT&L) and conducts commercial practices training and enterprise change modeling. The committee finds

these requests duplicative and recommends a reduction of $2.0 million in the Defense Logistics Agency budget to consolidate all reengineering efforts in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Cultural and historic activities

The budget request included $287,000 for cultural and historic

preservation activities funded through the Legacy Resource Management Program. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0

million to expand the Department of Defense’s efforts to preserve

cultural and historic assets.

Base information system

The budget request included $15.0 million in the Defense-wide

operation and maintenance account over fiscal year 2002 levels to

increase funding for a base information system to gather data on

the real property inventory of the Department of Defense (DOD).

The committee understands that the data system to collect this information has been an ongoing effort within the Department and

does not believe that DOD has provided sufficient rationale for

302

such a sizeable increase. Therefore, the committee recommends a

decrease of $10.0 million and authorizes a $5.0 million increase for

the base information system.

C3 and Intelligence Mission and Analysis Fund

The budget request included $4.9 million for a new initiative to

provide planning, coordination, and assessments for the National

Command Authority’s computer network. The program would also

support analyses of spectrum policy, information assurance policies,

and joint intelligence capabilities.

The committee recommends a reduction of $4.9 million in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account for this initiative. The fiscal year 2003 budget

request already included substantial resources for the many components of this fund: an additional $99.3 million over fiscal year 2002

levels for increased support for White House and National Command communications, networks, and network security; an additional $17.1 million for various spectrum-related initiatives, including support for a Department of Defense Spectrum Defense Office;

and $163.6 million for information assurance initiatives ($18.5 million more than in fiscal year 2002). The fiscal year 2003 request

for the Defense Emergency Response Fund included another $2.6

billion for White House communications and security, communications, and information operations enhancements.

The committee believes that the types of functions proposed to be

carried out with funding from the Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence Mission and Analysis Fund are important to

our national security and worthy of support. However, the committee believes that the funds already provided for the programs

covered by this initiative are sufficient to support planning and

oversight for these activities.

Psychological operations

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund

(DERF) included $67.0 million to support the Joint Staff’s Information Operations Task Force and other information operations activities. The committee recognizes the value of psychological operations and information/perception management activities in influencing foreign audiences and in shaping the information environment in ways that are favorable to U.S. objectives. These operations and activities are particularly important when U.S. forces

are engaged in hostilities, as in Afghanistan.

The committee is concerned, however, by some of the activities

that are contemplated under this heading, particularly those activities that have traditionally been conducted by other agencies of the

U.S. Government. The committee believes that the Department of

Defense should not seek to duplicate capabilities that are resident

elsewhere in the government, nor should the Department be acquiring equipment for other departments and agencies of the government. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of

$30.0 million for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

303

Commander in Chief for Homeland Security

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund

(DERF) included $41.0 million to stand up a headquarters for the

new Commander in Chief for Homeland Security. The committee

supports the establishment of this new combatant command but

notes that the justification materials provided by the Department

of Defense only explained how $37.0 million of the $41.0 million

would be used, failing to account for the remaining $4.0 million.

The request also included $10.0 million to provide salaries for civilian personnel who would be employed by the new headquarters.

The committee understands that the headquarters would be supported within planned reductions in headquarters staffs and that

civilian employees would be transferred from other existing billets.

Similarly, the committee expects the funds for the employees’ salaries to be transferred from their current parent organizations.

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $14.0 million

to the DERF request and recommends that the remaining $27.0

million be transferred to Operation and Maintenance, DefenseWide for the Joint Staff.

Studies

The budget request included $21.1 million for the Office of the

Secretary of Defense (OSD) Study Program and $22.8 million for

studies by the Joint Staff. This funding represents an $8.8 million

increase over fiscal year 2002 levels, despite the fact that the Department of Defense’s major analytic effort, the Quadrennial Defense Review, concluded last year. Further, none of the services requested study program increases in fiscal year 2003; the Army’s requested study budget remained constant, the Navy’s decreased by

$2.3 million, and the Air Force’s decreased by $16.8 million. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.8 million for

OSD studies and $7.0 million for Joint Staff studies to return the

OSD and Joint Staff study budgets to fiscal year 2001 levels (adjusted for inflation), a level of funding that should adequately support necessary analyses.

Commercial imagery to support military requirements

The committee continues to support the use of commercial

sources to help meet the imagery requirements of United States

and coalition forces and the geospatial requirements of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). Three high level commissions, the Space Commission, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Commission, and the National Imagery and Mapping

Agency Commission, have all stated that the Department of Defense needs to better utilize commercial imagery. The Space Commission Report recommended that the U.S. Government pay for a

substantial portion of its national security related imagery requirements by purchasing services from the U.S. commercial remote

sensing industry. NIMA officials have acknowledged that significant portions of their geospatial information requirements can be

met by current generation satellites operated by U.S. commercial

remote sensing entities and that considerably more of these requirements could be met by proposed second generation satellites.

304

The committee believes that a world-class commercial remote

sensing industry is in the national interests of the United States.

Accordingly, the committee reaffirms its guidance to NIMA, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Department of Defense that

a comprehensive commercial imagery strategy must be developed

and implemented. The committee further believes significant

progress has been made in the past year with respect to understanding the desirability of integrating commercial remote sensing

into a comprehensive national imagery and geospatial architecture.

Unfortunately, little progress has been made in developing a longterm strategy or in aggressively integrating commercial capabilities

into a comprehensive architecture. In fact, the strategy that NIMA

seemed to have adopted last year that was designed to assure the

commercial remote sensing industry of the long-term commitment

and reliability of the U.S. Government as a customer appears to

have been abandoned in favor of a return to a ‘‘day-to-day, as needed’’ approach to commercial imagery purchases. Such indecision is

not in the best interests of the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry or in the national security interests of the U.S. Government.

To help the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry succeed,

the U.S. Government should become a reliable, consistent customer

of this industry’s products. Additionally, the U.S. Government must

facilitate a regulatory framework for the sale of remote sensing

products, services, and technologies that better serves U.S. national

security interests.

In view of the above, the committee directs the Director of NIMA

to develop and implement a comprehensive commercial imagery

strategy that includes a budgeted, multi year spending plan and a

contractual regime for the purchase of commercial imagery, imagery products, and services from the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry. To assure the reputation of the U.S. Government as

a consistent, reliable customer the Director of NIMA is encouraged

to consider multi year procurement authority and the establishment of ‘‘anchor-tenant’’ business relationships with the commercial remote sensing industry as this commercial imagery strategy

is established. The conference report accompanying the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed the Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence to plan and

carry out a program to purchase a significant portion of their nontime critical, low and medium resolution satellite imagery requirements from the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry by 2005.

The committee reaffirms that requirement and encourages the Director of NIMA to establish a concrete plan as soon as possible that

incorporates the anticipated role and contribution of commercial remote sensing capabilities in the overall Future Imagery Architecture (FIA). As NIMA moves toward these future capabilities, the

committee encourages NIMA to establish a related goal that 25

percent of NIMA’s geospatial information requirements be provided

by U.S. commercial remote sensing entities by the beginning of fiscal year 2005.

The budget request, including the Defense Emergency Response

Fund (DERF), included increased funding for the purchase of commercial imagery products. In order to implement a comprehensive

commercial imagery strategy and to ensure that commercial imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.097 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
305

agery plays a key role in fulfilling the Department’s imagery needs,

the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the purchase of commercial imagery, imagery products and services from U.S. commercial

remote sensing entities. Considering the overall importance of commercial imagery activities to integrated U.S. intelligence and

geospatial requirements, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense and Director of NIMA to establish a new, separate budget line for commercial imagery activities within the Department of Defense budget request, beginning with the fiscal year

2004 budget submission.

Guard and Reserve Components

Army information operations

The budget request included $116.0 million for land forces readiness operations support for the Army Reserve. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to increase the Army Reserve’s support to the Department of Defense through information

operations training, future threat assessment, and improved information attack response capabilities.

Antiterrorism/force protection access control

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) included $33.8 million for access control and vulnerability

assessments for six Army Reserve installations. The Army subsequently determined that it does not have a requirement for $13.8

million of the funding requested for this purpose. Therefore, the

committee recommends a reduction of $13.8 million from the Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve account.

Initial issue

The committee is concerned that the budget request would not

adequately fund personal items for new members of the Marine

Corps Reserve. Many of these items are important for the safety

and comfort of our marines in the field. Therefore, the committee

recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the Marine Corps Reserve to purchase individual combat clothing and equipment items,

including polar fleece pullovers.

Air Force Reserve Command server consolidation

The Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) aims to achieve greater

efficiency and reduce total ownership costs by consolidating its

servers. The committee therefore recommends an increase of $8.0

million for the AFRC to increase storage of backup data, better protect its information technology infrastructure, and improve the

speed and reliability of its computer networks through server consolidation.

National Guard support for test and evaluation

The budget request included $2.6 billion for National Guard flying operations. These funds support flying hours for the Air National Guard (ANG), including Defense Support Evaluation (DSE)

functions. The DSE program provides target aircraft support for

306

surface-to-air missile testing. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to Operation and Maintenance, Air National

Guard to train the ANG pilots that fly in support of missile tests

and evaluation.

Air National Guard medical equipment

The committee understands that the Air National Guard plans

to transition its medical service units from their current configuration into more rapidly deployable Expeditionary Medical Support

(EMEDS) units. EMEDS units would provide a more flexible, responsive and robust medical capability in support of the Expeditionary Air Force and other critical missions, and the committee

fully supports this reorganization. To help prepare Air National

Guard personnel for this transition, the committee recommends an

increase of $350,000 for the Air National Guard to begin purchasing medical equipment for training for future EMEDS missions.

MISCELLANEOUS ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF INTEREST

Formerly Used Defense Sites

The budget request included $212.1 million for Environmental

Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). The committee

recommends an increase of $40.0 million to the FUDS program.

The committee notes that, until this year, the Department of Defense had been providing a level of funding for the cleanup of

FUDS sites that was intended to result in remedies in place by

2014. This year, the Department delayed the cleanup goal by six

years, to 2020, in order to reduce funding requirements. At the

same time, the committee understands that the Department of Defense does not expect to have remedies in place for unexploded ordnance problems on FUDS sites until 2089 at the earliest.

The committee does not support the six-year delay in the FUDS

cleanup objective, and it does not view 2089 as an acceptable goal

for addressing unexploded ordnance problems. The committee expects the Department to work with the states to prioritize FUDS

sites and to develop a reasonable time line for the cleanup of such

sites.

Drug interdiction and counterdrug activities

The budget request included $998.7 million for drug interdiction

and counterdrug activities of the Department of Defense (DOD):

$848.9 million in the central transfer account and $149.8 million

in the operating budgets of the military services for authorized

counterdrug operations.

The committee recommends the following fiscal year 2003 budget

for the Department’s counterdrug activities:

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Central Transfer Account

[In thousands of dollars—May not add due to rounding]

Fiscal Year 2003 Counterdrug Request ......................................................... $848.9

Goal 1 (Educate America’s youth) ........................................................... 27.1

Goal 2 (Increase safety of citizens) ......................................................... 81.8

Goal 3 (Reduce health and safety costs) ................................................. 82.5

Goal 4 (Shield America’s frontiers) ......................................................... 335.7

307

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Central Transfer Account—

Continued

Goal 5 (Break drug sources of supply) .................................................... 321.9

Increases:

National Guard Support .......................................................................... 25.0

Total Fiscal Year 2003 Counterdrug Funding .................................... $873.9

National Guard State Plans

The committee believes that the National Guard makes an important contribution to the national counterdrug effort. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for

the National Guard State Plans, including the National Interagency Civil-Military Institute. As a result of insufficient funding

for fiscal year 2002, the State Plans had to be significantly adjusted. In order to avoid even greater disruption, DOD reprogrammed $12.2 million and, in an unprecedented action, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) used his

authority to transfer $5.0 million from ONDCP’s High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas program account to DOD and limited its

availability to the Governor’s State Plans.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Aerial refueling fee-for-service

In fiscal year 2002, the Department of Defense directed the Navy

to conduct a pilot program for aerial refueling including tanker aircraft. The Navy has contracted aerial refueling services using commercial aircraft configured for aerial refueling in the conduct of

this pilot program.

In testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, the Navy Director of Air Warfare in the

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations stated that this pilot program has been successful and has provided a beneficial service for

air wings during inter-deployment training. The committee encourages the Department to continue to explore the benefits of using

this type of fee-for-service model in aerial refueling to achieve potential savings and relieve the strain on the aerial refueling fleet.

Air Force supersonic ranges

The committee understands that the Air Force currently operates

thirteen supersonic ranges, with varying restrictions on altitude.

The committee believes that additional supersonic training opportunities may be needed and that the Air Force should evaluate its

requirements in this area. The committee directs the Secretary of

the Air Force to conduct a study of the costs and benefits of extending the Melrose flight training range outside Cannon Air Force

Base to include supersonic capabilities and to report back to Congress no later than March 1, 2003.

Army ammunition plants

The committee is aware of Army proposals to pursue a consolidated procurement contract for the operation of four governmentowned/contractor-operated ammunition plants. The committee

notes that such consolidation may cause disruption of ammunition

308

production or cause compression of the Load, Assemble, and Pack

(LAP) sector of ammunition manufacturing. Therefore, the committee directs the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees providing the details of the proposed strategy, an

analysis of alternatives (to include long-term leasing), and an assessment of the impact on existing items manufactured at the

plants.

C–130 aircraft force structure

The Air Force has recently completed a comprehensive mobility

force structure plan. One of the elements of this plan includes upgrading a portion of the C–130 aircraft tactical airlift fleet, in both

the active force and reserve components, to a standard C–130X configuration. The rest of the force would receive new C–130J aircraft.

The C–130 aircraft is a crucial component of intra-theater airlift.

The committee supports the general approach of modernizing the

portion of the C–130 aircraft fleet for which this makes economic

sense and replacing the remainder with new C–130J aircraft. Nevertheless, the committee has questions about the specific plan that

would lead to a reduced inventory objective for tactical airlift

forces.

The Air Force has stated that there is an excess inventory of C– 130s. The committee is concerned about what appears to be contradictory analysis. The Department completed the Mobility Requirements Study for fiscal year 2005 (MRS 05) last year. MRS 05

was based on assessing the capability to fight two, nearly simultaneous major theater wars (2 MTW). The study analyzed the requirements for both inter-theater and intra-theater airlift and concluded there would be shortfalls in both categories. Although the

2 MTW-goal is no longer the basis for deciding on force structure

size or content, commanders in chief have testified that strategic

airlift is still stressed and that the lift requirements derived in

MRS 05 remain valid.

The committee notes that the Air Force intends to implement the

first C–130 force structure realignment beginning in fiscal year

2004. To better understand the impact of any reductions in tactical

airlift, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report to the congressional defense committees, no later than

March 31, 2003, that would: (1) determine the required amount of

tactical airlift to execute the national military strategy; and (2) reconcile any differences between MRS 05 and subsequent Air Force

analysis underpinning the mobility force structure plan.

Commissary benefit

The commissary benefit is one of the most significant components

of the military compensation package and is highly valued by military members, retirees, and their families. In addition to providing

significant monetary savings, commissaries foster a sense of community for military families.

Although efficient operation of commissaries is essential, the

committee is concerned that proposed personnel and funding reductions for the Defense Commissary Agency may adversely affect the

quality of service to customers. Beneficiary groups have expressed

concern that the reductions will result in additional store closings,

309

reduced hours, longer cashier lines, and reduced stock on store

shelves. These impacts would not be acceptable.

The committee directs the Department of Defense to monitor

closely the impact of proposed personnel and funding reductions to

ensure that appropriate levels of service in commissaries are maintained.

Department of Defense support to the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers and the Interallied Confederation of Medical Reserve Officers

The committee is aware that the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR) and the Interallied Confederation of Medical

Reserve Officers (CIORMR) Summer Congress is scheduled to be

held in Washington, DC in July 2004. CIOR is chartered by the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Military Committee to

advise NATO and support NATO’s political and military objectives

in each of the member nations in the alliance. The committee notes

that historically the Department of Defense has supported the

Summer Congress. In anticipation of the 2004 Summer Congress,

the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to fully support participation by Reserve Component personnel in the representational,

liaison, education, training, and organizational activities of CIOR

and CIORMR. In addition to personnel, this support should include

facilities and logistics to carry out the activities of the 2004 Summer Congress.

Formerly Used Defense Site at Waikoloa and Waimea, Hawaii Island

The Army Corps of Engineers recently determined that a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) at Waikoloa and Waimea, Hawaii

Island has ‘‘a medium to high potential for human health and safety risk from unexploded ordnance (UXO).’’ The Army Corps of Engineers estimated that the minimum cost of addressing this problem would be in excess of $250.0 million.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to develop a

comprehensive plan for addressing risks to human health and safety at the Waikoloa FUDS site and to report to the congressional

defense committees no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this bill. The Secretary’s report should include specific

milestones for addressing the UXO problem at the Waikoloa FUDS

site and the Department’s plans for funding the clean-up effort.

Funding for efforts to address environmental impacts of

unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions,

and munitions constituents

Section 312 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 established a new program element for remediation of

unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions, and

munitions constituents in each of the environmental restoration accounts of the Department of Defense. The purpose of this provision

was to establish a consolidated account for all UXO-related environmental expenditures of the Department of Defense.

The committee has since learned that a substantial amount of

funding for efforts to address environmental impacts of UXO, disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.100 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
310

carded military munitions, and munitions constituents is provided

through accounts other than the Department’s environmental restoration accounts, and therefore could not be included in the new

program elements. For example, six separate accounts provide

funding for UXO-related environmental expenditures in the Army

alone: the environmental restoration account; the operation and

maintenance accounts of the Army and the National Guard; the

Base Realignment and Closure account; the Formerly Used Defense

Sites account; and the Army research, development, test and evaluation accounts.

The committee directs the Department to provide a consolidated

exhibit with its budget submission in each of the next four fiscal

years. The exhibit would detail all proposed funding, in all accounts of the Department, for efforts to address environmental impacts of UXO, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents (including UXO-related research and development).

Improved justification of service training budgets

The committee is concerned about the military services’ training

budget requests and believes that additional progress is possible in

relating funds to training and training to readiness. The reliability

of the services’ methods for relating funding to training outputs

varies, complicating the committee’s evaluations of whether requested funding is sufficient for requisite training. Further, the relationship between training levels and readiness also remains ambiguous. The committee understands the complexity involved in

clarifying these relationships and appreciates the Department of

Defense’s efforts to further define them. The committee looks forward to seeing the results of these efforts reflected in future budget

requests.

‘‘Starship’’ repair plan

The committee is aware that the Army’s 1970 Basic Combat

Training complexes, known as ‘‘starships’’, require extensive structural, roof, and utility repairs. The Army’s 2000 Installation Status

Report rates these facilities at C–3 or below, meaning that their

condition impairs mission performance. These facilities are used

primarily for initial entry training, and their poor condition has a

negative impact not only on the quality of training that recruits receive, but also on the recruits’ initial impressions of quality of life

in the military. The committee understands that the goal at Fort

Sill is to repair one of its five ‘‘starships’’ annually, with

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) funds of no

more than $11.0 million. Fort Jackson, which has six starships,

spends almost $3.2 million annually for the most urgent repairs to

these facilities. Fort Benning, which has eight starship complexes,

faces similar challenges.

Since SRM fluctuates annually and is habitually underfunded,

these installations cannot develop a comprehensive plan for the repair and maintenance of starship facilities. The committee directs

the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the congressional

defense committees no later than March 30, 2003, to include the

status of all existing starship complexes, the impact of their condition on the Army’s training mission, cost estimates to complete necVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00328 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.101 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
311

essary repairs, and a long-term plan to ensure adequate maintenance of the facilities.

Status of the Uniform National Discharge Standards

The Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) Program

was established by section 325 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 to provide a comprehensive set of

standards for controlling incidental discharges from vessels of the

Armed Forces. The program provided the Secretary of Defense and

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

joint regulatory authority on incidental discharges within the navigable waters of the United States and waters of the contiguous

zone.

Phase I of this program identified 25 discharges that will require

control based upon the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The committee is aware that the development of performance standards for controlling discharges under Phase II of the program requires extensive research and that the Navy and EPA have

attempted to expedite this process. Unfortunately, the completion

of Phase II is not expected until calendar year 2011.

The committee is concerned about the lack of progress in the development of performance standards under the UNDS program. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and Administrator of the EPA to submit a joint report on the status of the

UNDS program and efforts to expedite the development of performance standards under that program to the congressional defense

committees by no later April 1, 2003.

Training of Navy and Marine Corps units for the global war

on terrorism and to support the global naval forces

presence policy

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the plans for joint

task force, combined-arms training of carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups during fiscal year 2003. This report should

include a description of the locations where that training will be

conducted, the use of live munitions during that training, and a description of the naval and military capabilities to be exercised during training.

The report should also describe the Secretary’s progress regarding the identification of an alternate location or locations for the

training range at Vieques. The committee directs the Secretary to

provide this report no later than March 1, 2003. The committee understands that, until such time as a decision is made by the Secretary of the Navy in accordance with section 1049 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–

107), Navy and Marine Corps training will continue at Vieques as

it is currently.

(313)

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

SUBTITLE A—ACTIVE FORCES

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active duty end strengths for fiscal year 2003, as shown below:

2002 authorization

Fiscal year—

2003 request 2003 recommendation

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

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 376,000 375,700 375,700

Marine Corps ........................................................................................................... 172,600 175,000 175,000

Air Force .................................................................................................................. 358,800 359,000 359,000

The committee is concerned that the requested end strength may

not be adequate to meet the number of missions the services are

required to perform. If an increase in end strength is justified, the

committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to use his authority

to increase the authorized end strength by up to 2 percent to relieve personnel shortfalls, especially in high demand, low density

military skills. In the longer term, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to conduct a thorough review of force

structure and to assign additional personnel to high demand, low

density skill positions.

The committee is encouraged by the Department’s recently developed human capital strategic plan to ensure that the right number

of military personnel have the requisite skills, abilities, and motivation to effectively and efficiently execute assigned missions. The

committee will closely monitor implementation of this plan.

Authority to increase strength and grade limitations to account for reserve component members on active duty in

support of a contingency operation (sec. 402)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to increase the limit on active duty end

strength by the number of members of the reserve components

serving on active duty, with their consent, in support of a contingency operation. The recommended provision would also authorize

the Secretary of Defense to increase the limit on the number of

members in pay grades E–8, E–9, 0–4, 0–5, 0–6 and general and

flag officers by the number of reserve component members in those

pay grades serving on active duty, with their consent, in support

of a contingency operation.

Currently, reserve component members involuntarily ordered to

active duty in support of a contingency operation are excluded from

active duty end strength limitations. The recommended provision

would remove the distinction between reserve component members

314

who consent to serve on active duty and those who are involuntarily ordered to active duty and would encourage the services to

use volunteers to meet contingency operation requirements.

Increased allowance for number of Marine Corps general officers in grades above major general (sec. 403)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize one

additional Marine Corps general officer in a grade above major

general. The recommended provision does not increase the total

number of general officers in the Marine Corps.

Increase in authorized strengths for Marine Corps officers

on active duty in the grade of colonel (sec. 404)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase by

40 the authorized strength for colonels on active duty in the Marine Corps.

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2003, as shown below:

2002 authorization

Fiscal year—

2003 request 2003 recommendation

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 350,000 350,000 350,000

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 87,000 87,800 87,800

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

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 108,400 106,600 106,600

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 74,700 75,600 75,600

The Coast Guard Reserve ....................................................................................... 8,000 9,000 9,000

End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the

Reserves (sec. 412)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2003, as shown

below:

2002 author- ization

Fiscal year—

2003 request 2003 recommendation

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 23,698 23,768 24,492

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 13,406 13,588 13,888

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 14,811 14,572 14,572

The Marine Corps Reserve ...................................................................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 11,591 11,697 11,727

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 1,437 1,498 1,498

The committee recommends an increase of 300 in the Army Reserve, 724 in the Army National Guard, and 30 in the Air National

Guard.

The committee is disappointed that the requested end strength

for reserves on active duty in support of the Reserves does not inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00332 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.104 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
315

clude an increase of 300 in the Army Reserve and 724 in the Army

National Guard for full-time support.

Full-time support has been identified as the top readiness issue

of the reserve components. It directly impacts the ability to train,

administer and prepare ready units and individuals for transition

from a peacetime to a wartime posture. The Army has a plan to

incrementally increase the Reserve Component Full-Time Support

Program over 11 years to achieve a level of full-time support manning of 90 percent for units that deploy in less than 30 days; 80

percent for units that deploy between 30 and 75 days; 70 percent

for units that deploy between 75 and 180 days; and 65 percent for

units deploying after 180 days. This is the second year in a row

that the requested end strength is less than required to execute the

plan. Failure to budget for and request the planned-for increased

end strength reflects less than full commitment to the needs of the

reserve components. The recommended increase of 300 in the Army

Reserve and 724 in the Army National Guard would bring the end

strength up to the level in the Army’s plan for fiscal year 2003.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report, no

later than February 1, 2003, to the Committees on Armed Services

of the Senate and the House of Representatives, on whether the

Army plan is still valid and on the Army’s plans for the next five

years to address full-time manning readiness requirements of the

reserve components.

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec.

413)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

minimum level of dual status technician end strengths for fiscal

year 2003, as shown below:

2002 authorization

Fiscal year—

2003 request 2003 recommendation

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 6,249 6,349 6,599

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 23,615 23,615 24,102

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 9,818 9,911 9,911

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 22,422 22,495 22,495

The committee is disappointed that the requested end strength

for dual status military technicians does not include an increase of

487 dual status military technicians in the Army Reserve and 250

dual status military technicians in the Army National Guard for

full-time support.

Full-time support has been identified as the top readiness issue

of the reserve components. It directly impacts the ability to train,

administer and prepare ready units and individuals for transition

from a peacetime to a wartime posture. The Army has a plan to

incrementally increase the Reserve Component Full-Time Support

Program over 11 years to achieve a level of full-time support manning of 90 percent for units that deploy in less than 30 days; 80

percent for units that deploy between 30 and 75 days; 70 percent

for units that deploy between 75 and 180 days; and 65 percent for

units deploying after 180 days. This is the second year in a row

that the requested end strength is less than required to execute the

316

plan. Failure to budget for and request the planned-for increased

end strength reflects less than full commitment to the needs of the

reserve components. The recommended increase of 250 dual status

military technicians in the Army Reserve and 487 dual status military technicians in the Army National Guard would bring the end

strength up to the level in the Army’s plan for fiscal year 2003.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report, no

later than February 1, 2003, to the Committees on Armed Services

of the Senate and the House of Representatives, on whether the

Army plan is still valid and on the Army’s plans for the next five

years to address full-time manning readiness requirements of the

reserve components.

Fiscal year 2003 limitation on non-dual status technicians

(sec. 414)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish numerical limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who

may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September

30, 2003, as follows: (1) Army National Guard of the United States,

1,600; (2) Air National Guard of the United States, 350; (3) Army

Reserve, 995; and (4) Air Force Reserve, 0.

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Authorization of appropriations for military personnel (sec.

421)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a

total of $94.4 billion for military personnel, an increase of $56.6

million over the budget request. This includes $32.9 million from

the Defense Emergency Response Fund, $33.5 for increases to

Army National Guard and Reserve full time support, $750 thousand for an increase to Air National Guard full time support, and

a reduction of $10.6 million for programs included in the budget request but for which legislative authority is not recommended. An

additional $13.9 million was also reduced from operation and maintenance accounts for the same reason.

(317)

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

SUBTITLE A—OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY

Extension of certain requirements and exclusions applicable

to service of general and flag officers on active duty in

certain joint duty assignments (sec. 501)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend to December 31, 2003: (1) the requirement that the service secretaries

nominate officers for consideration for appointment to certain senior joint officer positions; (2) the exemption of officers serving in

these positions in the grade of general or admiral from the limitation on officers serving on active duty in grades above major general or rear admiral; and (3) the authority of the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff to designate up to 12 general and flag officer

positions that are joint duty assignments for exclusion from the

limitation on the number of general and flag officers serving on active duty.

Extension of authority to waive requirement for significant

joint duty experience for appointment as a chief of a reserve component or a National Guard director (sec. 502)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend from

October 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, the authority for the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement that the Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff determine that an officer recommended for

appointment as a chief of a reserve component or a director of the

Army National Guard or Air National Guard have significant joint

duty experience.

The committee does not encourage routine waiver of the joint

duty experience qualification for officers recommended for appointment as a chief of a reserve component or a National Guard director. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Secretary of Defense submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate

and the House of Representatives by May 1, 2003, a report indicating what steps have been taken to ensure that Reserve and

Guard officers receive significant joint duty experience. The Secretary should also include in the report the date by which the waiver will no longer be required.

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL

POLICY

Time for commencement of initial period of active duty for

training upon enlistment in reserve component (sec.

511)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the

time limit for commencement of an initial period of active duty for

318

training from 270 days to one year for non-prior service individuals

who enlist 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.

The recommended provision would enable individuals to enlist

prior to commencing their last year of high school or a new year

of college and delay their required training until after completion

of these studies.

Authority for limited extension of medical deferment of

mandatory retirement or separation of reserve component officer (sec. 512)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to defer the mandatory retirement or separation

of a reserve component officer for 30 days after completion of an

evaluation requiring hospitalization or medical observation to determine the officer’s entitlement to retirement or separation for

physical disability.

SUBTITLE C—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Increase in authorized strengths for the service academies

(sec. 521)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the

authorized strengths of the military academies to 4,400 cadets or

midshipmen. The provision would also clarify that the service secretary can permit a variance above that limitation by not more

than 1 percent.

SUBTITLE D—DECORATIONS, AWARDS, AND

COMMENDATIONS

Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations

to certain persons (sec. 531)

The committee recommends a provision that would waive the

statutory time limits for award of military decorations to certain

individuals who have been recommended by the service secretaries

for these awards.

Korea Defense Service Medal (sec. 532)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

service secretaries to issue a campaign medal, to be known as the

Korea Defense Service Medal, to all military personnel who served

in the Republic of Korea, or the adjacent waters, between July 27,

1954, and a termination date determined by the Secretary of Defense.

SUBTITLE E—NATIONAL CALL TO SERVICE

National call to service (sec. 541 and 542)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

unique incentives to encourage individuals to volunteer to serve the

nation through enlisting in the Armed Forces. Individuals who volunteer under this program would be required to serve on active

duty for 15 months after completion of initial entry training and

319

could complete the remainder of their military service obligation by

choosing service on active duty, in the Selected Reserve, in the Individual Ready Reserve, or in another national service program

designated by the Secretary of Defense. Participants would be required to meet all eligibility requirements for military service and

would elect one of the following incentives: (1) a $5000 bonus payable after completion of 15 months of active duty, (2) repayment of

a qualifying student loan not to exceed $18,000, (3) an educational

allowance at the monthly rate payable under the Montgomery GI

Bill for 12 months, or (4) an educational allowance of two-thirds of

the monthly rate payable under the Montgomery GI Bill for 36

months. National Service Plan participants who are otherwise

qualified and volunteer to continue serving on active duty may be

considered for reenlistment or extension on active duty and any additional benefits for which they may be eligible.

The recommended provision would also encourage and facilitate

service by requiring institutions of higher education receiving assistance under the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide military recruiters: (1) the same access to students and the institution

as is provided to prospective employers, and (2) upon request, access to the names, addresses, and telephone listings of students, except for the information of students who have submitted a request

that the information not be released without prior written consent.

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Biennial surveys on racial, ethnic, and gender issues (sec.

551)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to conduct two separate biennial surveys,

rather than a single annual survey, to identify and assess racial,

ethnic, and gender issues and discrimination among members of

the Armed Forces serving on active duty and the extent (if any) of

‘‘hate group’’ activity among such members. The recommended provision would require one survey every two years, a survey on racial

and ethnic issues alternating with a survey on gender issues. The

committee believes that these issues require the continued, focused

attention of the military and civilian leadership of the Department

of Defense and that these surveys play an important role in ensuring that such attention is provided.

Leave required to be taken pending review of a recommendation for removal by a board of inquiry (sec.

552)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to require an officer to take leave (including excess leave) while awaiting the secretary’s action on a board of inquiry’s recommendation that the officer not be retained on active

duty. The officer would be afforded the opportunity to review and

rebut the report of the board of inquiry prior to commencement of

leave. The recommended provision also requires payment of accrued pay and allowances, reduced by other income received, if the

board’s recommendation is not approved by the secretary concerned.

320

Stipend for participation in funeral honors details (sec. 553)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

service secretaries to provide transportation or a daily stipend to

military retirees and members of veterans organizations or other

approved organizations for service on funeral honors details.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Career progression of military astronauts

Military officers who have been selected for astronaut duty with

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have, throughout the history of the space program, performed with distinction

and made significant contributions to the national defense. Selection for both the Pilot Astronaut Program and Mission Specialist

Program is extremely competitive, and only military officers with

extraordinary personal qualifications and professional skills participate in these programs. The committee is concerned about career

progression opportunities for officers who participate in the astronaut program and the obstacles they may encounter in advancing

to higher rank due to the unique nature of the duty to which they

are assigned.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation

with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than

March 1, 2003, providing views on whether military astronauts

should be awarded joint duty credit for astronaut duty or excepted

from the requirement for joint duty assignment before consideration for promotion to general or flag officer and the rationale for

these views. The report should also describe typical career patterns

of officers selected for astronaut duties, including data about the

promotion history of military astronauts from each of the Services,

and provide recommendations regarding the management of this

unique community of officers.

Human resources strategy and community support planning

The committee is pleased at the Department’s progress in developing a human resources strategy and the concerted efforts it has

made to plan for success in military and civilian personnel recruiting, retention, and career development. The human capital challenges confronting the Department demand a comprehensive plan

aimed at ensuring that the personnel requirements of the armed

services and the civilian employee workforce are met.

The committee supports the Department’s commitment to a social compact aimed at strengthening the military community and,

through this means, further improving the well being of military

members and their families. In this regard, the committee urges

the Department to continue to identify additional ways in which

military personnel can nurture their strong familial relationships

and better fulfill their irreplaceable roles as parents.

Integrated personnel readiness system

The committee is aware of initiatives in the Army to field an effective and efficient system for managing the readiness and deployVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.107 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
321

ment of individual soldiers and units. Some of these initiatives

have already been developed and individually deployed at the operational level and have enhanced the readiness processing of personnel. The committee believes these initiatives could be brought

together and managed as an integrated personnel readiness system.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to explore implementation of an integrated, secure, web-based system for mobilizing reserves and for deploying personnel. The following capabilities should be considered: (1) a computerized mobilization system

for alerting and activating reservists and deploying personnel; (2)

a readiness system to automate the process for determining the individual readiness of a soldier for deployment; (3) an in-transit visibility system to automate the tracking of personnel away from

their home station, including a time audit of duty served; and (4)

a personnel logistics system that facilitates common knowledge of

mobilization actions and logistics support.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report on the potential implementation of such a system to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by June 30, 2003.

(323)

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL

BENEFITS

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2003 (sec. 601)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an

across the board military pay raise of 4.1 percent and an additional

targeted pay raise for certain experienced mid-career personnel.

The targeted raise would increase the pay for members in pay

grades: (1) E–5 to E–8, 5.5 to 6.5 percent; (2) E–9, 6 to 6.5 percent;

(3) W–1 to W–3, 5.5 to 6 percent; (4) O–3, 5 percent; and O–4, 5.5

percent.

Rate of basic allowance for subsistence for enlisted personnel occupying single Government quarters without

adequate availability of meals (sec. 602)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

payment of an increased amount of basic allowance for subsistence

to enlisted members who are assigned to single Government quarters without adequate availability of meals from a Government

messing facility.

Basic allowance for housing in cases of low-cost or no-cost

moves (sec. 603)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend to locations outside the United States the authority to pay the basic allowance for housing based on the member’s former duty assignment when the member’s reassignment is a low-cost or no-cost permanent change of station or permanent change of assignment. This

authority currently applies only to assignments within the United

States.

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE

PAYS

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until

December 31, 2003, the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve enlistment bonus, the special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high priority

units in the Selected Reserve, the Selected Reserve affiliation

bonus, the Ready Reserve enlistment and re-enlistment bonus, and

the prior service enlistment bonus.

324

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for certain health care professionals (sec. 612)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until

December 31, 2003, the authority for repayment of education loans

for health profession officers with wartime-critical medical skills

serving in the Selected Reserve. The provision would also extend,

until this same date, payment of the accession bonus to nurse officer candidates, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay for Selected Reserve

health professionals in critically short wartime specialties, and the

accession bonus for dental officers.

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for

nuclear officers (sec. 613)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until

December 31, 2003, the authority for: special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending their period of active service, the nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive

bonus.

One-year extension of other bonus and special pay authorities (sec. 614)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until

December 31, 2003, the authority to pay 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.

Increased maximum amount payable as multiyear retention

bonus for medical officers of the Armed Forces (sec. 615)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase to $25,000 the maximum amount of the multiyear retention bonus for

certain medical officers.

Increased maximum amount payable as incentive special

pay for medical officers of the Armed Forces (sec. 616)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase to $50,000 the maximum amount payable as special incentive pay for

certain medical officers of the Armed Forces for service during any

12–month period beginning after fiscal year 2002.

Assignment incentive pay (sec. 617)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to pay a monthly incentive pay of up to $1,500 to members

serving in designated assignments. The recommended provision requires an annual report on the administration of this authority, including an assessment of its utility. Unless extended, this authority

would terminate three years after enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to implement assignment incentive pay so that it is equitable across the services

and in such a manner that members receiving this pay who are not

325

exposed to hostile fire and imminent danger do not receive better

compensation than members engaged in combat operations, taking

into account all pays, allowances, and tax advantages.

Challenging living and working conditions and personal sacrifice

are hallmarks of military service. This type of pay has significant

potential to provide an incentive to members to volunteer for the

most challenging duty stations and enhance the ability of the services to fill key billets with the best qualified personnel.

The committee urges the Department to consider the use of assignment incentive pay for military personnel assigned to duty in

Korea. The committee has received testimony on the need for improved living conditions and additional incentives for members ordered to duty in Korea. The committee believes this new discretionary pay authority would provide such an incentive.

Increased maximum amounts for prior service enlistment

bonus (sec. 618)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the

maximum amount of the prior service enlistment bonus for certain

former enlisted members who enlist in the Selected Reserve to

$8,000 for persons who enlist for six years; $4,000 for persons who

enlist for three years; and $3,500 for persons who have already received a prior service enlistment bonus for a previous three-year

enlistment period, but who reenlist or extend the enlistment for an

additional three years.

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION

ALLOWANCES

Deferral of travel in connection with leave between consecutive overseas tours (sec. 631)

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the

one-year limitation on use of travel and transportation allowances

provided in connection with leave between consecutive overseas

tours.

Transportation of motor vehicles for members reported

missing (sec. 632)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

shipment of two privately owned motor vehicles when transportation of household and personal effects is authorized at government expense because the member is in a missing status.

Destinations authorized for Government-paid transportation of enlisted personnel for rest and recuperation

upon extending duty at designated overseas locations

(sec. 633)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize enlisted personnel who agree to extend an overseas tour for a period

of not less than one year the options of round-trip transportation

to: (1) the nearest port in the 48 contiguous states, or (2) an alternative destination at the same or lesser cost.

326

Vehicle storage in lieu of transportation to United States

territory outside Continental United States (sec. 634)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a

member to elect to store a motor vehicle at government expense in

lieu of transportation of the motor vehicle when laws, regulations,

or other restrictions preclude transportation of the motor vehicle to

the member’s new duty station in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the

Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, or any territory or possession of

the United States.

SUBTITLE D—RETIREMENT AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS

MATTERS

Phased-in authority for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation for certain service-connected disabled veterans (sec. 641)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans’ disability

compensation by certain military retirees. To qualify, members

must be eligible for non-disability retirement and for veterans’ disability compensation for a service-connected disability rated at 60

percent or higher. The amount of retired pay would be phased in

over a five-year period, beginning with 30 percent of the otherwise

authorized retired pay in 2003 and increasing to 45 percent in

2004, 60 percent in 2005, 80 percent in 2006, and 100 percent in

2007.

The committee is pleased that the Budget Resolution reported by

the Senate Budget Committee would provide the mandatory funding allocation to address the needs of military retirees with serviceconnected disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher. The recommended provision would allow these veterans to receive the full

retired pay they earned in a career of service to the Nation.

Increased retired pay for enlisted reserves credited with extraordinary heroism (sec. 642)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a

10 percent increase in the retired pay of an enlisted member of a

Reserve component when the member has been credited with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty. The amount of retired pay,

including the 10 percent increase, shall not exceed 75 percent of

the member’s retired pay base. This is similar to the authority to

increase the retired pay of enlisted members retired with a regular

retirement.

Expanded scope of authority to waive time limitations on

claims for military personnel benefits (sec. 643)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to waive the statute of limitations for claims

involving uniformed service members’ pay, allowances, travel,

transportation, payments for accrued leave, retired pay, and survivor benefits.

327

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Additional authority to provide assistance for families of

members of the Armed Forces (sec. 651)

The committee recommends a provision that would make permanent the temporary authority to provide assistance to families of

members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty to ensure that

the children of such families obtain needed child care, education,

and other youth services. The assistance would be directed primarily toward providing family support for children of service

members who are deployed, assigned to duty, or ordered to active

duty in connection with contingency operations.

Time limitation for use of Montgomery GI Bill entitlement

by members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 652)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend from

10 to 14 years the maximum period that a member of the Selected

Reserve can use educational benefits provided under the Montgomery GI Bill for the Selected Reserve.

Status of obligation to refund educational assistance upon

failure to participate satisfactorily in Selected Reserve

(sec. 653)

The committee recommends a provision that would treat an obligation to pay a refund to the United States for certain educational

assistance as a debt to the United States when the obligation to

pay the refund was incurred because the member failed to participate satisfactorily in the Selected Reserve.

Prohibition on acceptance of honoraria by personnel at certain Department of Defense schools (sec. 654)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal a limited exemption from the ban on receipt of honoraria by military

and civilian faculty members and students at the three military

academies and certain Department of Defense professional schools.

The exemption limits acceptance of honoraria to $2,000. The Supreme Court has determined that the ban on receipt of honoraria

violates the First Amendment rights of executive branch employees. Because the ban itself is no longer effective, the exemption

places a limitation on military school faculty members and students that does not apply to other Department of Defense employees.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Reserve personnel compensation program review

The committee recognizes that the contributions of the reserve

components have greatly increased in the past decade. In particular, there are certain mission-critical skills and units among reserve forces that have been recalled for contingency operations,

placing stress upon the members and their families. The role of reserves is so integral in the total force that military operations involving major, extended missions are required to include reserve

participation.

328

The committee is concerned that the pay and benefits of reserve

personnel must appropriately compensate them for their service.

Today’s total force concept, which relies heavily on National Guard

and Reserve forces for both day-to-day and contingency operations,

differs from that envisioned by the designers of the reserve compensation and retirement system more than a half-century ago. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a reserve personnel compensation review aimed at determining the extent to which personnel and compensation policies

and statutes, including the retirement system that defers eligibility

for retired pay to age 60, appropriately address the demands placed

on guard and reserve personnel. Other topics that should be reviewed include the number of years of reserve service needed to

qualify for retirement and the comparability and sufficiency of the

Reserve Montgomery GI Bill and Reserve Survivor Benefit Plan

programs. The Secretary should report the results of this review to

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of

Representatives no later than August 1, 2003.

(329)

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE

Eligibility of surviving dependents for TRICARE dental program benefits after discontinuance of former enrollment

(sec. 701)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize certain surviving dependents to enroll in the TRICARE dental plan.

Eligible dependents include dependents who were either enrolled in

the dental plan on the date of the death of the military member

or who had previously discontinued enrollment because the member had been transferred to a duty station where dental care was

provided.

Advance authorization for inpatient mental health services

(sec. 702)

The committee recommends a provision that would remove the

requirement for pre-admission authorization for inpatient mental

health services when such services are payable under Medicare.

The recommended provision would require the Secretary of Defense

to authorize, in advance, continued inpatient mental health services when the services are no longer payable under Medicare.

Continued TRICARE eligibility of dependents residing at remote locations after departure of sponsors for unaccompanied assignments (sec. 703)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

continued eligibility of family members for TRICARE Prime Remote when the sponsoring service member is transferred from a

duty that qualified the family members for TRICARE Prime Remote, and the family members remain at the current duty location

because they are not authorized to accompany the member to the

new duty assignment.

Approval of Medicare providers as TRICARE providers (sec.

704)

The committee recommends a provision that would require that

Medicare-approved health care providers also be considered as approved TRICARE providers.

Claims information (sec. 705)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense, in new managed care support contracts entered into under the TRICARE program on or after October 1,

2002, to adopt new claims requirements that are substantially the

same as Medicare claims requirements.

330

Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health

Care Fund (sec. 706)

The committee recommends a provision that would require that

contributions to the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (the Fund) be paid from military personnel

funds. The recommended provision would also require the participation of all the uniformed services in the Fund.

Technical corrections relating to transitional health care

for members separated from active duty (sec. 707)

The committee recommends a provision that would correct section 736 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2002 to provide transitional health care to the dependents of members separated from active duty who are eligible for transitional

health care.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Research on war-related illnesses

In nearly every U.S. conflict since the Civil War, significant numbers of military personnel have emerged with similar, poorly understood illnesses that have lacked a specific medical diagnosis.

The most recent manifestation of this is the ‘‘Gulf War Illness’’

exhibited by veterans of the Persian Gulf War. Thousands of military personnel returned from serving their country in the Gulf and

reported a variety of symptoms for which no cause has been determined. These symptoms are similar to those of patients in the general population suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome,

fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivity. Although environmental exposure in the Gulf War cannot be ruled out as a cause,

many believe that deployment stress is a likely factor in causing

or intensifying at least some Gulf War illnesses.

The committee believes that it is important for the Department

of Defense to continue extensive research into the phenomenon of

undiagnosed illness, especially how physical and psychological

stress can trigger negative health impacts in the body. This research takes on additional importance in light of the current high

rate of deployment of military personnel in support of several ongoing contingency operations.

Reserve health care

The committee is concerned about the dissemination of information about TRICARE to reserve force service members and their

families. Guard and reserve members who are called to active duty,

and their families, face many challenges in accessing both information about the military health care benefit and health care itself.

Families are geographically dispersed, often not within driving distance of a military treatment facility or TRICARE Service Center.

Some families live in different states and/or TRICARE regions from

where the member’s unit is based or from where the member is

mobilized. In locations away from concentrated military populations, many health care providers are not familiar with

TRICARE.

331

The multitude of types and lengths of call-ups creates confusion

about family member eligibility for each of the TRICARE options

and the reserve family health care demonstration. Therefore, conveying accurate information about benefits and options is critical.

The committee is aware that some reservists have not received sufficient, accurate information on TRICARE program options, transitional health care benefits, and associated program and cost information necessary to make informed health care decisions.

The committee urges the Department, especially Lead Agents of

the TRICARE regions, to make a renewed effort to ensure that reserve force members and their families receive timely and appropriate information about their health care options.

(333)

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

SUBTITLE A—MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION

PROGRAMS

Buy-to-budget acquisition of end items (sec. 801)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Department of Defense to make the best use of limited resources

by conducting ‘‘buy-to-budget’’ acquisition. Under buy-to-budget acquisition, the Department would be permitted to acquire a higher

quantity of an end item than the number specified in an authorization or appropriations law. The Department would be required to

notify Congress of a decision to exercise this authority within 30

days of its exercise but would not be required to seek reprogramming authority. The purpose of the increased flexibility provided by

this section is to enable the Department to take advantage of production efficiencies and other cost reductions.

Report to Congress on incremental acquisition of major systems (sec. 802)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on how the Department of Defense plans to comply

with applicable requirements of title 10, United States Code and

Department of Defense regulations when it conducts programs for

the incremental acquisition of major systems.

In testimony before the Readiness Subcommittee, Department of

Defense witnesses stated that the Department is seeking to reduce

weapons systems acquisition cycle time by using incremental acquisition and spiral development strategies.

The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) testified

that:

All too often, our long cycle times and our program

breakages have their roots in the way we conceive, plan

and start our acquisitions. Our processes are too serial and

allow each community involved to work too much in isolation. Too often, the warfighter decides a capability is needed and works for months or years to develop a 100 percent

solution that is given to the acquisition community as a requirement. The acquirers then struggle to come up with an

acquisition strategy that will meet the requirement within

a limited budget. Because we are looking for a ‘‘big bang,’’

all-at-once delivery of capability, the development time

line—which drives both schedule and cost—is long and

fraught with possibilities for things to go wrong * * *.

334

There is a better way * * *. By delivering capability in

increments, with a period for the warfighter to ‘‘use and

learn’’ at each increment, we can incorporate what is

learned in each new spiral. Because the spiral will be

short, schedules and cost estimates will be more reliable

and programs will be less subject to funding fluctuations.

There will be many opportunities to rapidly inject new

technology as a system develops as well as to look at requirements and re-prioritize as world events and threats

change.

The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics testified that:

‘‘Spiral development allows us to get capability to our

warfighters [faster] and at less cost * * * by producing

and deploying systems based on mature technologies.

When deployed, the first increment of capability (or block)

will meet many, but not all, of the systems’ desired operational requirements. Subsequent blocks will incorporate

new technologies that have matured as each block of capability is fielded. The series of blocks represent the ‘‘spirals’’

of increasing capability to the warfighter.

The committee supports the Department’s effort to build more

flexibility into the acquisition process and develop weapons systems

in more manageable steps. At the same time, the committee believes that the Department must take a more disciplined approach

to incremental acquisition and spiral development to avoid losing

control over the acquisition process.

In the committee’s view, the terms ‘‘incremental acquisition’’ and

‘‘spiral development’’ are not interchangeable. Incremental acquisition is an acquisition strategy of gradually improving a capability

through a planned series of block upgrades, each of which is to be

acquired and fielded. Spiral development is a strategy for achieving

a new capability through the phased development of fieldable prototypes. The committee understands that it may take several development ‘‘spirals’’ before a system is ready for production and acquisition.

Section 802 would address incremental acquisition programs.

The committee expects the Department to develop a disciplined approach to ensure that both the specific requirements and the key

objectives of applicable laws and regulations will be met by all incremental acquisition programs. A separate section (sec. 803) would

address spiral development programs.

Pilot program for spiral development of major systems (sec.

803)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program for the spiral development of major systems. In testimony before the Readiness

Subcommittee, witnesses for each of the three military services indicated that they were planning to adopt spiral development approaches in which new capabilities are achieved through the

phased development of fieldable prototypes. The committee underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.113 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
335

stands that the Air Force alone is considering spiral development

for thirteen different systems.

The committee believes that properly structured spiral development programs can play an important role in enabling the Department of Defense (DOD) to rapidly field new technologies. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has undertaken an extensive review

of weapons systems acquisition issues at the request of the committee and has concluded that a ‘‘an evolutionary, or phased, approach to developing’’ weapons systems could lead to significantly

improved outcomes.

At the same time, GAO has testified that, ‘‘Measures for success

need to be defined for each stage of the development process so

that decision-makers can be assured that sufficient knowledge exists about critical facets of the product before investment [of] more

time and money.’’ The committee believes that DOD must take a

disciplined approach to spiral development to ensure that both

Congress and the Department have the information they need to

make acquisition and budget decisions.

To ensure that the Department develops a disciplined approach

to spiral development, the provision recommended by the committee would authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct spiral

development programs on a pilot basis. Under this pilot approach,

the Secretary would be required to issue guidance on how spiral

development programs will be designed to meet key acquisition system objectives and to approve spiral development plans laying out

the program strategy and the cost, schedule and performance goals

for each spiral development program.

The committee expects that all spiral development programs for

major systems will be conducted in accordance with the guidance

issued by the Secretary pursuant to this section. The term ‘‘major

system’’, as defined in section 2302(5) of title 10, includes any research and development program on which the total expenditures

for research, development, test, and evaluation will exceed $115.0

million or on which the eventual total expenditure for procurement

of the system will exceed $540.0 million (based on fiscal year 1990

constant dollars).

Improvement of software acquisition processes (sec. 804)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

secretary of each military department and the head of each defense

agency that manages a major defense acquisition program with a

substantial software component to establish a program to improve

its software acquisition processes.

Many major defense acquisition programs are heavily reliant on

the development of complex computer software. In a number of

cases, mishandling of software acquisition has jeopardized an entire program. For example, the Navy Area missile defense program

experienced such severe problems with software integration that

the program was cancelled after years of development effort. Similarly, the V–22 and the Army’s Maneuver Control system have experienced serious problems stemming from software development.

In a March 2001 report prepared for the committee, the General

Accounting Office recommended that the Department of Defense

address these problems by requiring components that are responVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00353 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.114 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
336

sible for systems/software development, acquisition, and engineering to implement software acquisition process improvement programs. The provision recommended by the committee would implement this recommendation.

Independent technology readiness assessments (sec. 805)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Department of Defense (DOD) to justify any decision not to conduct

an independent technology readiness assessment for a critical technology on a major defense acquisition program.

Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 (FY 2002 NDAA) required the Secretary of Defense to

submit an annual report on the Department’s compliance with the

technology maturity requirements incorporated in DOD Instruction

5000.2. The committee report explained the need for this provision

as follows:

The DOD * * * frequently tries to move technologies to

product development programs before they are mature. According to the [General Accounting Office (GAO)], the effort to field immature technologies almost always leads to

schedule delays and cost increases:

[Technology development problems need to be addressed]

at a time when the product should be undergoing design

and manufacturing development. As a result, the pace of

technology advances outruns the time to develop a weapon

system and some of the more mature components designed

into a weapon system become obsolete before the weapon

is manufactured. For example, the F–22 will have almost

600 obsolete components by fiscal year 2000 while the aircraft is still in development.

Paragraph 4.7.3.2.2.2 of DOD Instruction 5000.2 currently requires that the DOD science and technology components determine

the technological maturity of each critical technology to be incorporated into a major defense acquisition program. If the Deputy

Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology does not

concur with the determination, an independent technology readiness assessment is required. These requirements are also stated in

section C7.5 of DOD Regulation 5000.2–R.

Less than four months after the enactment of section 804, the

Department’s Business Initiative Council proposed to ‘‘streamline’’

these provisions to require such independent technology assessments only when ‘‘appropriate’’.

The committee believes that technological maturity requirements

are the cornerstone of a sound acquisition process. For this reason,

the committee recommends amending section 804 of the FY 2002

NDAA to require that the Department explain any decision not to

conduct an independent technology readiness assessment for a critical technology on a major defense acquisition program.

337

Timing of certification in connection with waiver of survivability and lethality testing requirements (sec. 806)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the

authority of the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement for

survivability and lethality tests for major weapon programs.

Current law gives the Secretary the authority to waive such testing prior to the entry of a program into systems development and

demonstration (known as Milestone B). However, under the Department’s revised acquisition regulations, a program may now be

initiated at Milestone B or even Milestone C (production and deployment), depending on the maturity of the program’s technology.

Under these circumstances, it may not be practical to make a waiver decision before the beginning of Milestone B.

In these special circumstances, the provision would give the Department the authority to make a waiver determination at the earliest possible point after the beginning of the first phase of the program (Milestone B or Milestone C). The amendment would not,

however, change the basis for a waiver determination.

SUBTITLE B—PROCUREMENT POLICY IMPROVEMENTS

Performance goals for contracting for services (sec. 811)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish annual goals for the Department of Defense to increase the percentage of services contracts that are: (1) entered on the basis of competition; and (2) performance-based.

Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 established annual goals for Department of Defense savings to be achieved through improved management of the Department’s $50.0 billion of services contracts. The statutory provisions

establishing the management tools needed to achieve these savings

were provided in Sections 801 and 803 of that Act and included the

increased use of performance-based services contracting and increased competition for task orders under contracts for services.

The committee is concerned that some elements of the Department may have cut programs rather than utilizing contract management tools to achieve savings goals. Therefore, the provision

recommended by the committee would establish specific targets for

the use of these contract management tools, with the overall goal

of ensuring that 80 percent of the Department’s services contracts

are both competitive and performance-based by 2011. This goal is

comparable to what the Department achieved in implementing the

Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (enacted as Title VII of Division B of Public Law 98–369) in the 1980’s and in adopting performance specifications for purchases of products in the 1990’s.

Grants of exceptions to cost or pricing data certification requirements and waivers of cost accounting standards

(sec. 812)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Department of Defense (DOD) to issue guidance on grants of exceptions to cost or pricing data certification requirements and waivers

of cost accounting standards. The provision would also require the

Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense commitVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.115 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
338

tees on certain exceptions to the Truth in Negotiations Act and

waivers of the cost accounting standards.

Over the last ten years, the Truth in Negotiations Act and the

Cost Accounting Standards have been substantially modified to

provide DOD and other federal agencies additional flexibility to

purchase commercial items without imposing burdensome requirements on contractors. The committee continues to believe that this

flexibility plays an important role in ensuring that the Department

has rapid access to high-technology products developed in the private sector.

At the same time, however, the committee is concerned that the

Department has not always exercised this new flexibility in a responsible manner. Last year, the DOD Inspector General reviewed

sample sole-source contracts valued at $652.0 million for which the

Department did not obtain certified cost or pricing data. The Inspector General determined that contracting officials lacked valid

exceptions from obtaining certified cost or pricing data in 32 percent of the contracting actions reviewed and failed to conduct adequate price analysis to support price reasonableness in 86 percent

of the contracting actions reviewed.

Earlier this year, at the request of the committee, the General

Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed waivers of certified cost or pricing data requirements for 20 contracts valued at $4.4 billion. The

GAO determined that: (1) most of the waivers were based solely on

a determination that sufficient information was available to determine the price to be fair and reasonable without the submission of

cost or pricing data; and (2) in many of these cases, the Department was not obtaining sufficient data or conducting adequate

price analysis to ensure price reasonableness. The GAO recommended that the Department develop guidance to better define

when waivers should be used and how prices should be assessed in

the event that they are used.

The committee has consistently taken the position that a determination that sufficient information is available to determine a

price to be fair and reasonable without the submission of cost or

pricing data is not alone sufficient to justify an ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ waiver. The committee’s view, as stated on page 775

of the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2000 and page 690 of the conference report on the

Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1999, is that such a waiver should be granted ‘‘only when a

waiver is necessary to meet the needs of an agency, i.e. when the

agency determines that it would not be able to obtain needed products or services from the vendor in the absence of a waiver.’’

The DOD Inspector General Report and the GAO report demonstrate that the Department’s approach to ‘‘exceptional circumstance’’ waivers has led to higher prices and increased risks on

DOD contracts. Accordingly, the provision recommended by the

committee would require the Department to take additional steps

to ensure that waivers to cost or pricing data requirements are

granted only when properly justified and that DOD officials take

appropriate steps to ensure price reasonableness when these requirements are waived.

339

Extension of requirement for annual report on defense commercial pricing management improvement (sec. 813)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for

three years the requirement in section 803(c)(4) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 that

the Secretary of Defense submit to the congressional defense committees an annual report on price trend analyses for commercial

items purchased by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the

military departments.

This provision was enacted in response to testimony from the Department of Defense Inspector General indicating that DLA had

paid undiscounted or marginally discounted catalog prices for commercial items, resulting in price increases of as much as 1,430 to

13,163 percent.

The Inspector General reported last year that DLA has implemented a successful price analysis program that the Defense Supply Center, Richmond has used to address unreasonable prices.

Earlier this year, the Inspector General reported that DLA had

successfully built a strategic supplier alliance with one of its key

suppliers that will result in price reductions of $59.0 million, demonstrating the beneficial effects of aggressive price management.

Unfortunately, the Inspector General report indicated that the

Army, Navy, and Air Force programs have lacked the quantitative

depth and analysis of the DLA effort.

The committee continues to believe that an aggressive price

trend analysis program can play an important role in ensuring that

prices paid on Department of Defense contracts are fair and reasonable.

Internal controls on the use of purchase cards (sec. 814)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to establish enhanced internal controls for the

use of purchase cards by Department of Defense (DOD) employees.

In response to a report of the General Accounting Office (GAO)

last year, the committee directed the Department to ensure that

appropriate internal controls were in place for purchase card purchases. This was the third consecutive year in which the committee

report raised concerns about the potential misuse of purchase cards

by DOD employees.

Earlier this year, the GAO issued another report, in which it concluded that ‘‘serious weaknesses’’ remain in the Department’s internal controls for purchase card purchases. According to the GAO,

these continued weaknesses ‘‘contributed to additional purchases

during fiscal year 2001 that we believe are fraudulent, improper,

abusive or otherwise questionable.’’ Among the questionable purchases were purchases of designer briefcases, Lego robot kits, and

high-cost computer bags that were given away by DOD employees.

On April 18, 2002, the Director of the Office of Management and

Budget responded to the GAO’s findings by directing the heads of

all federal departments and agencies to prepare remedial action

plans for their purchase card programs. These plans are to include

a reexamination of the number of purchase cards issued by the department or agency and detail the internal controls that the deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.116 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
340

partment or agency plans to use to manage risk. The Department

of Defense has established a task force to address the issue.

While the committee continues to support the use of credit cards,

the Department must take strong action to institute effective internal controls and address inappropriate credit card purchases. The

provision recommended by the committee would require the Department to implement controls including: requirements for independent, documented receipt and acceptance of goods and services

and independent, documented review and certification of monthly

purchase card statements; specific policies limiting the number of

purchase cards to be issued and establishing credit limits for cardholders; specific criteria for ensuring the integrity of cardholders;

accounting system changes to ensure that purchase card transactions are properly recorded in Department of Defense accounting

records; and regular internal review of purchase card statements.

Assessment regarding fees paid for acquisitions under other

agencies’ contracts (sec. 815)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to carry out an assessment to determine the

amount paid by the Department of Defense (DOD) as fees for the

acquisition of property and services under contracts entered by

other federal departments and agencies and whether these

amounts could be put to better use.

The committee is concerned that the Department continues to

order excessive quantities of products and services under contracts

entered by other federal departments and agencies. In many cases,

the personnel of other departments and agencies have considerably

less expertise in procurement in general, and in the specific products and services to be acquired, than DOD personnel. The committee believes that the assessment required by this provision is a

necessary step to ensure that the Department has appropriate

management control over purchases conducted through other federal departments and agencies.

Pilot program for transition to follow-on contracts for certain prototype projects (sec. 816)

The committee recommends a provision that would enable the

Department of Defense to capitalize on successful prototype

projects by bringing the prototypes into production under standard

procurement contracts. The provision would establish a three-year

pilot program to ease the transition of nontraditional defense contractors from prototype transactions to standard procurement contracts. Under the pilot program, the Department would be authorized to enter contracts of $20.0 million or less that would treat

items or processes developed by nontraditional defense contractors

under prototype transactions: (1) as commercial items subject to

the streamlined contracting procedures established in Part 12 of

the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and (2) as items or processes

that are developed with mixed funds for the purpose of negotiating

rights in technical data under section 2320 of title 10, United

States Code.

341

Waiver authority for domestic source or content requirements (sec. 817)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the

Secretary of Defense the authority to waive the application of statutory domestic source requirements and domestic content requirements, provided that: (1) application of the requirements would impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items under a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and another

country; and (2) the other country does not discriminate against

items produced in the United States to a greater degree than the

United States discriminates against items produced in that country. This proposed standard is consistent with the standard previously adopted by the committee for products covered by the domestic content restrictions in section 2534 of title 10, United States

Code.

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Extension of the applicability of certain personnel demonstration project exceptions to an acquisition workforce demonstration project (sec. 821)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend certain authorities associated with the acquisition workforce pilot program established in section 4308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. In particular, the provision recommended by the committee would extend until 2007 the exception

authorized in section 4308 to otherwise applicable limitations on

the size and duration of the pilot program.

Moratorium on reduction of the defense acquisition and

support workforce (sec. 822)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a

moratorium on further cuts in the acquisition workforce for three

years. The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to waive this

prohibition upon certification to Congress that any reductions to

the workforce would not negatively impact the ability of the workforce to efficiently and effectively carry out its legally required

functions.

Twelve consecutive years of downsizing have left the Department

of Defense (DOD) with a workforce that is smaller (by 51 percent),

older (with an average age of 46.7 years), more senior (with an average of 20.2 years of service), higher grade, and rapidly approaching retirement. In August 2000, the then-Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics wrote a memorandum in which he stated:

I recommend that DOD not have any further mandated

acquisition workforce reductions as a goal after FY 2001.

By any terms, the DOD acquisition workforce has been

drastically reduced while, at the same time the number of

DOD procurement and contracting actions has increased

* * *. We have gone as far as we can in mandating acquisition workforce reductions without causing significant adverse impacts on the DOD acquisition system.

342

The committee believes that no further cuts should be made until

the Department is prepared to address shortcomings in the acquisition workforce on a comprehensive basis.

Extension of contract goal for small disadvantaged businesses and certain institutions of higher education (sec.

823)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend section 2323 of title 10, United States Code, for three years. Section

2323 establishes a five percent goal for Department of Defense contracting with small disadvantaged businesses and certain institutions of higher education.

Mentor-protege program eligibility for HUBZone small business concerns and small business concerns owned and

controlled by service-disabled veterans (sec. 824)

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the

list of entities eligible to participate as proteges in the Department

of Defense mentor-protege program to include small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans and qualified HUBZone small business concerns.

Repeal of requirements for certain reviews by the Comptroller General (sec. 825)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal statutory requirements for certain reviews by the General Accounting

Office (GAO) that are no longer needed.

The committee notes that the authority provided by sections 912,

5312, and 5401 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 has never been utilized. For this reason, the required

reports on the manner in which this authority has been used are

unnecessary.

The committee directs the Department of Defense to make a recommendation to the congressional defense committees as to whether the authority to conduct programs pursuant to these sections is

likely to be needed in the future or should be repealed.

Multiyear procurement authority for purchase of dinitrogen

tetroxide, hydrazine, and hydrazine-related products

(sec. 826)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to enter contracts for periods of up to 10 years

for dinitrogen tetroxide, hydrazine, and hydrazine-related products

if the contracts are in support of either United States national security programs or the United States space program. The Department of Defense has informed the committee that this authority is

needed to ensure a reliable domestic industrial base for fuels that

are a prerequisite of assured access to space.

Multiyear procurement authority for environmental services for military installations (sec. 827)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2306c of title 10, United States Code, to cover environmental

remediation services for an active military installation, an installaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.118 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
343

tion being closed or realigned under base realignment and closure

procedures, or a formerly used defense site.

The Department of Defense proposed a legislative provision that

would authorize a demonstration project using multiyear contracts

for environmental remediation. The new authority would have been

used to test the feasibility of using fixed-price multiyear contracts

with incremental funding to obtain environmental remediation

services.

Section 802 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 contained a new section 2306c of title

10, which creates permanent authority for multiyear contracts for

the acquisition of services. Because permanent authority for

multiyear service contracts is already available under section

2306c, the committee does not believe that a demonstration program is necessary.

The provision recommended by the committee would clarify that

the authority provided in section 2306c extends to contracts for environmental remediation services. The committee encourages the

Department to use this authority to issue competitive, performance-based task orders containing firm, fixed prices for specific

tasks to be performed in accordance with the policy set forth in section 821 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2001.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Consolidation of Contract Requirements

Sections 411 through 413 of the Small Business Reauthorization

Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–135) require federal agencies to conduct market research to assess the potential impact of ‘‘bundled

contracts’’ and to proceed with such contracts only if the benefits

of bundling substantially exceed the benefits of proceeding with

separate contracts.

Unfortunately, it appears that these statutory provisions have

not always had the intended effect of requiring the Department of

Defense and other agencies to carefully weigh the impact of bundled contracts. For example, the Small Business Reauthorization

Act defined bundling to include only those consolidated contracts

that are ‘‘likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern.’’ The General Accounting Office recently concluded that a contract cannot be considered unsuitable for award to a small business

concern if a team of contractors, including small business concerns,

could bid on the contract. Since a team of contractors could bid on

virtually any requirement, this interpretation would appear to exclude virtually all contracts from the application of the bundling

provisions.

The committee believes that there are circumstances in which

the consolidation of contracts can enable the Department to leverage its market power or otherwise obtain better products or services at better prices. At the same time, however, individual small

businesses that previously performed work for the Department may

be adversely affected even in cases where a team of other small

businesses is able to bid on the consolidated requirement. The Department should consolidate contracts only when the benefits of

344

consolidation significantly outweigh the benefits of proceeding with

separate contracts.

For this reason, the committee directs the Department to conduct

market research into a variety of alternative approaches and assess

the costs and benefits of any consolidation of contract requirements

in excess of $5.0 million, regardless of whether the consolidation

constitutes ‘‘bundling’’ under the definitions provided in the Small

Business Reauthorization Act. The Department should make appropriate changes to applicable regulations and guidance to ensure

that the required analysis is carried out.

By requiring the Department to analyze the impact of a wider

range of consolidated contracts, the committee does not intend to

alter statutory reporting and review provisions that are applicable

only to ‘‘bundled’’ contracts.

Management of electromagnetic spectrum in the acquisition

process

The committee is concerned with the manner in which the Department of Defense (DOD) currently addresses electromagnetic

radio frequency spectrum requirements during the development

and acquisition of new weapons systems. Nearly all new military

equipment requires access to the spectrum and operates in electromagnetic environments that may adversely affect its use. In addition, all electronic systems produce electromagnetic emanations

that can adversely affect other systems.

The statement of managers accompanying the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 expresses the concern that

DOD has pursued the development of weapons systems utilizing

portions of the radio frequency spectrum not designated for military use, which can lead to unintended interference between those

systems and commercial systems licensed to use the same spectrum. The conferees noted that the Department was developing

new procedures to address interference problems and directed the

General Accounting Office (GAO) to review those procedures and

their implementation. In May 2001, GAO reported that it was too

early to evaluate the effectiveness of the new procedures.

The committee continues to believe that spectrum issues will

play a key role in the development of new DOD weapons systems.

Accordingly, the committee directs the GAO to update its May 2001

report. The GAO review should also address the effectiveness of the

Department’s efforts to manage spectrum issues (including host nation supportability and the impact of electromagnetic environmental effects) in the acquisition process.

Polyacrylonitrile carbon fibers

Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fibers are used in a variety of defense and space applications such as aircraft, missiles, launch vehicles, and helicopters. The Department of Defense (DOD) currently

restricts the procurement of PAN carbon fiber to domestic sources.

Two years ago, DOD projected that the market for PAN carbon

fiber would grow in the future with increased demand for defense

and commercial applications. On this basis, the Department decided to phase out the domestic source restriction over a five-year

period ending May 31, 2005. The phase-out period was designed to

345

give domestic suppliers time to adjust to market conditions and to

give DOD the flexibility to adjust its policy if projected circumstances did not materialize.

Domestic suppliers of PAN carbon fibers believe that the market

projections on which the DOD decision was based are no longer

valid. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the

Department’s previous report on PAN carbon fibers and report to

the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2003 on: (1)

whether the findings of that report remain valid; and (2) whether

the PAN carbon fiber domestic source restriction should be maintained or discontinued.

(347)

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION

AND MANAGEMENT

Time for submittal of report on quadrennial defense review

(sec. 901)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 118 of title 10, United States Code, to change the submission

date of the report on each quadrennial defense review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Section 118 would no longer require submission of the

report on September 30 of the year in which the review is conducted; the report shall instead be submitted no later than the date

in the following year on which the President submits the budget for

the next fiscal year to Congress.

Increased number of deputy commandants authorized for

the Marine Corps (sec. 902)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an

increase in the number of deputy commandants for the Marine

Corps from five to six.

The committee supports this provision in order to establish the

position of Deputy Commandant (Marine Corps Combat Development Command) as an additional duty for the Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, to assist the

Commandant in executing his responsibilities for developing Marine Corps warfighting concepts and determining associated required capabilities. The position would remain at Marine Corps

Base Quantico, Virginia and will not require an increase in the

number of lieutenant generals authorized for the Marine Corps.

Base operating support for Fisher Houses (sec. 903)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

service secretaries to provide base operating support for Fisher

Houses associated with health care facilities. Currently, only the

Navy is required to provide such support. The recommended provision includes all of the military services.

Prevention and mitigation of corrosion (sec. 904)

As discussed in title III, the committee believes that efforts to

prevent and mitigate corrosion can be better coordinated within the

Department of Defense (DOD). The Senate report on the fiscal year

2002 National Defense Authorization Act (S. Rept. 107–62) directed

DOD to establish a single office to coordinate and direct anti-corrosion policies and standards; the House report (H. Rept. 107–194)

contained similar direction. The General Accounting Office reports

that no such office has been established.

Each of the military services makes ongoing efforts to reduce or

mitigate corrosion. However, these efforts tend to be small, narVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00365 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR151.120 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
348

rowly focused, and uncoordinated within and among the services.

Further, to the extent that anti-corrosion programs have been supported, they have focused on equipment when the problem also seriously impacts facilities.

The committee continues to see a need for a centralized direction

within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to coordinate the Department’s corrosion prevention and mitigation programs, policies,

and strategies. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision

directing the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official responsible for developing policies, reviewing the services’ budgets to

ensure proper resources are being devoted to corrosion prevention

efforts, and ensuring that anti-corrosion options are considered and

inserted at the appropriate points throughout the life cycle of facilities and equipment, from initial design to retirement.

The provision further requires DOD to develop a long-term strategy to include: expanding the emphasis on corrosion prevention, establishment of common criteria for the military services when testing and evaluating new technologies, data collection on the effects

and costs of corrosion on military assets, distribution of useful information about corrosion prevention, identification of specific corrosion-related programs worthy of pursuit in future budgets, and

establishment of a coordinated research and development program

to help transition new technologies into operational systems and

current facilities.

(349)

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Transfer authority (sec. 1001)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for

the transfer of funds authorized in Division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures.

Reallocation of authorizations of appropriations from ballistic missile defense to shipbuilding (sec. 1002)

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer $690.0 million from ballistic missile defense items to shipbuilding

programs. The committee believes that the proposed fiscal year

2003 budget does not provide adequate resources to maintain the

Navy’s surface fleet or attack submarine force levels. The committee has received ample testimony from Department of Defense

(DOD) witnesses and numerous DOD and Navy reports indicating

that the Navy should be building eight to 10 ships per year and

investing $10.0 to $12.0 billion per year in shipbuilding to recapitalize the current fleet. A number of Navy witnesses, including the

Chief of Naval Operations, have indicated that they believe the

Navy should be building to a fleet with as many as 375 ships in

order to meet the requirements the Navy faces today. The current

shipbuilding plan would buy five ships and invest $8.6 billion in

fiscal year 2003, including one ship and $0.4 billion from the National Defense Sealift Fund for a T–AKE dry cargo/ammunition

ship. Two years ago, the Navy’s shipbuilding plan called for 23

ships between 2003 and 2005; this year’s plan calls for only 17.

Recognizing these deficiencies in the current plan, the committee

believes that a much higher priority must be given to recapitalizing

the Navy fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends adding

$690.0 million to shipbuilding accounts as follows: (1) an increase of $415.0 million for advance procurement for

a Virginia-class attack submarine;

(2) an increase of $125.0 million for advance procurement for

a DDG–51 destroyer; and (3) an increase of $150.0 million for advance procurement for

an LPD–17 amphibious transport dock.

Although these funds would not buy an additional ship in fiscal

year 2003, they are logical steps that should be taken to support

the Navy’s acceleration of the procurement of ships that would otherwise be bought later in the Future Years Defense Program

(FYDP) or to increase the current rate at which we are buying

ships.

For example, the advance procurement for the Virginia-class attack submarine would buy an additional shipset of nuclear propulVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00367 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR151.121 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
350

sion equipment in fiscal year 2003. This shipset of equipment

would support procurement of an additional Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2005, increasing the rate in the FYDP from

the current level of one per year. The Navy will need to accelerate

the submarine construction rate to meet requirements identified in

the 1999 ‘‘Attack Submarine Study’’ conducted by the Joint Chiefs

of Staff. The study concluded that the Navy needs to have a minimum of 68 attack submarines in fiscal year 2015 to meet requirements defined by the regional commanders in chief and the national intelligence community. Increasing the current production

rate in the fiscal year 2005 time frame is the only way the Navy

will ever achieve that level.

The committee supports research and development of ballistic

missile defense, but it believes that the proposed fiscal year 2003

ballistic missile defense budget contains a substantial amount of

funding that is not required in fiscal year 2003 to further the development of effective missile defenses. Therefore, the committee

recommends a reduction of $690.0 million in ballistic missile defense funding lines as distributed below. These reductions are in

addition to the ballistic missile defense reductions recommended

elsewhere in this report. The budget request included $1.1 billion in the Ballistic Missile

Defense (BMD) System program element, PE 63880C, an increase

of $258.0 million over the current funding level. The major purpose

of this program element is to develop an integrated architecture of

BMD systems. While the committee believes this is an important

goal, the committee notes that most of the systems that will comprise the BMD architecture are years away from being deployed,

thus making development and definition of a detailed BMD architecture impossible at this point. After providing more than $800.0

million for this program element in fiscal year 2002, the Missile

Defense Agency has yet to provide to Congress an indication of

what the overall BMD architecture might be. A substantial increase was requested in Battle Management/Command and Control, BMD System Communications, Production Manufacturing and

Technology, BMD System Program Operations and BMD Systems

Engineering and Integration for this program element for fiscal

year 2003, yet no compelling justification for such an increase was

provided. Therefore, in addition to the $140.0 million reduction to

BMD Systems Engineering and Integration recommended elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a reduction of

$222.0 million in PE 63880C, to be taken from among the following

areas: Battle Management/Command and Control, BMD System

Communications, Production Manufacturing and Technology, BMD

System Program Operations, and BMD Systems Engineering and

Integration.

The budget request included $3.2 billion in the Midcourse Defense program element, PE 63882C. The committee recommends a

reduction of $166.0 million in this program element as follows:

(1) a reduction of $52.0 million to the budget request of

$147.9 million for Sea-based Midcourse concept development,

studies and risk reduction. More than $90.0 million would remain in this program element for such concept development

work, which is a substantial level of funding given that no deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00368 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.121 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
351

velopment plan or path forward has yet been established for

this system. Sea-based Midcourse test program funding would

remain at the budget request level to continue the current set

of Aegis Leap Intercept flight tests. (2) A reduction of $50.0 million for Midcourse Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) not associated with a specific

BMD system. This reduction is in addition to the reduction of

$45.0 million discussed elsewhere in this report. These reductions would leave more than $170.0 million of SE&I funding

elsewhere in this program element, which is a substantial

amount of funding, especially considering the basic architecture for midcourse defense has yet to be defined. (3) A reduction of $64.0 million for Midcourse Program Operations, which is the requested funding level. According to the

fiscal year 2003 budget justification documentation, this funding ‘‘provides management and support for overhead/indirect

fixed costs such as civilian payroll, travel, rents and utilities

and supplies.’’ More than $150.0 million of government program management and operations funding is requested in the

individual BMD systems’ budget lines in this program element,

which is where such funding is ordinarily accounted for. The

committee believes this is an adequate level of funding for such

activities.

The budget request included $796.9 million in the Boost Defense program element, PE 63883C, an increase of $197.0 million over

the current funding level. The committee recommends a reduction

of $135.0 million in this program element, as follows: (1) a reduction of $105.0 million for detailed design of the

second Airborne Laser (ABL) aircraft to the budget request of

$598.0 million for the ABL. Detailed design of a second ABL

is premature; the first aircraft is experiencing technical difficulties and schedule slips and is not scheduled to be tested

until 2005.

(2) A reduction of $10.0 million to the budget request of

$34.8 million for Space-based Laser (SBL). More than $24.0

million would remain in this program element for SBL program definition and risk reduction, which the committee believes is adequate in the absence of a plan on how to proceed

with this program.

(3) A reduction of $20.0 million for Boost Defense Program

Operations, which is the requested funding level. According to

the fiscal year 2003 budget justification documentation, this

funding ‘‘provides management and support for overhead/indirect fixed costs such as civilian payroll, travel, rents and utilities and supplies.’’ More than $60.0 million of government program management and operations funding is requested in the

individual BMD systems’ budget lines in this program element,

which is where such funding is ordinarily accounted for. The

committee believes this is an adequate level of funding for such

activities.

The budget request included $117.7 million in PE 63869A for the

Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a joint program

involving the United States, Germany and Italy. The budget request represents an increase of $48.0 million over the current fundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.122 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
352

ing level. Since there is currently no internationally agreed-upon

plan for MEADS, it would be premature to substantially increase

program funding. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $48.0 million in PE 63869A for MEADS, leaving $70.0 million in this program element to continue funding MEADS at the

current level.

The budget request included $170.0 million in the Terminal Defense program element, PE 63881C. The committee recommends a

reduction of $14.0 million for Terminal Program Operations, since

no funding for this overhead function was requested last year and

there was no justification provided for initiating such funding in

fiscal year 2003. The budget request included $934.7 million in the Theater High

Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) program element, PE 64861C, including $40.0 million for 10 extra THAAD missiles. These missiles

are not required for the THAAD test program, and if bought now

they would be untested and unproven since THAAD flight testing

is not scheduled to begin until fiscal year 2004. The committee believes it would be premature to fund extra THAAD missiles prior

to the completion of successful flight testing, and recommends a reduction of $40.0 million in PE 64861C for these missiles.

The budget request included $373.4 million in the Sensors pro- gram element, PE 63884C, an increase of $39.0 million over the

current funding level. The committee recommends a reduction of

$65.0 million in this program element, as follows: (1) A reduction of $55.0 million to the budget request of $294.0 million for Space-based Infrared System, Low component (SBIRS-Low). Subsequent to the budget submission,

SBIRS-Low was restructured to maintain only one contractor

instead of two in fiscal year 2003. The recommended reduction

reflects the savings obtained in 2003 by only funding a single

contractor.

(2) A reduction of $10.0 million for Sensors Program Operations, which is the requested funding level. According to the

fiscal year 2003 budget justification documentation, this funding ‘‘provides management and support for overhead/indirect

fixed costs such as civilian payroll, travel, rents and utilities

and supplies.’’ More than $20.0 million of government program

management and operations funding is requested in the individual BMD systems’ budget lines in this program element,

which is where such funding is ordinarily accounted for.

Authorization of appropriations for continued operations

for the war on terrorism (sec. 1003)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

appropriation of $10.0 billion for the conduct of operations in continuation of the war on terrorism in accordance with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (P.L. 107–40), subject to certain

conditions.

This money was expressly requested by the President to fund

continued operations for the war on terrorism. As the Secretary of

Defense explained in a March 14, 2002, letter to the committee:

Consistent with our assumptions, the $10.0 billion is targeted at increased operating and transportation costs, speVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00370 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.122 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
353

cial pays, reserve/guard call-up, enhanced intelligence efforts, and other costs related to the war on terrorism.

The committee believes that there is no more important purpose

to which this funding could be dedicated than the continuation of

the war on terrorism. However, the Department is not yet in a position to state how long the war on terrorism will continue, or in

what form, or to specify the specific programs for which the requested funds would be used.

For this reason, the provision recommended by the committee

would authorize for appropriation the $10.0 billion requested by

the President upon receipt of a budget request which: (1) designates the requested amount as being essential to the continued

war on terrorism; and (2) specifies how the administration proposes

to use the requested funds, consistent with the Authorization for

the Use of Military Force.

Authorization of emergency supplemental appropriations

for fiscal year 2002 (sec. 1004 )

On March 21, 2002, the President submitted to Congress a request for $27.1 billion in supplemental appropriations for fiscal

year 2002. Of that amount, $14.0 billion was for the Department

of Defense and the intelligence community to continue to prosecute

the global war on terrorism, including Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle. The committee recommends a provision that

would authorize supplemental appropriations for the Department

of Defense for fiscal year 2002.

The committee believes that supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2002 are necessary for, and should be provided for, the

purposes specified in the Authorization for Use of Military Force

(Public Law 107–40). The committee also believes that these funds,

and any future appropriations for such purposes, should be transferred to specific accounts within the Department of Defense for obligation, rather than being obligated directly from the Defense

Emergency Response Fund. The committee believes that this would

improve the efficiency and accountability of the expenditure of

these funds and notes that the President has also recommended

this change in his supplemental request.

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal year 2003 (sec. 1005)

The resolution of ratification for the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary and the

Czech Republic contained a provision (section 3(2)(c)(ii)) that requires a specific authorization for U.S. payments to the commonfunded budgets of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

for each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 1999, in which U.S.

payments exceed the fiscal year 1998 total. The committee recommends a provision to authorize the U.S. contribution to NATO

common-funded budgets for fiscal year 2003, including the use of

unexpended balances from prior years.

354

Development and implementation of financial management

enterprise architecture (sec. 1006)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive financial management enterprise architecture for all budgetary, accounting, finance

and data systems of the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision would also prohibit significant expenditures on financial system improvements that would be inconsistent with the new architecture.

The committee understands that the Department has already initiated an effort to develop a comprehensive enterprise architecture

by March 2003 as required by this provision. At a hearing of the

Readiness Subcommittee, the Comptroller General of the United

States testified that the Department should limit the additional

business systems development that it undertakes before a new enterprise architecture has been approved. The DOD Comptroller

agreed and stated that he has already taken some steps to limit

spending on business systems development until the proposed architecture and transition plan have been completed.

The provision recommended by the committee would condition

any obligation of more than $1.0 million for a defense financial system improvement upon a determination of compliance with the new

architecture. Until the new architecture has been developed, expenditures would be limited to those that are necessary to address

critical national security requirements or prevent significant adverse effects on ongoing projects.

Departmental accountable officials in the Department of Defense (sec. 1007)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to designate certain Department of Defense

employees and members of the Armed Forces as departmental accountable officials. A departmental accountable official could be

held pecuniarily liable for illegal, improper, or incorrect payments

when the official who certified payment relied on information provided through fault or negligence of the departmental accountable

official.

Department-wide procedures for establishing and liquidating personal pecuniary liability (sec. 1008)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize any

officer of the Armed Forces or any civilian employee of the Department of Defense designated by regulation to act on reports of survey and vouchers pertaining to the loss, spoilage, unserviceability,

unsuitability, destruction of, or damage to, property of the United

States under the control of the Department of Defense. Currently,

reports of survey procedures apply only to the Army and Air Force.

The recommended provision would also make members of all

services liable for damage or cost of repairs caused by the members

to any arms or equipment. Currently, only members of the Army

and Air Force are so liable.

355

Travel card program integrity (sec. 1009)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize direct payment to the issuer of a Defense travel card of official travel

or transportation expenses charged on the Defense travel card by

a Department of Defense employee or member. The recommended

provision would also authorize withholding or deduction from the

pay of a Department of Defense employee or member of the Armed

Forces funds for payment of delinquent travel card charges when

the employee or member is delinquent in the payment and does not

dispute the amount of the delinquency.

SUBTITLE B—NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

Number of Navy surface combatants in active and reserve

service (sec. 1021)

The committee recommends a provision which would require the

Secretary of the Navy to report to Congress:

(1) within 90 days after enactment of this Act, if the number

of surface combatants is below the 116 vessels described as the

current force in the September 30, 2001 Quadrennial Defense

Review Report (2001 QDR); or

(2) in the future, at least 90 days prior to reducing the number of active duty and reserve force surface combatants any

further whenever the number of surface combatants is below

116 surface combatant vessels.

In either case, the report would have to include a risk assessment that uses the 2001 QDR assumptions.

In addition, the Secretary would be required to retain on the

Naval Vessel Register a sufficient number of ships which could be

reactivated within 120 days notice to provide a surge capability to

regain the level of 116 surface combatants described in the 2001

QDR.

The Navy budget request recommends reducing the surface combatant force structure to 108, a number that would be eight fewer

than the number in the current force described in the 2001 QDR.

The 2001 QDR states that the current force of 116 surface combatants ‘‘were judged as presenting moderate operational risk, although certain combinations of warfighting and smaller scale contingency scenarios present high risk.’’ The committee received no information on the risk assessment

associated with reducing the force structure below that noted in the

2001 QDR. Therefore, the committee concludes that the risk resulting from the Navy’s proposed force structure would be higher than

that noted in the 2001 QDR.

Previously, the Navy has sold, leased, and granted ships with remaining service life shortly after decommissioning those ships.

Prior to the completion of an analysis of attack submarine force

structure, the Navy decommissioned a number of attack submarines due to budget constraints, only to find out later that the

analysis had indicated a requirement for having a higher number

of attack submarines.

The committee concludes that it is not prudent to risk repeating

the same mistake the Navy made with reducing attack submarines.

Therefore, the provision would require the Secretary of the Navy

356

to: (1) provide a risk assessment prior to reducing the force structure; and (2) maintain the capability to reconstitute the force on

short notice, if needed.

Plan for fielding the 155-millimeter gun on a surface combatant (sec. 1022)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of the Navy to submit a plan for fielding the Navy’s

155mm gun in a Navy ship on an expedited schedule, but no later

than fiscal year 2006. That plan’s attributes would have to include

assurances of safe operation while providing the Marine Corps fire

support.

The committee received testimony which indicated that the

155mm gun is the only weapons system in development that would

be capable of providing the Marine Corps the required fire support

from the sea. Unfortunately, the Navy budget request recommends

another significant delay in providing the Marine Corps the 155mm

gun capability.

The Spruance-class destroyers were designed to accommodate an

eight-inch naval gun. Another factor in the committee’s consideration is that the Navy intends to produce an engineering development model of the 155mm gun within the advanced gun system

program. With the Navy’s planned early retirement of some of the

ships in the class, it would appear that there may be an opportunity to use a Spruance-class destroyer as the test ship for the advance gun system.

This approach would provide a rapid prototype gun that could be

used in a contingency operation while testing the feasibility of

backfitting Spruance-class destroyers with a version of the advanced gun system. Such an approach would also be in keeping

with the Department’s avowed interest in transformation and spiral development while making use of ships with useful service life

remaining.

Most important, however, would be the fact that the application

of the advanced gun system to the Spruance-class destroyer could

provide, until DD(X) destroyers are fielded in numbers, the Marine

Corps the fire support capability that has been missing since the

decommissioning of the battleships in the early 1990s.

Report on initiatives to increase operational days of Navy

ships (sec. 1023)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to report to the congressional defense committees, with submission of the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2004, on

the feasibility and projected impact of initiatives to maximize ship

operational days.

The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on

Seapower sent a letter to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief

of Naval Operations requesting the Navy to explore, at least, the

following four focus areas to determine whether additional operational days could be made available to the regional commanders

in chief without increasing the number of ships and without increasing the length of six-month deployments:

357

(1) Assign additional ships and submarines to homeports

closer to their areas of operation. This is sometimes referred to

as forward homeporting.

(2) Assign a ship to remain in a forward area of operations

and rotate crews. Although not typically rotated in forward operating areas, the dual-crewing or ‘‘blue’’ and ‘‘gold’’ crews on

ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) are an example of such a

concept.

(3) Retain ships to the end of their full service life by investing in the support funding needed to keep them. For example,

keeping DD–963s in active service might make sense for the

capabilities they provide (such as presence and antisubmarine

warfare capability), rather than retiring them because they are

not adequate to meet certain threats (because they do not have

the very latest anti-air warfare systems).

(4) Preposition additional ships in forward operating areas

that would be maintained by very small crews during normal

circumstances. This concept would be analogous to the manner

in which certain Ready Reserve Force (RRF) ships are kept

ready to begin operations in just a few days.

The Seapower Subcommittee followed that letter with a hearing

on the subject. The Navy witness in that hearing testified that

some of the suggestions will be tested later this year because the

Navy believes they will be productive. However, that testimony

also led members to conclude that the Navy does not intend to investigate all of the focus areas suggested in the letter. This conclusion raised concerns that were amplified when it was revealed in

written testimony that the Navy ship acquisition plan may be understated regarding requirements because the Navy is using an estimated ship service life of 35 years for planning but is executing

a 20 to 22 years-of-age ship life decommissioning plan for destroyers and frigates.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the difference

in estimated ship service life would cause the Navy to face an additional 15-ship backlog just between now and fiscal year 2007. That

additional backlog would result in the requirement to build 15.5

new construction ships each year, starting in fiscal year 2008,

merely to keep the force structure at about 300 battle force ships.

The Congressional Budget Office Study, ‘‘Increasing the Mission

Capability of the Attack Submarine Force’’ validates the potential

for one of the above focus areas.

Therefore, the committee concludes that: (1) there may be other

means of increasing operational days for the regional commanders

in chief; and, (2) all the possible alternatives should be thoroughly

investigated and, when appropriate, tested.

SUBTITLE C—REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Repeal and modification of various reporting requirements

applicable with respect to the Department of Defense

(sec. 1031)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal or

modify 28 obsolete or superceded reporting requirements presently

358

imposed by statute upon the Department of Defense (DOD). The reports recommended for repeal include:

(1) Prohibition on Certain Civilian Personnel Management

Constraints (10 U.S.C. 129);

(2) Advisory Committees of the Department of Defense: Annual Report (10 U.S.C. 183);

(3) Amounts for Declassification of Records (10 U.S.C. 230);

(4) Authorized Strength: General and Flag Officers on Active

Duty (10 U.S.C. 526(c));

(5) General and Flag Officers: Limitations on Appointments,

Assignments, Details Outside an Officer’s Own Service (10

U.S.C. 721(d));

(6) Health Care Services Recovered on Behalf of Covered

Beneficiaries: Collection from Third-Party Payers (10 U.S.C.

1095(g));

(7) Child Care Services and Youth Program Services for Dependents: Financial Assistance for Survivors (10 U.S.C.

1798(d));

(8) Child Care Services and Youth Program Services for Dependents: Participation by Children and Youth Otherwise Ineligible (10 U.S.C. 1799(d));

(9) Performance Based Management: Acquisition Programs

(10 U.S.C. 2220);

(10) Cooperative Research and Development Projects-subsection (g) (10 U.S.C. 2350a(g)(4));

(11) Procurement of Communications Support and Related

Supplies and Services (10 U.S.C. 2350f(c));

(12) Armed Forces Relocation in Foreign Nation Report (10

U.S.C. 2350k(d));

(13) Federally Funded Research and Development Center

Workload Effort (10 U.S.C. 2367(d));

(14) Military Base Reuse Studies and Community Planning

Assistance (10 U.S.C. 2391(c));

(15) Department of Defense Technology and Industrial Base

Policy (10 U.S.C. 2504);

(16) Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: Acceptance of

Foreign Gifts and Donations (10 U.S.C. 2611);

(17) Leases: Non-excess Property of Military Departments

(10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(3));

(18) Acquisition of Existing Facilities in Lieu of Authorized

Construction-Notice (10 U.S.C. 2813(c));

(19) Relocation of Military Family Housing Units (10 U.S.C.

2827(b));

(20) Sale of Electricity from Alternate Energy and Cogeneration Production Facilities (10 U.S.C. 2867(c));

(21) Academy of Health Sciences: Admission of Civilians in

Physician Assistant Training Program (10 U.S.C. 4416(f));

(22) Temporary Promotions in Certain Navy Lieutenants:

Limitation on Number of Eligible Positions (10 U.S.C. 5721(f));

(23) Prohibition on Imposition of Additional Charges of Fees

for Attendance at Certain Academies (P.L. 103–337; 108 Stat.

2772; 10 U.S.C. 6951 note);

(24) Weapons Development and Procurement Schedules (P.L.

104–106; 110 Stat. 229, 231; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note).

359

In addition to those reports to be repealed in full, the committee

recommends repeal after 2004 of the report, Contracted Properties

and Services: Prompt Payment of Vouchers (P.L. 106–398 Appendix; 114 Stat. 1654A–247; 10 U.S.C. 2226 note). The committee also

recommends that section 483 of title 10, United States Code, be repealed two years after enactment of the present provision. The Secretary of Defense currently submits to the congressional defense

committees reports on funding transfers from high-priority readiness items. The committee notes that the Department of Defense

provides various other detailed reports to Congress, including the

rebaseline report, reprogramming requests, and monthly execution

status reports; these reports also provide information on funding

transfers from high-priority readiness items. The committee is concerned, however, that DOD has not provided any reports that include funding transfers on high-priority readiness items to the committee in a consistent and timely manner. The committee makes

this recommendation with the understanding that DOD will provide all reports which include funding transfers on high-priority

readiness items to the committee in accordance with statutory requirements.

In addition to various repeals, the committee recommends that

certain required reports be modified to reflect the most current and

relevant reporting requirements. Sections 2486 (b) and 2492 (c) of

title 10, United States Code, would be amended to no longer require annual submission of these various commissary reports. In

section 2486 (b), the provision would require submission of the report only when changes are proposed or made to merchandise categories proposed to be made for sale in commissaries. Similarly, in

section 2492(c), the provision would require submission of the report only when changes are proposed or made to host nation laws

or conditions in host nations that affect restrictions on commissary

purchasing in stores located outside of the U.S.

The committee carefully reviewed the Department’s request to

repeal these various reports. The criterion for the review was to relieve the Department of the burden of preparing a report whenever

possible, consistent with the committee’s oversight and legislative

responsibilities. The committee notes, however, that there are a

number of important reporting requirements for which either no report or only an interim report has been received. Foremost among

such reports is the Secretary of Defense’s annual report to the

President and to Congress as required by section 113(c) of title 10,

United States Code. The Secretary’s annual report, which traditionally incorporates a number of other statutory reports, is a

major source of important information for Congress. The committee

also notes the continuing absence of a National Security Strategy,

required to be submitted by the President in the annual national

security strategy report under section 108 of the National Security

Act of 1947 as added by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Without these important reports,

Congress cannot gain a clear understanding of the Administration’s

national security strategy or its long-term plans for our Armed

Forces. The Committee looks forward to receipt of the Secretary’s

annual report to the President and to Congress and the President’s

national security strategy.

360

Annual report on hardened and deeply buried targets (sec.

1032)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Secretary of Energy

and the Director of Central Intelligence, to submit a report on the

research and development activities under their respective jurisdictions during the preceding fiscal year to develop a weapon to defeat

hardened and deeply buried targets. The report would be submitted

no later than April 1 of each year.

The committee is concerned that each of the three agencies is

spending substantial amounts of money for a wide variety of hardened and deeply buried target-related activities within each agency. The committee is concerned that there is no central coordination or even any centralized knowledge of these many programs

and their scope and cost. Dealing with the issue of hardened and

deeply buried targets is a significant technical challenge, but it is

not a new one. The issue has, however, come to the forefront as a

result of the recent actions in Afghanistan. The committee is concerned that these programs do not appear to be well coordinated.

The committee believes this report will be useful to ensure that

this issue is addressed in a coordinated way to meet established requirements and that the funds are spent efficiently.

Revision of date of annual report on counterproliferation

activities and programs (sec. 1033)

The committee recommends a provision that would revise the

submission date for the annual report of the Counterproliferation

Program Review Committee (CPRC) from February 1 of each year

to May 1 of each year. This later date was the original date by

which the CPRC annual report was required. In fiscal year 2000,

Congress revised the submission date to February 1, but the Department of Defense has not submitted the CPRC annual reports

until May of each year. The committee understands that the annual report is prepared after the budget request is submitted each

year in order to make use of funding figures from the Future Years

Defense Program (FYDP); the report therefore cannot be submitted

along with the budget request. The committee believes that an

achievable report deadline is preferable to an unachievable one.

The committee recommends this change with the expectation that

the Department of Defense will provide briefings to the congressional defense committees on the updated elements of the annual

report, such as the Areas for Capability Enhancements (ACEs),

when they have been decided by the CPRC. The committee directs

the Department to notify the congressional defense committees

each year when the CPRC has decided these elements prior to submission of the final report.

Quadrennial quality of life review (sec. 1034)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to conduct a quadrennial quality of life review

to examine the quality of life of members of the Armed Forces. The

review would alternate with the quadrennial defense review so that

one of these reviews would occur every two years. The recommended provision requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a

361

report on each quadrennial quality of life review to the Committees

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives

no later than September 30 of the year in which the review is conducted.

SUBTITLE D—HOMELAND DEFENSE

Homeland security activities of the National Guard (sec.

1041)

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new

section to title 32, United States Code, to authorize the Governor

of a State, at the request of the head of a federal law enforcement

agency and with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to

order personnel of the National Guard of a State to perform fulltime National Guard duty for the purpose of carrying out homeland

security activities. The intent would be to temporarily provide

trained and disciplined personnel to a federal law enforcement

agency until that agency is able to recruit and train sufficient personnel to perform the homeland security activities. The duration of

the use of the National Guard of a State would be 179 days, but

the Governor of a State could, with the consent of the Secretary of

Defense, extend the period for an additional 90 days to meet extraordinary circumstances. The Secretary of Defense would provide

funds to the State Governor to fund the costs of the use of the National Guard personnel and would require the head of the federal

law enforcement agency receiving the support to reimburse the Department of Defense. Finally, the Secretary of Defense and the

Governor of a State would enter into a memorandum of agreement,

with each federal agency involved, covering specified matters including certifications by appropriate state officials as to the authorization under state law of the performance by the National Guard

of the State of the homeland security activities involved.

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has detailed approximately 1,600 personnel of the National Guard under

their title 10, United States Code, federal status to several federal

law enforcement agencies to perform homeland security activities

along the borders of the United States. The National Guard personnel involved are under the overall supervision of, and perform

duties under the direction and control of, the federal law enforcement agencies to which they are detailed. The Department of Defense and the federal agencies involved consider this arrangement

to be consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385).

The committee believes that it is preferable to use National

Guard personnel under their title 32, United States Code, status

and under the authority of the State Governor, as has been the

practice for more than a decade in connection with counterdrug activities authorized under the provisions of section 112 of title 32,

United States Code.

Conditions for use of full-time reserves to perform duties relating to defense against weapons of mass destruction

(sec. 1042)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12310(c)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to strike a refVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.127 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
362

erence to the Department of Defense Consequence Management

Program Integration Office (COMPIO). This amendment reflects

the fact that the Deputy Secretary of Defense disestablished

COMPIO on February 14, 2001, directing that its functions be integrated into existing Department of Defense organizations and processes to ensure greater effectiveness and oversight of programs.

The amended paragraph would authorize reserve personnel to

perform duties described elsewhere in the section only while assigned to a reserve component Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil

Support Team in the United States, its territories, the District of

Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Weapon of mass destruction defined for purposes of the authority for use of Reserves to perform duties relating to

defense against weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1043)

The committee recommends a provision that would change the

definition of the term ‘‘weapon of mass destruction’’ in sections

12304 and 12310 of title 10, United States Code, so as to include

any large conventional explosive that is designed to produce catastrophic loss of life or property.

Report on Department of Defense homeland defense activities (sec. 1044)

Studies conducted by the Comptroller General over the last year

and testimony from Department of Defense (DOD) officials have indicated that the Department still needs to clarify the structure,

strategy, roles and responsibilities, and relationships among the

various DOD entities that carry out the missions related to combating terrorism, homeland security, and homeland defense.

The committee believes that, in light of the proposed changes to

the Unified Command Plan, expected changes to the structure of

the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the continued lack of

clarity concerning the relationship between the Defense Department and other agencies or offices of the federal government responsible for homeland security or defense, a deeper examination

of the Department’s role in and capabilities for fulfilling its homeland defense mission is needed. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary to submit a

detailed report on how DOD should be and is fulfilling its homeland defense mission.

Strategy for improving preparedness of military installations for incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1045)

A Department of Defense (DOD) study of the Installation Pilot

Program, mandated by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (PL 106–398), revealed a lack

of preparedness of military installations to manage the consequences of a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) incident. The

study demonstrated that standards, priorities and implementation

schedules varied from service to service and from installation to installation. In a follow-up study, mandated by the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (PL 107–333), the Comptroller General found that DOD does not have an overall manageVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.128 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
363

ment framework to improve WMD preparedness at military installations and that overall funding of WMD preparedness at military

installations lacks visibility. The study concluded that without a

clear WMD preparedness strategy for military installations there is

a potential for duplication, inappropriate allocation of resources,

and reduction or loss of preparedness. In addition, without a performance plan that includes goals, objectives, and performance

measures, Congress and DOD managers cannot measure the results of programs and identify funding levels and priorities. The

Comptroller General recommended that DOD prepare a comprehensive strategy and plan for improving the preparedness of

military installations in responding to attacks involving weapons of

mass destruction.

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan to

improve the preparedness of military installations for incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The plan would: (1)

include a strategy identifying long-term objectives and resource requirements; (2) describe how local, regional and national military

response capabilities will be developed and used and how DOD will

coordinate the use of military capabilities with local, regional, and

national civilian capabilities, including private industry, where appropriate; (3) include a performance plan designed to achieve the

objectives of the strategy, as well as a timetable for implementation; and (4) establish measurable goals, describe the process and

resources required to attain those goals, identify performance

measures required to attain those goals, and describe the process

for evaluating results.

The plan would be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after this legislation comes into effect. No later than 60 days after the Secretary submits the plan to

Congress, the Comptroller General would be required to review it

and submit a report assessing the plan to the congressional defense

committees.

The Secretary would be directed to inform Congress of progress

under and updates to the plan for a total of three years in the materials the Secretary submits to Congress in support of the President’s annual budget request.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Continued applicability of expiring governmentwide information security requirements to the Department of Defense (sec. 1061)

The committee recommends a provision that would continue the

applicability of expiring governmentwide information security requirements to the Department of Defense (DOD).

Subtitle G of Title X of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 enacted a new Government

Information Security Reform Act (GISRA), addressing the responsibilities of the Office of Management and Budget and federal agencies (including DOD) in the area of information security. These provisions are scheduled to expire later this year.

364

The DOD Inspector General’s annual report to Congress recommends that the expiring requirements of GISRA be extended.

The report states:

Although implementing GISRA has been difficult, the

OIG, DOD, believes that its mandatory reporting requirements have refocused the Department’s attention on this

critical area. Until it was passed, we were very concerned

that information security was a declining priority. * * *

[W]e believe that the information assurance threat is

greater than ever, and mandatory self assessments, with

independent review, serve the Department’s best interest.

Therefore we recommend continuation of the core GISRA

requirements.

The provision recommended by the committee would implement

the Inspector General’s recommendation.

Acceptance of voluntary services of proctors for administration of Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (sec.

1062)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to accept voluntary services of secondary school

faculty and other personnel to serve as proctors for the administration of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery.

Extension of authority to sell aircraft and aircraft parts for

use in responding to oil spills (sec. 1063)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until

September 30, 2006, the authority in section 740 of the Wendell H.

Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century

(P.L. 106–181) to the Secretary of Defense to sell excess aircraft

and aircraft parts to a person or entity that provides oil spill response services.

Amendments to impact aid program (sec. 1064)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

continued eligibility of certain local education agencies for impact

aid during temporary reductions in qualified students during the

conversion of military housing units to private housing.

Additional Matters of Interest

Improved management of Department of Defense contracting for services

On June 22, 2001, the Secretary of Defense launched a Business

Initiative Council to bring about better business practices and

achieve savings within the Department of Defense (DOD). Testifying before this Committee on June 28, 2001, the Secretary stated:

We have an obligation to taxpayers to spend their money

wisely. Today we’re not doing that. * * * Mr. Chairman,

I have never seen an organization, in the private or public

sector, that could not, by better management, operate at

least five percent more efficiently if given the freedom to

do so. Five percent of the DOD budget is over $15 billion!

365

The Secretary testified that $15.0 billion of savings from management efficiencies could be used to: increase ship procurement

from six to nine ships a year; procure several hundred additional

aircraft annually, rather than 189; meet the target of a 67-year facility replacement rate; and increase defense-related science and

technology funding from 2.7 percent to 3 percent of the DOD budget.

The committee is disappointed that, to this date, the Business Initiative Council has identified only an estimated $121.0 to $132.0

million of the $15.0 billion annual savings projected by the Secretary. Despite the largest proposed increase in defense spending

in 20 years, the budget request would fund just five ships and 166

aircraft, replace facilities at a 122-year rate, and leave the rate of

defense-related science and technology funding unchanged at just

2.7 percent of the DOD budget. The committee concludes that, despite the proposed $48.0 billion increase in defense spending, management efficiencies are needed now more than ever to ensure that

the taxpayers’ money is wisely spent.

Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 (FY 2002 NDAA) established annual goals for Department of Defense savings to be achieved through improved management of the Department’s $50.0 billion of services contracts. The

Secretary of Defense was required to report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2002, on the Department’s

progress toward this goal. Unfortunately, this report, which was

not submitted until May 1, 2002, states that the Department is unable to provide the required information.

Sections 801 and 803 of the FY 2002 NDAA established the management tools needed to achieve these savings, including the increased use of performance-based services contracting; required

competition for task orders under contracts for services; enhanced

data collection, program review, and spending analyses; and an improved management structure for services contracts. These tools

would be enhanced by section 811 of this Act, which establishes

specific goals for competitive contracting and performance-based

contracting.

The statutory goal for fiscal year 2003 is a savings of 4 percent,

or $1.7 billion. The budget request does not provide for any of these

savings. While $1.7 billion is far less than the Secretary’s goal of

$15.0 billion in annual savings for management efficiencies, the

committee believes that this level of savings should be achievable

in fiscal year 2003. To ensure that the military services and defense agencies have an incentive to achieve these savings, the committee bill would permit them to retain half of the required savings.

Accordingly, Titles I, II and III of the bill include reductions totaling $850.0 million, to be achieved through improved management of the Department’s services contracts. The specific reductions reflected in these titles are as follows:

Army Procurement Accounts—$31.0 million;

Navy Procurement Accounts—$24.4 million;

Air Force Procurement Accounts—$2.1 million;

Defense-Wide Procurement Accounts—$1.5 million;

Research and Development, Army—$13.7 million;

366

Research and Development, Navy—$6.9 million;

Research and Development, Air Force—$45.2 million;

Research and Development, Defense-wide—$25.2 million;

Operation and Maintenance, Army—$192.5 million;

Operation and Maintenance, Navy—$152.3 million;

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force—$211.4 million;

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps—$16.3 million;

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide—$127.5 million.

The Committee expects the Department to distribute these reductions across budget activities and programs within the relevant

appropriations accounts, based on the dollar value of contracts

within those budget activities and programs to which improvements may be appropriately applied.

Information technology investments for functional area applications

Less than a year ago, the Department of Defense (DOD) initiated

an ambitious effort to address shortcomings in the Department’s financial management systems, operations, and controls. The Department’s time line called for the development of a comprehensive

enterprise architecture and a transition plan for implementing the

proposed architecture by March 2003. The proposed architecture

would then be implemented over a period of four years or more.

The committee strongly supports the Department’s efforts to address shortcomings in its financial systems on a comprehensive

basis. The committee shares the Department’s view that problems

with the reliability of financial and feeder systems data and interfaces between these systems must be addressed in order to ensure

proper accountability and control over its physical assets, proper

accounting for the costs of operations, and proper recording and

reconciling of disbursements.

The committee also recognizes that the implementation of a new

enterprise architecture for DOD financial management, accounting,

and feeder systems will require substantially increased funding on

such systems over the course of the Future Years Defense Plan.

Until the proposed architecture has been developed, however, excessive spending on such systems is likely to be wasteful.

The Comptroller General of the United States testified before the

Readiness Subcommittee that the Department should limit the additional business systems development that the Department undertakes before a new enterprise architecture has been approved. The

DOD Comptroller testified that he agreed with this statement and

that he had already taken some steps to limit spending on business

systems development until the proposed architecture and transition

plan have been completed.

Section 1006 would help enforce these limitations by requiring

that any such expenditures be approved in advance by the Department’s Financial Management Modernization Executive Committee. In accordance with the testimony of the Comptroller General and the DOD Comptroller, this provision would limit expenditures to those that are necessary to address critical national security requirements or prevent significant adverse effects on ongoing

projects.

367

The budget request included more than $2.0 billion for information technology investments for functional area applications, an

amount that is barely reduced from the $2.1 billion provided in fiscal year 2002. This amount includes funding for a large number of

programs that may require fundamental restructuring depending

on the outcome of the Department’s current financial management

review and the system architecture that the Department develops.

For example, the budget request included $196.5 million for the

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) business systems modernization

program, which is expected to cost more than $1.0 billion by the

time that it is completed. The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported last year that this program is being conducted ‘‘without having either a DLA enterprise architecture or a DOD-wide logistics

management enterprise architecture.’’ The GAO report concluded

that

By allowing the services and DLA * * * to proceed separately with new logistics management systems in the absence of a DOD-wide enterprise architecture, DOD will not

be in a position to optimize logistics operations and system

performance across the department, and thus is unlikely to

successfully meet its strategic logistics management goals.

Similarly, the budget request included $128.4 million for Defense

Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) development modernization, $439.4 million for Army functional area application development modernization, $367.4 million for Navy functional area application development modernization, and $229.8 million for Air Force

functional area application development modernization. These expenditures are the leading edge of a much larger investment,

which, the DOD Inspector General concluded earlier this year, is

unlikely to lead to properly integrated systems. The Inspector General’s report concludes:

DOD continues to develop [the DFAS Corporate Database (DCD)] and other financial management systems,

which will not establish an integrated financial management system. Specifically,

The Defense Logistics Agency stated its $1 billion

supply chain management system could not work with

DCD and other standard systems;

The Army and Navy did not determine whether

their $975 million financial management systems

could work with DCD and other standard systems.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service Den- ver personnel want to develop a $16 million Air Forcespecific financial management system to replace DCD. As a result, DOD components are spending more than $2

billion to develop systems with no assurance that the financial portions of the systems will function as an integrated financial management system.

The committee shares the concern of the DOD Inspector General that DOD components are requesting more than $2.0 billion to develop new financial systems with no assurance that these systems

will function as an integrated financial management system. For

368

this reason, the committee believes that the level of funding provided for functional area applications in advance of the development of a comprehensive system architecture is excessive.

Accordingly, the committee recommends reductions in Titles I, II and III of the bill totaling $400.0 million, in proportion to proposed

spending on information technology development modernization for

functional area applications in each accounts. The specific reductions reflected in these titles are as follows:

Other Procurement, Army—$53.2 million;

Other Procurement, Navy—$20.6 million;

Other Procurement, Air Force—$12.0 million;

Procurement, Marine Corps—$3.4 million;

Other Procurement, Defense-Wide—$3.5 million;

Research and Development, Army—$17.7 million;

Research and Development, Navy—$25.6 million;

Research and Development, Air Force—$27.2 million;

Research and Development, Defense-Wide—36.6 million;

Defense Health Programs—$32.1 million;

Defense Working Capital Fund Operations—$148.6 million;

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide—$19.5 million.

The committee expects the Department to achieve these reductions by implementing the requirements of section 1006 and restricting the development of Department of Defense business systems until the Department has completed its proposed architecture

and transition plan and is in a position to ensure that business system expenditures will be consistent with that architecture and

plan.

Defense Emergency Response Fund

The President’s budget request included $20.1 billion in the operation and maintenance title for the Defense Emergency Response

Fund (DERF) for fiscal year 2003. Of this amount, $10.1 billion

was requested for specific programs and $10.0 billion was requested as unspecified contingency funding for continuing the war

on terrorism into fiscal year 2003.

The decision to appropriate funding to, and obligate funding directly from, the DERF in fiscal year 2002 was well intentioned and

unavoidable under the unique circumstances that prevailed in the

fall of 2001. However, the committee is concerned that obligation

of funds directly from the DERF in fiscal year 2002 has reduced

management oversight and accountability of those funds without

any significant offsetting benefits, such as greater efficiency.

The $10.1 billion that was requested for specific programs in the

DERF represented funding that normally appears throughout the

defense authorization bill, including the procurement, research and

development, operation and maintenance, military personnel, and

military construction accounts. The committee believes that these

programs should be funded and executed in their normal accounts.

The committee found no compelling reason to authorize funding for

programs through the DERF in fiscal year 2003 and recommends

that all funding requested for specific programs in the DERF be

transferred to the traditional appropriations accounts.

The committee’s action with respect to the unspecified $10.0 billion contingency fund, which would be available to fund the costs

369

of ongoing military operations as well as the additional pay and

benefits of mobilized guard and reserve personnel, is discussed separately in this section of the report. The committee believes that

any subsequent appropriation of all or part of this $10.0 billion contingency should make such funds available for transfer to the traditional appropriation accounts before they are obligated.

The table that follows details the committee’s action with respect

to the DERF. The table lists each program for which funding was

requested in the DERF, the amount the committee has authorized

for that program, if any, and the account in which the funds have

been authorized.

The report language following the table discusses those programs

requested in the DERF for which no funds were authorized. Report

language describing changes to other programs requested in the

DERF can be found under the heading of the account to which the

funds were transferred.

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

Modernization of strategic systems

The Defense Emergency Response Fund request included a $7.3

million increase to PE 62114N for accelerating technology to modernize strategic systems. The committee recommends a decrease of

$7.3 million in this account to reflect the limited value that applied

research in this area will have on currently approved Future Naval

Capabilities thrust areas. The committee recommends that the

Navy develop a coordinated plan for the role that basic and applied

research programs will play in the overall modernization strategy

for the Navy’s strategic systems.

Stand off surveillance camera

The Defense Emergency Response Fund request included $2.0

million in PE 63750D8Z for stand off surveillance camera technology. The committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million to

this account to reflect a concern that this technology is commercially available, is not appropriate for a science and technology program, and does not fit well into an Advanced Concept Technology

Demonstration.

Aerospace propulsion research

The Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) request included

a $5.7 million increase to PE 62203F and a $4.4 million increase

to PE 63216F for research support to the Department of Defense’s

Technology for the Sustainment of Strategic Systems effort, as part

of the Nuclear Posture Review. The committee recommends a decrease of $5.7 million in PE 62203F and a decrease of $4.4 million

in PE 63216F. The committee recommends that the Department

develop a coordinated research plan for monitoring the aging of

solid rocket propulsion materials and systems. The committee notes

that technology development on strategic systems is already funded

in the budget request and the DERF in the Ballistic Missile Technology account.

Air Force defensive information operations

The budget request included an increase of $26.8 million over fiscal year 2002 levels for Air Force defensive information operations:

$6.8 million for engineering installation support for a program to

detect and respond to network intrusions; $15.0 million for a program to sustain information assurance and allow for dynamic detection of network intrusions; and $5.0 million for a program to develop automated tools to detect network intrusions.

The fiscal year 2003 Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF)

request also included $9.5 million ($4.6 million for procurement

and $4.9 million for operation and maintenance) to acquire the latest technology, equipment, and software for computer network defenses, including development of new tools for exploitation and denial of enemy intrusions while protecting critical information systems.

The committee finds these requests duplicative. Therefore, the

committee recommends a reduction to the DERF request of $9.5

million.

394

SINCGARS family of radios

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund

(DERF), Counter-Terrorism and Force Protection Activity, included

$22.1 million to purchase the Single Channel Ground-to-Air Radio

System (SINCGARS) family of radios for the Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (WMD–CSTs). The budget request also included $30.1 million for SINCGARS, reflecting a total request of $52.2 million. The committee recommends a decrease of

$22.1 million to this activity because the WMD–CSTs already have

the capability that the SINCGARS would provide. Each of the

teams has a Unified Command Suite (UCS) as their primary communications vehicle. The UCS contains several radio systems, including the PRC–117F, which have the SINCGARS capability. According to the Department of Defense, ‘‘There is not a shortfall of

SINCGARS for the WMD–CST program.’’

Major equipment for hardened and deeply buried targets

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) included $3.8 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide for

Major Equipment in PE 91598D8Z. The committee recommends no

funds for this line in the DERF because the justification for the request failed to identify what, if any, specific items will be procured.

The justification for this procurement request included with the

budget stated, ‘‘Specific procurement items cannot be identified at

this time.’’ While the committee generally supports work on hardened and deeply buried targets, the committee notes that the

DERF includes over $400.0 million in funding for hardened and

deeply buried targets. When there is a decision made as to what

items would be required, the committee would consider a reprogramming request if necessary to buy needed equipment.

C3I Intelligence programs

The Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) included $9.0

million for Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation, Defense-wide for C3I Intelligence programs. This request, according to

the Department of Defense justification documents for the DERF,

‘‘will provide analysis of the potential for wars, their deterrence,

dissuasion, and termination courses of action to include: modeling

of economic, political and social vulnerabilities to peace * * *’’. The

committee believes these actions are already being performed by

the Intelligence Community and recommends a reduction of $9.0

million, the amount of the request in this line, DERF PE

35190D8Z.

Management and organizational headquarters

The request included $1.0 million in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) for management and organizational headquarters Strategic Command. This line appears to be a duplicate

request. The committee, therefore, recommends no funds for this

activity in this line.

Air Force tactical deception personnel

The budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund

(DERF) included $1.0 million to provide military deception perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00412 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.134 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
395

sonnel at selected Air Force units. These personnel would integrate

military deception into Air Force operational planning. The committee understands that funds requested for the DERF are intended to support activities associated with the global war on terrorism. The committee does not understand, however, why military

deception, an integral part of planning any military operation, is a

new requirement. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million in the Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

account.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Comptroller General study of Special Operations Command

forces language requirements, training and proficiencies

The committee directs the Comptroller General to study and provide a report to the Congress on Special Operations Forces (SOF)

language requirements, training, and means of achieving and retaining proficiencies. The report shall include an evaluation of the

process of developing and meeting language requirements and retaining the required language skills among SOF individuals and

units. The report should also examine how the Special Operations

Command could make better use of other national assets to anticipate future language needs and maintain a dynamic requirements

and training strategy in order to meet these needs.

The committee also directs the Comptroller General to include

within the report recommendations for improvements to SOF language training, if necessary, and an assessment of the resources required to make any such improvements. The report should be submitted to Congress no later than March 5, 2003.

Department of Defense STARBASE Program

The Department of Defense STARBASE Program is a very effective community outreach program for youths ages six through 18

that is aimed at improving math and science skills. It also addresses drug use prevention, health, self-esteem, and life skills and exposes youth, parents, and teachers to the value of military service.

It currently operates at 39 locations associated with active, guard,

and reserve commands throughout the United States. At least

seven additional locations are seeking STARBASE programs.

The committee commends the Department’s efforts to ensure

that each STARBASE academy adheres to established program

guidelines to meet the program’s mission and objectives but is concerned about reports of failure to obligate STARBASE funds in a

timely manner and of efforts to use STARBASE funding for other

programs. The committee directs the Department to strengthen its

oversight of the STARBASE program to improve training, standardization, and compliance with program guidelines.

(397)

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN

PERSONNEL POLICY

Extension of authority to pay severance pay in a lump sum

(sec. 1101)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend from

October 1, 2003 to October 1, 2006 the authority of the Secretary

of Defense and the service secretaries to pay severance pay in a

lump sum.

Extension of voluntary separation incentive pay authority

(sec. 1102)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend from

September 30, 2003 to September 30, 2006, the authority of the

Secretary of Defense to pay voluntary separation incentive pay to

civilian employees.

Extension of cost sharing authority for continued FEHBP

coverage of certain persons after separation from employment (sec. 1103)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for

three years the authority to permit certain Department of Defense

civilian employees who are separated due to a reduction in force to

elect continued health care coverage under the Federal Health

Care Plan program. The recommended provision would require the

separation to occur before October 1, 2006, or before February 1,

2007, if specific notice of the separation is given before October 1,

2006.

Eligibility of nonappropriated funds employees to participate in the Federal Employees Long-Term Care Insurance Program (sec. 1104)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

nonappropriated funds employees to participate in the Federal Employees Long-Term Care Insurance Program.

Increased maximum period of appointment under the experimental personnel program for scientific and technical

personnel (sec. 1105)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary to extend from four to five years the initial terms of appointments made under a previously authorized experimental hiring program. The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has made excellent use of these authorities

to bring in senior technical talent in high level positions. The committee also notes that the authority has been granted to the military services’ laboratories, although they have shown very limited

progress in implementing the program.

398

The extension in the terms of appointment authorized by the program addresses a concern that the four-year appointments resulted

in a discontinuity in retirement and health benefits for the employees involved. The ability to offer attractive retirement and health

insurance benefits will enable defense agencies and laboratories to

better compete for the highly trained technical personnel that are

required to meet mission needs.

Qualification requirements for employment in Department

of Defense professional accounting positions (sec. 1106)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to require Department of Defense civilian employees in professional accounting positions to be certified public

accountants. The recommended provision would exempt from this

requirement employees currently employed in professional accounting positions.

Housing benefits for unaccompanied teachers required to

live at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba (sec. 1107)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Navy to make excess military family housing at Guantanamo Bay

Naval Station, Cuba, available for lease to Department of Defense

Education Activity teachers assigned to teach at that station. The

recommended provision would require payment of a housing allowance to teachers who lease such housing.

(399)

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

SUBTITLE A—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH

STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs

and funds (sec. 1201)

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds as

those authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this act, and

authorize the CTR funds to be available for obligation for three fiscal years.

Funding allocations (sec. 1202)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $416.7 million, the amount included in the budget request, for the

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs. The provision

would also establish the funding levels for each of the program elements of the CTR program and provide limited authority to vary

the amounts authorized for specific program elements.

The committee continues to support the CTR program and believes it is one of the most important national security efforts to reduce the threats posed by offensive nuclear weapons and delivery

systems, weapons grade plutonium and uranium, and chemical and

biological weapons and materials in states of the Former Soviet

Union.

Authorization of use of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds

for projects and activities outside the Former Soviet

Union (sec. 1203)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to conduct Cooperative Threat Reduction

(CTR) programs outside of the countries of the Former Soviet

Union (FSU) to address critical and emerging proliferation issues.

The Secretary would be able to conduct these activities using fiscal

year 2003 CTR funds or CTR funds for a fiscal year prior to 2003

that remain available to be obligated as of the date of enactment

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

The amount that may be obligated may not exceed $50.0 million in

any fiscal year. The provision would also direct the Secretary to use

funds from a range of CTR program accounts if the new authority

were exercised. The provision also directs the Secretary to seek, in

the following year’s CTR budget request, sufficient funds in the

CTR program to pay back those funds used for countries outside

of the FSU. The Secretary could obligate the CTR funds outside of

the FSU 30 days after providing notice of his intended actions to

the congressional defense committees. In the event the action is an

emergency, the Secretary could obligate the funds immediately and

400

provide the congressional defense committees notice within 72

hours after obligating the funds.

In the event the Secretary uses the expanded CTR authority in

any two fiscal years, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the advisability of establishing one or more new CTR programs. The committee believes that there may be opportunities to

expand the scope of the CTR program to include countries outside

of the FSU. This authority would allow the Secretary to conduct a

test program to determine if there are new cooperative opportunities to reduce the threats from proliferation of weapons of mass destruction knowledge, weapons, and materials.

Waiver of limitations on assistance under programs to facilitate Cooperative Threat Reduction and nonproliferation

(sec. 1204)

The committee recommends a provision, that would provide the

President with permanent authority to waive the annual certifications required for both the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)

programs and the Freedom Support Act nonproliferation programs,

as requested by the administration. The provision would amend

section 1203 of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 (22

U.S.C. 5952) and section 502 of the Freedom Support Act (22

U.S.C. 5852) and provide the President the authority to waive the

restrictions in any given fiscal year for any given country if such

a waiver is important to the national security interests of the

United States.

If the President chooses to exercise the waiver for either the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act or Freedom Support Act preconditions, this waiver would be effective only when the President

submits to Congress a report describing the activity or activities

that prevent the President from making the certification or certifications required by the Act, and the strategy, plan, or policy of the

President to promote the relevant State’s future commitment to the

preconditions.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF INTEREST

Cooperative Threat Reduction with the States of the Former

Soviet Union

The budget request for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)

program included $40.0 million to initiate a new effort, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation Prevention program. The

committee supports this new effort aimed at providing equipment

and training to improve border control capabilities to all Former

Soviet Union (FSU) countries other than Russia. Nevertheless, the

committee is concerned that there may be potential for duplication

of efforts with other similar programs within the Department of

Defense (DOD), as well as with the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) activities. The committee urges the Department of Defense to coordinate this new effort with all existing programs within the Department, the Department of Energy, the Department of State, the U.S. Customs Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

The committee also expects DOD to coordinate with the NNSA in

401

the area of weapons of mass destruction detection technology. The

committee directs DOD to report to the committee the results of

this coordination and to present a strategic and budgetary plan describing how this new effort will complement, rather than duplicate, any similar ongoing efforts.

Pilot program for scientific exchange with the countries of

the Former Soviet Union

The committee has been supportive of the work that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have

done to engage the former biological and chemical weapons scientists in the countries of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) but believes that more can be done. Therefore, the committee directs the

Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Defense to establish one or

more pilot programs that would bring former biological and chemical weapons scientists from the FSU to the United States and

bring U.S. scientists to the Former Soviet Union’s chemical, biological, veterinary, and medical institutes. Each Department could establish a separate pilot program, or the two agencies could work together to establish a joint pilot program. The committee believes

that there are significant, mutual, civil-scientific benefits that could

be gained from long-term cooperative joint research projects and

exchange programs. The committee believes that this exchange program is a logical next step to the current threat reduction programs in DOE and DOD. The committee urges the Secretaries to

work closely with universities, industries, the national laboratories

and other relevant federal and state agencies to establish the pilot

program.

The committee directs the Secretaries to report to the congressional defense committees, no later than January 15, 2004, on the

status of the pilot program or programs and the feasibility of establishing a permanent exchange program, including the funding requirement and any statutory or regulatory hurdles to implementing a permanent program.

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Administrative support and services for coalition liaison officers (sec. 1211)

In the future, the United States Armed Forces are likely to conduct operations as part of coalitions involving the military forces of

allies and friends. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the first

major operation of the 21st century, illustrates this point. As General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command,

who is leading this operation, noted during his testimony before the

committee on February 12, 2002, the OEF ‘‘coalition has grown to

more than 50 nations, with 27 nations having representatives at

our headquarters.’’ The nations involved in the coalition are assisting by providing military forces and capabilities; basing, staging

and overflight rights; search and rescue; and planning, logistics,

and intelligence support.

Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would

authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide administrative services and support to coalition liaison officers while they are tempoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00419 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.138 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
402

rarily assigned to the headquarters of a combatant command, component command, or subordinate operational command in connection with the planning for, or conduct of, a coalition operation. Additionally, the Secretary would be authorized to pay the travel, subsistence, and similar personal expenses of a liaison officer of a developing country in connection with the assignment of that liaison

officer to the headquarters of a combatant command if the assignment is requested by the commander of the combatant command.

The Secretary would be authorized to provide the services and support with or without reimbursement.

Use of Warsaw Initiative funds for travel of officials from

partner countries (sec. 1212)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1051 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary

of Defense to pay for the travel-related expenses of personnel from

a developing country participating in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. This

provision specifically addresses those travel-related expenses incurred when such personnel travel to the territory of any of the

countries participating in the PfP program or any of the NATO

member countries to attend a bilateral or regional conference, seminar, or similar meeting.

Support of United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect and

monitor Iraqi weapons activities (sec. 1213)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend,

through fiscal year 2003, the authority of the Department of Defense to support United Nations-sponsored inspection and monitoring efforts to ensure Iraqi compliance with its international obligations to destroy its weapons of mass destruction programs and

associated delivery systems. The provision would limit the assistance that could be provided by the Secretary of Defense to $15.0

million for fiscal year 2003.

Arctic and Western Pacific environmental cooperation program (sec. 1214)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to conduct a cooperative program with countries in the Arctic and Western Pacific regions. The Secretary, with

the concurrence of the Secretary of State, may provide cooperative

assistance or provide assistance on environmental matters in the

Arctic and Pacific regions, with certain exceptions. The primary

focus of the program would be on technology projects and activities

related to radiological threats and contamination. To reflect this

focus the provision limits the availability of program funds to no

more than 20 percent of such funds on non-radiological matters.

The provision would also require the Secretary to submit an annual

report on the program that would include a discussion of the activities, the funding, the life cycle costs of any projects, the participants, and any contributions from other agencies or countries. The

committee urges the Secretary of Defense to work with the Secretary of State to obtain an agreement with cooperating partners

as soon as possible to facilitate program implementation.

(403)

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

Explanation of funding tables

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense. It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military family

housing and military construction for the reserve components, the

defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO) Security Investment program. It also provides authorization for the base closure account that funds environmental cleanup

and other activities associated with the implementation of previous

base closure rounds.

The following tables provide the project-level authorizations for

the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this

Act and summarize that funding by account. The tables also display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year

2003 budget for military construction and family housing projects.

Funds transferred to the accounts in this title from the DERF

are displayed on the tables that follow as increases to the amount

requested for those programs in the military construction accounts.

Programs for which funds were transferred from the DERF are annotated to indicate that funds were originally requested in the

DERF.

As noted earlier in this report, the amounts requested for national defense were decreased by $3.5 billion to reflect the accounting adjustment necessary to fund federal civilian retirement and

health benefits under current law, rather than under the accrual

basis requested in the administration’s budget. The following tables

include a reduction of $39.9 million to reflect that portion of this

accounting change included in the military construction and family

housing accounts.

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

(423)

FISCAL YEAR 2003 AUTHORIZATION OF

APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

TITLE XXI—ARMY

Summary

The Army requested authorization of $1,476.5 million for mili- tary construction and $1,405.6 million for family housing for fiscal

year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $1,602.0

million for military construction and $1,397.4 million for family

housing for fiscal year 2003.

The amounts authorized for military construction and family housing reflect a reduction of $18.6 million to be achieved from savings in the foreign currency account and $29.4 million from accrual

accounting adjustments. This reduction shall not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXI of this bill.

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects

(sec. 2101)

This section contains the list of authorized Army construction

projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized amounts are listed on

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this

report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each

location.

Family housing (sec. 2102)

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2003.

It would also authorize funds for facilities that support family

housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities.

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)

This section would authorize improvements to existing Army

family housing units for fiscal year 2003.

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item contained in the Army’s military construction and family

housing budget for fiscal year 2003. This section also provides an

overall limit on the amount the Army may spend on military construction projects.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

2002 projects (sec. 2105)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2101 and 2104 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal

Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107–107) to increase the fundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00441 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR151.141 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
424

ing authorization for barracks projects at Fort Carson, Colorado

and Fort Jackson, South Carolina by a total of $4.0 million.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

2000 project (sec. 2106)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106–65) to increase the project

authorization for a chemical demilitarization facility at Blue Grass

Army Depot, Kentucky, by $36.3 million.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

1999 project (sec. 2107)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public Law 105–261) to increase the total project authorization for a chemical demilitarization facility at Newport Army

Depot, Indiana by $102.3 million.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

1997 project (sec. 2108)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104–201), as amended, to increase the total project authorization for the Chemical Weapons

and Munitions Destruction facility at Pueblo Chemical Activity,

Colorado by $57.5 million.

(425)

TITLE XXII—NAVY

Summary

The Navy requested authorization of $895.1 million for military construction and $1,243.5 million for family housing for fiscal year

2003. The committee recommends authorization of $1,237.3 million

for military construction and $1,240.8 million for family housing for

fiscal year 2003.

The amounts authorized for military construction and family housing reflect a reduction of $4.0 million to be achieved from savings in the foreign currency account and $10.5 million from accrual

accounting adjustments. This reduction shall not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXII of this bill.

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects

(sec. 2201)

This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction

projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized amounts are listed on

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this

report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each

location.

Family housing (sec. 2202)

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2003. It

would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities.

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)

This section would authorize improvements to existing Navy and

Marine Corps family housing units for fiscal year 2003.

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Navy’s military construction and family housing budget

for fiscal year 2003. This section also provides an overall limit on

the amount the Navy may spend on military construction projects.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

2000 projects (sec. 2205)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107–107) to increase the total project authorization for the projects at Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia by

$280,000. The provision would also correct the number of housing

units authorized for a project at Quantico, Virginia from 60 units

to 39 units.

426

The committee notes that the table on page 755 of the star print

of the statement of managers accompanying the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (H. Rept. 107–333) contained a similar error on the number of units. That table also incorrectly stated the number of units of family housing to be constructed at Marine Corps Base Kaneohe, Hawaii as 212 units rather than the 172 units authorized in section 2202.

In addition, the reference in that table to housing construction at ‘‘NCBC Gulfport’’ in Mississippi should have read ‘‘Naval Station,

Pascagoula’’. Section 2202 of that act was so modified by section

1003 of the Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 (Public Law 107–117).

(427)

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE

Summary

The Air Force requested authorization of $644.1 million for military construction and $1,521.1 million for family housing for fiscal

year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of $1,055.3

million for military construction and $1,542.0 million for family

housing for fiscal year 2003.

The amounts authorized for military construction and family

housing reflect a reduction of $19.1 million to be achieved from savings in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXIII of this bill.

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition

projects (sec. 2301)

This section contains the list of authorized Air Force construction

projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized amounts are listed on

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this

report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each

location.

Family housing (sec. 2302)

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year

2003. It would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing

maintenance and storage facilities.

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)

This section would authorize improvements to existing Air Force

family housing units for fiscal year 2003.

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Air Force’s budget for fiscal year 2003. This section

would also provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force

may spend on military construction projects.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Training facilities for military operations in urban terrain

The committee understands and has supported the construction

of facilities to train our forces for military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) at the combat training centers as well as for homestation training. The fiscal year 2003 budget request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund included $19.0 million for two

MOUT facilities at Lackland Air Force Base.

428

The committee recommends authorization of these projects but

directs that no funds be obligated for the construction of these

projects until the Secretary of Defense submits a report describing

the requirement for MOUT facilities. The report would include the

desired distribution and total number of such facilities, the extent

to which MOUT facilities can be shared among the military departments and active and reserve components, and whether such facilities are required at installations, such as Lackland Air Force Base,

conducting basic and advanced training in addition to operational

units.

(429)

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

Summary

The defense agencies requested authorization of $687.5 million for military construction and $49.9 million for family housing for

fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of

$722.0 million for military construction and $49.9 million for family

housing in fiscal year 2003.

The amounts authorized for military construction and family housing reflect a reduction of $3.0 million to be achieved from savings in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXIV of this bill.

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401)

This section contains the list of authorized defense agency 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 the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2402)

This section would authorize improvements to existing defense

agency family housing units for fiscal year 2003.

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2403)

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry

out energy conservation projects. The committee recommends an

increase of $1.0 million to the budget for this program for the integration of photovoltaic power systems into new construction or facility renovation projects. The committee directs the Department of

Defense to study which locations and facilities offer the greatest potential for incorporating photovoltaic projects and to select those

projects and technologies that offer the best performance and reliability.

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec.

2404)

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each defense agency military construction program for fiscal year 2003.

This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount that

may be spent on such military construction projects.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Bio-defense research laboratory facility at Fort Detrick

The budget request included $5.0 million in the Defense-wide

military construction account for planning and design of a new

430

Center for Biological Counterterrorism Research at Fort Detrick,

Maryland as part of the Chemical-Biological Defense Program

(CBDP). This proposed new center, which would begin with oneyear additional funding in the CBDP to address homeland security

concerns, is intended to take advantage of the world-class scientific

and technical expertise at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) located at Fort Detrick.

According to the budget request, the Office of Homeland Security

envisions that the center would conduct biological threat assessment research, investigate countermeasures to those threats, and

perform biological forensics in support of the Department of Defense and other national requirements.

The committee directs the Army to expand its planning and design effort to include consideration of a possible new USAMRIID

facility that would permit USAMRIID to accomplish its full range

of assigned missions in support of the warfighter and to accomplish

additional missions assigned in light of the terrorist attacks of

2001. In addition, the committee directs the Department of Defense

and the Army to explore collaboration and cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Office of Homeland Security to determine whether a single new facility at Fort Detrick could meet the

needs of each agency for its biological defense research and development requirements.

Following the anthrax mail attacks on the Senate and elsewhere

in 2001, USAMRIID played a critical role in the Nation’s response.

It analyzed the anthrax that was sent to the Senate, determined

which antibiotics would work against the anthrax illness, and analyzed more than 16,600 samples of suspicious materials that may

have contained biological warfare agents. This work was managed

in conjunction with USAMRIID completing its assigned missions to

support U.S. Armed Forces. This predicament caused difficult space

and personnel conditions.

In the conference report to accompany H.R. 3338, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (H. Rept.

107–350), the Army was required to conduct a feasibility study to

finalize the mission of USAMRIID and determine the infrastructure requirements and associated costs needed to accommodate

USAMRIID’s expanded role. The Army is completing this study but

has not submitted it to Congress as of May 9, 2002. The committee

is aware that USAMRIID has already outgrown its existing facilities and is in need of expanded and modernized facilities to accomplish its critical mission. This situation will be exacerbated should

USAMRIID’s workload and space requirements be increased. There

are some 14 vaccines under development, each of which will require testing, in addition to a growing number of therapeutics and

new technologies being developed or investigated.

Rather than planning for two or more new or expanded facilities

for USAMRIID and for an additional NIH facility at Fort Detrick,

the committee believes it would be better for both agencies to collaborate and try to design one facility that could meet their combined needs.

(431)

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Summary

The Department of Defense requested authorization of $168.2

million for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends an authorization of $168.2 million for fiscal year 2003.

Authorized North Atlantic Treaty Organization construction

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the

amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this title and the

amount of recoupment due to the United States for construction

previously financed by the United States.

Authorization of appropriations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 2502)

This section would authorize appropriations of $168.2 million for

the United States’ contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2003.

(433)

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary

The Department of Defense requested a military construction authorization of $297.3 million for fiscal year 2003 for National

Guard and Reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorizations for fiscal year 2003 of $568.6 million to be distributed as

follows:

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $183,000,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 204,000,000

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 63,000,000

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 59,900,000

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 58,700,000

Total ............................................................................................. 568,600,000

Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601)

This section would authorize appropriations for military construction for the National Guard and Reserve by service components for fiscal year 2003. The state list contained in this report

is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

(435)

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF

AUTHORIZATIONS

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be

specified by law (sec. 2701)

This section would provide that authorizations for military construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family

housing projects, contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and National Guard and Reserve

military construction projects would 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 projects for which appropriated funds have been obligated before the later of October 1,

2005, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funding for

military construction for fiscal year 2006.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2000

projects (sec. 2702)

This section would extend the authorizations for certain fiscal

year 2000 military construction projects until October 1, 2003, or

the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2004, whichever is later.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1999

projects (sec. 2703)

This section would extend the authorizations for certain fiscal

year 1999 military construction projects until October 1, 2003, or

the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2004, whichever is later.

Effective date (sec. 2704)

This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV,

XXV, and XXVI of this act shall take effect on October 1, 2002, or

the date of enactment of this act, whichever is later.

(437)

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Lease of military family housing in Korea (sec. 2801)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2828(e) of title 10, United States Code, to increase, from 800

to 1,175 units, the number of family housing units the Secretary

of the Army may lease in Korea for which the maximum annual

lease cost per unit is $25,000. The provision would also newly authorize the Secretary to lease no more than 2,400 family housing

units for which the maximum annual lease cost is $35,000 per unit.

Further, the provision would make certain conforming changes.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, as executive

agent for housing in Korea, and the Commander, United States

Forces Korea, to ensure that these additional leased housing units

are allocated in order to make additional housing available for commands or military units that are currently significantly under the

authorized 10 percent level of accompanied tours.

Repeal of source requirements for family housing construction overseas (sec. 2802)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section

803 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1984 (Public

Law 98–115), which requires the use of housing manufactured or

fabricated in the United States in family housing constructed in

foreign countries.

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES

ADMINISTRATION

Agreements with private entities to enhance military training, testing, and operations (sec. 2811)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense or the secretaries of the military departments

to enter into agreements with private entities that would enhance

or protect military training. These entities would acquire interests

in lands adjacent to military installations that would serve to limit

development or preserve habitat.

This authority would be used to enter into agreements intended

to enhance or protect military training and operations by making

additional lands available either for training directly on such lands

or as buffer zones between military training or operating areas and

the surrounding civilian population. Such buffer zones may in some

cases also serve to create or preserve habitat that would reduce the

burden on military installations to provide such habitat. These authorities are not intended to be used broadly to acquire interests

438

in lands for any and all land use needs that military installations

might have; rather, they should be used to protect training and

other military operations or to provide habitat that is compatible

with environmental requirements and military training operations.

The committee has included a separate provision that would authorize $20.0 million for a Range Enhancement Initiative Fund

that would be available to finance the cost of agreements entered

into under this authority in a separate provision in title III of this

act. The committee intends that funds in this account would be

used primarily to purchase restrictive easements on property adjacent to military installations rather than to acquire the lands to be

owned and managed by the military departments. The committee

directs the Department of Defense to use this authority, and the

funding in the Range Enhancement Initiative Fund, to implement

those agreements that have the highest potential to enhance or

protect military training.

Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource

conservation (sec. 2812)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

secretaries of the military departments to convey surplus real property to State or local governments or to private entities who have

as their primary purpose the conservation of open space or natural

resources. Property would be conveyed under this authority under

the condition that it be used to preserve open space or the natural

resources on such property. Any property conveyed that was no

longer being used for such purposes would revert to the United

States.

Real property would be eligible for conveyance under this authority if it is suitable for natural resource conservation; surplus property for purposes of title II of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.); and has been

available for public benefit conveyance for a sufficient period of

time. The real property may be conveyed only if the conveyee

agrees that the property will be used and maintained for natural

resource conservation. Any subsequent conveyance would be subject to written secretarial approval, prior notification to Congress,

and to the condition that the property be maintained for natural

resource conservation in perpetuity. Any property that was no

longer being maintained in accordance with these provisions would

revert to the United States.

Modification of demonstration program on reduction in

long-term facility maintenance costs (sec. 2813)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2814 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107–107) to authorize the Department of

Defense to expand the number of demonstration projects on reduction of long-term facility maintenance costs from three to 12. The

provision would amend the Act to expand the program to the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force while

providing for the continuation of ongoing Army demonstration

projects.

439

SUBTITLE C—LAND CONVEYANCES

Conveyance of certain lands in Alaska no longer required

for National Guard purposes (sec. 2821)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Army to convey lands that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army in the State of Alaska to the

State, any local government entity, Native Corporation, or Indian

tribe in the State of Alaska, as the Secretary determines to be in

the public interest.

The Secretary may convey any property in the State of Alaska

if he determines that the real property is any of the following: (1)

currently under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army; (2)

was under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army for use

of the Alaska National Guard before December 2, 1980; (3) is located in a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System designated

in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (94 Stat.

2371: 16 U.S.C. 1301 note); (4) is excess to the needs of the Alaska

National Guard and Department of Defense; and (5) the cost of retaining the property exceeds the value of the property or such property is unsuitable for retention by the United States. The provision

would authorize the Secretary to convey the property with or without consideration. Any amounts received in consideration could be

used, subject to appropriations, to pay any costs associated with

the conveyance.

Land conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky (sec. 2822)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, to the City

of Hopkinsville, Kentucky, a parcel of real property consisting of

approximately 50 acres and containing an abandoned railroad spur

at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The purpose of the conveyance would

be for storm water management, recreation, transportation, and

other public purposes. As a condition of the conveyance, the City

would be required to pay all associated costs.

Modification of authority for land transfer and conveyance,

Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine

(sec. 2823)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2845 (b) of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2002

(division B of Public Law 107–107) to modify the authority of the

Secretary of the Navy to convey 485 acres located at the former

Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine. The provision would authorize the Secretary to convey to the State of Maine,

political subdivision of the State, or any tax-supported agency in

the State, without consideration, approximately 50 acres known as

the Corea Operating Site and approximately 23 acres comprising

three parcels containing family housing. The provision would further authorize the Secretary to convey approximately 404 acres of

the Corea site to the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion in the

National Wildlife Refuge System.

The committee further recommends that the conveyance be exempt from the requirement to screen the property for further fedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00457 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.149 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
440

eral use pursuant to section 2696 of title 10, United States Code.

The committee recommends this exemption only because this property has already been screened for purposes of carrying out the underlying provision that this provision would modify. The conveyance of part of this property to the Secretary of the Interior under

this section reflects the interest expressed by the Department of

the Interior under that screening.

Land conveyance, Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts (sec. 2824)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Navy to convey, without consideration, to the City

of Chicopee, Massachusetts, property consisting of 30.4 acres, including 188 housing units and other improvements that are no

longer required for defense purposes, located at Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts. The property would be used by the city

for economic development. The provision would authorize the Secretary to require the City of Chicopee to reimburse the Navy for

the administrative costs related to the conveyance.

Land conveyance, Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island

(sec. 2825)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Navy to convey to the State of Rhode Island, or

any political subdivision thereof, a parcel of real property consisting of approximately 34 acres, together with any improvements

thereon, known as the Melville Marina site. The conveyance would

be by sale for fair market value.

Land exchange, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado (sec.

2826)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Air Force to convey to the State of Colorado property consisting of approximately 72 acres, including improvements,

known as the Watkins Communication Site in Arapahoe County,

Colorado. In exchange, the State would convey to the Air Force real

property consisting of approximately 41 acres, including improvements, that is contiguous to Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado. The

property conveyed to the Air Force would be used to build additional housing and would not be subject to general land laws, including mining and mineral and geothermal leasing laws. The provision would authorize additional terms and conditions, which may

include a payment by one party to the other to reflect the difference in the value of the two parcels of property. Because the acquisition of this land has not yet received the approval normally required by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the provision

specifies that this exchange would require the concurrence of the

Secretary of Defense.

Land acquisition, Boundary Channel Drive Site, Arlington,

Virginia (sec. 2827)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense, using amounts authorized to be appropriated

by section 2401, to acquire approximately 7.2 acres of real property

441

in Arlington County, Virginia, known as the Boundary Channel

Drive Site. The provision would direct that, upon the purchase of

the site, the property shall be included in the Pentagon Reservation

as defined in section 2674 (f)(1) of title 10, United States Code.

Land conveyances, Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary

Field, Nevada (sec. 2828)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Interior to convey, without consideration, to the

City of West Wendover, Nevada two parcels of real property that

are no longer required. The purpose of the conveyance would be to

establish a runway protection zone and to develop an industrial

park. The provision would also provide for a separate conveyance

of the portion of these lands that lie in Utah to Tooele County,

Utah for a runway protection and aircraft accident prevention zone.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Transfer of funds in lieu of acquisition of replacement property for National Wildlife Refuge system in Nevada (sec.

2841)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Air Force to transfer $15.0 million in funds appropriated for the acquisition of land at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada

that are authorized to be appropriated in this Act to the Secretary

of Interior, on behalf of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to fulfill the Air Force’s obligations to replace National Wildlife

Refuge lands that were withdrawn for use by the Air Force in section 3011 of the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Title XXX

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,

Public Law 106–65). This provision would allow the Air Force to

fulfill its obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement between the Air Force and the Fish and Wildlife Service dated July

26, 2000.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Accompanied tours in Korea

General Thomas Schwartz, Commander of United States Forces,

Korea, has stated a goal of significantly increasing the supply of

family housing for United States military forces stationed in the

Republic of Korea to allow the percentage of personnel stationed in

Korea on accompanied tours to increase from the 10 percent level

currently authorized to 25 percent within 10 years.

While the committee believes that such an initiative has the potential to improve retention, improve quality of life and morale,

and reduce turbulence in the personnel system, such benefits would

require a significant expenditure of resources. The committee believes the costs of such a proposal must be understood in advance

so that the Department of Defense and Congress can weigh the

costs and benefits.

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense

for Personnel and Readiness to report to the congressional defense

committees, no later than March 1, 2003, on the additional costs

442

of providing the facilities and services necessary to support accompanied tours for 25 percent of our forces in Korea, including family

housing, medical and child care facilities and services, and force

protection. The report should also contain the Secretary’s views on

such a proposal, a discussion of a schedule for implementing any

proposal the Secretary endorses, and a discussion of the cost-sharing of any such proposal between the United States and the Republic of Korea.

Aircraft carrier basing plans

The Committee notes that the Navy is considering extending the

life of the USS Constellation beyond its scheduled decommissioning

in fiscal year 2003 to meet operational requirements and stabilize

rotation schedules. This and other possible extensions, the completion of the USS Ronald Reagan, and the development and construction of CVNX–1 raise the possibility that the Navy will have more

than the current twelve aircraft carriers in service at one time in

the coming years. Given the cost of manning, operating, maintaining and basing aircraft carriers, the committee directs the Chief of

Naval Operations to report to the congressional defense committees

within 180 days of enactment of this bill on the Navy’s basing

plans for aircraft carriers through the year 2015.

Availability of excess lands for school construction

In some cases, military installations may have excess land that

could be used by State or local governments for the construction of

public schools, including the construction of charter schools, as evidenced at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Belle Chasse,

Louisiana. The committee requests that the Department of Defense

study the feasibility and advisability of supporting local communities by identifying any excess property at military installations

that could be transferred to the Secretary of Education for conveyance to state and local school districts for the construction of new

schools.

(443)

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL

SECURITY PROGRAMS

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

AUTHORIZATIONS

Atomic energy defense activities

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2003,

including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and

capital equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons;

naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste

management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to

carry out the purpose of the Department of Energy Organization

Act (Public Law 95–91). The title would authorize appropriations

in five categories: National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA); defense environmental management; defense environmental management privatization; other defense activities; and defense nuclear waste disposal.

The budget request for fiscal year 2003 for atomic energy defense

activities totaled $15.4 billion, a 4.4 percent increase over the adjusted fiscal year 2002 level. Of the total amount requested: $8.2

billion was for NNSA; $6.4 billion was for defense environmental

management activities; $158.4 million was for defense environmental management privatization; $479.6 million was for other defense activities; and $315.0 million was for defense nuclear waste

disposal. The committee recommends $15.7 billion for atomic energy de- fense activities, an increase of $300.1 million to the budget request.

The committee recommends $8.1 billion for the National Nuclear

Security Administration (NNSA), an increase of $121.3 million to

the budget request. The amount authorized for NNSA is as follows:

$6.0 billion for weapons activities, an increase of $118.8 million to

the budget request; $1.1 billion for defense nuclear nonproliferation, an increase of $15.5 million to the budget request; $707.0 million for naval reactors, a reduction of $1.0 million below the budget

request; and $335.7 million for the Office of the Administrator, a

reduction of $12.0 million below the budget request. The committee

further recommends $6.9 billion for defense environmental management, including defense facility closure projects, an increase of

$261.1 million to the budget request. The committee recommends

$158.4 million for defense environmental management privatization, the amount of the budget request. The committee recommends

$489.9 million for other defense activities, an increase of $17.7 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00461 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR151.151 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
444

lion to the budget request; and $215.0 million for defense nuclear

waste disposal, a reduction of $100.0 million to the budget request.

The following table summarizes the budget request and the committee recommendations:

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $8.2 billion to be appropriated to the Department of Energy (DOE)

for fiscal year 2003 for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to national security.

Weapons activities

The committee recommends $6.0 billion for weapons activities, a $118.8 million increase above the amount requested for fiscal year

2003. The amount authorized is for the following activities: $1.2

billion for directed stockpile work, a decrease of $15.5 million to the

budget request; $2.1 billion for campaigns, an increase of $22.7 million above the request; $1.7 billion for readiness in the technical

base, an increase of $46.9 million above the request; $157.1 million

for secure transportation assets, an increase of $1.7 million above

the request; $575.0 million for safeguards and security, an increase

of $65.0 million above the request; and $242.5 million for facilities

and infrastructure, the amount of the request. The amounts authorized are reduced by $30.0 million, an offset for security charges

for reimbursable work and $1.0 for civilian personnel accrual.

Directed stockpile work

The committee recommends $1.2 billion for directed stockpile work, a reduction of $15.5 million to the budget request. The directed stockpile account supports work directly related to weapons

in the stockpile, including day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering, and certification activities to

support planned life extension programs. It also includes fabrication and assembly of weapons components, weapons dismantlement

and disposal, training, and support equipment. The committee recommends no funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

The committee believes that as the reductions in operationally

deployed nuclear warheads occur, as announced in the December

2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), there will be an increased demand for weapons dismantlement associated with the W–62 warhead, which is being retired from the Minuteman III land based

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, and there may be additional increases in demand in the future. The NNSA has indicated that the

capacity at the Pantex plant in Texas is fully utilized with the

planned life extension programs and the planned W–79 and W–56

dismantlement efforts. This NNSA plan anticipates that all weapons in the stockpile as of today, with the exception of the W–62,

will require life extension. The plan also assumes the direction in

the NPR that no warheads will be taken out of the stockpile with

the exception of the W–62.

The committee directs NNSA to study alternatives to existing facilities at Pantex for dismantlement. The Nevada Test Site has a

new modern facility that was completed in the early 1990s to support nuclear weapons testing before the United States imposed a

unilateral moratorium on underground nuclear weapons testing.

This facility has capabilities similar to those of the Pantex plant.

The facility, known as the Device Assembly Facility (DAF), is substantially underutilized. Its current mission is to deal with damaged nuclear weapons and to support subcritical experiments; howVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00478 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.152 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
461

ever, DAF has the potential to be the main weapons dismantlement

facility, thus relieving some of the pressure on the Pantex facility

cited in the NPR. The DAF also has the potential to conduct the

stockpile surveillance mission, either by taking over the surveillance mission or by supplementing the Pantex capabilities.

The committee directs the Administrator to conduct a study on

the full range of potential uses for DAF, including dismantlement

and surveillance, and report to the congressional defense committees on the result of this study no later than March 1, 2003. In

looking at the DAF the Administrator should take into consideration the security, transportation, personnel and other costs of dismantlement at the DAF, as well as the cost of additional facilities

that would be needed at Pantex. The Administrator should also

make sure that no program added to the DAF will delay our test

readiness capabilities, nor should the Administrator make the DAF

unsuitable for ongoing subcritical tests.

Campaigns

The committee recommends $2.1 billion for campaigns, an in- crease of $22.7 million above the amount requested. The campaigns

focus on science and engineering efforts involving the three weapons laboratories, the Nevada Test Site, and the weapons plants.

Each campaign is focused on a specific activity to support and

maintain the stockpile without underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts maintain and enhance the safety, security, and

reliability of the existing stockpile. The campaigns are divided into

three major categories: science campaigns, readiness campaigns,

and engineering campaigns. The committee recommends $7.0 million, a $5.0 million increase,

for the pit manufacturing and certification campaign to allow the

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a new pit facility to go

forward. The EIS work can begin now because it is needed to support analysis for a number of facility options and facility sizes. The

committee notes that the only validated pit requirement is for a

small number of W–88 pits, which could be produced at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Moreover, the committee urges NNSA

to ensure that the requirements are well understood for this $2–

$4 billion facility.

The committee urges NNSA and Department of Defense (DOD)

to establish a valid annual pit requirement. The NNSA should not

begin construction activities on this billion-dollar facility until

there is a valid requirement that has been approved by DOE and

DOD.

The committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million in the

high explosives campaign and a reduction of $2.0 million in the

non-nuclear readiness campaigns. These reductions are available

as some of the planned work in these campaigns is not adequately

linked to requirements in the February 2001 NNSA stockpile life

extension plan.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million in the

High Energy Density Physics (HEDP) campaign to keep the cryogenic target and National Ignition Facility (NIF) diagnostics on

schedule with the planned NIF ignition schedule and to provide for

the petawatt laser initiative.

462

Finally, the committee notes that no funding was requested for

the High Average Power Laser (HAPL) program. The HAPL is a

promising laser program that has both energy and defense potential. The hybrid nature of the HAPL is one of the reasons that it

is not funded in either DOE science programs or NNSA. The committee urges the DOE to review the potential national value of the

HAPL and to determine if there is an overriding national interest

in funding the HAPL through a joint program or project office. The committee provides an additional $10.0 million in the NIF

construction line item to account for a funding reduction taken in

the program two years ago.

Readiness in the technical base

The committee recommends $1.7 billion in readiness in the technical base and facilities (RTBF), an increase of $46.9 million. This

account funds facilities and infrastructure in the weapons complex

to ensure the operational readiness of the complex and includes

construction funding for new facilities. The budget request included $10.0 million in the operations of facilities sub-account in RTBF for the Center for Combating Terrorism. The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for

the Center. This center serves as a test bed for a variety of technologies and will allow the unique capabilities of NNSA to be

brought to bear on one of the nation’s most urgent priorities. One

of the results of NNSA center and work, in conjunction with DOD,

was the successful testing of the thermobaric bomb. The budget request included $37.7 million in the special projects

sub-account in RTBF. The committee recommends an increase of

$6.9 million to allow NNSA to make the annual payment to the Los

Alamos Foundation established by section 3167(a) of the 1998 National Defense Authorization Act, to support schools in the Los Alamos, New Mexico area.

The budget request included two project engineering and design

lines (PE&D) in the RTBF. The NNSA uses these accounts to fund

project engineering and design activities that support conceptual

design work for construction projects before funding is requested in

a specific construction line item. Each year there is a new PE&D

account request that would provide funds for design work planned

to begin in the year requested.

The budget request included two projects in the fiscal year 2002

PE&D account, 02–D–103, that would begin in fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends a reduction of $2.3 million in construction line 02–D–103 and an increase of $2.3 million in construction

line 03–D–103 to reflect the transfer of these two projects to the

fiscal year 2003 PE&D account. The committee directs DOE and

NNSA to include in a PE&D for any fiscal year only those projects

that would receive initial funding in that year.

The committee also notes that there are a substantial number of

very large construction projects that are included in the PE&D accounts for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The committee is concerned

that the out-year costs of all of these projects may be unaffordable.

Moreover, these projects would increase the overall size of the

NNSA complex at a time when Congress has been supportive of

NNSA efforts to reduce the number of buildings in the complex and

463

catch up on years of deferred maintenance. Almost none of the

projects in the PE&D accounts explain how the costs of tearing

down current buildings to make way for the new buildings will be

covered.

The committee is concerned that the large number of the new

projects that are requested, without any plan to tear down the

buildings that are being replaced, will place NNSA in a never-ending maintenance backlog cycle. The committee directs NNSA to include the costs of tearing down the facilities that are being replaced

in the costs of all new projects. The committee also directs the Administrator to submit a report to the congressional defense committees certifying that the new buildings planned in the fiscal year

2002 and 2003 PE&D accounts are fully funded in the NNSA future years budget plan. The report should also include a plan for

a net reduction of the square footage of buildings under the control

of the NNSA.

The committee is also concerned about the Microsystems Engineering and Science Applications (MESA) complex. The budget request includes $75.0 million to support construction of all five

phases of the full MESA complex. An established requirement exists for the first three phases: the utilities upgrades, the retooling

of the Microelectronics Development Laboratory (MDL), and the

Microsystems Fabrication building, which is the replacement for

the older Compound Semiconductor Research Laboratory. There is

no approved requirement for the remaining two phases, the Microsystems Laboratory and the Weapons Integration Facility.

The committee directs that before NNSA commits to the 391,000-

square-foot full MESA project at a cost of $504.0 million dollars,

the NNSA Administrator shall certify that the full complex is required for the Stockpile Life Extension Program outlined in the

February 2001 NNSA Stockpile Life Extension Plan.

Secure transportation asset

The committee recommends $157.1 million for the secure transportation asset, a $1.7 million increase above the amount requested. The secure transportation asset is responsible for transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons materials and components,

and other materials requiring safe and secure transport. The committee has provided an additional $1.7 million to maintain increased security for this most important mission. This increase is

part of an overall $199.7 million increase recommended by the committee to ensure that security is adequately funded and maintained

at DOE. The committee is concerned that, as discussed in recent

press reports, there are significant and serious shortfalls in security funding at DOE.

Safeguards and security

The committee recommends $575.0 million for weapons safeguards and security, an increase of $65.0 million above the request.

The weapons safeguards and security account provides funding for

all safeguards and security at all the NNSA complex sites. As a result of the attacks of September 11, NNSA is working on a new design basis threat (DBT) against which to design its security posture

of the future. In the meantime, however, the fiscal year 2003 budgVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00481 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.153 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
464

et request funds only a pre-September 11 level of security. The

committee recommends the additional $65.0 million to maintain at

least the level of security maintained in 2002, until the new DBT

is in place and to provide improvements to NNSA’s cyber-security posture. This $65.0 million increase is part of the overall $199.7

million increase for security.

Facilities and Infrastructure

The committee recommends $242.5 million for the facilities and

infrastructure activities, the amount of the request. The committee

notes that NNSA has recently established standards and criteria to

begin to address the real property maintenance backlog in the

NNSA complex. The committee supports this much needed effort.

NNSA must also work to ensure that the NNSA complex does not

continue to have a maintenance backlog in the future. In order to

prevent this situation, NNSA is establishing a strong cadre of professional facilities managers to ensure that the real property assets

of NNSA are adequately maintained. The committee supports

NNSA and urges it to expand its efforts in this area.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

The committee recommends $1.1 billion for Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation, a $15.5 million increase above the amount of the

budget request. The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation provides management and oversight for the nonproliferation programs

in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The

amount authorized would fund the following activities: $298.9 million for nonproliferation and verification research and development;

$92.7 million for nonproliferation and international security; and

$894.2 million for nonproliferation programs with Russia and the

states of the Former Soviet Union, including $233.1 million for

international nuclear materials protection and cooperation, $39.3

million for the Russian transition initiatives, $17.2 million for

Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) transparency, $14.6 million for

international nuclear safety, $49.3 million for the elimination of

weapons grade plutonium production, and $448.0 million for fissile

materials disposition.

Of the amount recommended for nonproliferation and verification

research and development, the committee includes $15.5 million for

research to develop a new generation of radiation detectors for

homeland defense missions.

Of the amount recommended for the Russian transition initiative, the committee recommends $16.7 million for the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) program, the amount of the request. The committee supports both of the programs under the Russian transition

initiatives but believes that they serve different missions in support of the same goal. The committee urges NNSA to set aside a

portion of the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program

funds to be used for specific IPP commercialization projects in the

Russian cities under the NCI program. On the other hand, the

committee believes that the NCI program should focus on working

with the Russian cities to support broader economic development

missions that are not within the purview of the IPP program. In

carrying out the NCI program, the committee urges NNSA to work

465

with other federal agencies with expertise in economic development

and with local communities to further the ongoing Sister Cities efforts between U.S. and Russian cities.

Naval Reactors

The committee recommends $707.0 million for Naval Reactors, a

reduction of $1.0 million below the amount of the request.

Office of Administrator

The committee recommends $335.7 million for program direction

for the National Nuclear Security Administration a reduction of

$12.0 million below the amount of the request. This account includes program direction funding for all elements of the National

Nuclear Security Administration with the exception of the Naval

Reactors Program and the Secure Transportation Asset.

Defense Environmental Management (sec. 3102)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $6.7 billion to be appropriated to the Department of Energy (DOE)

for fiscal year 2003 for environmental management activities, an

increase of $261.1 million above the amount requested. This

amount includes a reduction of $14.0 million to reflect the civilian

personnel accrual adjustment. The amount requested is for the following activities: $793.9 mil- lion for site and projection completion, an increase of $6.0 million

above the amount of the request; $2.6 billion for post 2006 completion, an increase of $2.1 million above the amount of the request,

and including $897.9 million for the Office of River Protection;

$92.0 million for science and technology, the amount of the request;

$1.3 million for excess facilities, the amount of the request; $441.0

million for multi-site activities, a reduction of $38.9 million below

the amount of the request; $278.3 million for safeguards and security, an increase of $50.0 million above the amount of the request;

$396.1 million for program direction, an increase of $37.9 million

above the request; $1.0 billion for environmental management

cleanup reform, an increase of $200.0 million above the request;

and $1.1 billion for defense closure projects, an increase of $18.0

million above the amount of the request.

Closure projects

The committee recommends $1.1 billion for closure projects, an

increase of $18.0 million above the request. The closure projects account provides funds for the cleanup of those sites that will complete cleanup and close by the end of 2006. The committee recommends the additional funds to cover additional security costs

that may be needed at the Rocky Flats site if there is any delay

in shipping plutonium to the Savannah River Site. The committee

notes that the Rocky Flats plant may be closed as early as 2005

and supports the effort to accelerate closure.

Site and projection completion

This account funds those projects that will be completed by 2006

at sites that will continue to be DOE sites beyond 2006. The committee recommends $793.9 million for site and project completion,

466

an increase of $6.0 million above the request. Last summer the Office of Environmental Management completed a new modern hazardous waste storage building at Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory (LLNL). This new building will house both hazardous

and radioactive waste. LLNL submitted the safety basis documents

needed to operate the facility in June 2001. Because the DOE Office of Environmental Management has not yet finished its review

of the documents, the waste remains stored outside. The budget request for fiscal year 2003 fails to provide the needed funds to complete the safety basis review process and move the waste into the

new buildings. The committee recommends the additional $6.0 million in the construction line for the facility 86–D–103, in order to

complete the necessary documents and move the radioactive and

hazardous waste into the building. Continuing to store the waste

outside is contrary to safety, environmental, and security best practices.

Post 2006 completion

The committee recommends $2.6 billion for post 2006 completion, an increase of $2.1 million above the budget request. This account

funds cleanup projects that will require funding beyond 2006. The

committee recommends an additional $2.1 million to support the

continuing process to transfer excess land at the Los Alamos National Laboratory to the community.

Included in the post 2006 completion account is a sub-account for

the Office of River Protection. The Office of River Protection provides funds to treat the tank waste and ultimately close the tanks

at the Hanford, Washington site. The committee recommends

$897.9 million for the Office of River Protection, the amount of the

request.

Science and technology

The committee recommends $92.0 million for science and technology for environmental management, the amount of the request.

This account supports research and development to develop new or

improved technologies for cleanup and waste treatment. The funding level contained in the budget request is significantly less than

the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $247.8 million. The committee is concerned that DOE has underfunded this account to the

long-term detriment of the cleanup process. Many of the sites continue to have cleanup challenges for which the current technology

is either too expensive or not available. The committee urges DOE

to revisit the approach to research and development over the

course of the coming year.

Excess facilities

The committee recommends $1.3 million for excess facilities, the

amount of the request. This account provides funds to stabilize facilities that are being transferred by other DOE programs to the

Office of Environmental Management for future disposal.

Safeguards and security

The committee recommends $278.3 million for safeguards and security, an increase of $50.0 million. The committee recommends

467

this increase as part of the overall increase of $199.7 million for

DOE to ensure that the security of weapons and materials is maintained. The Office of Environmental Management has responsibility for a wide range of material that includes weapons grade materials as well as other hazardous and radioactive materials. The

committee is concerned that the amount of funding included in the

fiscal year 2003 budget request for security for environmental management is not adequate to maintain the post-September 11 level

of security at environmental sites and facilities.

Multi-site/Uranium enrichment decontamination and

decommissioning fund

The committee recommends $441.0 million for the contribution to

the uranium decontamination and decommissioning fund, a reduction of $38.9 million. The committee recommends $37.9 million for

multi-site activities be transferred to program direction ‘‘to provide

management and direction for various crosscutting initiatives, establish and implement national and departmental policy; and to

conduct analyses and integrate activities across the DOE complex.’’ The committee believes that these are the same functions that are

carried out in the program direction account and sees no reason

why there should be two separate accounts.

Environmental management cleanup reform

The committee recommends $1.0 billion for environmental management cleanup reform, an increase of $200.0 million. This account is a new account to supplement the site and project base

funding after new or amended cleanup agreements are reached

with state and federal regulators. The committee is concerned that

DOE has substantially underfunded the cleanup accounts and is at

risk of violating several of the cleanup agreements. In section 3131

of this Act, the committee recommends a provision that would establish criteria for this account before funds from it could be obligated.

Program direction

The committee recommends $396.1 million for program direction,

an increase of $37.9 million transferred from multi-site activities as

discussed above.

Other Defense Activities (sec. 3103)

The committee authorizes $489.9 million for other defense activities, an increase of $17.7 million to the budget request.

Energy Security and Assistance

The fiscal year 2003 budget request included $27.7 million for

Energy Security and Assistance. The committee recommends no

funds for these activities. The activities contained in this request

are largely ongoing activities that are part of the non-defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE). While the committee

shares the view that energy security is important, the activities

that would be funded in this account include: the development of

a national strategy for energy assurance, attendance at energy assurance-related forums, the maintenance of energy-related dataVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00485 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.156 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
468

bases, and monitoring the national energy supply. The committee

believes these activities should continue to be funded out of the Energy, non-defense accounts at DOE, particularly when the defenserelated security accounts are substantially underfunded. The committee notes that the program is fully authorized at $25.0 million

for fiscal year 2003 in section 1261 of H.R. 4, as amended, the Senate Energy bill.

Office of Security

The budget request included $187.2 million for the Office of Security. The committee notes that this amount is a 30 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. The committee

recommends an additional $65.0 million for nuclear safeguards and

security. This request is part of an overall increase of $199.7 million for DOE and NNSA for nuclear security. The committee is very

concerned that the budget request for security is significantly lower

than the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. This concern is heightened by the recent press reports that DOE had requested, but was

denied by the Office of Management and Budget, approximately

$300 million in additional funding for fiscal year 2002. The committee understands that of this additional $300.0 million requested, about $198.0 million was for defense facilities. It is clear

that the amount requested for fiscal year 2003 is inadequate to

maintain the current fiscal year 2002 level of security funding,

which, apparently, does not even provide adequate protection.

Intelligence

The committee recommends $43.6 million for Intelligence, an increase of $2.0 million above the amount of the budget request.

Counterintelligence

The committee recommends $48.0 million for counterintelligence,

an increase of $2.0 million above the amount of the request. The

committee notes that a portion of the funding for the Office of

Counterintelligence in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is funded from this account. While it is important that

the DOE and NNSA offices of counterintelligence work closely, the

committee believes that the funding for the two offices should be

separate. The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to transfer

the $5.0 million that is contained in this account for NNSA directly

to the Administrator at the beginning of the fiscal year, to be obligated by the NNSA office of counterintelligence. The committee directs that in the future the NNSA Office of Counterintelligence be

adequately funded in the NNSA accounts.

Independent oversight and performance assurance

The committee recommends $22.6 million for Office of Independent Oversight, the amount of the request. The committee supports the work of the office and believes that it plays a valuable

role in ensuring the safety and security of DOE and NNSA facilities.

469

Environment safety and health

The committee recommends $104.9 million for environment, safety and health, an increase of $5.0 million above the amount requested. The committee recommends $2.5 million to continue pollution prevention efforts, formerly conducted by the Office of Environmental Management, to identify ways to reduce the amount of

waste generated by the DOE complex. The committee also recommends $2.5 million for enhanced medical screening of current

and former workers at DOE nuclear facilities, including the three

gaseous diffusion plants. The committee believes DOE should take

the steps necessary to ensure that medical screening, including the

use of advanced techniques for early lung cancer detection, is made

available to the current and former workers. The committee encourages the DOE to request sufficient funds in the future to conduct the medical screening on all current and former workers who

wish to have the screening.

Worker and community transition

The committee recommends $25.8 million for worker and community transition, the amount of the budget request.

National nuclear security administrative support

The budget request included $25.6 million for national security

programs administrative support. The committee recommends no

funds for national security administrative support. For the second

year in a row, DOE has failed to provide any justification materials

for this request. The committee believes that the NNSA program

direction adequately supports NNSA.

Defense environmental management privatization (sec.

3104)

The committee recommends $158.4 million for environmental

management privatization, the amount of the budget request.

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal (sec. 3105)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $215.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a $100.0 million

reduction below the budget request of $315.0 million. Recent delays

in the program have deferred the requirements for the defense contribution to the waste fund this year.

SUBTITLE B—RECURRING GENERAL PROVISIONS

Reprogramming (sec. 3121)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the

reprogramming of funds in excess of 115 percent of the amount authorized for the program or in excess of $5.0 million above the

amount authorized for the program, whichever is less, until: (1) the

Secretary of Energy submits a report to the congressional defense

committees; and (2) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date

on which the report is received. The committee recommends reinstating reprogramming authority for the Department of Energy.

The committee notes that the threshold level for reprogramming

actions had been $10.0 million prior to 1995 when it was reduced

470

to $1.0 million in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1995. The committee believes that $5.0 million is a realistic

reprogramming threshold.

Limits on minor construction projects (sec. 3122)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Energy to carry out minor construction projects using

operation and maintenance funds or facilities and infrastructure

funds if the total estimated cost of the minor construction project

does not exceed $5.0 million. In addition, the provision would require the Secretary to submit an annual report identifying each

minor construction project undertaken during the previous fiscal

year. The committee directs the Secretary to submit this report at

the same time the Secretary submits the Department of Energy

budget request for fiscal year 2004, or as soon thereafter as possible.

Limits on construction projects (sec. 3123)

The committee recommends a provision that would permit any

construction project to be initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the project does not exceed, by 25 percent, the higher of either the amount authorized for the project or the most recent total estimated cost presented to Congress as justification for

such a project. The Secretary of Energy may not exceed such limits

until 30 legislative days after the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a detailed report setting forth the reasons for the increase. This provision would also specify that the 25

percent limitation would not apply to projects estimated to be a

minor construction project under $5.0 million.

Fund transfer authority (sec. 3124)

The committee recommends a provision that would permit funds

authorized by this Act to be transferred to other agencies of the

government for performance of work for which the funds were authorized and appropriated. The provision would permit the merger

of such transferred funds with the authorizations of the agency to

which they are transferred. The provision would also limit, to no

more than 5 percent of the account, the amount of funds authorized

by this Act that may be transferred between authorization accounts

within the Department of Energy.

Authority for conceptual and construction design (sec. 3125)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the Secretary of Energy’s authority to request construction funding until

the Secretary has completed a conceptual design. This limitation

would apply to construction projects with a total estimated cost

greater than $5.0 million. If the estimated cost to prepare the construction design exceeds $600,000, the provision would require the

Secretary to obtain a specific authorization to obligate such funds.

If the estimated cost to prepare a conceptual design exceeds $3.0

million, the provision would require the Secretary to request funds

for the conceptual design before requesting funds for construction.

The provision would further require the Secretary to submit to

Congress a report on each conceptual design completed under this

471

provision. The provision would also provide an exception to these

requirements in the case of an emergency.

Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction

activities (sec. 3126)

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the

Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design with any funds

available to the Department of Energy pursuant to this title, including those funds authorized for advance planning and construction design, whenever the Secretary determines that the design

must proceed expeditiously to protect the public health and safety,

to meet the needs of national defense, or to protect property. The

provision would require the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a report on each construction project to be completed under

this provision prior to exercising the authority that would be provided by this provision.

Funds available for all national security programs of the

Department of Energy (sec. 3127)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize,

subject to section 3121 of this Act and appropriations acts, amounts

appropriated for management and support activities and for general plant projects to be made available for use in connection with

all national security programs of the Department of Energy.

Availability of funds (sec. 3128)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

amounts appropriated for operating expenses or for plant and capital equipment for the Department of Energy to remain available

until expended. Program direction funds would remain available

until the end of fiscal year 2004.

Transfer of defense environmental management funds (sec.

3129)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the

manager of each field office of the Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer up to $5.0 million in fiscal year 2003 defense environmental management funds from one program or

project, including site project and completion and post 2006 completion funds. Each manager would be able to use this authority up

to three times in a fiscal year. Each transfer shall not exceed $5.0

million, and the transfers shall not be aggregated.

Transfer of weapons activities funds (sec. 3130)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the

manager of each Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security

Administration (DOE/NNSA) office with limited authority to transfer up to $5.0 million in fiscal year 2003 weapons activities funds

from one program or project under the manager’s jurisdiction to another. Each manager would be able to use this authority up to

three times in a fiscal year. Each transfer shall not exceed $5.0

million, and the transfers shall not be aggregated.

472

SUBTITLE C—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS,

RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

Availability of funds for environmental cleanup reform (sec.

3131)

The Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal year

2003 included $800.0 million for a new initiative, the environmental cleanup reform account. The committee recommends an additional $200.0 million for the account. According to the DOE budget justification material, the purpose of the new account is ‘‘to enable the Department, the States and the American taxpayer to

begin realizing the benefits immediately of alternative cleanup approaches that will produce more real risk reduction, accelerate

cleanup, or achieve much needed cost and schedule improvements.’’

While the committee supports the goal of faster cleanup, DOE has

not provided any details as to how this goal will be achieved by the

creation of this new account or how the money that would be in

the account will be spent, nor have they identified the ‘‘alternative

cleanup up approaches’’ that would be funded by the account.

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Energy to establish and publish selection criteria for

the environmental management cleanup reform account. The provision would also provide the Secretary of Energy authority to dissolve the account, in the event the Secretary opts not to establish

selection criteria, and redistribute the funds in the account to the

sites and projects on a pro rata basis according to fiscal year 2002

funding levels.

The overall budget request for fiscal year 2003 for Environmental

Management for DOE is $6.6 billion, slightly higher than the $6.5

billion appropriated for fiscal year 2002. To create the cleanup reform account within an essentially flat budget, the DOE reduced

almost all of the DOE cleanup site budgets below their fiscal year

2002 appropriated levels. DOE plans to have the various sites, in

essence, compete for the funds in the cleanup reform account. How

the sites would do this, or on what time table this would happen,

is not clear. DOE has provided no guidance or direction to Congress, the States, or the sites on how this competition is to occur

or to be judged.

Most of the DOE cleanup effort is required by agreements between DOE and the various host States or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In some instances DOE, the State, and the

EPA are all parties to the agreements. These agreements establish

cleanup schedules and standards for each site. These agreements

also include provisions that require that DOE and its operating

contractors pay fines and penalties if the schedule for work required by the agreements is not met. By under-funding each site,

DOE is potentially at risk of violating a number of these agreements.

The committee supports the idea of DOE, the States, and the

EPA reviewing the various agreements to ensure that the cleanup

at each site is being conducted as efficiently as possible. On the

other hand, the committee does not support any effort to reduce the

cleanup standards and potentially put at risk the health and safety

473

of communities or the DOE workers in order to reduce cleanup

costs.

The committee notes that the cleanup effort at Rocky Flats in

Colorado was a successful partnership among the State, the community, the DOE, and the EPA, to accelerate cleanup significantly

ahead of the original schedule. This accelerated cleanup will save

money in the long run, as the total cost of cleanup will be significantly reduced. Rocky Flats is a success story because substantial

additional funds were provided to the site to accelerate the cleanup, not because funds were withheld from the site.

The committee supports innovative approaches to accelerate

cleanup and reduce costs. Providing additional funds for the sites

may, in fact, generate the accelerated cleanup sought by DOE. The

committee is concerned that the approach announced by the Department may be premature.

The committee supports the general idea of providing the possibility of additional funds to accelerate cleanup. In providing the

funds however, DOE must spell out clearly, and with input from

the States, the communities, and the regulators, how the funds will

made available. The provision recommended by the committee

would require such criteria be established before funds from the

cleanup reform account could be obligated.

In the event that the idea of the cleanup reform account is premature for fiscal year 2003, then the Secretary could dissolve the

account and transfer the money to the sites and projects based on

the level of funding the sites and projects received in fiscal year

2002. The committee encourages DOE to continue to explore the

idea of providing additional funds to accelerate cleanups at as

many sites as possible.

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (sec. 3132)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy,

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later

than February 3, 2003, on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator

(RNEP) that sets forth (1) the military requirements for the RNEP;

(2) the nuclear weapons employment policy for the RNEP; (3) the

detailed categories or types of targets that the RNEP is designed

to hold at risk; and (4) an assessment of the ability of conventional

weapons to address the same types of categories of targets that the

RNEP is designed to hold at risk.

The budget request included $15.5 million for the RNEP. The

committee recommends no funds for the RNEP.

Database to track notification and resolution phases of significant finding investigations (sec. 3133)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish at

the national laboratories of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) a database to track the notification and resolution

phases of significant finding investigations (SFIs). The provision

would require the Administrator of NNSA to develop and implement a laboratory-wide database to monitor the laboratories’

progress on resolving SFIs. The Department of Energy’s Inspector

General (DOE–IG) recommended a central SFI tracking system in

474

a December 2001 report. The DOE–IG determined that DOE was

plagued with a system that frequently missed self-imposed time

frames for initiating and conducting investigations of defects and

malfunctions in nuclear weapons. The committee believes that

DOE should place a high priority on correcting this problem.

Requirements for specific request for new or modified nuclear weapons (sec. 3134–3135)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Energy specifically to request funds before beginning

research and development and engineering and production activities to support any new or modified nuclear weapon. The committee also recommends a provision that would require a specific

authorization for these funds before they, or any other national security program funds or activities under the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, could be obligated or expended.

The provision would apply to new weapons and to modifications

to existing weapons to meet a new military requirement. The provision would require a specific request in a specific line item or items

at two distinct points in time for any new or modified nuclear

weapon. This requirement is consistent with past practices at the

Department of Energy (DOE) and similar to current acquisition

practices for major weapons systems at the Department Defense

(DOD), and similar to the way DOE budgets for construction

projects.

A new weapon would be defined by the provision as any weapon

that contains a pit or secondary which is not in the stockpile or not

in production on the date of enactment of this Act. Development of

nuclear weapons is conducted using a formal phased acquisition

process. This process was developed jointly by the Atomic Energy

Commission, the predecessor to DOE, and DOD in a memorandum

of understanding signed in 1953. There are eight phases (numbered

1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) in the development process starting with

the first phase, which is concept development, and ending in phase

7, which is warhead retirement or storage.

Under the provision recommended by the committee, the requirement for specific authorization for the first phase of a new nuclear

weapon would apply to research and development activities leading

to and including phase 1 and 2, the concept development phase. A

specific request and authorization would also be required before engineering and manufacturing activities could begin to support

phase 2A and beyond, development and engineering.

Modifications to nuclear weapons use a similarly phased acquisition process. In the process applicable to weapons modifications,

the phase begins with phase 6, which is quantity production and

stockpile, and overlays phases 1–7 onto phase 6. Thus, when modifications are made to existing nuclear weapons, the first phase

would be phase 6.1, the concept development phase, and would continue through phase 6.6, for an existing weapon.

Under the provision recommended by the committee, a specific

request for funds would have to be received from the Secretary of

Energy and a specific authorization would have to be provided by

Congress for activities to support work leading to and including

phase 6.1 and 6.2, concept development for modifications, and

475

again for phase 6.3 and beyond, development and engineering for

modifications to existing nuclear weapons.

The specific line item for the work leading to and including phase

1 and 2 and phase 6.1 and 6.2 would be analogous to the current

practice with respect to planning, engineering, and design money

for construction activities. The line items for the work for phases

2A and beyond, and 6.2A and beyond, would be analogous to construction line items for individual construction projects. The committee expects each individual weapon would have a dedicated line

item when it moves to phase 2A or 6.2A.

The provision would not apply to the stockpile life extension programs (SLEPs) that are scheduled for each of the weapons that will

remain in the stockpile. In February 2002, the Administrator of the

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) submitted the

Comprehensive Stockpile Life Extension Program plan to Congress.

This plan lays out the refurbishment schedule for the existing nuclear weapons stockpile. Under this plan, NNSA and DOD have

identified detailed schedules and activities for each of the weapons

in the stockpile through 2025.

The provision would not be construed to modify, repeal, or in any

way affect the provisions of section 3136 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994.

Limitation on availability of funds for program to eliminate

weapons grade plutonium production (sec. 3136)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the

amount of money that could be obligated or expended for the program to eliminate weapons grade plutonium production before an

agreement with Russia is signed. The provision would prohibit the

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration

from obligating or expending more than $100.0 million until 30

days after the Administrator submits a copy of the agreement to

the congressional defense committees.

SUBTITLE D—PROLIFERATION MATTERS

Administration of program to eliminate weapons grade plutonium production in Russia (sec. 3151)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the

transfer of the program to eliminate weapons grade plutonium in

Russia from the Department of Defense (DOD) to the Department

of Energy (DOE). The provision would also direct that the funds,

which had been previously appropriated to DOD, be transferred to

and merged with DOE funds. In addition, the provision would

allow DOE to spend the funds for the program without regard to

the restrictions that had been placed on the funds when DOD managed the program.

The program to eliminate weapons grade plutonium production

in Russia would shut down the remaining three plutonium producing reactors in Russia. The program was originally created to

modify the reactor cores so they would not produce plutonium. Due

to technical difficulties in changing the reactor cores and the age

of the reactors, the program shifted from converting the reactor

cores to building alternative power sources. The three reactors, in

476

addition to producing plutonium, also produce energy for the communities in which they are located. In order to shut down the reactors, an alternative power supply must be provided.

The 2003 budget request transferred this program from DOD to

the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as a

result of concern in Congress that this program should not be a

DOD program, but rather a DOE effort. In order to implement the

program at DOE, the various restrictions that were put on the program at DOD must be removed. This provision would allow NNSA

to carry out the program without the funding limitations and restrictions placed on the program when it was a DOD program.

The committee notes that this program is a very complicated program to implement, involving substantial financial contributions

and coordination with the Russian government. There are many

unresolved issues that NNSA will have to resolve with Russia before any actual construction activities can begin. The committee directs the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of NNSA not

to begin any construction work on the alternative power sources

until there is an agreement or agreements in place with Russia

that include a firm commitment to shut down the reactors and a

firm schedule for Russian actions that support the shutdown, including the portions of the program that must be completed by

Russia before the reactors can be shut down.

A related aspect of this program is an ongoing NNSA program

to upgrade the reactors until they can be shut down. The reactor

upgrade program was an NNSA program already underway and is

not part of the transfer from DOD. The committee remains concerned that any upgrades to the reactors be for short-term safety

improvements and will not extend the life of these reactors.

Security of nuclear materials and facilities worldwide (sec.

3152)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the

sense of Congress that the Secretary of Energy, in consultation

with the Secretaries of State and Defense, should work to develop

a program of activities, with Russia, other G–8 countries, and allies, to encourage all countries to secure stockpiles of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium and to adhere to or adopt

standards equivalent to the International Atomic Energy Agency

standards on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and Nuclear Facilities. The provision would also direct the Secretary of

Energy, acting through the Administrator of the National Nuclear

Security Administration (NNSA), to conduct a study to determine

the feasibility and advisability of developing a program to secure

radiological materials outside the United States, other than HEU

and plutonium, that present a threat to U.S. national security and

to submit a report to Congress on the review one year after the

date of enactment. Finally, the provision would direct the Secretary

of Energy, in consultation with the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to conduct a study on the feasibility and advisability of various actions to reduce risks associated with terrorist

attacks on nuclear power plants outside the United States. The

Secretary would be required to submit to Congress a report on the

477

results of this study nine months after the date of enactment of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

Repeal of requirement for reports on obligation of funds for

programs on fissile materials in Russia (sec. 3153)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the

semi-annual report on the Department of Energy fissile Materials

Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program required by

section 3131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1996. This report is no longer needed as the information is

included in the annual MPC&A report.

Expansion of annual reports on status of nuclear Materials

Protection, Control and Accounting program (sec. 3154)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

annual reporting requirement for the Department of Energy (DOE)

Materials Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program to

include countries other than Russia. The DOE MPC&A program

works to protect weapons grade nuclear materials in the countries

of the Former Soviet Union, including Russia. The provision would

also amend the MPC&A report to require the Secretary of Energy

to identify the nature of the work performed in each country outside of Russia, the amount of material secured, the amount of material remaining to be secured, and the total amount spent by country.

Export Control Operations program

The budget request included $92.7 million for the Nonproliferation and International Security program. This request included

$15.5 million for the Export Control Operations program in the Office of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. The program conducts proliferation reviews of U.S. dual-use

export licenses, regulates U.S. nuclear technology transfers, plays

a leading role in implementing multilateral export control regimes,

and works with governments worldwide by providing assistance

and training to develop effective and enforceable national systems

of nuclear export control. Because of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and heightened concerns that countries that support terrorism are increasing efforts to acquire dual-use technologies and nuclear materials, the committee is very concerned

that weak export control systems and ineffective enforcement

worldwide pose a danger to U.S. national security. Therefore, the

committee recommends that the Export Control Operations program accelerate its efforts to promote the use of nonproliferation

export controls with emerging supplier states and regions of concern, work with transit states to train and equip experts in identifying illicit transfers of controlled nuclear and other weapons of

mass destruction-related exports, and strengthen the National Nuclear Security Administration’s role in the technical evaluation of

proliferation threats and of exports and imports reviewed by U.S.

Customs. The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million

above the budget request to be used to support these efforts.

478

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Indemnification of Department of Energy contractors (sec.

3161)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 170d(1)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to allow the Department of Energy to continue to enter into contracts for indemnification for an additional 10 years, through August 1, 2012.

Worker health and safety rules for Department of Energy facilities (sec. 3162)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 234B of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2282b) to

require the Secretary of Energy to impose fines and penalties

against contractors and subcontractors of the Department of Energy (DOE) who violate DOE construction health and safety regulations that the Secretary is required to promulgate. The regulations

must be promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure

Act not later than 270 days from the date of enactment of this Act.

The regulations would take effect one year from the date they are

promulgated. The Secretary may provide in the regulations

variances or exemptions to the extent necessary to avoid serious

impairment of the national security of the United States. The provision would also require the Secretary to establish a process under

which the variance or waiver would be granted. In enforcing the

regulations on the structures, buildings facilities or other improvements that are being closed, demolished or transferred, the Secretary shall evaluate on a case by case basis whether they should

or should not be brought into conformance. The committee includes

this direction to the Secretary to prevent improvements to such facilities. In making any such determination the decision shall not diminish or effect the worker health and safety regulations applicable to the surveillance, decontamination or demolition work on such

facilities. Penalties may be assessed up to $0.1 million per day per

violation. The provision provides that a non-profit or not-for-profit

entity shall not be assessed fines and penalties, that, when aggregated with all other fines and penalties, would exceed the amount

of the contract fee.

One-year extension of authority of Department of Energy to

pay voluntary separation incentive payments (sec. 3163)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3161(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 to provide a one-year extension of the Department of

Energy (DOE) authority to make voluntary separation incentive

payments. The committee is aware that DOE would like to extend

the ability to encourage voluntary separations and avoid any future

need to conduct a reduction in force. This provision would allow

DOE to do long-term planning for reductions as a result of future

reorganizations.

479

Support for public education in the vicinity of Los Alamos

National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3164)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $6.9 million to be paid by the Department of Energy (DOE) to the

Los Alamos Education Foundation in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends an additional $6.9 million in readiness in the

technical base, special projects, for this payment. The foundation

was established by section 3167(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. The foundation provides for educational support to students and schools in the Los Alamos area.

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Adminis- tration (NNSA) includes $8.0 million for the Los Alamos Public

Schools to offset the cost of living for school teachers teaching in

the public schools. The contract between NNSA and the Los Alamos schools, pursuant to which this annual payment is made, expires at the end of fiscal year 2003. The provision would also

amend section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2002 to allow NNSA to extend the current contract

with the Los Alamos Public Schools to provide for cost of living adjustments for the school teachers through fiscal year 2013. This

amendment is necessary to allow NNSA to include the annual payment in its fiscal year 2004 budget request and in subsequent

years budget requests.

SUBTITLE F—DISPOSITION OF WEAPONS-USABLE

PLUTONIUM AT SAVANNAH RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA

Disposition of weapons-usable plutonium at Savannah

River, South Carolina (sec. 3181–3183)

The committee supports the ability of the United States to meet

its obligations under the Plutonium Disposition Agreement with

Russia, signed in September 2000. The United States and Russia

agreed to dispose of 34 metric tons each of excess weapons grade

plutonium, all of which the Department of Energy has planned to

dispose of by 2019 through the conversion of the plutonium to a

mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors.

This conversion would take place at the Savannah River Site’s

MOX plutonium conversion facility at Aiken, South Carolina. Because of the importance of the MOX facility for plutonium disposition, the committee has created a detailed set of certifications,

plans, corrective processes, and, if necessary, monetary payments

to be made by the Secretary of Energy to ensure the effective functioning of the MOX facility. The provision also defines the term

‘‘MOX production objective’’ as production at the MOX facility at

the Savannah River Site of MOX fuel from defense plutonium and

defense plutonium materials at an average rate equivalent to not

less than one metric ton of MOX fuel per year. This average rate

would be based on measurements of production at the MOX facility

from the date on which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

declares the MOX facility operational through the date of assessment.

The committee included a section that would direct the Secretary

of Energy, no later than February 1, 2003, to submit to Congress

a plan for the construction and operation of a MOX plutonium facilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00497 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.163 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
480

ity at the Savannah River Site. The committee recommends that

the plan include a schedule for construction and operations to ensure that as of January 1, 2009, and thereafter, the production of

MOX fuel and that production of one metric ton of MOX fuel is

achieved by December 31, 2009. This schedule must also ensure

the delivery of 34 metric tons of defense plutonium and defense

plutonium materials to the Savannah River Site to be processed

into MOX fuel by January 1, 2019.

To ensure that the MOX fuel construction and operation schedule

as mandated is on-time and on-budget, the committee recommends

that, starting in 2004, not later than February 15 of each year, and

continuing for as long as the MOX facility at the Savannah River

Site is in use, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a

report on the implementation of the plan described above. For

those reports submitted to Congress under this section before the

year 2010, the Secretary must include an assessment of compliance

with the schedule contained in the plan and a certification by the

Secretary that the MOX production objective can be met by January 2009. For each report after 2009, the Secretary must address

whether MOX production objectives have been met and also the

status of U.S. obligations under the Plutonium Management and

Disposition Agreement with the Russian Federation. For reports

submitted after 2017, the Secretary must continue to include assessments of compliance with the MOX production objective, and if

for any reason compliance with the production objective is not met,

the Secretary must supply a plan for compliance with the MOX

production objective and the removal of all remaining defense plutonium and defense plutonium materials from the State of South

Carolina.

Due to the unique nature and obvious benefits of the MOX facility, the committee recommends a process for corrective actions

taken if any of the reports due before January 1, 2009, indicate

that construction or operation of the MOX facility is behind the

planned schedule by 12 months or more. In such a circumstance,

the section directs the Secretary to submit to Congress, no later

than August 15 of the year in which the report is submitted, a plan

to be implemented that will ensure that the MOX facility is capable

of meeting the MOX production objective by January 1, 2009. If the

plan submitted is in any year after 2008, it must include corrective

actions to be implemented by the Secretary ensuring that the MOX

production objective is met. Any such plan for corrective action

must also include established milestones for compliance with MOX

production goals.

If before January 1, 2009, the Secretary determines that MOX

milestones as set forth by the Secretary’s corrective action plan will

not be met by 2009, all transfers of defense plutonium and defense

plutonium materials must be suspended until the schedule risk is

addressed by the Secretary and the Secretary certifies that MOX

production objectives can be met by 2009. If after January 1, 2009,

the Secretary determines that milestones under the Secretary’s corrective action plan have been slipped and the MOX production objective cannot be met, the Secretary must suspend further transfers

of defense plutonium and defense plutonium materials until the

Secretary can certify that the MOX production objective can be

481

met. In either case, either before or after January 1, 2009, if the

Secretary makes such determinations, then the Secretary must

submit to Congress a plan specifying options for the removal from

the State of South Carolina an amount of defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials equal to the amount of such materials

transferred to the State of South Carolina after April 15, 2002.

These reports must be specific in setting forth options, including

the costs and schedules of implementation for each of the options

examined, and any consideration of requirements for removal

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.), and commensurate with the submittal, any analyses

which may be required under the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 must also be initiated.

In the eventuality that the MOX production schedule is not met,

and the Secretary makes any of the determinations under this section that would require removal of defense plutonium and defense

plutonium materials from the State of South Carolina in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and any

other applicable laws, the committee recommends several requirements for that removal process. If the MOX production objective is

not met by January 1, 2009, the Secretary must remove, no later

than January 1, 2011, no less than one metric ton of all defense

plutonium and defense plutonium materials from the State of

South Carolina, and no later than January 1, 2017, the amount of

defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials transferred to

the Savannah River Site between April 15, 2002, and January 1,

2017, but not yet processed at the MOX facility.

If the MOX production objective is not met on January 1, 2011,

the committee has included a section that would require the Secretary to make payments to the State of South Carolina each year,

starting on or after that date, until 2016, in order to assist with

the economic impact on the State of not meeting the MOX production objective. The amount of the payment is $1.0 million per day

until the passage of 100 days in such a year, the MOX production

objective is achieved, or the Secretary has removed from the State

of South Carolina in such a year at least 1 metric ton of defense

plutonium or defense plutonium materials. If the MOX production

objective has not been met by January 1, 2017, the Secretary will

make payments to the State of South Carolina each year, beginning on or after that date, through 2024 of $1.0 million per day

until the passage of 100 days in such a year, the MOX production

objective is achieved, or the Secretary has removed an amount of

defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials from the State

of South Carolina equal to the amount of defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials transferred to the Savannah River Site

between April 15, 2002 and January 1, 2017, but not yet processed

by the MOX facility. All payments made according to this section

would be from amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy.

In case any injunctions obtained by the State of South Carolina

would prevent the Department of Energy from taking actions necessary under these sections, the committee recommends that any

deadlines specified be extended for the period of time during which

the court-ordered injunction is in effect.

482

If on July 1 of each year, beginning in the year 2020, and continuing for as long as the MOX facility at the Savannah River Site

is in use, the planned plutonium disposition obligation under the

agreement with the Russian Federation of 34 metric tons is not

met through processing at the MOX facility, the Secretary must

submit to Congress a plan for the complete processing of the full

34 metric tons of defense plutonium and defense plutonium materials at the MOX facility or the removal of all such material from

the State of South Carolina in an amount equal to all such material transferred to the Savannah River Site after April 15, 2002,

but not yet processed into MOX fuel.

The committee further directs that if after one year of the date

on which the MOX facility ceases operation any MOX fuel remains

at the Savannah River Site, the Secretary must submit to Congress

a report detailing when such fuel would be transferred for use in

commercial nuclear reactors or a plan for its removal from the

State of South Carolina.

Engineering, construction, and project management

The committee continues to support the Department of Energy

(DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) efforts to improve project management. The Office of Engineering

and Construction Management (OECM) within DOE and the Office

of Project Management (OPM) within NNSA have been integral to

the progress that DOE has made in the last several years in significantly improving project and construction management. The

management discipline these two offices have brought to both construction and other types of projects, such as NNSA approach to

weapons pit manufacturing and certification, have enabled DOE

and NNSA to manage costs and schedules better and to improve

long-term planning. The committee notes that the close working relationship of the two offices has been key to the overall success of

each.

More remains to be done however. The committee believes that

each office could benefit from a small amount of additional resources. The committee urges the Administrator of NNSA to provide at least $5.0 million for the NNSA OPM to allow the OPM to

continue its own project oversight work but also to provide training

and mentoring programs to improve the skills of DOE project managers. The committee believe this training should include training

for key DOE managers so that they can become certified project

managers.

Disposition of special nuclear material from the Rocky Flats

Site

The committee is concerned about possible delays in removing

Special Nuclear Material (SNM) from the Department of Energy

(DOE) Rocky Flats Site. These delays could ultimately threaten the

scheduled closure of the Rocky Flats Site by December 15, 2006.

The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to provide a report

describing how the DOE proposes to remove all SNM from the

Rocky Flats Site on a schedule to enable the closure of the Rocky

Flats Site by December 15, 2006. The report shall be submitted to

the congressional defense committees 90 days after the date of enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00500 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.165 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
483

actment of this Act. The report shall be initiated and developed

within the Department of Energy by the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management.

This report shall include:

(1) an assessment by the Secretary of the current cost and

schedule for the closure of the Rocky Flats Site and whether

the project to close the Site is on track to complete closure by

December 15, 2006, and what steps, if any, are needed to keep

the project on schedule to close Rocky Flats by December 15,

2006.

(2) an assessment by the Secretary of the cost and schedule

impacts, if any, to the effort to close the Rocky Flats Site by

December 15, 2006 that are the result of delays in removing

SNM from Rocky Flats.

(3) the DOE strategy and schedule for removing all SNM

from the Rocky Flats Sites to achieve closure of the Rocky

Flats Site by December 15, 2006, including the destination of

all SNM removed from the Rocky Flats Site, the short and long

term plan and schedule for disposition of the SNM removed

from the Rocky Flats Site, and any additional funding that

may be needed to achieve closure of Rocky Flats Site by December 15, 2006.

(4) a strategy and schedule for closure of the Rocky Flats

Site at the earliest possible date in the event the Secretary determines that it is not possible to close the Rocky Flats Site by

December 15, 2006, and funds that would be need to achieve

closure by the revised date.

The Secretary shall provide to the congressional defense committees updates to this report, every 60 days, until the Rocky Flats

Site is closed. The updates shall include cost and schedule impacts

from delays in removing the SNM from the Rocky Flats Sites, any

changes to the SNM disposition plans and schedules, and any additional funds that would be needed at the Rocky Flats Sites or elsewhere to address any schedule or cost differences.

(485)

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY

BOARD

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201)

The committee recommends $19.5 million, the amount of the fiscal year 2003 request, for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board (DNFSB).

Authorization of appropriations for the Formerly Used Sites

Remedial Action Program in the Corps of Engineers

(sec. 3202)

The committee recommends $141.0 million for the Formerly Used

Sites Remedial Action (FUSRAP) program in the Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2003, the amount requested.

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Departmental Recommendations

By letter dated April 19, 2002, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed legislation ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003

for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe

military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.’’ The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 6576 to the Committee

on Armed Services on April 25, 2002. Executive Communication

6576 is available for review at the committee. Senators Levin and

Warner introduced this legislative proposal as S. 2225, by request,

on April 23, 2002.

Committee Action

In accordance with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as

amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, there is set

forth below the committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

In favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Cleland,

Landrieu, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska,

Carnahan, Dayton, Bingaman, Thurmond, McCain, Collins, and

Bunning.

Opposed: Senators Warner, Smith, Inhofe, Santorum, Roberts,

Allard, Hutchinson, and Sessions.

Vote: 17–8.

The roll call votes on amendments to the bill which were considered during the course of the markup have been made public and

are available at the committee.

486

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented

during floor debate on the legislation.

Regulatory Impact

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2003.

Changes in Existing Law

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds.

(487)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR CARNAHAN

Upon considerable reflection and advice from fellow members of

the Committee, I have decided to vote against the Santorum

amendment to strike measures pertaining to ‘‘core logistics capabilities.’’ I have thoroughly reviewed the provision at issue in light

of claims that it would divert work from the private sector to Department of Defense Depot Maintenance facilities.

However, having consulted with other members of the Committee

as well as the professional Committee staff, I determined that this

provision does not require any reductions in private sector jobs in

the areas of acquisition logistics, supply management, systems engineering, maintenance, and modifications management.

The provision at issue requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to consider a broader, more

explicit set of functions when determining which services shall be

considered ‘‘core logistics capabilities’’ than currently exists under

the law. It is my understanding that in spite of this authorization,

this Administration is not likely to expand the type of logistical

work conducted at the military’s depot facilities.

I intend to continue consulting my constituents on this matter

following completion of mark-up of the Fiscal Year 2003 National

Defense Authorization Bill. I may reconsider my position if it becomes clear that work conducted by logistics and maintenance contractors in Missouri would be jeopardized.

JEAN CARNAHAN.

(488)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR MCCAIN

Overall, the Senate Armed Services Committee has produced a

bill which is supportive of the outstanding servicemen and women

in our armed forces—in terms of training, pay, family quality-of-life

benefits, and providing modern equipment and weapon systems.

Building upon evaluations and recommendations regarding growing

readiness and modernization problems throughout the services, the

Committee has done an admirable job of addressing some of the

more pressing issues contributing to the multiple problems that

have been brought to its attention over the past several years.

On most issues, I support the Committee’s recommendation in

drafting of the FY 2003 defense authorization bill. However, I have

additional views on several issues addressed in this bill.

LEASING BOEING 767 AERIAL REFUELING TANKER AIRCRAFT

I forcefully endorse the Committee’s inclusion of an amendment

that will direct the Secretary of the Air Force to obtain specific authorization and appropriation to lease 100 Boeing 767 tanker aircraft that was previously approved by the Department of Defense

Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2002. However, I am disappointed that the Report language accompanying this legislative

provision was drafted in such a way as to not adequately reflect the

full discussion during the mark-up of this critical issue.

Specifically, a majority of the members present felt as I do, that

the payment of leasing of major weapon systems—aircraft, vessels,

and combat vehicles—should not come from critical funds providing

for readiness spending, such as training, spare parts, flying hours,

and maintenance of weapons systems and barracks. There appeared to be a sense of agreement that any lease for major weapon

systems should instead be funded from the procurement accounts.

During posture hearings, the Service Secretaries and Chiefs confirmed that readiness unfunded requirements still exist and submitted lists to meet their readiness requirements. Robbing ‘‘Peter

to pay Paul’’ so that the Air Force can modernize their tanker fleet

is questionable at best and several recent reports by the GAO,

OMB and CBO bear this out. I regret that the Chairman and

Ranking Member did not reflect this in the Report, despite the fact

that considerable debate occurred related to the lease in question.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (BMD) FUNDING

The Committee failed to provide full funding of President Bush’s

missile defense program—cutting $812 million. Particularly disturbing is the fact that Republicans attempted several times to restore critical funding in the ballistic missile defense programs but

were opposed by the Chairman and his colleagues. In an age of

missile proliferation, we need a fully funded and vigorous missile

489

defense program, the deployment of which becomes more urgent as

each year passes.

NATIONAL SERVICE PLAN (CALL TO SERVICE ACT)

I fully support the Committee’s unanimous inclusion of the ‘‘National Call to Service Act,’’ which provides for strong incentives to

encourage young Americans to enlist in the Armed Services.

The Committee adopted provision is the military component of

the ‘‘Call to Service Act,’’ introduced by Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

and myself, which also expands civilian service opportunities in

AmeriCorps and SeniorCorps and in other service organizations.

This is a very significant boost to a bill that will give Americans

concrete opportunities to serve in causes greater than self interest.

By encouraging more military enlistments, this legislation could

greatly assist our war against terror.

Under the National Call to Service Act, individuals who volunteer to serve under this new program would be required to serve

on active duty for 15 months in the Armed Services after completion of initial entry training and could complete the remainder of

their military service obligation by choosing service on active duty,

in the Selected Reserve or in the Individual Ready Reserve. The reserve obligation could also be fulfilled by serving in a civilian national service program such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps.

In return for service, the legislation provides the choice of incentives including a $5,000 bonus, repayment of a student loan up to

$18,000, an educational allowance under the Montgomery GI Bill.

The measure also encourages and facilitates military service by

requiring federally funded institutions of higher learning to provide

the same access to military recruiters as is provided to other employers.

At this time of national challenge, Americans are yearning for

opportunities to serve. I hope Congress will expeditiously take action on this entire legislation to create more options in both the

areas of military and civilian service.

INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED END STRENGTHS FOR THE SERVICE

ACADEMIES

I applaud the Committees recommendation that would increase

the authorized end strengths to 4,400 midshipmen or cadets at the

military academies: U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Military Academy

and U.S. Air Force Academy. The provision would also clarify that

the service secretary can permit a variance above that limitation

by 1 percent. This provision along with the National Service Plan

program should open more opportunities for young Americans to

serve their country in military service.

FORCE MODERNIZATION

It is odd to me that although the President added $48 billion to

the defense budget the Navy would buy only 5 ships in 2003. The

Navy is struggling to maintain a fleet of 300 ships, down from over

500 in the early 1990s. The Future Years’ Defense Plan will not

support a Navy of even 200 ships. The Marine Corps saves money

in spare parts by retreading light trucks and Humvees, so as to afVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00507 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.167 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
490

ford small arms ammunition for forward deployed Marines. The list

goes on and on, but what must be recognized is the scale of these

very serious modernization problems in the Navy and Marine

Corps that continue to grow and must be reversed if this nation’s

ability to execute major operations in the future is to be assured.

I support the Committee’s recommendation to add funding for 4 additional F/A–18s and in shipbuilding, particularly CVN(X), DDG–

51, LPD–17 and LHA(R).

Funding LHA(R) was accomplished by redirecting money from

LHD–9 advance procurement after it was discovered that the DOD

Comptroller mistakenly deleted the funding for LHA(R) RDT&E

and added it to the LHD–9 shipbuilding and construction account.

After considerable testimony from the CNO, Marine Corps Commandant, and other senior Navy and Marine Corps officials, the

Committee was able to amend the defense bill to correct this unfortunate mistake. I strongly support this provision.

MEMBER-ADDS NOT REQUESTED BY THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

As usual, this year’s defense bill emerged from committee with

a large number of programs totaling more than $2 billion that were

not requested by the Defense Department. This number is $1 billion more than last year’s bill. In the past, there has been an increasing tendency to manipulate the process by which the services

produce their unfunded priorities lists—lists which are important

to the Committee’s ability to allocate funds added by Congress to

the Administration’s budget request. In addition to questionable

Member-adds that are reflected on those lists, there continue to be

too many programs added to the bill that were neither requested

nor included on those lists.

In my view, the Congress should stop compelling the military to

pursue research programs that do not meet their requirements.

Spending nearly $55 million for ‘‘21st Century Truck,’’ previously

known as James Bond’s ‘‘Smart Truck’’ is an unconscionable waste

of taxpayer dollars. These kinds of programs should be funded by

private industry. Even Detroit’s automotive industry can afford to

pursue these purely scientific, high-tech, endeavors that the consumer will only pay for later on the dealer showroom.

I would like to mention one further example of wasteful spending. For the last several years, Congress has added money for Cultural and Historic Preservation Activities, which is funded through

a program call the Legacy Resource Management Program, fancy

terminology for pork. The fiscal year 2003 defense authorization

bill will add $3.3 million to this program. Last year, the Senate

Armed Services Committee added $8 million principally for recovery and preservation of the C.S.S. Virginia, which ran aground

near Craney Island near the James and Elizabeth Rivers and was

set on fire after being abandoned in May 1862. I enjoy reading history, especially Civil War history, but there are more pressing

readiness and modernization issues than raising Civil War ironclads.

491

PERSONNEL INITIATIVES: PAY RAISE, RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, AND

RETIREMENT BENEFITS

The bill contains a package of benefits for servicemembers and

their families that would go a long way toward addressing the

readiness problems facing all the services. It includes a 4.1 percent

across-the-board pay raise for all active and reserve

servicemembers, with an additional targeted pay raise ranging

from 5.5% to 6.5% for sergeants, petty officers and chiefs.

Military pay, by almost all accounts, has fallen considerably behind civilian pay. Arguments can be made as to the precise pay differential, and at which pay grades and mission areas the gap is

greatest, but there is no credible argument as to whether or not we

need to address the issue of compensation.

Additionally, the Committee approved a provision that would authorize a new assignment incentive pay of up to $1,500 per month

to encourage servicemembers to serve in difficult-to-fill assignments, like Korea or the Persian Gulf region.

The Committee approved a significant legislative provision directing the Secretary of Defense to review personnel compensation

laws and policies, including the Reserve retirement system, to determine how well they address the needs of Guard and Reserve

servicemembers. This provision is particularly noteworthy since the

Secretary of Defense recalled nearly 95,000 Reserve Component

servicmembers for Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle.

Often times the collective memory of our active duty, including active duty reserve servicemembers, is short and a comprehensive examination of reserve force policies, if done right, will help address

waning retention of reservists and continued support by employers

of reservists.

CONCURRENT RECEIPT

It is tremendously important to me that the committee included

language in the defense authorization bill and report that would

authorize payment of retired pay and disability pay for military retirees with disabilities rated at 60% or more—a practice known as

‘‘concurrent receipt.’’ For the past 11 years, I have offered legislation on this issue. This matter is of great significance to many of

our country’s military retirees, because it would reverse existing,

unfair regulations that strip retirement pay from military retirees

who are also disabled, and costs them any realistic opportunity for

post-service earnings. I am pleased that the committee, for the first

time, has included an authorization to begin to address a longstanding inequity in the compensation of military retirees’ pay over

previous attempts in the past.

We must do more to restore retirement pay for those military retirees who are disabled. I have stated this before, and I am compelled to reiterate now—retirement pay and disability pay are distinct types of pay. Retirement pay is for service rendered through

20 years of military service. Disability pay is for physical or mental

pain or suffering that occurs during and as a result of military

service. In this case, members with decades of military service receive the same compensation as similarly disabled members who

492

served only a few years; this practice fails to recognize their extended, more demanding careers of service to our country.

This is patently unfair, and I will continue to work with the

Committee to diligently correct this inequity for all career military

servicemembers who are disabled.

Enacting this provision is yet another step forward to ensuring

that we recognize the military service of those military retirees

who by no fault of their own become disabled during their career

military service.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Military construction continues to fall victim to funding gimmicks and undue Congressional management. Congress, once

again, promptly added a number of military construction projects,

totaling around $640 million, that are not priority items for the Department of Defense. This practice of Congressional adds is detrimental to the budget process and continues to make a mockery of

other earnest attempts to save and wisely spend our taxpayers’ dollars.

F–16 ENGINE FIXES

The recent spate of F–16 crashes has focused attention on vital

safety issues involving that aircraft. The Department of the Air

Force identified specific engine component failures based on shoddy

work and defective materials discovered an aviation depot at Tinker Air Force Base. In addition, its investigation revealed that certain F–16 components common throughout the fleet had a high

probability to fail. The Air Force has researched the cost and

schedule of fixing or replacing these components, and has outlined

a required funding profile.

The F–16 is the Air Force’s front line fighter. The total Air Force

F–16 inventory is over 1,400 aircraft, of which a number are currently deployed to Afghanistan. Additionally, F–16s continue to enforce both the southern and northern no-fly zones over Iraq and

have been one of the mainstay aircraft of every conflict since

Desert Storm. I continue to support all efforts to identify and fix

the engine problems being experienced by our F–16 fleet. I firmly

believe that the safety of our aircrew and the combat readiness of

our Air Force are top priority concerns that require our immediate

attention. For that reason, the Committee’s decision to add $60

million in funding for F–16 engine modifications is essential to

maintain that aircraft’s readiness.

‘‘BUY AMERICA’’ RESTRICTIONS

I support the Committee’s recommendation submitted by the Administration to waive certain ‘‘Buy America’’ restrictions. The Committee authorized the Secretary of Defense to waive domestic

source or content requirements for close defense allies that provide

reciprocal treatment for our defense products. ‘‘Buy America’’ restrictions divert necessary funds to ensure our military is properly

equipped. An additional $5 billion can be saved per year by eliminating ‘‘Buy America’’ restrictions that are protected by the Berry

Amendment that only undermine U.S. competitiveness overseas.

493

Every dollar we spend on archaic procurement policies, like ‘‘Buy

America,’’ is a dollar we cannot spend on training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining

force structure, replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our

military technology.

SUMMARY

In closing, it should be reemphasized that the Committee continues to try to address extremely serious near-and long-term readiness and modernization problems within an exceptionally constrained budgetary environment. While the tendency of Members to

continue business-as-usual practices of adding programs and earmarking for parochial reasons needs to be curtailed, vitally important retention issues have been addressed that will aid immeasurably in reversing a very serious decline in the services’ ability to

retain skilled personnel. For that, the Committee should be commended.

JOHN MCCAIN.

(494)

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS WARNER, SMITH OF NEW

HAMPSHIRE, INHOFE, SANTORUM, ROBERTS, ALLARD,

HUTCHINSON, AND SESSIONS

For the second consecutive year, the Senate Armed Services

Committee has divided along party lines, primarily over the issue

of missile defense. Sincere, good-faith efforts were made by Republican Members to find common ground and compromise on this

issue, but these efforts were voted down. The National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2003, as reported to the Senate for

floor action, in our view fundamentally alters the President’s national security priorities and fails to send a clear message, on the

issue of missile defense, to America’s allies and adversaries that

the Congress will provide the resources necessary to protect our

homeland, our troops deployed overseas and our allies and friends

from all known threats—including the very real and growing threat

of missile attack.

The world as we knew it changed forever on September 11. We

lost not only many lives and much property that day, but we also

lost our uniquely American feeling of invulnerability; our feeling of

safety within our shores and borders. But from our darkest hour,

our nation has emerged stronger and more united than ever. Our

President has rallied our country and many nations around the

world to fight the evil of terrorism. As we complete committee deliberations on the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal

Year 2003, our nation is at war. U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and

marines, together with their coalition partners, are engaged on the

front lines in the global war against terrorism, with a mission to

root out terrorism at its source in the hopes of preventing future

attacks. Our armed forces have responded to the call of duty in the

finest traditions of our nation.

Homeland security is now, without a doubt, our top priority. We

have a solemn obligation to protect our nation and our citizens

from all known and anticipated threats—whatever their source or

means of delivery. As a candidate and as President, George W.

Bush promised our nation that homeland security was his most urgent priority. Missile defense is an integral part of the overall defense of our homeland and our deployed troops.

Accordingly, our President submitted a responsible, prioritized

budget request for fiscal year 2003 that addresses our most important security needs. The request for missile defense was reasonable. It was a request that represented no increase over last year’s

funding level, and that was less than two percent of the defense

budget. As a nation, we have the wealth, the talent, and the technology to protect ourselves. We must use these resources to move

forward now, without artificial limitations—either fiscal or legislative—on the ability of our nation to develop and deploy adequate

defenses.

495

The National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2003

contains a drastic reduction, of over $800 million, from the President’s request for missile defense programs, including over $400

million in reductions to theater missile defense programs. In addition, the bill contains a number of restrictions and excessive reporting requirements that will further hamper the rapid development

of missile defenses. According to Lieutenant General Ronald

Kadish, USAF, Director, Missile Defense Agency, the reductions

contained in this bill, ‘‘* * * fundamentally undermine the Administration’s transformation of missile defense capabilities * * *’’ and ‘‘* * * eliminate the opportunity for earliest-possible contingency

against medium range ballistic missiles abroad.’’ One clear and immediate consequence will be to further delay the fielding of theater

missile defenses our troops needed over a decade ago in the Persian

Gulf War.

Many in the Senate—including the undersigned—have long been

in the forefront of efforts to develop missile defenses to protect our

nation from limited ballistic missile attacks. It has been a long and

arduous struggle, but we are on the threshold of success. In June,

the United States will formally withdraw from the thirty-year-old

Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which has hampered the U.S.

missile defense program. With this action, all artificial restraints

will be removed from the ability of the United States to research,

develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. Congress

should not now apply new limitations on the rapid, cost-effective

development of defenses to protect our nation and deployed troops

from missile attack. The funding reductions and program constraints contained in the bill reported out of committee are a significant step backward in our efforts to improve the security of our

nation.

We strongly endorse the President’s missile defense program.

The threat of missile attack is real and growing. According to the

January 2002 national intelligence estimate (NIE) on the missile

threat, ‘‘The probability that a missile with a weapon of mass destruction will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher

today than during most of the Cold War, and will continue to grow

as the capabilities of potential adversaries mature.’’ Dozens of nations already have short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in

the field that threaten U.S. interests, military forces, and allies;

and others are seeking to acquire similar capabilities, including

missiles that could reach the United States. Before September 11,

who would have predicted that civilian airliners would be turned

into missiles, aimed at thousands of innocent civilians? We must be

prepared for the expected and unexpected.

We are also concerned with other key areas in the bill, particularly the level of funding for shipbuilding. Shipbuilding was severely underfunded in the President’s budget request. While additional funds are contained in this bill for important programs that

were not adequately funded in the request, the committee missed

an important opportunity to add more money and key acquisition

authorities for building ships that would have ultimately saved the

U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars. A shipbuilding restoration initiative proposed by Republican Committee Members was rejected on

a straight party-line vote. We are all aware that we are not curVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00513 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.171 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
496

rently building enough ships to maintain an adequate Navy for the

future. Ultimately, there will be a high price to pay if this trend

is not quickly reversed.

In addition, we note that this bill contains an assortment of

across-the-board reductions, which could well have a negative impact on programs and readiness. These include an $850.0 million

cut to services contracting, and a $250.0 million tax on research

and development programs to fund a test and evaluation initiative.

At this point, it is impossible to predict the specific impact of such

large reductions on individual weapon systems or on the readiness

of our force. In the case of services contracting, the bill imposes a

tax, mainly in the readiness accounts, for so-called ‘‘savings’’ that

are to be achieved through services contracting reform in fiscal

year 2003. These savings simply cannot be achieved next year. The

Department of Defense is just beginning reform in this area and

it will be many years before the Department will be in a position

to reap any savings from improved services contracting. As a result, the Department will be forced to tax important readiness programs to pay for these ‘‘savings.’’ If the committee chooses to fund

needed priorities through ‘‘savings’’ initiatives, it would be better to

give the Secretary of Defense the discretion to identify real managerial efficiencies, as we did last year, that can be executed in the

coming fiscal year rather than illusory ones.

Aside from these important concerns, we support much of what

is contained in this bill. The National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2003 contains the largest defense increase in over

20 years—an increase of $45.0 billion. In line with the request of

the President, the bill significantly increases all major defense accounts, including, military personnel, procurement, research and

development, and operations and maintenance. The bill also sets

aside a $10.0 billion reserve fund, as requested by the Administration, to pay for ongoing and future military operations in the global

war on terrorism. The threats to our nation and the on-going war

on terrorism demand this increased investment in national security, both now and in the future.

In addition, the bill contains many key provisions which we support to improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, our retirees, and their families, including, a 4.1% pay raise

for our uniformed personnel; additional funding for facilities and

services that will greatly improve the quality of life for our service

personnel and their families, at home and abroad; and the phased

repeal of the prohibition on concurrent receipt of non-disability retired military pay and veterans disability pay for our military retirees with disabilities rated at 60% or higher. The committee also approved a committee amendment, which will be considered by the

full Senate, to repeal fully and immediately the prohibition on concurrent receipt, a step which will allow all non-disability retired

veterans with VA disability ratings to collect the full amount they

have earned.

Despite the positive aspects of this legislation, we cannot support

the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization Bill in its current form.

We will continue to work closely with our colleagues in the Senate

during the course of floor consideration and as we move to a conference with the House of Representatives, to support the PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:03 May 17, 2002 Jkt 079608 PO 00000 Frm 00514 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR151.171 pfrm09 PsN: SR151
497

dent’s defense priorities and to ensure that our most important capabilities are adequately funded. The American people and the

men and women who serve in uniform to protect them deserve no

less.

JOHN W. WARNER.

RICK SANTORUM.

WAYNE ALLARD.

TIM HUTCHINSON.

JEFF SESSIONS.

JIM INHOFE.

BOB SMITH.

PAT ROBERTS.

(498)

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR ALLARD

I am again disappointed in the outcome of this year’s defense

mark. As the ranking member on the Strategic Subcommittee, I am

worried that some very good provisions may be at risk due to the

serious concerns with this bill.

One of my particular interests for several years has been the use

of commercial imagery to help meet the nation’s geospatial and imagery requirements. I do not believe that the Department of Defense has been aggressive enough either in crafting a strategy or

in providing funding for this purpose. I am gratified that the Chairman’s mark includes a substantial increase for commercial imagery

acquisition, and some very helpful words in report language that

I expect will drive the Department toward establishing a sound relationship with the commercial imagery industry.

I also appreciate the support of the new Department of Energy

environmental cleanup reform initiative that will incentivize cleanup sites to do their important work faster and more efficiently. The

accelerated cleanup initiative will reduce risk to the workers, communities and the environment, shorten the cleanup schedule by

decades, and save tens of billions of dollars over the life of the

cleanup. The bill added $200 million to this cleanup initiative and

I expect DOE will make tremendous strides. In addition, the bill

added $200 million for the safeguard and security accounts in order

to address the many security issues which have arisen since September 11th.

I was also encouraged by the Committee’s support for the Thurmond/Allard mixed oxide fuel amendment. I believe that by accepting this amendment, the Committee is showing the state of South

Carolina their commitment to the MOX program.

Early in the process, I made it very clear that one of my top priorities was to assure that ballistic missile defense programs are

adequately funded. I was deeply disappointed that the majority is

proposing a net reduction to missile defense programs of over $800

million. This represents a 12 percent decrease to the missile defense request for fiscal year 2003, a request that was already less

than was appropriated for fiscal year 2002. I believe that reductions of this magnitude are unjustified and will do extraordinary

harm to the effort to develop and deploy effective missile defenses

as efficiently as we can.

I must also note that more than half of the missile defense reductions can be reasonably described as pertaining to defense against

shorter range missiles. Reductions to THAAD, MEADS, ABL, Navy

Midcourse, terminal defense segment program operations, and

SBIRS Low will all damage our theater missile defense effort, as

will the reduction to the BMD System program element. I know

this is an area where the Majority have said they support stronger

499

efforts, yet these reductions seem to be inconsistent with that support.

In the wake of the events of September 11, I believe that missile

defense is more important than ever. As the Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before our committee, we don’t

have the luxury of choosing the threats to which we respond, and

missile threats have a way of developing faster than we expect. I

strongly urge that these proposed missile defense reductions be restored. I want to assure my chairman that I am more than willing

to work with him to find an acceptable solution and I hope we can

reach that compromise. But I believe these reductions do deep and

fundamental harm to our efforts to develop and deploy effective

missile defenses.

Senator Warner, Senator Collins and I offered reasonable compromises which would have moved the $690 million back to missile

defense while adding $1 billion to the shipbuilding accounts, which

would have added over $210 million more for shipbuilding than the

chairman’s mark. I believe that the rejection of this amendment

proves that this is not missile defense versus shipbuilding, but

rather a strident ideology which opposes missile defense at all

costs, even at the expense of shipbuilding.

I honestly believe that unless there is some compromise, this bill

will have a very difficult time getting off the floor and through conference.

WAYNE ALLARD.

Æ