```

[House Report 107-436]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 
 2nd Session                                                    107-436
_______________________________________________________________________

                                    

                               BOB STUMP

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   on

                               H.R. 4546

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  May 3, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress
                      BOB STUMP, Arizona, Chairman
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                JOHN SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                LANE EVANS, Illinois
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama               MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,           ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    California                       SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma            THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          JIM TURNER, Texas
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia             ADAM SMITH, Washington
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee              LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
JIM RYUN, Kansas                     CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
BOB RILEY, Alabama                   ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico           BARON P. HILL, Indiana
KEN CALVERT, California              MIKE THOMPSON, California
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut             JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ANDER CREHSHAW, Florida              SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois           JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia               RICK LARSEN, Washington
ED SCHROCK, Virginia
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
RANDY FORBES, Virginia
JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
                    Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Explanation of the Committee Amendments..........................     1
Purpose..........................................................     2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill.............................     2
Summary of Table of Authorizations...............................     3
Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................    10
Hearings.........................................................    14
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION..................    14
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................    14
  OVERVIEW.......................................................    14
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    17
      Overview...................................................    17
      Items of Special Interest..................................    21
        AH-64 modifications......................................    21
        Airborne communications..................................    21
        Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)...................    22
        Aircrew integrated systems...............................    22
        Avionics support equipment...............................    23
        CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications.....................    23
        Helicopter new training..................................    23
        UH-60 Blackhawk..........................................    24
        UH-60 modifications......................................    24
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    25
      Overview...................................................    25
      Items of Special Interest..................................    28
        Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) summary/ATACMS 
          block II system summary................................    28
        Hellfire system summary..................................    29
    Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................    29
      Overview...................................................    29
      Items of Special Interest..................................    32
        Bradley base sustaimnent.................................    32
        Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)..........................    32
        M113 carrier modifications...............................    32
        M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)........................    33
    Ammunition Procurement, Army.................................    33
      Overview...................................................    33
        Items of Special Interest................................    37
        Army ammunition procurement..............................    37
        Army ammunition production and load, assemble, and pack 
          (LAP) capacity.........................................    37
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    38
      Overview...................................................    38
      Items of Special Interest..................................    47
        Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)...............    47
        Combat support medical...................................    47
        Family of heavy tactical vehicles........................    48
        High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs)....    48
        Information system security program (ISSP)...............    49
        Items less than $5.0 million (construction equipment)....    49
        Joint tactical area command systems......................    49
        Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)..................    49
        Single channel ground and airborne radio systems 
          (SINCGARS) family......................................    50
        Small tug................................................    50
        Stamis tactical computers (STACOMP)......................    51
        Striker family...........................................    51
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army..............    52
      Overview...................................................    52
      Items of Special Interest..................................    54
        Chemical agents and munitions destruction................    54
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    54
      Overview...................................................    54
      Items of Special Interest..................................    59
        AV-8B series modifications...............................    59
        E-2 modifications........................................    59
        EA-6B modifications......................................    59
        H-1 series modifications.................................    60
        H-60 series modifications................................    60
        Joint primary air training system (JPATS)................    61
        MH-60S...................................................    61
        P-3 series modifications.................................    61
        T-45 training system (TS)................................    62
        UC-35....................................................    63
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    63
      Overview...................................................    63
      Items of Special Interest..................................    67
        AIM-9X missile...........................................    67
        Hellfire II missile......................................    67
        Tomahawk missile.........................................    67
    Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps....................    68
      Overview...................................................    68
      Items of Special Interest..................................    71
        Marine Corps ammunition procurement......................    71
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    71
      Overview...................................................    71
      Items of Special Interest..................................    75
        Carrier replacement program advance procurement..........    75
        CVN-69 refueling complex overhaul (RCOH).................    75
        Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension 
          program (SLEP).........................................    75
        Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) boats.    75
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................    76
      Overview...................................................    76
      Items of Special Interest..................................    84
        Advanced integrated electronic warfare system (AIEWS)....    84
        Environmental support equipment..........................    84
        Gun fire control equipment...............................    84
        Operating forces industrial plant equipment..............    84
        Other aviation support equipment.........................    85
        Other supply support equipment...........................    85
        Other training equipment.................................    85
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................    86
      Overview...................................................    86
      Items of Special Interest..................................    91
        Family of construction equipment.........................    91
        Night vision equipment...................................    91
        Radio systems............................................    91
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................    92
      Overview...................................................    92
      Items of Special Interest..................................    98
        B-2 modifications........................................    98
        C-130H...................................................    99
        C-130J...................................................    99
        C-130 modifications......................................   100
        F-15 modifications.......................................   100
        F-16 modifications.......................................   101
        Fixed aircrew standardized seats.........................   102
        HH-60G pave hawk upgrades................................   102
        Miscellaneous production charges.........................   102
        Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).................   103
    Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................   103
      Overview...................................................   103
      Items of Special Interest..................................   106
        Air Force Ammunition Procurement.........................   106
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   106
      Overview...................................................   106
      Items of Special Interest..................................   109
        Advanced extremely high frequency satellite..............   109
        AGM-65 modifications.....................................   109
        Minuteman III modifications..............................   109
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   110
      Overview...................................................   110
      Items of Special Interest..................................   116
        Combat arms training system (CATS).......................   116
        Combat training ranges...................................   116
        Eagle vision.............................................   116
        General information technology...........................   116
        GeoBase centralized geographic information system (GIS)..   117
        Point of maintenance initiative..........................   117
        Thinpack parachutes......................................   118
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   118
      Overview...................................................   118
      Items of Special Interest..................................   123
        Army special operations aviation (ARSOA) avionics re-
          capitalization and enhanced situational awareness......   123
        Chemical/biological defense procurement program..........   123
        Computer assisted medical diagnostics....................   123
        Portable intelligence collection and relay capability 
          (PICRC)................................................   124
        Special operations forces (SOF) small arms and weapons...   124
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense...........   124
      Overview...................................................   124
      Items of Special Interest..................................   126
        Chemical agents and munitions destruction................   126
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   127
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   127
      Sections 101-107--Authorization of Appropriations..........   127
    Subtitle B--Navy Programs....................................   127
      Section 111--Shipbuilding Initiative.......................   127
    Subtitle C--Air Force Programs...............................   128
      Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for C-130J 
        Aircraft Program.........................................   128
    Subtitle D--Other Programs...................................   128
      Section 141--Revisions to Multiyear Contracting Authority 
        Relating to Structuring of Contracts.....................   128
      Section 142--Transfer of Technology Items and Equipment in 
        Support of Homeland Security.............................   128
      Section 143--Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal 
        Chemical Agents and Munitions............................   129
      Section 144--Report on Department of Defense Unmanned 
        Aerial Vehicle Systems...................................   129
      Section 145--Report on Impact of Army Aviation 
        Modernization Plan on the Army National Guard............   129
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............   130
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   130
    Army RDT&E...................................................   132
      Overview...................................................   132
      Items of Special Interest..................................   141
        155mm extended-range guided projectile...................   141
        Advanced Army composite bridge...........................   141
        Advanced battery technology demonstration and validation 
          program................................................   141
        Advanced fuel cell technology............................   141
        Advanced threat infrared countermeasures/common missile 
          warning system.........................................   142
        Aircrew coordination training............................   142
        Applied communications and information networking (ACIN) 
          program................................................   142
        Anti-material sniper rifle...............................   143
        Asbestos pilot project...................................   143
        Automated document conversion............................   143
        Bipolar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery..........   143
        Clothing and equipment technology........................   143
        Crusader.................................................   144
        Digital glue technology..................................   144
        Dismounted situation awareness system....................   145
        Distance Learning........................................   145
        Eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease...........   145
        Energy and sustainability research.......................   145
        Enhanced area air defense system short range air defense 
          integrated kinetic energy system.......................   146
        Explosively formed penetrators...........................   146
        Eye-safe laser...........................................   146
        Family of systems simulator..............................   146
        Fuel catalyst research and evaluation....................   147
        Global combat support system.............................   147
        Helmet mounted thermal imaging system....................   147
        Hemoglobin based oxygen carrier..........................   147
        Human factors engineering technology.....................   148
        Hyperspectral long-wave imager for the tactical 
          environment............................................   148
        Intelligence command global information portal...........   148
        Javelin..................................................   149
        Landmine warfare/barrier engineering development.........   149
        Lightweight x-band radar.................................   149
        M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner projectile   150
        Metabolically engineered tissues for trauma..............   150
        Metallic particles in defense applications obscurant 
          smokes.................................................   150
        Metrology................................................   150
        Micro electro-mechanical systems inertial measurement 
          unit/global positioning system.........................   151
        Mini-backpack unmanned aerial vehicle....................   151
        Mobile tactical high energy laser........................   151
        Night vision fusion......................................   151
        Non-traditional intelligence analysis toolset............   152
        Nuclear biological, and chemical agent removal...........   152
        P3 micro-power devices for missile defense applications..   152
        Rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power unit...................   152
        Stable hemostat..........................................   153
        Textile electronic garments for combat casualty care.....   153
        Thermionic technology....................................   153
        Unmanned aerial vehicle/unmanned ground vehicle 
          demonstration program..................................   153
        Volumetrically controlled manufacturing..................   154
        Weapons and munitions engineering development............   154
          Shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon-
            disposable (confined space)..........................   154
          Common remotely operated weapon system.................   154
        Wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for 
          helicopters............................................   155
    Navy RDT&E...................................................   155
      Overview...................................................   155
      Items of Special Interest..................................   166
        Acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology 
          insertion..............................................   166
        Adanced cable design for mine/submarine warfare..........   166
        Advanced camouflage coating demonstration................   166
        Advanced composite radome materials......................   166
        Advanced composite sail..................................   167
        Advanced deployable system burial capability.............   167
        Advanced ducted electric propulsion pod..................   167
        Advanced extended echo-ranging sonobuoy development......   168
        Advanced land attack missile.............................   168
        Advanced light strike vehicle............................   169
        Advanced smart propulsor product model...................   169
        Advanced stealth ship radar..............................   169
        Advanced variable speed drive systems....................   170
        AEGIS baseline 7 phase II open architecture..............   170
        Affordable towed array construction......................   170
        Affordable weapon........................................   170
        Anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship 
          self-defense initiative................................   171
        Anti-submarine warfare synthetic training environment....   172
        Autonomous maritime navigation...........................   172
        Aviation integrated life support system..................   172
        Aviation-shipboard information technology initiative.....   172
        Biomedical research imaging..............................   173
        Chemical agent warning network demonstration.............   173
        Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) carbon fiber 
          qualification..........................................   173
        Compatible processor upgrade.............................   173
        DP-2 thrust vectoring system.............................   174
        Electric propulsion/ship power system distributed test 
          bed....................................................   174
        Electronic interconnection research and development 
          program................................................   174
        Electronic warfare development...........................   175
          Airborne electronic attack follow-on...................   175
          Location of global positioning system interferers......   175
        Electro-optical framing sensor...........................   175
        Extended range guided munitions..........................   176
        Fibrous monolithic materials insertion...................   176
        Formable aligned carbon thermosets.......................   176
        Hawk AN/TPS-59 radar service life extension program......   176
        High brightness electron source program..................   177
        High temperature superconducting AC synchronous Navy 
          propulsion motor and generator.........................   177
        Human factors and improved performance integration tool..   177
        Hybrid fiber optic/wireless communications...............   178
        Integrated maritime picture system of systems............   178
        Interrogator for high-speed retro reflectometer 
          communications.........................................   178
        Joint mission high-speed vessel..........................   178
        Joint operational test bed...............................   179
        Knowledge projection for fleet maintenance...............   179
        Laser aim scoring system.................................   180
        Laser welding and cutting................................   180
        Littoral support craft--experimental.....................   180
        Low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle program...........   181
        Marine mammal research program...........................   181
        Mark-48 advanced capability torpedo improvements.........   181
        Medical threat detection system..........................   182
        Mine countermeasures mine sweep mid-life assessment and 
          upgrade................................................   182
        Mobile fire support system...............................   182
        Modeling and simulation of surgical procedures for 
          battlefield trauma.....................................   183
        Multi-purpose sensor.....................................   183
        National shipbuilding research program...................   183
        Naval collaboration tool set.............................   184
        Navy common command and decision system..................   184
        Navy support of research in oceanography.................   185
        Navy tactical unmanned aerial vehicle....................   185
        Nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance..................   186
        Ocean modeling for mine and expeditionary warfare........   186
        Organ transfer technology................................   186
        Photovoltaic energy park.................................   187
        Portable digital precision location system...............   187
        Portable sterile water production device.................   187
        Rapid deployment fortification wall......................   188
        Rapid retargeting........................................   188
        Real-time heart rate variability monitor.................   188
        Real-time precision tracking radar.......................   189
        SEALS Mark 5 patrol craft modification...................   189
        Shipboard integrated data environment....................   189
        Ship self defense electronic warfare systems.............   190
        Ship service fuel cell...................................   190
        Small combatant craft....................................   190
        Sniper rifle improvements................................   190
        Stationary lighter than air platform.....................   191
        Submarine payloads and sensors program...................   191
        Submarine tactical warfare system........................   191
        Superconducting DC homopolar motor.......................   191
        Supply chain best practices..............................   192
        Surface navy integrated undersea tactical technology.....   192
        Target location designated handoff system................   192
        Vacuum electronics.......................................   193
        Water purifications-expeditionary warfare................   193
        Wide bandgap semiconductor materials.....................   193
    Air Force RDT&E..............................................   194
      Overview...................................................   194
      Items of Special Interest..................................   204
        Advanced aluminum aerostructures.........................   204
        Advanced concept ejection seat II improvement............   204
        Advanced thermal protection systems......................   204
        Aging landing gear life extension program................   204
        Air combat training ranges...............................   205
        Air Force manufacturing technology program...............   205
        Air Force/national systems cooperation...................   206
        Ceramic matrix composites................................   206
        Compass Call upgrades....................................   206
        Electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic radar 
          target generator.......................................   206
        Electronic warfare development...........................   207
          Precision location and identification..................   207
          Comet infra-red countermeasures system.................   207
        Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial 
          vehicle................................................   207
        Air Force................................................   207
        Navy.....................................................   208
        GPS-II program adjustment................................   209
        Guidance, propulsion, and re-entry vehicle demonstration/
          validation.............................................   209
        High-accuracy network determination system...............   209
        Identification of time critical programs.................   210
        Information operation technology and fusion initiative...   210
        Information security and intrusion detection development.   210
        Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology......   211
        Joint air to surface standoff missile....................   211
        Joint integrated satellite communications technology.....   211
        Joint services work station..............................   211
        Laser induced surface improvement technology.............   212
        Lithium ion battery development..........................   212
        Low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling truck 
          propulsion.............................................   212
        Metals affordability initiative..........................   212
        Missile technology demonstration.........................   213
        Network centric collaborative targeting..................   213
        Pulse detonation engine..................................   213
        Rapid attack support system..............................   213
        Scorpius.................................................   213
        Space Technology.........................................   214
        Streaker small launch vehicle............................   214
        Super wideband compressive receiver......................   214
        Synthetic theatre operations research model..............   214
        Texas regional institute for environmental studies.......   215
        Thermal management for space structures..................   215
        Thrust vector control and infrared signature reduction...   215
        Upper atmospheric and astronomical training..............   215
        Vacuum pump..............................................   216
        Wind-corrected munitions dispenser development...........   216
    Defense Wide RDT&E...........................................   216
      Overview...................................................   216
      Items of Special Interest..................................   225
        Advanced sensor applications program.....................   225
        Aircraft affordability initiative........................   225
        Backscatter mobile truck system..........................   225
        Ballistic Missile Defense................................   225
          Silicon carbide based widebandgap technology...........   226
          Ballistic Missile Defense System.......................   226
          Terminal Defense Segment...............................   227
          Midcourse Defense Segment..............................   227
          Boost Defense Segment..................................   228
          Sensors Segment........................................   229
          THAAD and PAC-3........................................   229
          Cooperative Programs...................................   229
          Exploration of Alternative Approaches..................   230
          Ballistic missile defense baseline reports.............   230
        Cobra blue force tracking equipment......................   231
        Chemical/biological defense research, development, test 
          and evaluation program.................................   231
          Engineered pathogen identification and countermeasures 
            program..............................................   231
          Rapid antibody-based biological countermeasures........   232
          Multi-wavelength surface scanning biological sensor....   232
          Chemical-biological regenerative air filters...........   232
          Chemical-biological mass spectrometer II...............   232
          Asymmetric protocols for biological defense enhancement   233
          Mustard gas prophylactic...............................   233
          Biological defense homeland security test bed..........   233
        C3I intelligence programs................................   234
        Combat Sent data distribution upgrade....................   234
        Combating terrorism technology support...................   235
          Lightweight biological detectors.......................   235
          Chemical-biological electrostatic decontamination 
            system...............................................   235
          Facial recognition technology..........................   235
          Magnetic quadrupole resonance explosives detection.....   235
        Commercial imagery to support military requirements......   236
        Complex systems engineering..............................   236
        Computer science and internet security degree program....   236
        Defense agency science and technology funding............   237
        Defense counterintelligence programs.....................   238
        Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive 
          research...............................................   238
        Defense imagery and mapping program......................   238
        Defense manufacturing supply chain management............   238
        Defense travel system....................................   239
        Enhance techniques for the detection of explosives.......   239
        Environmental security technical certification program...   239
        Integrated optoelectronics technology....................   239
        Interdisciplinary bilogical nanoscience research.........   239
        Joint technology office..................................   240
        Kinetic energy-anti satellite system.....................   240
          Medical free electron laser............................   240
          Multi-function self-aligned gate.......................   241
          Multi-link antenna system..............................   241
          National collaborative environment.....................   241
          ``Smart'' fuzing.......................................   241
          Spike urban warfare system.............................   242
          Strategic environmental research and development 
            program..............................................   242
          Tactical missile recycling.............................   242
          Thermobaric warhead development........................   242
          Unmanned aerial vehicles major acquisition programs....   243
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................   243
      Overview...................................................   243
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   245
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   245
      Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations...............   245
      Section 202--Amount for basic and applied research.........   245
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   245
      Section 211--RAH-66 Comanche Aircraft Program..............   245
      Section 212--Management Responsibility for Navy Mine 
        Countermeasures Programs.................................   245
      Section 213--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Pilot 
        Program for Revitalizing the Laboratories and Test and 
        Evaluation Centers of the Department of Defense..........   246
      Section 214--Revised Requirements for Plan for 
        Manufacturing Technology Program.........................   246
      Section 215--Technology Transition Initiative..............   246
      Section 216--Defense Acquisition Challenge Program.........   247
    Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................   248
      Section 231--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for 
        Procurement of (PAC-3) Missiles Pending Submission of 
        Required Certification...................................   248
      Section 232--Responsibility of Missile Defense Agency for 
        Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Related to 
        System Improvements of Programs Transferred to Military 
        Departments..............................................   248
      Section 233--Amendments to Reflect Change in Name of 
        Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to Missile Defense 
        Agency...................................................   248
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................   248
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   248
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   280
    Budget Request Adjustments...................................   280
      Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions.......................   281
      Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises...................   281
    Budget Request Display Issues................................   281
      Accrual Accounting for Civil Service Retirement and Health 
        Programs.................................................   281
      Defense Emergency Response Fund............................   282
    Information Technology (IT) Issues...........................   282
      Overview...................................................   282
        Requirements.............................................   283
        Budget Reviews...........................................   283
        Performance-based contracting............................   284
        Program management.......................................   284
        Defense Messaging System (DMS)...........................   284
        Defense Integrated Military Human Resources Systems......   285
        Global Command Support System-Army.......................   285
        Supply Maintenance Aviation Reengineering Team...........   286
        Warfighters Simulation System............................   286
        Wireless Priority Service................................   286
    Environmental Issues.........................................   286
    Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues.......................   289
      Appropriated Fund Support for Morale, Welfare, and 
        Recreation Programs......................................   289
      Defense Commissary Agency Funding and Staffing.............   289
      Force Protection for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 
        Activities...............................................   290
      Support of Privatized Housing Areas........................   290
    Other Issues.................................................   290
      Automatic Identification Technology/Radio Frequency 
        Identification...........................................   290
      Cold Weather Clothing......................................   291
      Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities.........   291
      Industrial Mobilization Capacity/Unutilized Plant Capacity.   292
      Fuel Savings Technology....................................   292
      Energy Savings Performance Contracts.......................   293
      Long Tenn Depot Strategy...................................   293
      National Defense Sealift Fund Issues.......................   294
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   294
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   294
      Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   294
      Section 302--Working Capital Funds.........................   294
      Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................   294
    Subtitle B--Environmental Issues.............................   294
      Section 311--Incidental Taking of Migratory Birds During 
        Military Readiness Activity..............................   294
      Section 312--Military Readiness and the Conservation of 
        Protected Species........................................   295
      Section 313--Single Point of Contact for Policy and 
        Budgeting Issues Regarding Unexploded Ordnance, Discarded 
        Military Munitions, and Munitions Constituents...........   295
    Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund 
      Instrumentalities..........................................   295
      Section 321--Authority for Each Military Department to 
        Provide Base Operating Support to Fisher Houses..........   295
      Section 322--Use of Commissary Stores and MWR Retail 
        Facilities by Members of National Guard Serving in 
        National Emergency.......................................   295
      Section 323--Uniform Funding and Management of Morale, 
        Welfare, and Recreation Programs.........................   296
    Subtitle D--Workplace and Depot Issues.......................   296
      Section 331--Notification Requirements in Connection with 
        Required Studies for Conversion of Commercial or 
        Industrial Type Functions to Contractor Performance......   296
      Section 332--Waiver Authority Regarding Prohibition on 
        Contracts for Performance of Security-Guard Functions....   296
      Section 333--Exclusion of Certain Expenditures from 
        Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Performance of 
        Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads.............   296
      Section 334--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding Depot-
        Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads That Were 
        Performed at Closed or Realigned Military Installations..   297
      Section 335--Clarification of Required Core Logistics 
        Capabilities.............................................   297
    Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education.....................   297
      Section 341--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that 
        Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and 
        Department of Defense Civilian Employees.................   297
      Section 342--Availability of Quarters Allowance for 
        Unaccompanied Defense Department Teacher Required to 
        Reside on Overseas Military Installation.................   297
      Section 343--Provision of Summer School Programs for 
        Students Who Attend Defense Dependents' Education System.   297
    Subtitle F--Information Technology...........................   298
      Section 351--Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract...........   298
      Section 352--Annual Submission of Information on National 
        Security and Information Technology Capital Assets.......   298
      Section 353--Implementation of Policy Regarding Certain 
        Commercial Off-the-Shelf Information Technology Products.   299
      Section 354--Installation and Connection Policy and 
        Procedures Regarding Defense Switch Network..............   299
    Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   299
      Section 361--Distribution of Monthly Reports on Allocation 
        of Funds Within Operation and Maintenance Budget 
        Subactivities............................................   299
      Section 362--Minimum Deduction From Pay of Certain Members 
        of the Armed Forces to Support Armed Forces Retirement 
        Home.....................................................   299
      Section 363--Condition on Conversion of Defense Security 
        Service to a Working Capital Funded Entity...............   300
      Section 364--Continuation of Arsenal Support Program 
        Initiative...............................................   300
      Section 365--Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status 
        of Resources and Training System, and Training Range 
        Inventory................................................   300
      Section 366--Amendments to Certain Education and Nutrition 
        Laws Relating to Acquisition and Improvement of Military 
        Housing..................................................   300
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   301
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   301
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   302
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   302
      Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces...............   302
      Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum 
        Levels...................................................   302
      Section 403--Authority for Military Department Secretaries 
        to Increase Active-Duty End Strengths By Up to One 
        Percent..................................................   303
      Section 404--General and Flag Officer Management...........   303
      Section 405--Extension of Certain Authorities Relating to 
        Management of Numbers of General and Flag Officers in 
        Certain Grades...........................................   303
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   304
      Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   304
      Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 
        Support of the Reserves..................................   304
      Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual 
        Status)..................................................   304
      Section 414--Fiscal Year 2003 Limitation on Non-Dual Status 
        Technicians..............................................   305
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   305
      Section 421--Authorization of appropriations for Military 
        Personnel................................................   305
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   306
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   306
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   306
      Absentee Voting for Military Members.......................   306
      Compensation and Benefits for Reserve Component Members....   307
      Consideration of Innovative Readiness Training Initiatives.   307
      Review and Report on Increased Participation of U.S. Navy 
        Officers in Intermediary and Senior War Colleges.........   308
      Uniting Through Reading....................................   308
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   308
    Subtitle A--General Personnel Management Authorities.........   308
      Section 501--Increase in Number of Deputy Commandants of 
        the Marine Corps.........................................   308
      Section 502--Extension of Good-of-the-Service Waiver 
        Authority for Officers Appointed to a Reserve Chief or 
        Guard Director Position..................................   308
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   309
      Section 511--Reviews of National Guard Strength Accounting 
        and Management and Other Issues..........................   309
      Section 512--Courts-Martial for the National Guard When not 
        in Federal Service.......................................   309
      Section 513--Matching Funds Requirements Under National 
        Guard Youth Challenge Program............................   310
    Subtitle C--Reserve Component Officer Personnel Policy.......   310
      Section 521--Exemption from Active Status Strength 
        Limitation for Reserve Component General and Flag 
        Officers Serving on Active Duty in Certain Joint Duty 
        Assignments Designated by the Chairman of the Joint 
        Chiefs of Staff..........................................   310
      Section 522--Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion to 
        Grade of Major General for Certain Reserve Component 
        Brigadier Generals Who do not Otherwise Qualify for 
        Consideration for Promotion Under the One-Year Rule......   310
      Section 523--Retention of Promotion Eligibility for Reserve 
        Component General and Flag Officers Transferred to an 
        Inactive Status..........................................   311
      Section 524--Authority for Limited Extension of Medical 
        Deferment of Mandatory Retirement or Separation for 
        Reserve Officers.........................................   311
    Subtitle D--Education and Training...........................   311
      Section 531--Authority for Phased Increase to 4,400 in 
        Authorized Strengths for the Service Academies...........   311
      Section 532--Enhancement of Reserve Component Delayed 
        Training Program.........................................   312
    Subtitle E--Decorations and Awards...........................   312
      Section 541--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of 
        Certain Decorations to Certain Persons...................   312
      Section 542--Option to Convert Award of Armed Forces 
        Expeditionary Medal Awarded for Operation Frequent Wind 
        to Vietnam Service Medal.................................   312
    Subtitle F--Administrative Matters...........................   312
      Section 551--Staffing and Funding of the Defense Prisoner 
        of War/Missing Personnel Office..........................   312
      Section 552--Three-Year Freeze on Reductions of Personnel 
        of Agencies Responsible for Review and Correction of 
        Military Records.........................................   312
      Section 553--Department of Defense Support for Persons 
        Participating in Military Funeral Honors Details.........   313
      Section 554--Authority for Use of Volunteers as Proctors 
        for Administration of Armed Services Vocational Aptitude 
        Battery Test.............................................   313
      Section 555--Annual Report on Status of Female Members of 
        the Armed Forces.........................................   313
    Subtitle G--Benefits.........................................   313
      Section 561--Voluntary Leave Sharing Program for Members of 
        the Armed Forces.........................................   313
      Section 562--Enhanced Flexibility in Medical Loan Repayment 
        Program..................................................   313
      Section 563--Expansion of Overseas Tour Extension Benefits.   314
      Section 564--Vehicle Storage in Lieu of Transportation When 
        Member is Ordered to a Nonforeign Duty Station Outside 
        Continental United States................................   314
    Subtitle H--Military Justice Matters.........................   314
      Section 571--Right of Convicted Accused to Request 
        Sentencing by Military Judge.............................   314
      Section 572--Report on Desirability and Feasibility of 
        Consolidating Separate Courses of Basic Instruction for 
        Judge Advocates..........................................   315
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   315
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   315
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   316
      Integrating Basic Allowance for Subsistence into Basic Pay.   316
      Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve...   316
      Reducing the Gap Between Military and Private Sector Pay 
        Increases................................................   317
      Use of the Critical Skills Retention Bonus for Linguists...   317
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   318
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   318
      Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2003....   318
      Section 602--Expansion of Basic Allowance for Housing Low-
        Cost or No-Cost Moves Authority to Members Assigned to 
        Duty Outside United States...............................   318
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   318
      Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and 
        Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces...............   318
      Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and 
        Special Pay Authorities for Certain Health Care 
        Professionals............................................   318
      Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus 
        Authorities for Nuclear Officers.........................   319
      Section 614--One-Year Extension of Other Bonus and Special 
        Pay Authorities..........................................   319
      Section 615--Minimum Levels of Hardship Duty Pay for Duty 
        on the Ground in Antarctica or on Arctic Icepack.........   319
      Section 616--Increase in Maximum Rates for Prior Service 
        Enlistment Bonus.........................................   319
      Section 617--Retention Incentives for Health Care Providers 
        Qualified in a Critical Military Skill...................   319
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   320
      Section 631--Extension of Leave Travel Deferral Period for 
        Members Performing Consecutive Overseas Tours of Duty....   320
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits...............   320
      Section 641--Phase-in of Full Concurrent Receipt of 
        Military Retired Pay and Veterans Disability Compensation 
        for Military Retirees with Disabilities Rated at 60 
        Percent or Higher........................................   320
      Section 642--Change in Service Requirements for Eligibility 
        for Retired Pay for Non-Regular Service..................   321
      Section 643--Elimination of Possible Inversion in Retired 
        Pay Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Initial COLA 
        Computation..............................................   321
      Section 644--Technical Revisions to So-Called ``Forgotten 
        Widows'' Annuity Program.................................   321
    Subtitle E--Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill.............   321
      Section 651--Extension of Montgomery G.I. Bill-Selected 
        Reserve Eligibility Period...............................   321
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   321
      Section 661--Addition of Definition of Continental United 
        States in Title 37.......................................   321
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS...................................   321
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   321
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   323
    Claims Processing for Under-65 Medicare-Eligible 
      Beneficiaries..............................................   323
    Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Enrollment Reporting 
      System Improvements........................................   323
    Force Health Protection......................................   324
    Military Health Care System Information Management...........   324
    TRICARE Access Standards for Appointments....................   325
    Waiver of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Deductible for 
      Beneficiaries in Nursing Homes.............................   325
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   325
    Subtitle A--Health Care Program Improvements.................   325
      Section 701--Elimination of Requirement for TRICARE 
        Preauthorization of Inpatient Mental Health Care for 
        Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries..........................   325
      Section 702--Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for Certain 
        Dependents...............................................   326
      Section 703--Enabling Dependents of Certain Members Who 
        Died While on Active Duty to Enroll in the TRICARE Dental 
        Program..................................................   326
      Section 704--Improvements Regarding the Department of 
        Defense Medicare--Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund......   326
      Section 705--Certification of Institutional Non-
        Institutional Providers Under the TRICARE Program........   327
      Section 706--Technical Correction Regarding Transitional 
        Health Care..............................................   327
    Subtitle B--Reports..........................................   327
      Section 711--Comptroller General Report on TRICARE Claims 
        Processing...............................................   327
      Section 712--Comptroller General Report on Provision of 
        Care Under the TRICARE Program...........................   328
      Section 713--Repeal of Report Requirement..................   328
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
  RELATED MATTERS................................................   329
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   329
      Acqusition program and management..........................   329
      Defense Logistics Agency's Best Value Contracting..........   330
      Report on Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by 
        Women....................................................   330
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   330
      Section 801--Plan for Acquisition Management Professional 
        Exchange Pilot Program...................................   330
      Section 802--Evaluation of Training, Knowledge, and 
        Resources Regarding Negotiation of Intellectual Property 
        Arrangements.............................................   331
      Section 803--Limitation Period for Task and Delivery Order 
        Contracts................................................   331
      Section 804--One-Year Extension of Program Applying 
        Simplified Procedure to Certain Commercial items; Report.   331
      Section 805--Authority to Make Inflation Adjustment to 
        Simplified Acquisition Threshold.........................   332
      Section 806--Improvement of Personnel Management Policies 
        and Procedures Applicable to the Civilian Acquisition 
        Workforce................................................   332
      Section 807--Modification of Scope of Ball and Roller 
        Bearings Covered for Purposes of Procurement Limitation..   332
      Section 808--Rapid Acquisition and Deployment Procedures...   332
      Section 809--Quick-Reaction Special Projects Acquisition 
        Team.....................................................   332
      Section 810--Report on Development of Anti-Cyberterrorism 
        Technology...............................................   333
      Section 811--Contracting with Federal Prison Industries....   333
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   333
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   333
      Regional Centers for Security Studies......................   333
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   333
      Section 901--Change in Title the Secretary of the Navy to 
        the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps...............   333
      Section 902--Report on Implementation of United States 
        Northern Command.........................................   333
      Section 903--National Defense Mission of Coast Guard to be 
        Included in Future Quadrennial Defense Reviews...........   334
      Section 904--Change in Year for Submission of Quadrennial 
        Defense Review...........................................   334
      Section 905--Report on Effect of Noncombat Operations on 
        Combat Readiness of the Armed Forces.....................   334
      Section 906--Conforming Amendment to Reflect 
        Disestablishment of Department of Defense Consequence 
        Management Program Integration Office....................   335
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   335
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   335
    Chartering of Special Purpose Vessels........................   335
    Counter-Drug Activities......................................   335
      Overview...................................................   335
      Items of Special Interest..................................   336
        DEA Support..............................................   336
        Mexico Information Analysis Center.......................   337
        National Guard C-26 Aircraft.............................   337
        Riverine Training Deployments............................   337
        Southwest border fence...................................   337
        Tethered Aerosat Radar System............................   337
        Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft....................   337
    Principles of Federal Appropriation..........................   337
    Security Requirements for Contractor Employees...............   338
    Strategic Force Structure Plan...............................   338
    U.S. Strategic Deterrent.....................................   339
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   339
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   339
      Section 1001--Transfer Authority...........................   339
      Section 1002--Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations 
        for Fiscal Year 2002.....................................   339
      Section 1003--Uniform Standards Throughout Department of 
        Defense for Exposure of Personnel to Pecuniary Liability 
        for Loss of Government Property..........................   339
      Section 1004--Accountable Officials In the Department of 
        Defense..................................................   340
      Section 1005--Improvements in Purchase Card Management.....   340
      Section 1006--Authority to Transfer Funds Within a Major 
        Acquisition Program from Procurement to RDT&E............   340
      Section 1007--Development and Procurement of Financial and 
        Non-financial Management Systems.........................   340
    Subtitle B--Reports..........................................   341
      Section 1011--After-Action Reports on the Conduct of 
        Military Operations Conducted as Part of Operation 
        Enduring Freedom.........................................   341
      Section 1012--Report on Biological Weapons Defense and 
        Counter-Proliferation....................................   342
      Section 1013--Requirement That Department of Defense 
        Reports to Congress Be Accompanied by Electronic Version.   342
      Section 1014--Strategic Force Structure Plan for Nuclear 
        Weapons and Delivery Systems.............................   342
      Section 1015--Report on Establishment of a Joint National 
        Training Complex and Joint Opposing Forces...............   343
      Section 1016--Repeal of Various Reports Required of the 
        Department of Defense....................................   343
      Section 1017--Report on the Role of the Department of 
        Defense in Supporting Homeland Security..................   343
      Section 1018--Report by the National Academy of Sciences on 
        Effects of Nuclear Earth Penetrators and Other Weapons...   343
      Section 1019--Report by the National Academy of Sciences on 
        Effects of Nuclear Interceptors..........................   344
    Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   344
      Section 1021--Sense of Congress on Maintenance of a 
        Reliable, Flexible, and Robust Strategic Deterrent.......   344
      Section 1022--Time for Transmittal of Annual Defense 
        Authorization Legislative Proposal.......................   344
      Section 1023--Technical and Clerical Amendments............   344
      Section 1024--War Risk Insurance for Vessels in Support of 
        NATO-Approved Operations.................................   344
      Section 1025--Conveyance, Navy drydock, Portland, Oregon...   345
      Section 1026--Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil 
        Support Teams............................................   345
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL...............   345
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   345
      Section 1101--Eligibility of Department of Defense 
        Nonappropriated Fund Employees For Long-Tenn Care 
        Insurance................................................   345
      Section 1102--Extension of Department of Defense Authority 
        to Make Lump-Sum Severance Payments......................   345
      Section 1103--Common Occupational and Health Standards for 
        Differential Payments as a Consequence of Exposure To 
        Asbestos.................................................   345
      Section 1104--Continuation of Federal Employee Health 
        Benefits Program Eligibility.............................   345
      Section 1105--Triennial Full-Scale Federal Wage System Wage 
        Surveys..................................................   346
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS.....................   346
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   346
      Section 1201--Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts 
        to Inspect and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities..........   346
      Section 1202--Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan..........   346
      Section 1203--Administrative Services and Support for 
        Foreign Liaison Officers.................................   347
      Section 1204--Additional Countries Covered by Loan 
        Guarantee Program........................................   347
      Section 1205--Limitation on Funding for Joint Data Exchange 
        Center...................................................   348
      Section 1206--Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in 
        Colombia.................................................   348
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE 
  FORMER SOVIET UNION............................................   349
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   349
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   351
      Arms Elimination Projects in Russia........................   351
      Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention................   351
      Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia.....................   351
      Defense and Military Contacts..............................   352
      Fissile Material Storage Facility..........................   352
      Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia.................   353
      Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security....................   353
      Other Assessments and Administrative Support...............   353
      Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination of 
        Kazakhstan...............................................   353
      Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination of 
        Ukraine..................................................   354
      Russian Proliferation to Iran..............................   354
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   355
      Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Programs and Funds.......................................   355
      Section 1302--Funding Allocations..........................   355
      Section 1303--Prohibition Against Use of Funds Until 
        Submission of Reports....................................   355
      Section 1304--Report on Use of Revenue Generated by 
        Activities Carried Out Under Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        Programs.................................................   355
      Section 1305--Prohibition Against Use of Funds for Second 
        Wing of Fissile Material Storage Facility................   356
      Section 1306--Sense of Congress and Report Requirement 
        Regarding Russian Proliferation to Iran..................   356
      Section 1307--Prohibition Against Use of Cooperative Threat 
        Reduction Funds Outside the States of the Former Soviet 
        Union....................................................   356
      Section 1308--Limited Waiver of Restriction on Use of Funds   356
      Section 1309--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission 
        of Report on Defense and Military Contacts Activities....   356
TITLE XIV--UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE..........................   357
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   357
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   357
      Section 1401--Definition of Utah Test and Training Range...   357
      Section 1402--Military Operations and Overflights at Utah 
        Test and Training Range..................................   358
      Section 1403--Designation and Management of Lands in Utah 
        Test and Training Range..................................   358
      Section 1404--Designation of Pilot Range Wilderness........   358
      Section 1405--Designation of Cedar Mountain Wilderness.....   358
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   358
  PURPOSE........................................................   358
  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW.................................   358
TITLE XXI--ARMY..................................................   375
  SUMMARY........................................................   375
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   375
      Planning and Design........................................   375
      Unspecified Minor Construction.............................   375
      Water Tanks, Fort Bliss, Texas.............................   375
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   375
      Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   375
      Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   375
      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   375
      Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........   376
      Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2002 Projects........................   376
TITLE XXII--NAVY.................................................   376
  SUMMARY........................................................   376
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   376
      Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System Land Based Test Site   376
      North Chicago Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center 
        And Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois................   376
      Planning and Design........................................   377
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   377
      Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   377
      Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   377
      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   377
      Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........   377
      Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2002 Project.........................   378
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE...........................................   378
  SUMMARY........................................................   378
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   378
      C-17 Assault Strips........................................   378
      Planning and Design........................................   378
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   378
      Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 
        Acquisition..............................................   378
      Section 2302--Family Housing...............................   379
      Section 2303--Improvements of Military Family Housing Units   379
      Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force...   379
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES.....................................   379
  SUMMARY........................................................   379
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   379
      Planning and Design........................................   379
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   379
      Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   379
      Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   379
      Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects.................   379
      Section 2404--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense 
        Agencies.................................................   380
      Section 2405--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 2000 Project.........................   380
      Section 2406--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 1999 Project.........................   380
      Section 2407--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Certain Fiscal Year 1997 Project.........................   380
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE.....   380
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   380
      Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land 
        Acquisition Projects.....................................   380
      Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   381
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   381
  SUMMARY........................................................   381
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   381
      Dual Use Reserve Facilities................................   381
      Joint Army Reserve and National Guard Reserve Center.......   381
      Planning and Design, Air National Guard....................   381
      Planning and Design, Army National Guard...................   381
      Unspecified Minor Construction.............................   382
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   382
      Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and 
        Land Acquisition Projects................................   382
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS..........   382
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   382
      Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts 
        Required to Be Specified by Law..........................   382
      Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain 
        Fiscal Year 2000 Projects................................   382
      Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal 
        Year 1999 Projects.......................................   383
      Section 2704--Effective Date...............................   383
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS.................................   383
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   383
      Impact of Privatized Housing on Local School Systems.......   383
      Integrated Water Management System on Guam.................   383
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   384
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
      Housing Changes............................................   384
      Section 2801--Changes to Alternative Authority for 
        Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing..........   384
      Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out 
        Construction Projects as Part of Environmental Response 
        Action...................................................   384
      Section 2803--Leasing of Military Family Housing in Korea..   384
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   384
      Section 2811--Agreements with Private Entities to Limit 
        Encroach ments and Other Constraints on Military 
        Training, Testing, and Operations........................   384
      Section 2812--Conveyance of Surplus Real Property for 
        Natural Resource Conservation Purposes...................   385
      Section 2813--National Emergency Exemption from Screening 
        and Other Requirements of McKinney-Vento Homeless 
        Assistance Act for Property Used in Support of Response 
        Activities...............................................   385
      Section 2814--Demonstration Program on Reduction in Long-
        Term Facility Maintenance Costs..........................   385
      Section 2815--Expanded Authority to Transfer Property at 
        Military Installations to Be Closed to Persons Who 
        Construct or Provide Military Family Housing.............   385
    Subtitle C--Land Conveyances.................................   386
    Part I--Army Conveyances.....................................   386
      Section 2821--Land Conveyances, Lands in Alaska No Longer 
        Required for National Guard Purposes.....................   386
      Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.....   386
      Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Training 
        Center, Buffalo, Minnesota...............................   386
      Section 2824--Land Conveyance, Fort Bliss, Texas...........   386
      Section 2825--Land Conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas............   386
    Part II--Navy Conveyances....................................   387
      Section 2831--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, 
        Miramar, San Diego, California...........................   387
      Section 2832--Boundary Adjustments, Marine Corps Base, 
        Quantico, and Prince William Forest Park, Virginia.......   387
    Part III--Air Force Conveyances..............................   387
      Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Wendover Air Force Base 
        Auxiliary Field, Nevada..................................   387
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   387
      Section 2861--Easement for Construction of Roads or 
        Highways, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California..   387
      Section 2862--Sale of Excess Treated Water and Wastewater 
        Treatment Capacity, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, 
        North Carolina...........................................   388
      Section 2863--Ratification of Agreement Regarding Adak 
        Naval Complex, Alaska, and Related Land Conveyances......   388
      Section 2864--Special Requirements for Adding Military 
        Installations to Closure List............................   388
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
  AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................................   388
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   388
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   388
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   406
      Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 
        Budget Request...........................................   406
  NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.......................   406
  OVERVIEW.......................................................   406
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   407
      Adjustments to the Budget Request..........................   407
        Reductions...............................................   407
        Increases................................................   407
      Federal Workforce Restructuring............................   408
      Foster Panel Assessment of NNSA Reform Efforts.............   409
      Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign...............   409
      Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator............................   411
      Stockpile Certification....................................   411
      Test Readiness.............................................   411
      Tritium Readiness Campaign.................................   412
  ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.....................   412
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   412
      Adjustments to the Budget Request..........................   412
      Environmental Management Cleanup Reform Program............   413
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   414
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   414
      Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration.....   414
      Section 3102--Environmental and Other Defense Activities...   414
    Subtitle B--Department of Energy National Security 
      Authorizations General Provisions..........................   414
      Section 3120--Short Title; Definitions.....................   414
      Section 3121--Reprogramming................................   414
      Section 3122--Minor Construction Projects..................   415
      Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects..............   415
      Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority......................   415
      Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction 
        Design...................................................   415
      Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and 
        Construction Activities..................................   415
      Section 3127--Funds Available for All National Security 
        Programs of the Department of Energy.....................   415
      Section 3128--Availability of Funds........................   415
      Section 3129--Transfer of Defense Environmental Management 
        Funds....................................................   416
      Section 3130--Transfer of Weapons Activities Funds.........   416
      Section 3131--Scope of Authority to Carry Out Plant 
        Projects.................................................   416
    Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   416
      Section 3141--One-Year Extension of Panel to Assess the 
        Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States 
        Nuclear Stockpile........................................   416
      Section 3142--Transfer to National Nuclear Security 
        Administration of the Department of Defense's Cooperative 
        Threat Reduction Program Relating to Elimination of 
        Weapons Grade Plutonium in Russia........................   416
      Section 3143--Repeal of Requirement for Reports on 
        Obligations of Funds for Programs on Fissile Materials in 
        Russia...................................................   417
      Section 3144--Annual Certification to the President and 
        Congress on the Condition of the United States Nuclear 
        Weapons Stockpile........................................   417
      Section 3145--Plan for Achieving One-Year Readiness for 
        Resumption by the United States of Underground Nuclear 
        Weapons Tests............................................   417
    Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Defense Environmental 
      Management.................................................   417
      Section 3151--Defense Environmental Management Cleanup 
        Reform Program...........................................   417
      Section 3152--Report on Status of Environmental Management 
        Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental 
        Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War.   418
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   418
  ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST.......................................   418
      Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 
        Budget Request...........................................   418
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   419
      Section 3201--Authorization................................   419
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.........................   419
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   419
      Section 3301--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds...........   419
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................   419
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   419
      Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations..............   419
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   419
  ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST......................................   419
      Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 
        Budget...................................................   419
      Blanket Approval of Vessel Time Charters...................   420
      Financial Assistance to States to Prepare Vessels for Use 
        as Artificial Fish Reefs.................................   420
      Loan Guarantee Program.....................................   421
      Marketing Efforts to Reduce Potential Losses...............   421
  LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.........................................   422
      Section 3501--Authoirization of Appropriations for Fiscal 
        Year 2003................................................   422
      Section 3502--Authorization of Transfer the USS Sphinx.....   422
      Section 3503--Financial Assistance to States for 
        Preparation of Obsolete Vessels for Use as Artificial 
        Reefs....................................................   422
      Section 3504--Independent Analysis of Title XI Insurance 
        Guarantee Applications...................................   422
Departmental Data................................................   422
  Department of Defense Authorization Request....................   422
  Military Construction Authorization Request....................   423
Committee Position...............................................   424
Communications From Other Committees.............................   424
Fiscal Data......................................................   430
  Congressional Budget Office Estimate...........................   430
  Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................   430
  Committee Cost Estimate........................................   448
Oversight Findings...............................................   448
General Performance Goals and Objectives.........................   449
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................   450
Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   450
Roll Call Votes..................................................   451
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   460
Additional views of Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Lane Evans, Neil 
  Abercrombie, Marty Meehan, Thomas H. Allen, Loretta Sanchez, 
  Ellen O. Tauscher, Robert A. Brady, Robert E. Andrews, Baron P. 
  Hill, James R. Langevin, Rick Larsen, Adam Smith, Robert A. 
  Underwood......................................................   580
Additional views of Ike Skelton, Robert E. Andrews, Lane Evans, 
  Ellen O. Tauscher, Marty Meehan, Vic Snyder, John Spratt, Susan 
  A. Davis, Rick Larsen, Silvestre Reyes, James H. Maloney, John 
  B. Larson, Loretta Sanchez, Baron P. Hill, Thomas H. Allen, 
  Robert A. Brady, Cynthia A. McKinney, Adam Smith, James R. 
  Langevin, Ciro D. Rodriguez....................................   582
Additional views of W. Todd Akin.................................   585
Dissenting views of Cynthia A. McKinney..........................   586
                                                                       
107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-436

======================================================================

 
        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                _______
                                

  May 3, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Stump, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 4546]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 4546) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2003 for military activities of the Department of Defense, and 
for military construction, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendments are as follows:
  The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause off the 
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the 
reported bill.
  The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to 
the text of the bill.

                EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

    The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 4546. The title of 
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the 
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as 
amended.

                                PURPOSE

    The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2003 for procurement and for research, development, test 
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2003 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working 
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2003: (a) the 
personnel strength for each active duty component of the 
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the 
Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed 
forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the 
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) 
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel 
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel 
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for military construction 
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2003 for the Department of Energy national security 
programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense 
Stockpile; and (8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2003 for the Maritime Administration.

            RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS

    The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The 
bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts 
provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following 
categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement; 
research, development, test and evaluation; operation and 
maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and 
military construction and family housing. The bill also 
addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and 
the Maritime Administration.
    Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in 
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military 
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of 
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide 
authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.

                  SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL

    The President requested budget authority of $396.8 billion 
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2003. 
Of this amount, the President requested $378.3 billion for the 
Department of Defense, including $9.0 billion for military 
construction and family housing. Of this amount requested for 
the Department of Defense, $10.0 billion has been designated as 
a reserve fund and will receive separate treatment pending 
submission of a detailed budget request. The defense budget 
request for fiscal year 2003 also included $16.4 billion for 
Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
    The committee recommends an overall level of $382.8 billion 
in budget authority. This amount represents an increase of 
approximately $39.5 billion from the amount authorized 
forappropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107).

                    SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

    The following table provides a summary of the amounts 
requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the 
bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of 
Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how 
the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for 
the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the 
budget authority implications of committee action, the table 
reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for 
proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.

                    RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 
(H.R. 4546) demonstrates the committee's continuing 
responsibility and commitment to the national security of the 
United States in the wake of September 11th--a date that now 
marks the most lethal single attack on the United States in our 
nation's history.
    H.R. 4546 is the first defense authorization bill in 
decades that was drafted with our country at war. Accordingly, 
this bill sends an important signal of unwavering support for 
the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are 
fighting the global war against terrorism. This commitment is 
evident by the fact that H.R. 4546 would authorize--
           The largest relative increase in defense 
        spending since 1966;
           The largest defense budget (in inflation-
        adjusted terms) since fiscal year 1990;
           The fifth straight year of real increases in 
        defense spending, after 13 consecutive years of real 
        cuts to defense budgets; and
           The largest increase in military manpower 
        since 1986.
    The committee is convinced that the U.S. military is 
finally on the road to recovery, as the coming fiscal year will 
set a modern day high-water mark for the U.S. defense program. 
This bill would ensure that the Armed Forces are fully capable 
and ready to execute their assigned missions while transforming 
themselves to meet future threats; enhance the nation's ability 
to deter and defend against strategic threats, and to counter 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; advance 
efforts to protect our homeland from a variety of threats; and 
support the President's campaign to defeat international 
terrorism.
    The unconventional nature of the military campaign against 
terrorism required that Congress accordingly adjust its 
traditional budget process to allow for greater flexibility in 
financing the significant costs of these operations. In keeping 
with this approach, the committee divided the annual defense 
authorization bill into two separate components.
    H.R. 4546 would authorize $383.4 billion for defense 
activities during fiscal year 2003. This bill provides for the 
base defense budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and largely 
covers the costs associated with the normal rate of investment 
and operations of the Department of Defense. The second bill, 
H.R. 4547, the Cost of War on Terrorism Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003, will supplement H.R. 4546 by covering the 
known costs of continuing Operations NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING 
FREEDOM, as well as miscellaneous DOD incremental costs 
directly associated with the war on terrorism. In addition, 
H.R. 4547 would serve as the legislative vehicle for further 
authorization action once the Administration submits a detailed 
budget proposal for the $10 billion contingency fund identified 
in the budget request.
    The committee believes this approach--dividing the annual 
defense bill into two discrete components--represents the most 
workable implementation of the flexible budgeting proposal 
contained in both the President's budget request and the House-
passed Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. Equally important, 
this approach would facilitate appropriate Congressional 
oversight of this remaining portion of the proposed defense 
budget by ensuring regular-order consideration and action.
    In keeping with this approach, the committee carefully 
scrutinized the base defense budget and identified a discrete 
category of items that, due to their direct relationship to the 
conduct of the war against terrorism, are more appropriately 
funded through this second bill, H.R. 4547. These items, which 
total $3.4 billion of the $10 billion expected to be authorized 
by H.R. 4547, would cover the following war-related costs: 
replacement weapons and equipment used or lost in the war; one-
time upgrades or special operational costs; and personnel 
costs.
    When combined, the core defense authorization bill, H.R. 
4546, which is funded at $383.4 billion, and the second defense 
authorization bill, H.R. 4547, which is expected to be funded 
at $10 billion, would fully support the President's budget 
request of $393.4 billion for the national defense function. 
The committee is pleased with the Administration's overall 
request for defense, but believes that even greater spending 
will be required to ensure that the military is properly 
manned, trained, equipped, and organized to deal not only with 
today's threats, but with emerging, unforeseen, and asymmetric 
ones as well.

Strategic Defense, Deterrence, and Forces

    H.R. 4546 would promote U.S. national security and 
strategic readiness by moving forward with research and 
development of multi-tiered missile defense systems, and 
implementing several of the findings and conclusions of the 
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
    Recent reports by the Intelligence Community state that the 
ballistic missile threat to the United States continues to 
grow. A December, 2001, National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 
concluded that ``The probability that a missile with a weapon 
of mass destruction will be used against U.S. forces or 
interests is higher today than most of the Cold War, and it 
will continue to grow as the capabilities of potential 
adversaries mature.'' The NIE added that short and medium range 
ballistic missiles already pose a significant threat overseas 
to U.S. interests, military forces, and allies.
    North Korean missiles under development are capable of 
striking the United States, and Iran could attempt to launch an 
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) by 2005. Both 
countries also have active nuclear weapons programs designed to 
develop nuclear warheads for their missiles. And were it not 
for international sanctions and prohibitions, Iraq would have 
similar capabilities--which have only been delayed by a few 
years because of Iraq's continuing, covert efforts.
    Russia maintains the most robust ballistic missile force 
capable of reaching the United States, but resource problems, 
force structure decisions, and expected agreements with the 
United States will force a significant reduction in Russia's 
strategic forces over the next several years. Conversely, China 
continues its multi-year effort to modernize and expand its 
strategic forces, including the development of new road-mobile 
missiles and submarine-launched missiles.
    As a result of these disturbing threat reports, and the 
urgent need to eliminate the United States vulnerability to 
ballistic missiles, the committee endorses the President's 
ballistic missile defense program, and supports the proposed 
layered defense system and realistic testing program. 
Therefore, the bill fully supports and marginally increases the 
President's $7.8 billion budget request for missile defenses.
    Beyond the constitutional and moral obligation to defend 
the nation, the committee believes that missile defenses are 
critical to deterring enemies from attacking the United States 
or its interests. Missile defenses also prevent adversaries 
from attempting to intimidate or blackmail the United States 
from acting in its interests by removing the enemy's missile 
trump card and changing their strategic calculus. Finally, 
missile defenses promote stability by dissuading other nations 
from building ballistic missiles in the first place, given that 
such endeavors become too costly and too risky if their 
missiles can be defeated.
    The other component to effective strategic defenses and 
deterrence is robust, flexible, and capable nuclear forces. The 
Bush Administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of January 
2002 provided a comprehensive road map to achieving the 
capabilities necessary for today's strategic environment, and 
to deal with future, unforeseen threats. The NPR calls for a 
new triad of offensive forces, defensive capabilities, and a 
reinvigorated nuclear industry/infrastructure. The committee 
held hearings and received briefings from senior government 
officials, and other experts, on the need to revitalize the 
United States nuclear weapons industry, and to enhance our 
nuclear weapons infrastructure. As a result, the bill would, 
among other things, endorse the President's Nuclear Posture 
Review and task the Administration to develop a plan for 
enhanced nuclear test readiness.

Combating Terrorism

    Recently, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) 
appeared before Congress and stated that the al Qaeda terrorist 
network is the most immediate and serious threat that the 
country faces, that it will continue to attack the United 
States and our interests abroad, and that its pursuit of 
weapons of mass destruction is particularly alarming. The DCI 
added that American military facilities around the world are at 
particular risk. This is not surprising given the attack on the 
USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, the 1996 attack on the Khobar 
Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the fact that the U.S. military is 
the most visible symbol of American strength and values.
    Given these threats, both here in the United States and 
abroad, the committee bill endorses the President's efforts to 
combat terrorism by supporting the Department of Defense's 
request of $7.3 billion for combating terrorism activities. 
This request includes $6.0 billion for antiterrorism, $676.0 
million for counterterrorism, $360.0 million for terrorism 
consequence management, and $223.0 million for 
counterintelligence efforts.
    The antiterrorism measures proposed by the Department 
include increased security and vigilance for key personnel, 
installations, and equipment. These activities will complement 
the actions of other federal agencies and friendly nations.
    The committee supports the Department's plans for terrorism 
consequence management, which are focused on two major areas: 
the preparedness of installation emergency responders to 
mitigate the effects of an attack involving chemical, 
biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosives; 
and the support provided to a lead federal agency when foreign, 
state, and local governments request assistance.
    The Department defines counterterrorism as ``offensive 
measures taken to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism.'' 
The committee endorses this definition, recognizes the 
Department's exceptional history with regard to 
counterterrorism operations; applauds the military's current 
efforts in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere; and 
supports the Department's efforts to ensure U.S. Special 
Operations Forces are the best manned, trained, armed, 
equipped, and supported in the world.
    Good intelligence is the first line of defense against 
terrorism. As such, the committee supports the Department's 
efforts to improve intelligence collection, analysis, and 
dissemination to commanders in a timely manner.

Putting People First

    The committee believes that the key to capable and flexible 
armed forces is the people--military and civilian alike, and 
the families that stand with them--who have dedicated 
themselves to the defense of the country. As such, the 
committee believes that the Department of Defense must take 
special care to ensure that their readiness, morale and quality 
of life are enhanced.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 
would not only ensure that our military personnel are well 
trained and equipped, but also reflects the committee's concern 
about the impact that the war on terrorism is having on service 
members and their families. Despite years of overuse and 
budgetary neglect, the Armed Forces have performed 
magnificently in the wake of the September 11th attacks on the 
nation. Notwithstanding their exceptional successes in 
Afghanistan, and their deployments to the Philippines, Georgia, 
and Central Asia, the committee believes that wartime 
operations have exacerbated the same debilitating stresses of 
high operations and personnel tempos that existed before the 
global war on terrorism.
    The Committee fully supports the Secretary's efforts to 
reduce operational and mission requirements, and to free up 
force structure to reduce the ``tooth to tail'' ratio. 
Accordingly, the committee bill would increase active duty end 
strength by 12,600 from the requested levels, and provide an 
additional $550.0 million to support this increase.
    Because ``people'' are the key to a great military force, 
this bill gives the Department the resources it needs to 
recruit and retain quality people at all levels, improve the 
quality of life for service members and their families, and to 
take better care of military retirees and veterans. As in the 
past, the committee bill would provide a pay raise that 
combines both across-the-board and targeted increases for mid-
grade noncommissioned officers and officers. The bill would 
also reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for military 
personnel, authorize concurrent receipt of military retired pay 
and disability payments for the most severely disabled military 
retirees, and implement several changes to improve health care 
for military personnel.
    Finally, taking care of our military personnel also means 
providing them with the best equipment, weapons, resources, and 
technology available to do their jobs and accomplish their 
missions. But given the billions of dollars of unfunded 
requirements, coupled with the need to fight a war abroad and 
protect the homeland from terrorism, adequate military 
readiness will be difficult to sustain over the long term. Many 
of the military's weapons systems and platforms are long past 
their initial design lifespan, so maintenance problems and 
costs will continue to degrade mission capability. That said, 
the committee enhanced the President's budget request by 
providing the additional investments in the technology and 
weapons that will give our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
Marines the advantages on the modern battlefield that will help 
guarantee success. The committee remains committed to making 
even larger investments in the future to ensure that our 
service members remain the best armed, equipped, and capable in 
the world.

Conclusion

    In H.R. 4546, the committee has focused its efforts on 
improving military readiness, taking care of DOD personnel and 
their families, strengthening our strategic defenses and 
forces, combating terrorism, stemming the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, and preparing for an extended war 
against terrorism. As a result, the committee believes its 
message is clear--that the House Armed Services Committee is 
completely committed to defending the United States, the 
American people, and our interests by restoring the strength 
and improving the capabilities of our nation's Armed Forces.

                                HEARINGS

    Committee consideration of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 results from hearings 
that began on February 6, 2002 and that were completed on April 
11, 2002. The full committee conducted 8 sessions. In addition, 
a total of 22 sessions were conducted by five different 
subcommittees and two panels of the committee on various titles 
of the bill.

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

                                OVERVIEW

    The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense (DOD) 
procurement request subject to authorization was $68,637.2 
million, $6,430.3 million higher than the fiscal year 2002 
authorization.
    The budget request also included $3,382.4 million in 
procurement-related equipment and items, as part of the Defense 
Emergency Response Fund request, resulting in a $9,812.7 
million budget request increase over the fiscal year 2002 
authorized level.
    The committee increased the authorization for procurement 
by $2,933.3 million and transferred $1,793.2 million from 
procurement to H.R. 4547, for a net increase to the budget 
request of $4,522.5 million, and a total procurement 
authorization of $73,440.5 million.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $2,061.0 million for Aircraft 
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends 
authorization of $2,300.3 million for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

AH-64 modifications

    The budget request contained $93.6 million for AH-64 
modifications, but included no funds to procure the digital 
source collector (DSC) health usage monitoring system (HUMS); 
nor the oil debris detection system (ODDS); nor combination 
ammunition storage magazine and crashworthy ballistically, 
self-sealing, internal auxiliary fuel tanks; nor a tactical 
engagement simulation system (TESS) for the Army National Guard 
(ARNG).
    The DSC-HUMS, a pre-planned product improvement for the 
vibration management enhancement program, is an on-board, 
crash-survivable memory unit that records voice, flight data, 
and electronic diagnostic data from the 1533 multiplex data 
bus. The system aids post mishap investigations and 
troubleshooting field maintenance failures.
    The ODDS is an on-board detection system that alerts 
aircrews to the presence of metal chips in engines and 
propeller gear boxes, which allows flights to be terminated 
prior to catastrophic failure of critical components. The 
system also permits the clearing of smaller particles that 
routinely accumulate in engine oil and cause false impending 
engine failure alarms resulting in unnecessary termination of 
aircraft missions and costly engine diagnostics.
    The committee notes that requirements for additional 
combination ammunition storage magazine and crashworthy 
ballistically, self-sealing, internal auxiliary fuel tanks 
exist for both AH-64A Apache and AH-64D Apache Longbow 
aircraft. These tanks replace externally-mounted, non-
crashworthy, non self-sealing fuel tanks and are currently 
installed in 101st Airborne Division (Air Assualt) Apaches 
operating in Operation Enduring Freedom and provide a 26 
percent increase in additional fuel capacity while preserving 
the capability to carry 300 rounds of 30 millimeter ammunition.
    The TESS is an advanced imbedded training system to enhance 
combat training and readiness for Apache aircrews and provides 
communications, decentralized engagement tracking and 
prosecution, and real time casualty assessment, which enables 
aircrews to conduct collective training at their home stations. 
The committee believes that the TESS would allow ARNG pilots to 
train more proficiently and help maintain similar proficiency 
levels of active component AH-64 aircrews.
    The committee recommends $132.6 million for AH-64 
modifications, an increase of $8.0 million to procure DSC-HUMS; 
an increase of $8.0 million in PE 64746A for continued 
development of DSC-HUMS for the Apache Longbow; an increase of 
$5.0 million to procure ODDS; an increase of $18.0 million to 
procure combination ammunition storage magazine and crashworthy 
ballistically, self-sealing, internal auxiliary fuel tanks; and 
$8.0 million for one TESS for the ARNG, for a total increase of 
$39.0 million for procurement upgrades for the AH-64 Apache 
fleet.

Airborne communications

    The budget request contained $44.5 million for the 
procurement of 10 AN/ARC-220 aviation non-line-of-sight (NLOS) 
high frequency (HF) radios, 262 AN/VRC-100 NLOS HF ground 
radios and associated A-kits for installation of AN/ARC-220 
radios into AH-64 Apache attack helicopters.
    The AN/ARC-220 aviation NLOS HF radio provides secure voice 
and data communications between Army helicopters flying nap-of-
the-earth missions and beyond-line-of-sight tactical operations 
centers. The committee notes that the Task Force Hawk after 
action report identified the lack of such capability in AH-64 
Apache attack helicopters as a major deficiency for conducting 
long-range strike missions. Further, the committee understands 
that the Army has recently increased its basis of issue of the 
AN/ARC-220 radio to one per AH-64 Apache versus the earlier 
basis of issue of one per every two aircraft.
    Based on the Task Force Hawk shortfalls, the increased 
requirement, and the committee's belief that this 
communications requirement is essential to effectively employ 
Apache aircraft for deep strike missions and ground offensives, 
the committee recommends $53.0 million, an increase of $8.5 
million, to procure an additional 375 AN/ARC-220 aviation NLOS 
HF radios.

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)

    The budget request contained no funds to procure ASE.
    The AN/AVR-2A laser detecting set (LDS) is the only device 
in the Army capable of providing warning to helicopter crews 
when they have been illuminated by a laser-targeted weapon. It 
detects, identifies, and characterizes threats 360-degrees-
around and plus-or-minus 45 degrees above-and-below an 
aircraft.
    The committee continues to be concerned with the growing 
laser threat to helicopter aircrews and notes the limited 
fielding of this system to force package one aircraft only. The 
committee understands that the Army plans to budget for LDS 
beginning in fiscal year 2004 to complete LDS kit installation 
on the AH-64D Apache Longbow and UH-60M Blackhawk helicopters. 
Based on a growing laser threat to Army helicopters and 
consistent with prior year actions, the committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million to accelerate procurement and fielding 
of AN/AVR-2A LDS kits.

Aircrew integrated systems

    The budget request contained $15.2 million for the 
procurement of aircrew integrated systems, but included no 
funds to either procure cockpit airbag systems (CABS) or HGU-
56P, AH-64 Apache helicopter integrated helmet and display 
sight subsystems (IHADSS) for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
    The CABS is a crash-activated, inflatable protection 
system, which provides head and body supplemental restraint for 
helicopter aviators, reducing death and injury caused by the 
body and head impacting against cockpit structures in the event 
of a crash or hard landing. The committee is highly supportive 
of technological advances that contribute to improved aircraft 
crashworthiness and aircrew safety, and, also notes that the 
Army Chief of Staff has identified $26.1 million for the 
procurement of CABS as a top fiscal year 2003 unfunded 
priority. The IHADSS is comprised of an AH-64A Apache 
helicopter flight helmet, which provides crash protection and 
noise attenuation and a small monocular display which provides 
line-of-sight as well as flight critical video and symbology 
information to the pilot. The committee believes these helmets 
provide aviators with better situational awareness and safety 
of flight information and note that not all ARNG Apache units 
have these helmets.
    The committee recommends $42.6 million for aircrew 
integrated systems, an increase of $26.1 million to procure 
CABS and $1.3 million for the procurement of 64 IHADSS for the 
ARNG.

Avionics support equipment

    The budget request contained $7.5 million to procure AN/
AVS-6(V)3 aviator's night vision imaging systems (ANVIS) and 
AN/AVS-7 heads-up displays.
    The AN/AVS-6(V)3 ANVIS is a helmet-mounted, twin-tube, 
image-intensified (I2), generation IV, night vision system that 
significantly enhances night flight operations in conditions 
that vary from overcast starlight to strong urban lighting. 
Currently fielded systems comprise older generation II or 
generation III night vision technology. AN/AVS-6(V)3 ANVIS 
generation IV technology provides a 200 percent improvement in 
visual acuity and range performance in high light levels and a 
65 percent improvement in visual acuity and range performance 
in low light levels over current technology, fielded from 
fiscal years 1985 through 1993.
    The committee believes that improved safety of flight 
operations would result from this enhanced generation IV 
technology and recommends $15.5 million, an increase of $8.0 
million, to accelerate the procurement of AN/AVS-6(V)3 ANVIS.

CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications

    The budget request contained $382.1 million for MH-47/CH-
47F special operations and cargo helicopter modifications, but 
included no funds for crashworthy crew seats.
    While existing pilot and co-pilot seats offer some 
protection in the event of a hard impact landing or a crash, 
crew chiefs and load master personnel do not have crashworthy 
crew seats to provide increased protection from the 
acceleration forces created by such a landing or crash, thereby 
avoiding serious injuries or, in extreme cases, fatalities to 
soldiers. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has 
identified a fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement to 
accelerate procurement of crashworthy crew seats into the CH-47 
Chinook helicopter.
    The committee recommends $395.6 million, an increase of 
$13.5 million, to procure crashworthy crew seats for CH-47 
cargo helicopters.

Helicopter new training

    The budget request contained no funds to procure TH-67 
Creek training helicopters.
    The committee notes the continued shortfall in visual 
flight, instrument flight, and basic combat skills training 
helicopters which will occur with the anticipated retirementof 
Vietnam-era UH-1 and OH-58 A/C aircraft as outlined in the fiscal year 
2000 Army Aviation Modernization Plan. The committee understands that 
the Army does not intend to replace these retiring aircraft due to 
affordability.
    Based on the need to replace the aging Huey and OH-58 A/C 
training fleet as soon as possible and the need to provide 
quality training for Army aviators, the committee recommends an 
increase of $9.6 million for six TH-67 helicopters.

UH-60 Blackhawk

    The budget request contained $153.4 million for the 
procurement of 12 UH-60L Blackhawk utility helicopters for the 
Army National Guard (ARNG), but included no funds for HH-60L 
enhanced medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) helicopters for the ARNG 
or for a UH-60L full motion simulator.
    The Blackhawk is the Army's primary utility helicopter for 
air assault, general support and aero medical evacuation 
missions. The HH-60L MEDEVAC helicopter provides enhanced 
medical evacuation and treatment of six litter or seven 
ambulatory patients in a state-of-the-art medical treatment 
cabin interior.
    The committee is aware that the national command 
authority's rapid reaction force 18th Airborne Corps has a 
requirement for one additional UH-60L Blackhawk full motion 
simulator and that this simulator is not planned to be budgeted 
for until fiscal year 2005. However, aviation units from this 
corps are currently deployed in combat operations in Operation 
Enduring Freedom and must maintain the highest levels of 
readiness and training as a rotational alert force.
    The committee recommends $268.7 million, an increase of 
$52.6 million to procure five additional UH-60L Blackhawks for 
the ARNG and $47.7 million to procure three HH-60L MEDEVAC 
variants for the ARNG, and an increase of $15.0 million for one 
UH-60L Blackhawk full motion simulator for the 18th Airborne 
Corps, for a total increase of $115.3 million.

UH-60 modifications

    The budget request contained $41.9 million for UH-60 
modifications, of which $10.3 million was for crashworthy 
external fuel systems, but no funds were included for this 
system for Army National Guard (ARNG) UH-60 combat search and 
rescue aircraft or for UH-60 deicing system upgrades.
    UH-60 crashworthy external fuel systems are self-sealing, 
ballistically-tolerant tanks that replace existing 230 gallon 
non-crashworthy external fuel tanks originally intended only 
for ferry flights. However, expanding Army aviation missions 
have increasingly required these non-crashworthy tanks to be 
used to extend UH-60 tactical mission ranges, which create 
safety risks to flight crews, passengers, and aircraft that 
require individual mission waivers by individual commands.
    The committee understands that the original UH-60 series 
aircraft were built with a marginally capable deicing system 
and that an upgrade is underway to improve its performance.
    As a result of potential safety risks created by existing 
systems, the committee recommends $49.9 million for UH-60 
modifications, an increase of $6.0 million, for crashworthy 
external fuel systems for both ARNG combat search and rescue 
aircraft and active Army UH-60s, and an increase of $2.0 
million for UH-60 series aircraft deicing system upgrades, for 
a total increase of $8.0 million.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,642.3 million for Missile 
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1,693.9 million for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) summary/ATACMS block II system 
        summary

    The budget request contained $9.1 million for the fielding 
of prior year procured missiles, but included no funds to 
procure ATACMS quick reaction program (QRP) unitary warhead 
missiles. The budget request also included $49.7 million for 
engineering services, production engineering support and 
related activities for ATACMS block II missiles, however, no 
block II missiles are planned to be produced in fiscal year 
2003.
    The ATACMS is a surface-to-surface, global positioning 
system-guided missile for deep-strike attacks against tactical 
surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missile sites; logistics 
elements; and command, control, communications complexes.
    The committee is aware of the ATACMS QRP upgrade that will 
incorporate Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response 
warheads into ATACMS Block IA missiles. This warhead upgrade is 
designed to limit collateral damage when used against targets 
in urban environments and is a direct outgrowth of the Army's 
inability to conduct deep strike missions against such targets 
with its existing ATACMS missile inventory during Operation 
Allied Force. The committee also notes that the Army received 
$38.0 million in fiscal year 2002 Defense Emergency Response 
Fund supplemental funding to accelerate this conversion 
initiative.
    The committee notes that $5.0 million and $6.1 million was 
appropriated for engineering services and production 
engineering support, respectively, in fiscal year 2002 for the 
production of 6 ATACMS block II missiles and 83 brilliant 
antitank submunitions (BAT). However, $25.3 million and $12.0 
million is requested for engineering services and production 
engineering support, respectively, in fiscal year 2003, yet no 
missile or submunition production is planned. The committee is 
concerned about the fiscal year 2003 request including a five-
fold increase for engineering services and just under twice the 
amount for production engineering support over the amounts 
appropriated for these fiscal year 2002 production 
requirements. The committee also notes that the Army is 
currently reviewing and restructuring the ATACMS block II and 
BAT program and considering arming unmanned aerial vehicles 
(UAV) with BAT pre-planned product improved (P3I) submunitions 
instead of expending BAT P3I submunitions from missiles.
    The committee believes that the Army should have the 
capability to provide joint force commanders with a surface-to-
surface deep strike option, which creates limited collateral 
damage in urban environments. Also, the committee is supportive 
of expanding UAV capability with weapons, which have been 
effectively demonstrated in Operation Enduring Freedom.
    The committee recommends $47.1 for ATACMS missile system 
summary, an increase of $38.0 million, to upgrade ATACMS Block 
IA missiles to the QRP configuration. Also, the committee 
recommends $23.3 million for ATACMS block II system summary, a 
decrease of $20.3 million and $6.1 million from engineering 
services and production engineering support, respectively, for 
a total decrease of $26.4 million, since no production is 
planned in fiscal year 2003 for ATACMS block II missiles or BAT 
P3I submunitions.

Hellfire system summary

    The budget request contained $184.4 million for the 
procurement of Longbow Hellfire missiles, but included no funds 
to procure laser Hellfire II missiles.
    The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has 
identified a fiscal year 2003, $80.2 million unfunded 
requirement for laser Hellfire II missiles.
    The committee recommends $224.4 million for Hellfire system 
summary, a $40.0 million increase, for laser Hellfire II 
missiles.

               Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $2,248.6 million for 
procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for 
fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of 
$2,373.0 million for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Bradley base sustainment

    The budget request contained $397.1 million for the 
procurement of Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, including 
$3.5 million for fielding Army National Guard (ARNG) A2 
Operation Desert Storm (ODS) variants.
    The Bradley A2ODS is an upgraded first-generation Bradley 
A0, which enhances its lethality, survivability, and mobility, 
as well as the situational awareness of its crew. Modifications 
include installation of a laser range finder, Global 
Positioning System navigation capability, a combat 
identification system, a driver's thermal viewer and a missile 
countermeasure device.
    When the Army completes all of its planned upgrades to the 
Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most 
advanced A3 variant, along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The 
committee understands that beginning in fiscal year 2003, 
approximately 400 ARNG Bradley A0s will remain unmodified since 
this upgrade program was initiated. Because of major 
survivability deficiencies, Bradley A0s were not mobilized 
during the Persian Gulf War. However, as part of the new ARNG 
enhanced brigades, the committee notes that some of these A0 
vehicles will be required to deploy with active Army forces.
    Because ARNG enhanced brigades will comprise an increasing 
percentage of the Army's warfighting capability in the future, 
the committee recommends $457.1 million for Bradley base 
sustainment, an increase of $60.0 million, to upgrade an 
additional 45 Bradley A0 vehicles to the A2ODS variant for the 
ARNG.

Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)

    The budget request contained $50.3 million for the 
procurement of 16 M88A2 IRVs, but included no funds for the 
procurement of these vehicles for the Army National Guard 
(ARNG).
    The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles 
weighing less than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are 
required to safely tow an Abrams tank if it becomes immobile 
due to combat damage or mechanical failure. The M88A2 IRV 
upgrade is a jointly procured system for both the Army and 
Marine Corps and includes increased engine horsepower, as well 
as braking, steering, winch, lift, and suspension capabilities 
required to safely recover Abrams tanks and other heavy combat 
systems. The committee understands that the Army will terminate 
this program in fiscal year 2006 as one of its 18 programs it 
identified for termination through the future years defense 
program to reprioritize funds for transformation, however, 
these upgrades will be procured to fulfill heavy counter attack 
corps requirements. The committee also notes that the ARNG has 
a shortfall of IRVs in its enhanced separate brigade force 
structure.
    The committee recommends $96.1 million, an increase of 
$45.8 million, for 15 additional M88A2 IRV upgrades for the 
ARNG.

M113 carrier modifications

    The budget request contained $60.3 million for M113 carrier 
modifications, of which $14.9 million was for M113 ``A3'' 
upgrades, and $45.4 million was for new T-150 track for the 
United States-based Counter Attack Corps.
    The M113A3 upgrade program, forecast to add an additional 
20 years of service life to the vehicle, includes installation 
of a new engine, transmission, external armored fuel tanks, 
driver controls, and internal Kevlar spall liners. The 
committee notes, however, that the M113A3 upgrade program is 
one of 11 programs to be terminated by the Army in fiscal year 
2003 in order to afford higher transformation priorities.
    While the committee is supportive of transformation and 
understands the need to reallocate resources to accelerate 
improved transformational technologies, in this instance it 
believes that the Army's decision to not upgrade the remaining 
forward deployed 112, 2nd Infantry Division M113A2s in the 
Republic of Korea, and the 185, 1st Armored Division and 167, 
1st Infantry Division M113A2s in Europe, will at a minimum, 
leave the soldiers in these front line units vulnerable and 
lacking increased maneuver capability in the potentially 
unstable and high threat environments they are required to 
operate in. Unless the Secretary of the Army can present the 
committee with a valid plan as to why the Army would not 
complete these particular unit vehicle upgrades prior to 
terminating the ``A3'' upgrade program after fiscal year 2003, 
the committee recommends that the entire $60.3 million 
requested for fiscal year 2003 be only for M113A3 upgrades for 
these units.

M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)

    The budget request contained no funds for the procurement 
of the M249 SAW. The M249 SAW is a lightweight machine gun 
capable of delivering a sustained volume of automatic, 
accurate, and highly lethal fire up to ranges of 800 meters. It 
is being widely fielded throughout the Army to airborne, 
artillery, light and mechanized infantry, and aviation units. 
The committee notes that this has been one of the infantry's 
critical weapon systems in the Army's deployment to Afghanistan 
for Operation Enduring Freedom. As a result of a review and 
increased requirements, the committee understands that the Army 
Chief of Staff has identified an $18.6 million fiscal year 2003 
unfunded requirement for an additional 9,580 guns, which will 
fulfill the service's total procurement objective of 89,428 
guns.
    The committee recommends an increase of $18.6 million for 
this purpose to complete the procurement objective of M249 
SAWs.

                      Ammunition Procurement, Army

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,159.4 million for 
Ammunition Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee 
recommends authorization of $1,320.0 million for fiscal year 
2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Army ammunition procurement

    The budget request contained $1,159.4 million for 
procurement of ammunition and production base support. The 
committee recommends an additional $133.6 million, for the 
following types of ammunition programs, of which ammunition 
production is among the top unfunded requirements identified by 
the Army Chief of Staff in fiscal year 2003:

Small/Medium Caliber Ammunition:ions of dollars]
        CTG 5.56mm, all types (production line upgrade).......       5.0
        CTG 25mm, APFSDS-T M919...............................      23.0
Mortar Ammunition:
    81mm M816.................................................       2.8
    CTG 120mm M934A1..........................................       7.8
    CTG 120mm IR Illum M983...................................       3.0
    Pine Bluff Arsenal production line upgrade................       3.0
Artillery Ammunition:
    Projectile, Artillery 155mm Illum M110....................      10.0
    Projectile, Artillery 155mm HE M795.......................      24.0
    Modular Artillery Charge System...........................      20.0
Rockets: Bunker Defeating Munition............................      10.0
Demolition Munitions, All Types: Modernization Demolition 
    Initiators................................................       5.0
Production Base Support: ARMS Initiative......................      20.0

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

    The committee understands that the Department of the Army 
has issued a request for information with regard to 
consolidation of its four government owned, contractor 
operated, ammunition LAP facilities beginning in fiscal year 
2003. However, it also understands that the necessary funds to 
execute a contract related to consolidation are not included in 
the future years defense program. The committee notes that the 
Army has identified a $544.0 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded 
requirement for conventional ammunition, its largest annual 
unfunded requirement over the past five fiscal years, as a 
result of growing shortfalls in war reserve ammunition and 
increased marksmanship training requirements identified by the 
Army Chief of Staff to fight the war on terrorism. While the 
committee is a proponent of streamlining and eliminating excess 
capacity within the ammunition industrial base, it is aware 
that unique job skills exist in these production facilities and 
that the correct industrial production and LAP capacity and 
related skills must be maintained to meet surge production 
requirements.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide 
a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 
2003, which outlines the conventional ammunition industrial 
base requirements, including LAP capacity, to fulfill the 
ammunition requirements for the Department's new capabilities-
based strategy and Army Chief of Staff unfunded requirements.

                        Other Procurement, Army

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $5,168.5 million for Other 
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends 
authorization of $6,119.4 million for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)

    The budget request contained $156.5 million for procurement 
of ADPE, of which $13.5 million was included for automatic 
identification technology (AIT)/radio frequency-identification 
(RFID) devices.
    AIT/RFID devices, which consist of various radio frequency, 
bar code scanning, and data carrier devices, are components of 
automated logistics systems that expedite receiving, storage, 
distribution, and inventory management of new and repairable 
items as well as afloat and ashore pre-positioned stockpile 
items and equipment. These devices are also used to automate 
manufacturing process controls for repair parts and to track 
other types of ground support equipment at various military 
depots. The committee believes that substantial savings and 
efficiencies can continue to be achieved from further 
implementation of these devices in automated inventory and 
repair processes. The committee urges the Secretary of the Army 
to review the opportunities to reduce manpower requirements in 
Army industrial facilities as a result of increased 
efficiencies that may be achieved from the continued 
installation of this technology.
    The committee recommends $174.0 million, an increase of 
$12.3 million for maintenance AIT/RFID implementation in Army 
industrial facilities, and an increase of $5.2 million for AIT/
RFID implementation in pre-positioned stocks, for a total 
increase of $17.5 million.

Combat support medical

    The budget request contained $21.0 million to procure 
deployable medical systems and field medical equipment, but 
included no funds for rapid intravenous (IV) infusion pumps, or 
Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) units, or the 
Army Medical Support Group Telemedicine Instrumentation Pack 
(TIP). The budget request also contained $12.6 million in PE 
64807A, but included no funds for LSTAT spiral development.
    The Rapid IV infusion pump is a Food and Drug 
Administration approved miniature, portable, lightweight pump 
specifically designed for life-saving intravenous fluid 
resuscitation by a medic in the field to restore blood pressure 
and prevent shock and death of victims with severe blood loss 
or dehydration. The committee understands that it is estimated 
that up to 15 percent of the soldiers that died in Vietnam who 
were not immediate battlefield casualties would have survived 
their wounds if rapid infusion of fluids had been a possibility 
during that conflict.
    The LSTAT integrates a set of commercially available, FDA-
approved medical devices in a self-contained mini-intensive 
care, medical evacuation platform, which provides advanced 
life-support, on-board ventilation, suction, environmental 
control, oxygen generation, and patient monitoring to stabilize 
wounded soldiers near the battlefront as they are evacuated. 
LSTAT is configured on a NATO-standard litter, is broadly 
interoperable with other medical systems and compatible with 
most evacuation platforms including UH-60s, UH-1s, C-130s, and 
High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles.
    The TIP is a portable electronic patient record and 
diagnostic device, which allows medical personnel to acquire 
and update a patient's health information and treatment history 
from statistics gathered by numerous patient health monitoring 
and diagnostic instruments. A patient's medical treatment 
history and statistics are automatically recorded into the 
electronic patient chart for later review during a patient's 
treatment or can be transmitted online for other medical 
expert's assistance.
    The committee is supportive of the potential life saving 
capability that these devices offer, and, therefore, recommends 
$38.0 million, an increase of $5.0 million to procure rapid IV 
infusion pumps; an increase of $10.0 million to continue 
procurement of LSTAT units, and an increase of $2.0 million to 
procure TIPs. The committee also recommends $17.6 million in PE 
64807A, and increase of $5.0 million, for spiral development of 
expanded LSTAT capabilities.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles

    The budget request contained $242.8 million to procure 
palletized load systems, heavy equipment transporter systems, 
heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks and other related 
equipment of which $34.3 million was included to procure 2,324 
movement tracking systems (MTS). However, no MTS were requested 
for the Army Reserve.
    The MTS is a satellite-based tracking, communication system 
providing both active and reserve component combat service 
support units with global positioning system vehicle location 
and tracking and two-way text messaging between stationary base 
locations and vehicles.
    The committee understands the MTS significantly enhances 
the Army's ability to strategically position, monitor, and 
track re-supply items, while providing near real-time command 
and control of in-theater logistical requirements. As Army 
Reserve unit deployments increase, the committee believes there 
is an increasing need for better communications 
interoperability between active and mobilized reserve combat 
service support units.
    The committee also notes the Chief of the Army Reserve has 
identified a fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement for MTS and, 
recommends an increase of $9.0 million to accelerate 
procurement of MTS for the Army Reserve.

High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs)

    The budget request contained $196.8 million for 2,064 
HMMWVs, of which $54.0 million was included to procure 360 of 
the M1114 Up-Armor variant.
    The Up-Armor HMMWV is a multi-service, four wheel drive 
utility vehicle that provides proven ballistic protection for 
soldiers from anti-personnel and anti-tank mines and armored 
piercing munitions. The committee notes the Army Chief of Staff 
has identified a $31.1 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded 
requirement for an additional 180 Up-Armored HMMWVs. The 
committee understands these additional vehicles will be fielded 
to deployed active and reserve units to enhance combat support 
missions.
    Recognizing the ongoing importance of force protection and 
in light of lessons learned from previous urban and combat 
operations, the committee recommends $227.9 million, an 
increase of $31.1 million, to fulfill the unfunded requirement 
for an additional 180 M1114 Up-Armor HMMWVs.

Information system security program (ISSP)

    The budget request contained $39.1 million and $13.4 
million to procure secure voice and data equipment for the Army 
and Air Force respectively.
    The committee strongly supports upgrading critical secure 
telecommunications by replacing older secure voice and data 
systems with modern secure digital communications equipment. 
These upgrades will help reduce the exploitation of classified 
and sensitive information due to growing information security 
threats. The committee also notes that this is a top fiscal 
year 2003 unfunded priority of the Air Force Chief of Staff.
    To accelerate the replacement of older secure voice and 
data terminals, the committee recommends an increase of $14.0 
million for Army ISSP and $10.0 million for Air Force Command, 
Control, and Communications Countermeasures to procure 
additional secure terminal equipment.

Items less than $5.0 million (construction equipment)

    The budget request contained $12.9 million to procure 
construction equipment support items, of which $784 thousand 
was for two water distributors for airborne units, but no funds 
were requested for the Army Reserve.
    These water distributors provide water distribution for 
rapid construction requirements in the deployed locations. The 
committee notes that the Chief of the Army Reserve has 
identified a $4.0 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement 
for 12 water distributors.
    The committee recommends an increase of $16.9 million for 
construction equipment items less than $5.0 million, an 
increase of $4.0 million, to accelerate procurement and 
fielding of 12 water distributors to the Army Reserve.

Joint tactical area command systems

    The budget request contained $900 thousand for management 
of joint tactical area command systems, but included no funds 
to upgrade AN/ARS-6 (V) personnel locator communications 
systems.
    The AN/ARS-6 (V) personnel locator communications system is 
an airborne electronic locator, which can precisely locate 
survivors on the ground equipped with AN/PRC-112 survival 
radios. The committee understands that this commercial-off-the-
shelf (COTS) upgrade will include a global positioning system 
waveform for currently fielded systems and believes that this 
capability may aid in the rescue and recovery of personnel and 
survivors in extremis situations.
    The committee recommends $6.9 million for joint tactical 
area command systems, an increase of $6.0 million, for AN/ARS-6 
(V) COTS insertion upgrades.

Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)

    The budget request contained $7.7 million to procure LMEs, 
of which $1.9 million was for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
    The LME is a lightweight, frame-supported tent designed to 
provide forward deployed maintenance units a quick setup-and-
takedown enclosed shelter in which to perform field maintenance 
operations across the battlefield in all climatic conditions.
    The committee notes that mobility will be the hallmark of 
the Army's future medium brigades as well as ARNG units and 
that they must therefore be capable of rapidly repairing and 
maintaining equipment while deployed.
    The committee recommends $17.7 million, an increase of 
$10.0 million, for the procurement of additional LMEs: $5.0 
million for the Army and $5.0 million for the ARNG.

Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS) family

    The budget request contained $30.1 million to procure 
SINCGARS for high priority Army National Guard (ARNG) units and 
interim brigade combat teams. The budget request also included 
$22.1 million to procure improved high frequency radios (IHFR) 
for ARNG weapons of mass destruction civil support teams, but 
included no funds for IHFRs for the Army Reserve.
    The IHFR is the primary means of communications for 
maneuver battalions, combat support and combat service support 
units, the latter of which are comprised primarily of Army 
Reserve forces. The IHFR provides a versatile capability for 
short- and long-range communications, particularly important 
for highly mobile and geographically dispersed units not 
supported by active component communications units. The IHFR is 
also the only tactical radio that possesses a long-range 
communications capability independent of terrestrial or 
satellite relays and exceeds the range of the line-of-sight 
SINCGARS. To date, limited fielding has occurred to the Army 
Reserve due to budget constraints; however, as a result of 
newly expanded missions in support of the war on terrorism, the 
Chief of the Army Reserve has identified a $61.1 million fiscal 
year 2003 unfunded requirement for 1,750 IHFRs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $61.1 million to 
procure IHFRs for the Army Reserve.

Small tug

    The budget request contained no funds to procure small 
tugs.
    The small tug is a 60-foot, steel hull, twin propeller 
vessel designed to tow general cargo barges in harbors, inland 
waterways, and along coastlines. It is also capable of 
assisting larger tugs in mooring ships of all sizes at piers 
and in restricted navigation waterways, moving floating cranes 
and machine shops, and performing line-handling duties.
    The committee is aware that the Army has procured 12 of 
these tugs, has two under contract, and has recently increased 
its requirement to 16 vessels. The small tug replaces the 
Army's obsolete 40-year-old small tugs that were used in 
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
    Consistent with prior years, and to complete the 
requirement for two additional tugs, the committee recommends 
an increase of $7.0 million to accelerate procurement of 2 
additional vessels towards completion of the requirement for 16 
small tugs.

Stamis tactical computers (STACOMP)

    The budget request contained $61.3 million for STACOMP, of 
which $47.2 million was for global combat support system 
(GCSS)-Army hardware and fielding.
    The GCSS-Army will be the business and tactical information 
system for Army combat service support to manage supply 
property, maintenance, ammunition, and supply support. In 
fiscal year 1997, the Army began development of GCSS-A to 
transform the Army's information technology support systems, 
which included replacing 16 legacy systems with 5 modules. 
However, the Army is still attempting to implement the first, 
and admittedly easiest, module to more than support supply 
property requirements. Despite spending $320 million on GCSS-
Army over 5 years, nothing has been fielded to date and no 
legacy information systems have been replaced. The Army intends 
to initially field the first module in fiscal year 2002. The 
committee is concerned about the amount of funds that have been 
expended, the lack of success, and amount of time required for 
initial fielding of the first and easiest module.
    The committee has learned that the Army has now changed its 
acquisition strategy for the second module, which will cover 
maintenance logistics requirements and intends to use a 
commercial based enterprise resourcing plan versus continuing 
development of the second module. This is a significant change 
in strategy, which will affect the acquisition approach, 
funding requirements, and testing and implementation schedule.
    Because of the Army's adoption of a commercial system 
acquisition strategy, the committee believes the system will 
require less funds to field the additional modules and 
recommends $51.3 million for STACOMP, a decrease of $10.0 
million for GCSS-A.

Striker family

    The budget request contained $28.5 million for the 
procurement of 54 Striker command and control vehicles, but 
included no funds for Strikers for the Army National Guard 
(ARNG).
    The Striker vehicle is a high mobility multi-purpose 
wheeled vehicle mounted system, which incorporates a Bradley 
fire support vehicle mission equipment package of a laser 
rangefinder/designator, thermal sight, handheld computer, and 
both inertial navigation and global positioning systems. The 
Striker is operated by combat observation lasing teams (COLTs) 
as an integral part of heavy and light division and ARNG 
enhanced separate brigade reconnaissance teams to locate and 
designate targets for laser-guided ordnance.
    The committee understands that funds appropriated in fiscal 
year 2001 for the ARNG Strikers enabled the fielding of only 50 
percent of the required systems for an ARNG separate enhanced 
brigade and the full requirement is not expected to be budgeted 
for until fiscal year 2006.
    The committee recommends $33.0 million, an increase of $4.5 
million for six Striker systems to accelerate and complete 
fielding to an ARNG separate enhanced brigade.

            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,490.2 million for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, for fiscal year 2003. 
The committee recommends no funds for fiscal year 2003.

                       Items of Special Interest

Chemical agents and munitions destruction

    The budget requests contained $1,490.2 million for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.
    The committee notes that section 1412 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1986 (Public Law 99-
145), as amended, requires that funds for the destruction of 
the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions, 
including funds for military construction projects necessary to 
carry out the demilitarization program, shall only be 
authorized and appropriated in the budget of the Department of 
Defense (DOD) as a separate program and shall not be included 
in the budget accounts for any of the military departments. The 
committee notes that for the fourth year in a row, the 
Department's budget request contains authorization and 
appropriation of funds for the chemical demilitarization 
program in a budget account of the Department of the Army in 
contravention of direction provided by the law.
    The committee believes that the original 1986 legislation, 
which mandated that funds for the chemical demilitarization 
program be authorized and appropriated in a defense-wide budget 
account in order to emphasize that destruction of the chemical 
weapons stockpile was a national issue affecting all of the 
Department and not just a single military service, was 
appropriate. In 1986, the estimated cost of the chemical 
stockpile demilitarization program was approximately $1,500.0 
million. Today, the potential estimated cost of the program has 
grown to $24,000.0 million and reinforces the committee's 
earlier position.
    The committee recommends no funds for Chemical Agents and 
Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of $1,490.2 million. 
The committee recommends an increase of $1,490.2 million for 
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, as 
described elsewhere in this report. The committee also 
recommends a provision, section 143, that would require the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to certify in 
subsequent annual budget requests that the request is in 
accordance with the law.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $8,203.9 million for Aircraft 
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends 
authorization of $8,971.6 million for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

AV-8B series modifications

    The budget request contained $32.2 million for AV-8B series 
modifications, but included no funds for the AV-8B engine life 
management program (ELMP) or for Litening advanced airborne 
targeting and navigation (AT) pods.
    The ELMP was developed by the Marine Corps to address the 
safety and reliability of the AV-8B's engine. The committee 
understands that increased ELMP funds for fiscal year 2003 
would provide more efficient foreign object damage repair 
capability, improved oil analysis systems, and fuel metering 
unit revitalization, and recommends an increase of $5.8 million 
for the AV-8B ELMP.
    The Litening AT pod is the next generation Litening pod 
system that will incorporate an advanced forward-looking infra-
red radar and other enhancements to the existing multi-sensor 
and precision strike capability. The committee understands that 
the Marine Corps has a requirement for 98 Litening targeting 
pods but has thus far only procured 66, for a shortfall of 32, 
and, recommends an increase of $55.0 million for 32 Litening AT 
pods.
    The committee recommends $93.0 million for AV-8B series 
modifications, an increase of $60.8 million, and notes that 
both of the recommended AV-8B series modification increases are 
included among the Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded 
priorities for fiscal year 2003.

E-2 modifications

    The budget request contained $17.2 million for E-2 
modifications, but included no funds to upgrade E-2C aircraft 
to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.
    The Hawkeye 2000 configuration is an upgrade to older-model 
E-2C aircraft that integrates satellite communications, a 
commercial-off-the-shelf, high-capacity mission computer and 
associated workstations, and cooperative engagement capability 
equipment. The committee understands that the Navy's E-2C 
aircraft inventory includes at least two older-model E-2C 
aircraft, which are not configured to meet current operational 
fleet requirements, and can be economically upgraded to the 
Hawkeye 2000 configuration.
    The committee recommends $81.2 million for E-2 
modifications, an increase of $64.0 million, to the upgrade two 
older-model E-2C aircraft to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

EA-6B modifications

    The budget request contained $223.5 million for EA-6B 
modifications, of which $45.8 million was included for 15 EA-6B 
wing center sections (WCSs), but included no funds for the 
outer wing panel (OWP), the USQ-113 communications jammer, or 
for band 9/10 transmitters. The Department of the Navy's fleet 
of 122 EA-6B aircraft are the Department of Defense's only 
aircraft configured to provide the electronic-jamming 
capability to deny and degrade the acquisition of friendly 
forces by enemy air defense systems.
    The committee understands that recent EA-6B fatigue life 
inspections have revealed that both existing WCSs and OWPs are 
aging more rapidly than expected due to fatigue cracking, and 
that this situation has prompted the Navy to ground eight of 
its EA-6Bs and restrict EA-6B flight operations in 51 aircraft 
to less than three times the force of gravity, or ``g's,'' 
rather than its full operating envelope of 5.5 g's. To restore 
these aircraft to their full operating envelope, WCSs and OWPs 
must be replaced and the committee recommends an increase of 
$40.0 million to procure and install an additional four WCSs 
and five OWPs.
    The USQ-113 communications jammer provides upgraded very-
high and ultra-high frequency jamming capability. The committee 
understands that procurement of this system not only improves 
equipment maintainability and operational capability, but also 
improves the availability of this system for deployed aircraft. 
The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million for the 
USQ-113 communications jammer.
    The band 9/10 transmitter provides the EA-6B with expanded 
jamming capability against target tracking and fire control 
radars of modern integrated air defense systems. Since the 
committee understands that 214 of the Department of the Navy's 
263-inventory objective for band 9/10 transmitters have been 
procured thus far, it recommends an increase of $29.0 million 
to procure 43 additional band 9/10 transmitters.
    The committee recommends $327.5 million for EA-6B 
modifications, an increase of $104.0 million, and notes that 
each of the EA-6B modification increases recommended are 
included among both the Chief of Naval Operation's and 
Commandant of the Marine Corps' top unfunded priorities for 
fiscal year 2003.

H-1 series modifications

    The budget request contained $1.8 million for H-1 series 
modifications, of which $1.0 million was included for three AN/
AAQ-22 night thermal imaging system (NTIS) product improvement 
program (PIP) upgrades.
    The AN/AAQ-22 NTIS provides the Marine Corps' UH-1N 
helicopter fleet with a capability to operate in both day and 
night conditions, as well as in a smoke, dust or haze 
environment, and the PIP upgrade improves the AN/AAQ-22 NTIS by 
increasing resolution by greater than 20 percent, improving 
system stability and control, upgrading target detection and 
obstacle avoidance capability, and adding a laser designator to 
guide precision munitions. The committee understands that the 
UH-1Ns equipped with the AN/AAQ-22 NTIS PIP upgrade have 
performed superbly in Operation Enduring Freedom in their 
mission to identify targets of opportunity and to provide rapid 
alerting of threats to Allied forces.
    To enhance the UH-1N's mission effectiveness and to improve 
its flight safety, the committee recommends $16.8 million, an 
increase of $15.0 million to accelerate procurement of the AN/
AAQ-22 NTIS PIP upgrade.

H-60 series modifications

    The budget request contained $15.4 million for H-60 series 
modifications, but included no funds for the H-60 link 16 
upgrade.
    The committee understands that the link 16 upgrade is 
required in the Navy's H-60 series helicopters to provide 
situational awareness to the aircraft and the warfare commander 
of crucial and time critical information for strike operations 
and defense within an area of responsibility, and notes that 
the Chief of Naval Operations has included the H-60 link 16 
upgrade among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $70.4 million for H-
60 series modifications, an increase of $55.0 million, for the 
H-60 link 16 upgrade.

Joint primary air training system (JPATS)

    The budget request contained no funds for the Navy JPATS.
    The JPATS, consisting of both the T-6A aircraft and a 
ground-based training system, will be used by the Navy and Air 
Force for primary pilot training. The T-6A will replace both 
the Navy's T-34 and Air Force's T-37B fleets, providing safer, 
more economical and more effective training for future student 
pilots.
    Despite the fact that the Department of the Navy does not 
plan to continue JPATS procurement until fiscal year 2007, the 
committee continues to believe that its procurement for the 
Navy would not only reduce procurement costs for both the Navy 
and the Air Force but would also reduce operations and 
maintenance costs, and notes that the Chief of Naval Operations 
has included JPATS procurement among his top unfunded 
priorities for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million and 
expects that this amount will procure ten T-6A aircraft and 
associated ground-based training systems.

MH-60S

    The budget request contained $284.2 million for 15 MH-60S 
helicopters and $88.0 million for advance procurement of 13 MH-
60S helicopters in fiscal year 2004. The MH-60S helicopter's 
primary mission will be organic airborne mine countermeasures; 
however, it will also replace the H-46D for the Navy's 
helicopter combat support missions including vertical 
replenishment, cargo and personnel transfer, and search and 
rescue.
    The committee understands that the aging H-46D helicopter 
is increasingly expensive to operate, and that, because of its 
diminished availability, the Navy's inventory of combat support 
helicopters is 24 less than required to sustain its battle 
group combat support needs. The committee also notes that the 
Chief of Naval Operations has identified additional MH-60S 
helicopters among his top four unfunded priorities for fiscal 
year 2003.
    The committee believes that the aging H-46D fleet should be 
retired as soon as practical, and recommends $372.2 million, an 
increase of $88.0 million for four additional MH-60S 
helicopters and for advance procurement of long-lead components 
for five additional helicopters in fiscal year 2004.

P-3 series modifications

    The budget request contained $102.7 million for P-3 series 
modifications, of which $84.0 million was included for four 
anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) kits, but 
included no funds for procurement of the advance multiband 
optical surveillance system (AMOSS) or for communications, 
navigation, and surveillance global air traffic management 
(CNS/ATM) modifications for VP- and UP-3A aircraft.
    The AIP improves the P-3's communications, survivability, 
and over-the-horizon targeting capabilities through the 
installation of commercial-off-the-shelf components. The 
committee understands that the Commanders-In-Chief (CINCs) 
require 146 AIP-configured aircraft, but notes that the 
Department of the Navy has budgeted for a total of only 83 in 
its future years defense program. The committee also notes that 
the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has included additional AIP 
kits among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million to 
procure two additional AIP kits. Additionally, the committee 
understands that some AIP-configured P-3 aircraft have also 
been equipped with the tactical common data link (TCDL), which 
provides real-time imagery downlink to commanders, weapons 
delivery platforms and other end-users, and that these aircraft 
have been primary surveillance and intelligence contributors 
during Operation Enduring Freedom. Since the committee believes 
that future conflicts are likely to require the increased 
capabilities that the TCDL provides, it urges the Department of 
the Navy to include the TCDL in all its AIP-configured P-3 
aircraft.
    The AMOSS is an electro-optical, multi-spectral 
surveillance camera system designed for use in the Navy's six 
special project P-3 aircraft to detect the presence of 
substances used in the development and production of weapons 
from standoff ranges in both day and nighttime conditions. The 
AMOSS would replace the special project P-3's existing electro-
optical surveillance camera system, which is limited to day-
only operations and cannot be used from standoff ranges. The 
committee understands that funds appropriated for fiscal year 
2002 are being used to deliver a prototype AMOSS and that 
production of the first three AMOSSs can begin in fiscal year 
2003 so that all six special project P-3 aircraft could be 
equipped with this capability by fiscal year 2005. To provide 
improved weapons development and production reconnaissance 
capabilities to the special project P-3 aircraft, the committee 
recommends an increase of $9.0 million to procure three AMOSSs.
    VP- and UP-3A aircraft are configured to support the travel 
requirements of senior naval commanders and theater CINCs. The 
committee understands that the majority of these aircraft are 
not configured with the CNS/ATM requirements for preferred air 
traffic routing, nor are they configured with the appropriate 
communications systems required for senior naval commander and 
CINC connectivity. To address these deficiencies in the Navy's 
VP- and UP-3A fleets, the committee recommends an increase of 
$6.0 million for the CNS/ATM modification, and notes that the 
CNO has also included this upgrade among his unfunded 
priorities for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends $144.7 million for P-3 series 
modifications, an increase of $42.0 million.

T-45 training system (TS)

    The budget request contained no funds for the advance 
procurement of T-45C aircraft. The T-45TS is an integrated 
training system that combines the T-45 aircraft, simulators, 
and computer-based training for the Navy's intermediate-level 
undergraduate pilot training.
    The committee notes that, while the Navy requires 234 T-45 
aircraft, its inventory will be only 181 aircraft after eight 
T-45C's are produced in fiscal year 2003, and that T-45 
production is not planned for years beyond fiscal year 2003.
    Since the committee believes that T-45 production should 
continue in order to meet the requirement for 234 T-45 
aircraft, it recommends an increase of $10.0 million for 
advance procurement of T-45C aircraft in fiscal year 2004.

UC-35

    The budget request contained no funds for procurement of 
UC-35 aircraft.
    The UC-35 is a medium-range, medium-lift operational 
support aircraft. The committee understands that the Marine 
Corps conducts the operational support airlift mission with the 
short-range C-12 aircraft, which is increasingly expensive to 
operate, and does not meet payload, range, or avionics 
requirements. The committee notes the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps has included the procurement of UC-35s among his unfunded 
priorities for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million for 
one UC-35 aircraft for the Marine Corps.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,832.6 million for Weapons 
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends 
authorization of $1,916.6 million for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

AIM-9X missile

    The budget request for the Department of the Navy contained 
$53.3 million for 295 AIM-9X missiles and the budget request 
for the Department of the Air Force contained $57.0 million for 
286 AIM-9X missiles. The AIM-9X missile is a fifth generation, 
launch-and-leave, infrared-guided air-to-air missile.
    The committee notes that the AIM-9X missile is superior to 
all fielded short-range air-to-air missiles, is pleased that 
both the Departments of the Navy and the Air Force have 
included its procurement in the fiscal year 2003 budget request 
and restored its procurement in their future years defense 
programs, and understands that cost improvement initiatives 
have been, and continue to be, underway to achieve lower future 
unit costs.
    The committee strongly encourages the Departments of the 
Navy and the Air Force to take the necessary actions to 
leverage cost improvement initiatives and to maximize economies 
of scale in order to procure the most AIM-9X missiles possible 
in the future years defense programs within the programmed 
budget.

Hellfire II missile

    The budget request contained no funds for Hellfire II 
missiles.
    The Hellfire II missile is a laser-guided, anti-armor and 
anti-ship weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH-1W 
helicopter and by the Navy on the SH-60B helicopter as their 
primary precision-guided munition. The committee notes that, 
despite increased funding provided by Congress in fiscal years 
1998, 2000 and 2001, the Navy is currently at only 54 percent 
of its inventory requirement for these missiles. The committee 
further notes that, as a result of this situation, both the 
Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps have identified procurement of Hellfire II missiles among 
their unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2003.
    Consistent with its prior actions, the committee recommends 
an increase of $40.0 million to procure additional Hellfire II 
missiles.

Tomahawk missile

    The budget request contained $145.8 million for 106 block 
IV low-rate initial production tactical tomahawk (TACTOM) 
missiles but included no funds for special tooling and test 
equipment to increase the production rate of the block IV 
TACTOM missile from 450 to 600 missiles per year.
    The Tomahawk missile is a long-range, precision strike 
cruise missile launched from surface ships or submarines, and 
the block IV TACTOM missile will provide improved performance 
at a lower unit cost than previous missile versions. The 
committee understands that existing special tooling and test 
equipment will provide a capacity to produce 450 TACTOM 
missiles per year, but believes that the ability to produce 600 
TACTOM missiles per year would be critical in a time of 
national emergency.
    The committee recommends $167.8 million for the Tomahawk 
missile, an increase of $22.0 million, to procure the special 
tooling and test equipment necessary to increase the production 
of block IV TACTOMs from 450 to 600 per year.

               Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,015.2 million for 
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 2003. 
The committee recommends authorization of $1,104.5 million for 
fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Marine corps ammunition procurement

    The budget request contained $276.3 million for procurement 
of ammunition. The committee recommends an increase of $38.9 
million for the following types of ammunition, which are among 
the top unfunded requirements identified by the Commandant of 
the Marine Corps in fiscal year 2003:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Cartridge, 7.62mm, linked.....................................       1.3
Cartridge, .50 caliber, linked................................       2.3
Cartridge, 120mm HEAT-MP-T....................................      10.0
Cartridge & Lnchr., 84mm AT-4 M136............................      10.0
Projectile, 155mm HE M795.....................................       9.0
Non-lethal Ammunition.........................................       6.3

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $8,191.2 million for 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The 
committee recommends authorization of $9,279.5 million for 
fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Carrier replacement program advance procurement

    The budget request contained $243.7 million for advance 
procurement of plans, nuclear components, materials and 
equipment for CVN(X)-1. The CVN(X)-1, the first of a new class 
of Navy aircraft carriers, is currently scheduled for contract 
award in fiscal year 2007 with delivery to the fleet in fiscal 
year 2014.
    The committee notes that fiscal year 2003 CVN(X)-1 program 
of record delays its contract award and delivery schedule by 
one year compared to the plan provided to the Congress for 
fiscal year 2002, and believes that this delay will increase 
long-term construction costs due to disruption in the supplier 
base and higher labor costs.
    The committee recommends $472.7 million, an increase of 
$229.0 million, for carrier replacement program advance 
procurement and encourages the Navy to budget its future years 
defense program so that the CVN(X)-1 contract award will occur 
in fiscal year 2006 and be delivered in fiscal year 2013.

CVN-69 refueling complex overhaul (RCOH)

    The budget request contained no funds for the CVN-69 RCOH. 
The CVN-69, one of 12 Navy aircraft carriers and also known as 
the U.S.S. Eisenhower, is undergoing a prior-year funded mid-
life RCOH that refuels its reactors, upgrades its main 
propulsion components, modernizes its warfighting combat 
systems, and repairs the ship's infrastructure to meet 
continued service life requirements.
    The committee understands that procurement of deferred and 
high priority habitability work could most efficiently be 
accomplished while the CVN-69 is undergoing its mid-life RCOH, 
and notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has included the 
CVN-69 RCOH among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million for 
the CVN-69 RCOH.

Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program (SLEP)

    The budget request contained $67.6 million for three LCAC 
SLEPs, but included no funds for an additional buoyancy box.
    The LCAC is the only surface platform that can provide 
high-speed, heavy lift for Marine Corps amphibious operations 
from over-the-horizon. The SLEP would extend the LCAC's service 
life from twenty years to thirty years, and the buoyancy box, 
part of the LCAC SLEP, is the hull section component enabling 
the LCAC to be properly buoyant in the water. The committee 
understands that, while only three buoyancy boxes are planned 
for production in fiscal year 2003, four is the minimum rate of 
production necessary to preclude a termination of the buoyancy 
box production line.
    The committee believes that uninterrupted buoyancy box 
production is critical to continuation of the LCAC SLEP, and 
recommends $78.6 million, an increase of $11.0 million for the 
procurement of one additional buoyancy box for the LCAC SLEP.

Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) boats

    The budget request contained no funds for procurement of 
Minehunter SWATH boats or for their associated mine 
countermeasures equipment suites.
    The Minehunter SWATH boat is a 40-foot, twin hull vessel 
that can operate in very shallow water with increased stability 
in rough seas compared to a similar size mono hull ship. The 
Navy's minehunting fleet includes one Minehunter SWATH boat, 
which is its only surface mine warfare vessel capable of 
operating in very shallow water or capable of transport by C-5 
aircraft for operational deployment within 24 hours. The 
committee understands that the Minehunter SWATH boat has 
completed highly successful testing and notes that senior naval 
officers support increased procurement to meet shallow water 
minehunting requirements.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million for 
the procurement of two Minehunter SWATH boats and their 
associated mine countermeasures equipment suites.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $4,347.0 million for Other 
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends 
authorization of $4,527.8 million for fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Advanced integrated electronic warfare system (AIEWS)

    The budget request contained $15.8 million to procure the 
AIEWS.
    Subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request, the Department of the Navy notified the committee that 
it had terminated the AIEWS program due to cost overruns and 
continued schedule delays, which has adversely impacted the 
Navy's ability to field urgently needed surface electronic 
warfare improvements. Therefore, the committee recommends 
denial of funds for this program.

Environmental support equipment

    The budget request contained $20.0 million for the 
procurement of environmental support equipment, but no funds 
were included for the procurement of high resolution, side 
scanning, bottom mapping sonars.
    High resolution, side scanning, bottom mapping sonars, 
temporarily on loan to the Naval Oceanographic Office from the 
Naval Mine Countermeasures Command (MCM), are currently being 
used by T-AGS class ships to map underwater features and 
terrain of ports in support of homeland security requirements. 
Only three of these sonars are currently available to perform 
this mission. The shortfall of available sonars for this 
mission will greatly delay the data collection required for 
port security and may degrade MCM mission fulfillment.
    Understanding the critical need for dedicated, permanent 
mapping equipment for homeland security requirements and 
continued MCM operations, the committee recommends $27.5 
million for environmental support equipment, an increase of 
$7.5 million, to procure high resolution, side scanning, bottom 
mapping sonars for T-AGS class ships.

Gun fire control equipment

    The budget request contained $27.1 million to procure gun 
fire control equipment, of which $17.6 million was for the 
procurement of three AN/SPQ-9B radars.
    The AN/SPQ-9B radar provides early and reliable detection 
and tracking of very low radar cross-section, sea skimming 
missiles in natural and man-made clutter increasing the time 
for ship self defense systems to potentially counter them. The 
committee notes that by increasing fiscal year 2003 funds, this 
system can be accelerated from its planned fiscal year 2005 
initial procurement for DDG-51 class destroyers.
    Because the committee is keenly aware of the increasing 
proliferation of sea skimming cruise missiles, it recommends 
$46.8 million, an increase of $19.7 million, to accelerate 
procurement of three additional AN/SPQ-9B radars for DDG-51 
class destroyers.

Operating forces industrial plant equipment

    The budget request contained $17.1 million for operating 
forces industrial plant equipment, but included no funds for 
expeditionary maintenance facilities (EMF).
    The committee is aware that the Navy is continuing to 
decommission its repair tenders, thereby limiting its ability 
to rapidly deploy a ship and equipment repair capability to 
support forward deployed forces. However, the committee is also 
aware that EMF, which are surface and air transportable, self-
contained facilities, can be operational within 72 hours of 
deployment, and can meet the service's needs for a rapidly 
deployable repair and maintenance capability.
    The committee believes the EMF concept may enhance forward 
deployed repair requirements, and recommends $22.1 million for 
operating forces industrial plant equipment, an increase of 
$5.0 million, for procurement of one EMF.

Other aviation support equipment

    The budget request contained $12.4 million to procure 
aviation support equipment, but included no funds to expand the 
resource allocation management plan (RAMP) data base for naval 
aviation requirements.
    The RAMP is a resource planning software-based system 
fielded to fixed wing Naval Aviation Depots (NADEP) that 
provides planning, scheduling, and financial assessments for 
aircraft maintenance requirements. The committee understands 
that this system is not incorporated into Department of the 
Navy rotary wing NADEPs and may enhance the efficiency of those 
facilities.
    Therefore the committee recommends $15.4 million for other 
aviation support equipment, an increase of $3.0 million, for 
the expansion of the RAMP into rotary wing NADEPs.

Other supply support equipment

    The budget request contained $11.0 million for the 
procurement of other supply support equipment, but no funds 
were included for automatic identification technology (AIT) in 
support of the serial number tracking system (SNTS).
    The SNTS uses commercial AIT to provide web-based, cradle-
to-grave, total asset visibility of individual components 
throughout the supply, maintenance, and transportation transfer 
process within Naval and Marine Corps aviation depots and will 
enhance the maintenance, remanufacture, and rebuild process of 
Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. The committee believes that 
streamlined business processes, such as SNTS, can be 
accelerated by implementing AIT and has recommended increases 
for this technology for this purpose in the Navy in fiscal year 
2002, and for maintenance and ammunition tracking systems for 
other services in prior fiscal years.
    The committee recommends $19.0 million for other supply 
support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million, for the SNTS.

Other training equipment

    The budget request contained $15.4 million for other 
training equipment, of which $32.5 million was for the 
procurement to support the battle force tactical training 
(BFTT) program.
    The BFTT system allows surface combatants and aircraft 
carriers to conduct realistic coordinated training scenarios 
using ownship equipment instead of shore-based training 
simulators. The committee notes that Congress has provided 
funds in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 to upgrade the BFTT 
system in order to provide an air traffic control (ATC) 
training capability for aircraft carrier battle groups and 
amphibious readiness groups. However, the committee understands 
that AEGIS combat training systems on both CG-47 Ticonderoga 
class cruisers and DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers 
require BFTT upgrades to enable SPY-1 radar operators to also 
receive advanced radar on-board training within carrier battle 
groups via BFTT. Because of the enhanced benefits to ships' 
crews from integrated battle group training, the committee 
recommends $21.4 million for other training equipment, an 
increase of $6.0 million, to procure BFTT advanced radar on-
board training systems for AEGIS class ships.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,288.4 million for 
Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 2003. The committee 
recommends authorization of $1,352.0 million for fiscal year 
2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Family of construction equipment

    The budget request contained $14.7 million to remanufacture 
or product improve D-7G dozers, 621B scrapers, and 130G 
graders. The dozer/scraper/grader fleet is used by Marine Corps 
combat engineer and support units for airfield construction, as 
well as combat clearing and debris excavation.
    The committee notes that the service's dozer, scraper and 
grader fleet is over 15 years old and that the Commandant of 
the Marine Corps has identified a fiscal year 2003 unfunded 
requirement to accelerate remanufacture of this equipment. The 
committee also notes that the remanufacturing/product 
improvement program will extend the life of this equipment for 
an additional 10 years.
    Consistent with its actions in prior years, the committee 
recommends $21.2 million for the family of construction 
equipment, an increase of $6.5 million, to remanufacture/
product improve D-7G dozers, scrapers, and graders.

Night vision equipment

    The budget request contained $23.2 million to procure night 
vision equipment, but included no funds to procure AN/PVS-17 
night vision sights.
    The AN/PVS-17 is a lightweight, rifle-mounted, generation 
III image intensification night vision sight that replaces 
obsolete, post-Vietnam era AN/PVS-4 sights. The committee notes 
that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified a $12.7 
million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement to procure 
additional AN/PVS-17 night vision sights, which would complete 
this system's acquisition objective. Consistent with prior year 
actions, the committee continues to recognize the increased 
benefits of generation III technology, and recommends $36.0 
million for night vision equipment, an increase of $12.8 
million, for AN/PVS-17 night vision sights.

Radio systems

    The budget request contained $25.5 million to procure radio 
systems, but no funds were included to procure Tactical Hand 
Held Radios (THHR), and $1.0 million was included for the 
Lightweight Multiband Satellite Terminal (LMST).
    The THHR is a military-ready, multi-band, secure voice and 
data radio that will provide Marine reconnaissance teams, and 
squad-/platoon-size units with a lightweight, standardized, 
maintainable communications capability that is interoperable 
with numerous Department of Defense legacy communications 
radios.
    The LMST is a joint mobile military tri-band satellite 
communications terminal deployed in transit cases, which allow 
rapid set up and tear down required in rugged, tactical and 
expeditionary operations. The LMST provides enhanced long-haul 
communications for forward deployed forces.
    The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps 
has identified a $5.0 million unfunded requirement for THHRs 
and a $20.0 million unfunded requirement for LMSTs in fiscal 
year 2003. Because the committee believes that the services 
must have interoperable communications to successfully operate 
in joint military deployments and supports the need for greater 
communications capability within small units, the committee 
recommends $50.5 million for radio systems, an increase $5.0 
million to complete the acquisition objective for THHRs, and an 
increase of $20.0 million to begin procurement of LMSTs.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $12,067.4 million for Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee 
recommends authorization of $12,522.8 million for fiscal year 
2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

B-2 modifications

    The procurement budget request contained $72.1 million for 
various B-2 modifications, of which $9.9 million was included 
to upgrade two B-2 aircraft with satellite communications 
(SATCOM), but included no funds for the B-2's windshield tape 
alternative (WTA) modification. Additionally, the research, 
development test and evaluation (RDTE) budget request contained 
$225.3 million in PE 64240F for B-2 system development, but 
included no funds for low observability (LO) maintenance 
improvements. The B-2 is the Department of Defense's most 
advanced long-range strike aircraft, capable of global force 
projection in a highly defended target environment.
    The B-2 SATCOM provides beyond-line-of-sight secure voice 
and data communications that will ensure global command and 
control of this aircraft. The committee notes that only nine B-
2s are budgeted to receive SATCOM, and believes that the entire 
fleet of 21 B-2 aircraft should be upgraded with this critical 
modification. Consequently, the committee recommends an 
increase of $25.2 million to configure the remaining B-2s with 
SATCOM.
    The WTA modification would replace the current tape around 
the exterior of the B-2's windshield which is rapidly 
deteriorating due to vibration and cabin pressurization cycles. 
The committee understands that this modification would improve 
the B-2 mission capable rate by 1.75 percent, reduce operations 
and support costs by $24.5 million, save 25,000 maintenance 
man-hours per year, and reduce the aircraft's signature to 
enemy radar. The committee recommends an increase of $6.8 
million to modify 16 B-2 aircraft with the WTA and encourages 
the Air Force to budget funds to complete the WTA modification 
for the remaining aircraft in fiscal year 2004.
    The committee understands that B-2 LO maintenance 
improvement development is required in three parts of the 
aircraft: door seals, engine exhaust area coatings, and 
tailpipe coatings. The B-2's current door seals, which are 
prone to damage causing decreased signature performance, could 
be repaired by the development of alternate door edge treatment 
(ADET) that would simplify maintenance procedures and reduce 
radar signature degradation. Secondly, the B-2's engine exhaust 
environment, which causes existing hot trailing edge coatings 
to degrade and delaminate resulting in costly repairs, could be 
improved with the development of the advanced hot trailing edge 
(AHTE) which would retrofit new high-temperature composite 
coatings in the engine exhaust area, improving the B-2's 
availability. Thirdly, the B-2's current tailpipe coating, 
which requires time-consuming repairs resulting from ablation 
during routine engine operating conditions, could be improved 
by the development of new materials and processes that would 
decrease the expenditure of maintenance man-hours and improve 
the B-2's mission capable rate. The committee recommends an 
increase of $17.0 million in PE 64270F for the ADET, AHTE, and 
new tailpipe coating development.
    The committee recommends $104.1 million for B-2 procurement 
modifications, an increase of $32.0 million, and $242.3 million 
in RDTE PE 64240F, an increase of $17.0 million.

C-130H

    The budget request contained $18.7 million for C-130H 
procurement, but included no funds for the conversion of an Air 
Force Reserve Command (AFRC) C-130H3 unit level trainer (ULT) 
to the C-130H2 configuration.
    The committee understands that the AFRC's C-130H2 formal 
training unit (FTU) currently possesses a C-130H3 ULT that 
requires conversion to the C-130H2 configuration to property 
train C-130H2 FTU students, and believes that, without the 
conversion of the ULT, projected student throughput will not be 
achievable.
    The committee recommends $23.7 million for C-130H 
procurement, an increase of $5.0 million for the conversion of 
the AFRC's C-130H3 ULT to the C-130H2 configuration.

C-130J

    The Department of the Air Force budget request contained 
$175.9 million for program management, logistics, and training 
support for the fleet of 37 Air Force C-130J aircraft. 
Additionally, The Department of the Navy Defense Emergency 
Response Fund (DERF) budget request contained $334.0 million 
for four KC-130J aircraft. The committee notes that the Air 
Force budget request includes a proposal to begin a five-year, 
40-aircraft C-130J multiyear procurement, and understands that 
funds that would be provided to the Department of the Navy for 
the Marine Corps' KC-130J program in the DERF for fiscal years 
2003 through 2008 would add 24 KC-130J aircraft throughout the 
five-year period and be included in the Air Force C-130J 
multiyear procurement for a total of 64 aircraft to be procured 
under the Air Force C-130J multiyear proposal.
    In past years, the committee has strongly supported both 
the Air Force's C-130J and the Marine Corps' KC-130J aircraft 
variants to modernize these fleets. While the committee 
continues to support procurement of both variants, it is 
concerned that the Air Force C-130J is experiencing difficulty 
in meeting established operational effectiveness and 
suitability parameters. However, the committee believes that 
continued senior management attention to the achievement of its 
operational effectiveness and suitability goals will result in 
a successful initial operational test and evaluation, and that 
the multiyear procurement contract should proceed subsequent to 
the Secretary of Defense's certification to the congressional 
defense committees that satisfactory progress is being made 
towards a successful operational test and evaluation. The 
committee views satisfactory progress to include, but not be 
limited to, the aircraft's ability to conduct worldwide airland 
operations, assault operations, and the completion of both 
software block 5.3 installation and its associated hardware 
components.
    Additionally, despite the fact that over two months have 
elapsed since the committee received the budget request and its 
associated budget justification documents, the Department of 
the Air Force has still not provided the committee the 
necessary findings outlined in section 2306b(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, for the committee to fully understand and 
evaluate the savings that would be achieved by the proposed C-
130J multiyear procurement contract. The committee recommends a 
provision (Section 121) that would authorize the Secretary of 
Defense to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for Air 
Force C-130J and Marine Corps KC-130J aircraft beginning with 
the fiscal year 2003 program year, subject to a certification 
to the congressional defensecommittees that satisfactory 
progress is being made towards a successful operational test and 
evaluation, and that each of the conditions specified in section 
2306b(a) of title 10, United States Code, have been satisfied with 
respect to that contract.

C-130 modifications

    The budget request contained $138.5 million for C-130 
modifications, but included no funds for the fourth-generation 
terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS) or for the MC-130P 
universal aerial refueling receptacle slipway (UARRSI) 
modification.
    The fourth-generation TAWS, the most advanced TAWS version, 
projects an aircraft's position relative to the ground and 
improves pilot situational awareness by warning of potential 
ground impact, thus preventing controlled flight into terrain. 
The committee understands that the Air Force has directed that 
all passenger and troop carrying aircraft be equipped with a 
fourth-generation TAWS by fiscal year 2005, but also 
understands that the C-130 avionics modernization program, 
which provides avionics upgrades for the C-130 fleet, does not 
schedule the installation of a fourth-generation TAWS until 
fiscal years 2006 to 2014. Therefore, the committee recommends 
an increase of $31.0 million to procure and install the fourth-
generation TAWS on the Air Force fleet of C-130 aircraft.
    The MC-130P UARRSI modification, which allows the MC-130P 
to be refueled in flight, has been installed on all but two of 
the Air Force's operational MC-130P fleet, but the committee 
understands that it has not been installed on the four aircraft 
used to train new MC-130P pilots. Since the committee believes 
that in-flight air refueling training is critical for new MC-
130P pilots, it recommends an increase of $11.6 million to 
procure and install the MC-130P UARRSI modification on the four 
aircraft used to train new MC-130P pilots.
    The committee recommends $181.1 million, an increase of 
$42.6 million for C-130 modifications.

F-15 modifications

    The budget request contained $232.5 million for F-15 
modifications, of which $33.0 million was included for six ALQ-
135 band 1.5 countermeasures system modifications, but included 
no funds to convert the Air National Guard's (ANG) F100 engines 
in their F-15 aircraft to the F100-220E configuration.
    The ALQ-135 band 1.5 countermeasures system modification 
provides a self-protection jamming capability against modern 
surface-to-air enemy missiles and is integrated with the F-
15E's existing internal countermeasure set and its ALR-56C 
radar warning receiver to provide full threat coverage. The 
committee believes that improved self-protection capability 
such as the ALQ-135 band 1.5 countermeasures system 
modification addresses critical deficiencies identified 
subsequent to Operation Allied Force in 1999, and that the ALQ-
135 band 1.5 countermeasures system should be produced at the 
most efficient rates and installed in F-15E aircraft as rapidly 
as possible.
    The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to 
procure 20 additional ALQ-135 band 1.5 countermeasures systems, 
and strongly encourages the Air Force to establish a consistent 
funding approach for the ALQ-135 band 1.5 countermeasures 
system that will complete production and installation of this 
modification on all F-15E aircraft by fiscal year 2005.
    Conversion kits for the F-15's F100 engine, also known as 
``E-kits,'' provide increased thrust, greater reliability, 
better fuel efficiency, and reduced operations and maintenance 
costs. The committee notes that the ANG's F-15 aircraft make a 
critical contribution to the Air Force's Air Expeditionary 
Forces, and believes that engine conversion kits for the ANG's 
F-15 aircraft should be accelerated. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $34.0 million for engine conversion 
kits for the ANG's F-15 aircraft.
    The committee recommends $291.5 million for F-15 
modifications, an increase of $59.0 million.

F-16 modifications

    The budget request contained $265.0 million for various F-
16 modifications, but included no funds for Litening advanced 
airborne targeting and navigation (AT) pods for the Air Force 
Reserve Command (AFRC), for the Air National Guard's (ANG) 
Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System (TARS) pods, or for 
F100-229 re-engine kits for the ANG's block 42 F-16 aircraft. 
Additionally, the research, development test and evaluation 
(RDTE) budget request contained $66.8 million in PE 35206F for 
airborne reconnaissance systems, but also included no funds for 
the TARS.
    The Litening AT pod is the next generation Litening pod 
system that will incorporate an advanced forward-looking infra-
red radar and other enhancements to the existing multi-sensor 
and precision strike capability. Since the committee 
understands that Litening AT pods are among the Air Force 
Reserve Commander's top unfunded modernization priorities, it 
recommends an increase of $14.4 million for eight Litening AT 
pods for the AFRC.
    The two ANG F-16 units equipped with TARS pods provide a 
responsive under-the-weather reconnaissance capability to 
support the intelligence and targeting requirements of military 
users. The committee understands that current TARS pods require 
a data link system upgrade to connect with the joint force air 
component commander's command and control (JFACC C2) structure 
and a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to enable night and all-
weather reconnaissance capability. Since the committee believes 
that night and all-weather reconnaissance operations and the 
ability to data link to the JFACC C2 structure are essential to 
identify and engage time-critical targets, it recommends an 
increase of $11.1 million in PE 35206F to complete the 
development of the data link and SAR integration into the TARS, 
and a procurement increase of $6.6 million for upgraded TARS 
pods.
    The committee notes that the ANG's F-16 block 42 aircraft 
are underpowered compared to F-16 block 40, block 50, and block 
52 aircraft, and believes that this limitation does not provide 
sufficient power to adequately defend against opposition air 
defense systems in likely theaters of operation. To provide 
increased thrust for the ANG's F-16 block 42 aircraft, the 
committee recommends an increase of $62.0 million to re-engine 
ten F-16 block 42 aircraft with the F100-229 re-engine kit.
    In total, the committee recommends $348.0 million for F-16 
procurement modifications, an increase of $83.0 million, and 
$77.9 million in RDTE PE 35206F, an increase of $11.1 million.

Fixed aircrew standardized seats

    The budget request contained $54.7 million for other 
modifications, but included no funds for fixed aircrew 
standardized seats (FASS).
    FASS would provide crewmembers and passengers on C-130, C-
135, C-141, C-5, E-3, KC-10, C-17, and E-8 aircraft protection 
against aircraft crash loads up to 16 times the force of 
gravity. In prior years, the committee has supported the 
development of the FASS, understands that it is now ready for 
production, and continues to believe that its implementation 
will not only increase safety but also reduce supply and 
maintenance costs through the commonality and 
interchangeability of its parts.
    The committee recommends $59.5 million for other 
modifications, an increase of $4.8 million, for procurement of 
FASS.

HH-60G pave hawk upgrades

    The budget request contained $40.6 million for H-60 
modifications, but included no funds to upgrade the 13 student 
training HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters.
    The committee understands that the HH-60G Pave Hawk 
helicopters used for student training are not configured with 
701C engines, forward looking infra-red (FLIR) systems or 
helicopter infrared suppression systems (HIRSS), which are 
configurations used in the combat air force (CAF) HH-60G Pave 
Hawk fleet. The committee further understands that, as a result 
of these deficiencies, pilots who complete training in those 
HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters not configured with the 701C 
engine, FLIR systems or the HIRSS are not proficient in the use 
of these systems when they arrive at their operational units.
    Since the committee believes that student training in 
operational HH-60G Pave Hawk CAF configurations is critical to 
mission readiness, it recommends an increase of $29.5 million 
to procure and install 701C engines, FLIR systems, and the 
HIRSS on the 13 HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters used for student 
training.

Miscellaneous production charges

    The budget request contained $349.5 million for 
miscellaneous production charges, of which $14.2 million was 
included for the P4 refurbishment contract (P4RC), but included 
no funds for the P4RC for the Air National Guard (ANG) or for 
the comet infra-red (IR) countermeasures pod.
    The P4 is an airborne instrumentation subsystem pod used by 
fighter and attack aircraft which provides the capability to 
conduct air-to-air, air-to-surface, and electronic warfare 
combat training while providing real-time aircraft monitoring 
and recording events for post-mission debrief and analysis. 
While the P4 pods can only be used at ranges equipped with 
ground-station instrumentation, the P4RC upgrades the P4 pods 
with global positioning receivers, data recorders, and on-board 
weapons simulations so that training can occur at locations 
without ground-station instrumentation. Since ANG units and 
aircraft have experienced increased operations tempo and may 
not have the opportunity to conduct training at ranges equipped 
with ground-station instrumentation, the committee believes 
that ANG units should also be included in the P4RC. The 
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to upgrade 
150 ANG P4 pods to the P4RC configuration.
    The comet IR countermeasures pod is designed for use on 
military fighter and transport aircraft to provide preemptive 
and extended duration protection from man-portable surface-to-
air missiles (SAMs) by dispensing a continuous stream of 
pyrophoric material that oxidizes on contact with the 
atmosphere producing a decoy IR signature. The committee notes 
that both instances of battle damage to an A-10 aircraft during 
Operation Allied Force occurred due to IR SAMs that were not 
seen by the pilot, or other aircraft in the formation, because 
of the SAM's small size, high speed, and short engagement 
range, and understands that the comet IR countermeasures pod 
could provide the long-duration self-protection necessary for 
an A-10 aircraft to accomplish its mission while operating in 
the target area. Due to its importance in protecting both 
combat and mobility aircraft, the committee also notes that the 
Air Force Chief of Staff has included the comet IR 
countermeasures pod among his top unfunded priorities for 
fiscal year 2003. In addition to the research and development 
increase described elsewhere in this report, the committee 
recommends an increase of $18.0 million to procure 48 comet IR 
countermeasures pods and 576 decoy cartridges for use in A-10 
aircraft.
    The committee recommends $379.5 million for miscellaneous 
production charges, an increase of $48.0 million for 
miscellaneous production charges.

Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

    The budget request contained $23.1 million for procurement 
of seven Predator UAV systems but included no funds for the 
turbo prop-powered Predator B, a larger, faster variant with 
increased payload capacity.
    The Predator UAV system provides long-dwell, real-time 
intelligence information to Joint Task Force Commanders. The 
committee notes that following the accomplishments of the 
Predator UAV system in its reconnaissance role in Operation 
Enduring Freedom, the system has also successfully demonstrated 
its capability to be weaponized to deliver Hellfire missiles. 
As missions for the Predator UAV system expand, the committee 
believes that the improved speed and payload capacity of the 
turbo prop-powered Predator B UAV is critical to future combat 
operations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million for 
six turbo prop-powered Predator B UAV systems and associated 
spare parts.

                   Ammunition Procurement, Air Force

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $1,133.9 million for 
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The 
committee recommends authorization of $1,176.9 million for 
fiscal year 2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Air Force Ammunition Procurement

    The budget request contained $1,129.5 million for 
procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends an increase 
of $29.9 million, for the following types of ammunition 
programs:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Practice Bombs: Cast Ductile Iron (BDU-56)....................       3.0
General Purpose Bombs: Cast Ductile Iron (MK-84)..............       3.0
Sensor Fuzed Weapon...........................................      20.0
Flares:
    MJU-52 Training Flares....................................       2.0
    MJU-52 War Reserve Flares.................................       1.9

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $3,575.2 million for Missile 
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee 
recommends authorization of $3,482.6 million for fiscal year 
2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Advanced extremely high frequency satellite

    The budget request contained $94.5 million in missile 
procurement Air Force, budget activity 05, Item 19, for 
advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF) satellite advanced 
procurement.
    The committee is aware that the AEHF satellite program has 
been restructured, and therefore cannot execute the $94.5 
million funds requested for advanced procurement.
    The committee recommends no funds in missile procurement 
Air Force for AEHF satellite advanced procurement, a decrease 
of $94.5million.

AGM-65 modifications

    The budget request contained $300 thousand for AGM-65 
modifications, but included no funds for conversion of AGM-65 
missiles to an upgraded configuration.
    Two configurations of the AGM-65, a precision guided 
tactical missile employed on the F-16, F-15E and A-10 aircraft, 
are currently undergoing conversion to be upgraded for improved 
capability. The ``G'' configuration, with an infrared target 
seeker is being upgraded to the ``K'' configuration, which uses 
an updated electro-optical (EO) seeker. The ``B'' 
configuration, with an obsolete EO target seeker, is being 
upgraded to the ``H'' configuration, which also uses an updated 
EO seeker. The committee understands that planned production of 
AGM-65H and AGM-65K missiles in fiscal year 2003 will not occur 
at economic rates, and also will not provide sufficient 
training missiles for Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) or Air 
National Guard (ANG) pilot proficiency training.
    The committee recommends $5.3 million, an increase of $5.0 
million to upgrade an additional 160 AGM-65 missiles to the 
``H'' or ``K'' configuration, of which 100 missiles are for 
pilot proficiency training in the AFRC and ANG.

Minuteman III modifications

    The budget request contained $580.7 million for Minuteman 
III (MM III) modifications, of which $237.5 million was for the 
guidance replacement program (GRP) and $290.3 million was for 
the propulsion replacement program (PRP). The MM III is a 
strategic ballistic missile capable of delivering special 
weapons against enemy targets at very long range.
    The GRP replaces the MM III's guidance system with updated 
and more reliable components and the PRP refurbishes the MM 
III's booster to provide extended service life. The committee 
notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included MM III 
modifications contract cost growth and renewal among his 
unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003 due to contract rate 
increases and higher than planned consumption of government 
furnished equipment in both the GRP and PRP. The committee also 
notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included the 
procurement of additional warhead shipping containers in this 
unfunded priority because the Nuclear Posture Review-directed 
warhead download options were revealed only after the fiscal 
year 2003 budget request had been submitted.
    The committee recommends $603.9 million for MM III 
modifications, an increase of $23.2 million to address GRP and 
PRP deficiencies and to procure warhead shipping containers.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $10,523.9 million for Other 
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee 
recommends authorization of $10,907.7 million for fiscal year 
2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Combat arms training system (CATS)

    The budget request contained $11.3 million for base 
procured equipment, but included no funds for CATS. CATS is a 
computer-based simulation system that provides marksmanship 
training for security force personnel as well as training to 
manage less-than-lethal judgmental scenarios.
    The committee understands that since September 11, 2001, 
Air National Guard (ANG) bases, which are each equipped with 
one CATS, are used daily to train security force personnel, and 
that, as a result of this daily use, a second CATS is required 
at each ANG base leaving a shortfall off 117 systems. With 
limited access to firing ranges and training munitions, the 
committee believes that the CATS is proving to be an essential 
asset to meet the marksmanship and weapons certification 
training, and situational scenario readiness requirements, of 
ANG personnel.
    The committee recommends $25.3 million for base procured 
equipment, an increase of $14.0 million, for the CATS.

Combat training ranges

    The budget request contained $17.2 million for combat 
training ranges, but included no funds for the unmanned threat 
emitter (UMTE) program.
    The committee understands that both the Nellis and Eielson 
air combat training ranges are not configured with training 
systems which emulate the most advanced adversary surface-to-
air missile and anti-aircraft artillery systems, and believes 
that the UMTE program will address this requirement.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $53.2 million for 
combat training ranges, an increase of $36.0 million for the 
UMTE program.

Eagle vision

    The budget request contained $9.0 million for intelligence 
communication equipment, but included no funds for procurement 
of the eagle vision system.
    Eagle vision is a mobile off-the-shelf downlink and 
processing system that utilizes commercial satellites for 
imagery. The committee understands that the eagle vision system 
will incorporate the ability to overlay high-resolution 
national imagery over unclassified commercial data, and will 
also provide a capability to transmit this data to warfighters 
in the field within minutes. The committee notes its past 
support for the eagle vision system and believes that it should 
be continued to provide the warfighter with imagery support 
capability that is not available by other means.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for 
procurement of the eagle vision system.

General information technology

    The budget request contained $55.8 million for general 
information technologies, but included no funds for procurement 
of the parts and repair item support (PARIS) program or for the 
science and engineering lab data integration (SELDI) program.
    The PARIS program is a computer-based system that 
facilitates the management of technical data related to source 
qualification and outsourced repairs for use by the Air Force's 
Air Logistics Centers. The committee understands that the PARIS 
program has demonstrated the ability to accurately and rapidly 
identify both defective parts and their vendors, so that the 
those parts, identified as defective, could be quickly removed 
from service and the applicable vendors could be removed as the 
approved supplier of those parts. Additionally, the committee 
understands that use of the PARIS program has already saved an 
estimated $15.0 million in fiscal year 2001, and believes that 
its increased use will result in future parts, repair and labor 
cost savings. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 
million for the PARIS program.
    The Air Force Material Command's science and engineering 
lab captures, analyzes and disseminates lab test data to the 
Air Force's engineering and system overhaul operations, and the 
committee understands that the SELDI program would facilitate 
this mission by providing more rapid lab data access affecting 
overhaul operations, providing accident investigators with 
immediate access to lab results of failed components, enabling 
component failure trend analysis, and implementing new acoustic 
signature sensors to ensure the proper chemical composition of 
materials and equipment. Since the committee further 
understands that the SELDI would improve operational aircraft 
readiness, increase flight safety and reduce support costs, it 
recommends an increase of $9.5 million, for procurement of the 
SELDI program.
    The committee recommends a total increase of $18.5 million 
for general information technologies.

GeoBase centralized geographic information system (GIS)

    The budget request contained $202.9 million for base 
communications infrastructure, but included no funds for 
procurement of the GeoBase centralized GIS.
    The GeoBase centralized GIS would link all aspects of a 
base's infrastructure information to a computer-generated map 
display so relationships between people and processes can be 
displayed in a geographical context. The committee understands 
that the Air Force's major and minor installations currently 
use disparate and outdated systems and processes that do not 
facilitate the visibility of assets, requirements, and 
processes in a geographic context to allow enhanced management 
efficiency, and believes that the GeoBase centralized GIS would 
standardize base management functions in a more accessible, 
easily-understood, and effective manner.
    The committee recommends $217.9 million for base 
communications infrastructure, an increase of $15.0 million for 
procurement of the GeoBase centralized GIS.

Point of maintenance initiative

    The budget request contained $25.6 million for mechanized 
material handling equipment, but included no funds for 
procurement of the point of maintenance initiative (POMX).
    The POMX is a maintenance data collection program that was 
designed and developed by the Logistics Systems Office of the 
Air Force Materiel Command. The committee notes that the POMX 
objective is to increase the timeliness and accuracy of 
maintenance data collection while reducing the administrative 
burden on maintenance technicians, and understands that its use 
has already been validated at one Air Force base.
    To ensure the efficiency and accuracy of maintenance-
related data, the committee recommends $33.6 million for 
mechanized material handling equipment, an increase of $8.0 
million, for the POMX.

Thinpack parachutes

    The budget request contained $9.3 million for personal and 
safety items of less than a $5.0 million value, but included no 
funds for procurement of thinpack parachutes.
    Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life, 
the committee believes that replacement of existing parachutes 
with the thinpack parachute would result in substantial life 
cycle cost savings as it has in the Navy's P-3 and E-2C 
aircraft programs. For this reason, the committee has strongly 
supported thinpack parachutes, previously known as the 
lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly, and 
understands that both the Air Force Special Operations Command 
and Air Mobility Command are developing the thinpack parachute 
in fiscal year 2002 so that production can commence in early 
2003.
    Consistent with its previous actions, the committee 
recommends $4.0 million to procure thinpack parachutes for use 
in Air Force aircraft.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $2,688.5 million for 
Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 2003. The committee 
recommends authorization of $2,621.0 million for fiscal year 
2003.
    The committee recommends approval of the request except for 
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless 
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and 
based on affordability considerations.

                       Items of Special Interest

Army special operations aviation (ARSOA) avionics re-capitalization and 
        enhanced situational awareness

    The budget request contained $289.8 million for special 
operations forces (SOF) rotary wing upgrades, but included no 
funds for the ARSOA avionics re-capitalization and enhanced 
situational awareness program.
    The committee understands that the ARSOA avionics re-
capitalization and enhanced situational awareness program would 
replace obsolete avionics with mission processors, 
multifunction displays and intelligence broadcast receivers for 
13 helicopters in the Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation 
Regiment, and would preclude time-sensitive parts obsolescence 
problems beginning in fiscal year 2004.
    Since the committee notes that the Commander-in-Chief of 
the Special Operations Command has included the ARSOA avionics 
re-capitalization and enhanced situational awareness program as 
his highest unfunded priority for fiscal year 2003, it 
recommends $309.0 million for SOF rotary wing upgrades, an 
increase of $19.2 million, for the ARSOA avionics re-
capitalization and enhanced situational awareness program.

Chemical/biological defense procurement program

    The budget request contained a total of $435.7 million for 
chemical/biological defense (CBD) procurement, including $125.3 
million for procurement of individual protection equipment, 
$15.6 million for decontamination equipment, $143.2 million for 
the joint biological defense program, $34.7 million for 
collective protection equipment, and $116.9 million for 
contamination avoidance equipment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for 
procurement of automatic chemical agent alarms (ACADA) for the 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve, an increase of $13.4 
million for procurement of the biological integrated detection 
system for newly organized Army Reserve biological detection 
units, and a total of $49.6 million for collective protection 
equipment, including an increase of $14.9 million for 
procurement of chemical-biological protective shelters for Army 
medical companies and Marine Corps forward surgical teams.

Computer assisted medical diagnostics

    The committee is aware that off-the-shelf medical 
diagnostic technology is available that could significantly 
improve the ability of health care professionals to more 
quickly and accurately diagnose diseases, using a digital 
clinical library and decision support software. This technology 
could enable clinicians to rapidly sort and review thousands of 
medical photographs, match them to the patient's symptoms and 
other relevant factors, and quickly develop a priority list of 
potential diagnoses. The committee understands that the 
surgeons general of the Army and the Air Force are evaluating 
such technology, and urges the Secretary of Defense to closely 
evaluate this technology for procurement by all the services.

Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC)

    The budget request contained $8.2 million for special 
operations forces (SOF) intelligence systems but included no 
funds for PICRC systems.
    The PICRC system integrates commercial-off-the-shelf, full-
dimensional mapping and display software; desktop computers; 
hand-held computing devices; and wireless communications to 
provide SOF operators with high-resolution imagery for 
precision navigation, annotation of real-time visual 
observations, and a capability to relay information to command 
elements. The committee understands that this system would 
significantly enhance SOF capabilities to accurately collect, 
quickly report, and promptly act upon real-time intelligence 
data.
    The committee recommends $14.2 million for SOF intelligence 
systems, an increase of $6.0 million, for procurement of PICRC 
systems.

Special operations forces (SOF) small arms and weapons

    The budget request contained $4.8 million to procure SOF 
small arms and weapons, of which $3.7 million was to procure 
the advanced lightweight grenade launcher (ALGL), but included 
no funds to procure the AT4-confined space (CS) anti-armor and 
bunker defeat and breeching weapon.
    The committee notes the Commander-in-Chief of the Special 
Operations Command has identified fiscal year 2003 unfunded 
requirements of $4.4 million for accelerated procurement of 
ALGLs, and $10.5 million to accelerate and field the first 
production lot of 4,000 AT4-CS special operations insensitive 
munition weapons.
    The committee recommends $19.7 million for SOF small arms 
and weapons, an increase of $4.4 million for additional ALGLs, 
and an increase of $10.5 million for additional AT4-CS weapons, 
for a total increase of $14.9 million.

           Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

                                Overview

    As described elsewhere in this report, the committee 
recommends transferring the budget request of $1,490.2 million 
for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army (CAMD, A) 
to Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD, 
D), and recommends a total of $1,490.2 million for Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, including $974.2 
million for research, development, test, and evaluation, $302.7 
million for procurement, and $213.2 million for operations and 
maintenance. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are 
without prejudice and based on affordability consideration.

                       Items of Special Interest

Chemical agents and munitions destruction

    The committee notes that chemical demilitarization for 90 
percent of the stockpile at eight stockpile storage sites in 
the continental United States is under contract. To date, more 
than 8,000 tons of chemical agent, over 25 percent of the total 
U.S. stockpile, have been safely destroyed in operational 
demilitarization facilities at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah, 
using the baseline incineration process. Stockpile 
demilitarization operations at the Johnston Atoll facility have 
been completed and shutdown of that facility begun. 
Construction of demilitarization facilities at Anniston, 
Alabama, and Umatilla, Oregon, has been completed and 
systematization operations are in progress at those locations, 
while construction of the Pine Bluff, Arkansas, facility is 
over 75 percent complete. Mustard agent in bulk storage at 
Aberdeen, Maryland, and VX nerve agent in bulk storage at 
Newport, Indiana, will be destroyed using neutralization, 
rather than the baseline incineration process. In September 
2001, the Defense Acquisition Executive completed a 
comprehensive review of the chemical demilitarization program 
that resulted in new schedule milestones (completion of 
stockpile destruction in 2011 vice 2007 as required under the 
Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty) and a new life cycle cost 
estimate: $24,000.0 million, an increase of $9,000.0 million 
over the previous estimate. The review provided the basis for 
the selection of neutralization as the technology to be used 
for destruction of mustard-filled munitions and bulk agent at 
Pueblo, Colorado, and the yet-to-be-designated technology to be 
used for destruction of assembled chemical weapons at Blue 
Grass, Kentucky. The committee understands that the Defense 
Acquisition Executive directed the Army to propose alternatives 
for accelerating the destruction of the stockpile and reducing 
the overall life cycle costs.
    The committee is aware of actions being taken in the 
aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York 
and against the Pentagon, to increase the safety and security 
of the stockpile against potential terrorist attack. A decision 
has been made to accelerate the destruction of bulk mustard at 
Aberdeen and acceleration of the destruction of bulk VX at 
Newport is under consideration. The committee notes that 
funding for accelerated destruction of bulk agent was not 
included in the fiscal year 2003 budget request or in the 
fiscal year 2002 supplemental request. Should additional funds 
for the accelerated destruction of bulk agent not be included 
in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriation, the 
committee strongly recommends that they be included in the 
President's subsequent budget request for authorization and 
appropriation of the Defense Emergency Fund.
    The committee notes the shift in program management 
oversight responsibility within the Army Secretariat from the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics) to the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
(Installations and Environment). The committee believes that 
the cost, complexity, and importance of the program require 
that it continue to be managed as a major defense acquisition 
program, and elsewhere in this report has recommended a 
provision (section 143) to that effect.
    The committee notes on-going efforts in the chemical 
stockpile emergency preparedness program (CSEPP) to insure the 
readiness of the military installations on which the chemical 
demilitarization facilities are located and of the surrounding 
localcivilian jurisdictions to respond to a chemical accident 
or incident involving the stockpile. The committee believes that close 
working relationships between the Department of the Army and the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its regional activities, 
state and local emergency management activities, and local government 
and the Army installations are absolutely essential to ensuring that 
the Army's chemical stockpile storage and destruction mission are 
capable of being carried out so as to ensure the maximum protection for 
the environment, the general public, and the personnel who are involved 
in the storage and destruction of the stockpile. The committee expects 
both the Secretary of the Army and the Director, FEMA to carry out 
their respective responsibilities with regard to the CSEPP program in 
accordance with the memorandum of agreement between the two agencies.
    In the report that accompanied H.R. 2586 (H. Rept. 107-
194), the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to update 
the assessment required by Section 141(a) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) by March 1, 2002, in order to identify those actions taken 
or planned by the Secretary to significantly reduce the cost of 
the program and ensure its completion in accordance with the 
obligation of the United States under the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. The committee has not yet received this report, but 
plans to hold hearings on the chemical stockpile destruction 
program later this year to address these and other program 
issues.
    Finally, the committee directs the Comptroller General to 
review and assess the status and management of the chemical 
stockpile destruction program and to report the results of that 
assessment to the congressional defense committees not later 
than March 1, 2003.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

           Sections 101-107--Authorization of Appropriations

    These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 
2003 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

                       Subtitle B--Navy Programs

                  Section 111--Shipbuilding Initiative

    This section would authorize $810.0 million for one 
additional Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, or DDG-51, in fiscal 
year 2003 if the Secretary of the Navy certifies to the 
congressional defense committees on, or before the date of the 
enactment of this Act, that the prime contractor for the 
Virginia Class submarine program has committed to expend from 
its own funds an amount not less than $385.0 million for 
economic order quantity procurement of nuclear and non-nuclear 
components for Virginia Class submarines beginning in fiscal 
year 2003. If this certification is not provided, then $810.0 
million shall be allocated as follows: $415.0 million for 
Virginia Class submarine advance procurement, $210.0 million 
for cruiser conversion advance procurement, and $185.0 million 
for nuclear attack submarine engineered refueling overhaul.
    Additionally, if the terms of the agreement between the 
prime contractor for the Virginia Class submarine program and 
the United States include a requirement for the Secretary of 
the Navy to seek to acquire Virginia Class submarines through a 
multiyear procurement contract, the Secretary of the Navy may, 
in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States 
Code, enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of 
Virginia Class submarines beginning in the fiscal year 2003 
program year, subsequent to his certification that the 
conditions in subsection (a) of that section have been 
satisfied with respect to that contract and a period of thirty 
days has elapsed after the date of transmission of such 
certification to the congressional defense committees.

                     Subtitle C--Air Force Programs

   Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for C-130J Aircraft 
                                Program

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
enter into a multiyear procurement contract for Air Force CC-
130J and Marine Corps KC-130J aircraft beginning with the 
fiscal year 2003 program year, subject to a certification to 
the congressional defense committees that satisfactory progress 
is being made towards a successful operational test and 
evaluation, and that each of the conditions specified in 
section 2306b(a) of title 10, United States Code, have been 
satisfied with respect to that contract.

                       Subtitle D--Other Programs

 Section 141--Revisions to Multiyear Contracting Authority Relating to 
                        Structuring of Contracts

    This section would change section 2306b(i) of title 10, 
United States Code to require the Department of Defense to 
structure multiyear procurement contracts so that complete end 
items are procured through yearly appropriated amounts, and 
would restrict advance procurement to those long-lead items 
necessary in order to meet the planned delivery schedule for 
complete major end items programmed under the contract to be 
acquired with funds appropriated in a subsequent fiscal year.

 Section 142--Transfer of Technology Items and Equipment in Support of 
                           Homeland Security

    This provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
enter into an agreement with an independent, non-profit, 
technology-oriented entity, which has demonstrated a proven 
ability to facilitate technology transfer of promising defense 
technologies developed by both the private and public sectors 
that will aid federal, state and local law enforcement, fire 
fighting, and emergency medical ``first responders''. The 
entity would develop and deploy items and equipment through 
coordination between government agencies and private sector, 
commercial developers and suppliers oftechnology that would 
enhance public safety and emergency response. The entity would also 
work in coordination with the InterAgency Board (IAB) for Equipment 
Standardization and Interoperability to develop items and equipment 
that meet the standardization requirements established by the IAB. The 
entity would evaluate the equipment items that have been identified 
through the standards development process accomplished to date by the 
IAB and other state-of-the-art items and equipment that may benefit 
first responders. An increase of $1.0 million is included in PE 65384BP 
to facilitate this agreement and establish an InterAgency Consequence 
Management Equipment Transfer program.

   Section 143--Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical 
                          Agents and Munitions

    This section would require that the Secretary of Defense 
ensure that the program for destruction of the United States 
stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions is managed as 
a major defense acquisition program in accordance with the 
essential elements of such programs as may be determined by the 
Secretary. The provision would also require the Under Secretary 
of Defense (Comptroller) to certify annually to the 
congressional defense committees that the budget request for 
the chemical agents and munitions destruction program has been 
submitted in accordance with the requirements of applicable 
federal laws. As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee 
cites section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99-145), as amended.

 Section 144--Report on Department of Defense Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
                                Systems

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the Congress no later than January 1, 2003 
for each unmanned aerial vehicle system to include: (1) a 
description of the system infrastructure, (2) the system 
Operational Requirements Document, (3) a description of the 
system training and basing infrastructure, (4) a description of 
the how the department acquires unmanned aerial vehicle 
systems, (5) the system acquisition plan and (6) recommended 
changes in law that would facilitate unmanned vehicle 
acquisition.

 Section 145--Report on Impact of Army Aviation Modernization Plan on 
                        the Army National Guard

    This section would require the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau to submit a report to both the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services no later 
than February 1, 2003, regarding the impact of the Army 
Aviation Modernization Plan on the Army National Guard to 
conduct its aviation missions, the plan and timeline outlined 
within the Army Aviation Modernization Plan to transfer 
aircraft from the active Army to the Army reserve components, 
and the suitability of existing, commercial off-the-shelf, 
light-twin engine helicopters to perform Army National Guard 
aviation missions. The provision would also allow for the Chief 
of Staff of the Army to submit views on the report.

         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $53,924.2 million for 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), including 
$67.2 million for the Defense Health Program. The committee 
recommends $56,491.5 million, an increase of $2,567.4 million 
to the budget request.
    The committee strongly supports this much needed increase 
and notes that the Department of Defense and the military 
services have all initiated major efforts to transform military 
warfighting capabilities to better prepare for future threats 
and challenges. The committee notes that the largest portion of 
the total RDT&E request is contained in the fielded system 
development category, the area primarily dedicated to upgrades 
of existing systems. The committee remains concerned that the 
Department will not be able to budget for sufficient funds to 
sustain all of the planned system upgrades and also adequately 
fund priority transformation efforts.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to outline 
clearly the overall Department priorities for RDT&E investment 
strategies for both transformation efforts and existing system 
upgrades and sustainment.

                               Army RDT&E

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $6,918.5 million for Army 
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $6,933.3 
million, an increase of $283.4 million and a transfer of $268.6 
million for missile defense programs from Army RDT&E to 
Defense-wide RDT&E.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Army 
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes 
to the Army request are discussed following the table.

                       Items of Special Interest

155mm extended-range guided projectile

    The budget request contained $70.9 million in PE 64814A for 
artillery munitions.
    The committee notes that the Army is merging the trajectory 
correctable munitions (TCM) program and the Excalibur (XM-982) 
guided munition program into a single extended-range guided 
munition program. The committee is aware that combining these 
programs has the potential to reduce cost, improve performance 
and accelerate fielding of a 155mm extended-range guided 
projectile for our ground forces.
    The committee strongly supports merging TCM and Excalibur 
and recommends the budget request in PE 64814A.

Advanced Army composite bridge

    The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A 
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but 
included no funds for the development of the Advanced Army 
Composite Bridge.
    The committee is aware that the Army has evaluated a 
composite bridge technology demonstrating a capacity to carry 
military loads in excess of 110 tons. The committee understands 
the potential benefits composite materials offer, especially in 
terms of weight savings, corrosion resistance, and battle 
damage tolerance. As a result, the committee urges further 
development of this initiative to facilitate a full-scale 
demonstration and complete design and fabrication.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63005A to mature the full-scale demonstration of the Advanced 
Composite Bridge.

Advanced battery technology demonstration and validation program

    The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A for 
Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funds 
for the advanced battery technology demonstration and 
validation program.
    The committee is aware that the advanced battery technology 
demonstration and validation program has produced notable 
successes such as a new thermal battery for the Patriot PAC-3 
missile and a prototype battery for the compact kinetic energy 
missile. He committee supports continuation of the program to: 
(1) continue development of a thermal battery simulation and 
modeling tool, (2) develop advanced electrochemical batteries 
to support the missile technology sector, and (3) provide the 
government with a second source for critical-use thermal 
batteries.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
63308A for the advanced battery technology demonstration and 
validation program.

Advanced fuel cell technology

    The budget request contained $27.5 million in PE 62705A for 
electronics and electronic devices, but included no funding for 
advanced fuel cell technology.
    The committee notes that the military is becoming 
increasingly dependent on electrical power for its personal 
warfighting systems, and supports development of advanced fuel 
cell technology to meet those requirements.
    The committee recommends $32.5 million for PE 62705A, an 
increase of $5.0 million for advanced fuel cell technology.

Advanced threat infrared countermeasures/common missile warning system

    The budget request contained $22.8 million in PE 64270A for 
the development of EW equipment, but included no funds to 
complete an Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common 
Missile Warning System (ATIRCM/CMWS) installed test facility 
upgrade.
    The ATIRCM system integrates defensive infrared (IR) 
countermeasures into currently fielded aircraft for more 
effective protection against a greater number of IR-guided 
missiles than is provided by currently fielded technology. The 
CMWS provides warning of a threat IR-guided missile on a 
variety of tactical aircraft and helicopters. While the 
committee notes the transfer of this system to the United 
States Special Operations Command for continued development and 
initial fielding, the committee is aware of a critical 
requirement to upgrade Army test facilities in order to perform 
effective tests on helicopter self-protection systems installed 
and integrated on aircraft against multi-mode missile seekers.
    To complete this test facility system upgrade, the 
committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 64270A, 
for this purpose.

Aircrew coordination training

    The budget request contained $3.5 million in PE 63007A for 
manpower, personnel, and training technology but included no 
funds for aircrew coordination training (ACT).
    The committee notes that ACT has almost completed 
development. The committee is aware that ACT has demonstrated 
the ability to improve aircrew safety and efficiency, which is 
especially critical in combat operations.
    The committee recommends $5.6 million in PE 63007A, an 
increase of $2.1 million for aircrew coordination training.

Applied communications and information networking (ACIN) program

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 64805A for the 
ACIN program.
    The committee understands that the ACIN program includes 
projects intended to integrate commercial off-the-shelf 
components and adapt commercial technologies to fulfill 
military communications applications for 21st century warfare. 
The committee notes that the Army has implemented the ACIN 
program and recommends that the Secretary of the Army 
coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, 
Control, Communications, and Intelligence) to expand applicable 
aspects of the ACIN program within the Department of Defense. 
Consistent with its prior year actions to promote increased 
partnering with commercial industry, the committee recommends 
an increase of $17.0 million in PE 64805A for ACIN.

Anti-material sniper rifle

    The budget request contained $6.0 million in PE 63607A for 
the joint service small arm program, but included no funding 
for the anti-material sniper rifle.
    The committee is aware that the Army unfunded requirements 
list contains a requirement for improvements to the long-range 
sniper rifle. The anti-material sniper rifle offers the 
potential to reduce weight and improve reliability of the 
existing sniper rifle.
    The committee recommends $15.8 million in PE 63607A, an 
increase of $9.8 million for the anti-material sniper rifle.

Asbestos pilot project

    The budget request contained $9.3 million in PE 63779A for 
environmental quality technology, but included no funds for an 
asbestos pilot project.
    The committee is aware that asbestos is an environmental 
hazard and supports research and development to improve 
hazardous waste reduction, and reduce the cost of disposal.
    The committee recommends $11.3 million in PE 63779A, an 
increase of $2.0 million for an asbestos pilot project.

Automated document conversion

    The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A 
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but 
included no funds for advanced data conversion.
    The committee notes that only a small portion of the Tank 
and Automotive Command's legacy product data is in computer 
aided design formats. The committee is aware that CAD-based 
technical data is recognized as an enabler for cost effective 
recapitalization.
    The committee recommends an increase of $750 thousand in PE 
63005A for development and evaluation of existing and emerging 
technologies for conversion of paper/raster to 2-dimensional 
and 3-dimensional CAD along with advanced formats.

Bipolar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery

    The budget request contained $61.0 million in PE 78045A for 
end item industrial preparedness, but included no funds for the 
bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery.
    The committee is aware that the future military will be 
increasingly dependent on portable electric power, and notes 
that bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery 
technology has the potential to meet some of these needs.
    The committee recommends $63.0 million in PE 78045A, an 
increase of $2.0 million for bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal 
hydride battery.

Clothing and equipment technology

    The budget included $25.5 million in PE 62786A for clothing 
and equipment technology, but included no funding to improve 
the affordability and reliability of inflatable textile-based 
structures for deployable shelters.
    The committee is supportive of the Army's Transformational 
Campaign Plan, and particularly of development of technologies 
to improve soldier survivability and performance. The committee 
notes that the Army's logistics development plan appears to be 
inconsistent with all Objective Force requirements, 
particularly with regard to achieving rapid rates of deployment 
into areas with likely chemical or biological weapons threats. 
The committee is aware that advanced shelter development 
incorporating innovative weaving technologies may 
simultaneously facilitate deployments and improve soldier 
survivability and urges the Army to pursue further development 
of this initiative.
    The committee recommends $27.5 million in PE 62786A, an 
increase of $2.0 million, for advanced development in 
deployable shelters.

Crusader

    The committee is aware that the Crusader advanced field 
artillery system is the Army's next generation self-propelled 
howitzer that has increased lethality, mobility, and 
survivability. The committee notes that the requirement for 
Crusader directly addresses the shortfalls in mobility and 
range of U.S. artillery systems that were evident during the 
Gulf War. Crusader capitalizes on mature, state-of-the-art 
technologies to improve range and volume of fire, 
responsiveness, re-supply, command and control and 
sustainability. The committee notes that the Army proposes to 
transition Crusader from program definition and risk reduction 
(PDRR) to systems development and demonstration (SDD) in fiscal 
year 2003. A milestone B decision is scheduled in the 3rd 
quarter of fiscal year 2003 to support this transition.
    The committee notes Crusader's continuing progress in 
development and is aware that Crusader has already met all of 
its milestone B firing performance requirements in government 
testing at Yuma Proving Ground. The government-industry team 
contract performance continues to be on schedule and budget. 
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, 
and Technology) and the Director of the Army's Objective Force 
Task Force have testified before this committee regarding the 
need for Crusader and the capabilities it brings to the 
battlefield.
    The committee is concerned that the transformational war-
fighting potential of Crusader has not been fully recognized by 
the Department of Defense and cannot be properly assessed until 
the Army completes its comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives 
(AOA) for the Crusader Milestone B decision. The committee 
believes that alternatives to Crusader's capabilities suggested 
by the Department of Defense should be included in the AOA and 
assessed on an equal basis.
    Therefore, the Committee directs that there be no change to 
the Crusader development schedule, funding or procurement 
requirements, to include termination, until the completion of 
the Army's Milestone B Analysis of Alternatives. The Secretary 
of the Army shall present a report of the completed analysis to 
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2003. The 
committees will respond to that analysis within 30 days so that 
the scheduled Milestone B review can be completed in April 
2003.

Digital glue technology

    The budget request contained $31.9 million in PE 62303A for 
missile technology, but included no funds for digital glue 
technology.
    The committee is informed that digital glue technology can 
reduce the number of lines required to integrate systems by as 
much as a factor of 10.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million in PE 
62303A for digital glue technology.

Dismounted situation awareness system

    The budget request contained $28.9 million in PE 23758A for 
digitization, but included no funds for the dismounted 
situation awareness system (DISM).
    The committee endorses the use of commercial-of-the-shelf 
(COTS) technology to meet warfighting requirements while 
reducing costs and schedules. The committee notes that the 
dismounted situation awareness system (DISM) map has 
successfully demonstrated its ability to significantly improve 
combat unit situational awareness during a night live fire 
exercise with paratroops. The committee is also aware that this 
system was developed using small business innovative research 
program funding.
    The committee recommends $32.9 million in PE 23758A, an 
increase of $4.0 million for DISM.

Distance learning

    The budget request contained $14.3 million in PE 62785A for 
manpower/personnel/training technology, but included no funds 
for distance learning.
    The committee notes that education is essential both for 
career advancement and to support a well-educated work force, 
and further notes that distance learning is a new and 
innovative means to provide such required education.
    The committee recommends $15.8 million in PE 62785A, an 
increase of $1.5 million for distance learning.

Eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease

    The budget request contained $67.5 million in PE 62787A for 
medical technology, but included no funds for eliminating 
arthropod-borne infectious disease.
    The committee is aware that arthropod-borne infectious 
disease represents a significant health problem over a growing 
portion of the United States, with potential to infect members 
of our military.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
62787A for eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease

Energy and sustainability research

    The budget request included $2.9 million in PE 63734A for 
military engineering and advanced technology, but included no 
funding for energy and sustainability research.
    The committee supports initiatives designed to improve 
infrastructure life cycle operations and cost effectiveness, as 
well as enhancing the overall quality of life on military 
installations. The committee further supports those efforts 
aimed at achieving efficiencies in energy-consumption while 
concurrently experiencing reductions in overall pollution 
levels and waste-streams. The committee understands that 
innovative technologies can be brought to bear on these issues 
in a collaborative environment involving both academia and 
government resources. The committee notes that energy and 
sustainability audits of Department of Defense facilities have 
produced numerous operational efficiencies. The committee 
encourages further development in this initiative.
    The committee recommends $5.9 million in PE 63734A, an 
increase of $3.0 million, for energy and sustainability 
research.

Enhanced area air defense system short range air defense integrated 
        kinetic energy system

    The budget request contained $31.9 million in PE 62303A for 
missile technology, but included no funds for the Army enhanced 
area air defense system (EAADS) short range air defense 
integrated kinetic energy (E-STRIKE) system.
    The committee is aware that the Army's SWORD program, a 
component of E-STRIKE, is scheduled to complete science and 
technology efforts at the end of fiscal year 2002, and will be 
without funding until the E-STRIKE program begins in fiscal 
year 2004.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62303A for SWORD.

Explosively formed penetrators

    The budget request included $3.0 million in PE 62624A for 
research on smaller, more lethal Explosively Formed Penetrators 
(EFPs).
    The committee strongly endorses the Army's Future Combat 
System (FCS) and supports initiatives aimed at fielding a 
lighter, faster, more survivable, and more lethal combat force. 
The committee recognizes that warhead requirements and 
technologies must consequently adapt to FCS characteristics and 
is concerned that the present level of EFP investment may prove 
insufficient to meet both existing and future requirements. The 
committee further recognizes that the eventual FCS combat 
vehicles may involve a variety of smaller caliber guns and 
rocket launchers requiring smaller and more lethal warheads to 
defeat, among other things, active protection systems. Indeed, 
a next-generation warhead technology could benefit mortars, 
artillery, rockets, missiles, and hand-emplaced munitions. The 
committee encourages the Army to place greater emphasis on such 
an effort.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62624A for smaller, more lethal, next-generation Explosively 
Formed Penetrators.

Eye-safe laser

    The budget request contained $22.3 million in PE 62709A for 
night vision technology, but included no funds for eye-safe 
lasers.
    The committee is aware that eye-safe laser technology is 
applicable to detection and identification of diverse objects, 
such as wires, vehicles, and chemical/biological clouds.
    The committee recommends $25.3 million in PE 62709, an 
increase of $3.0 million for combustion driven eye-safe laser 
technology.

Family of systems simulator

    The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A for 
Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funds 
for the family of systems simulator (FoSSim).
    The committee is aware that FoSSim integration capability 
can be used to evaluate and improve new operational concepts, 
and analyze interfaces for missile defense capabilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63308A for FoSSim.

Fuel catalyst research and evaluation

    The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A 
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but 
included no funds for fuel catalyst research and evaluation.
    The committee is aware that a fuel catalyst technology has 
been developed that causes hydrocarbon fuels to combust more 
completely, leading to reduced emissions and better fuel 
economy. The committee notes that a demonstration of this 
catalyst technology could validate its potential for 
significant operational savings for military vehicles.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
63005A for fuels catalyst research and evaluation.

Global combat support system

    The budget request contained $71.9 million in PE 33141A for 
global combat support system-Army (GCSS-A).
    The committee is aware that the Army initiated an 
information systems program in 1997 that was intended to 
transform the Army's information technology support systems. 
The committee notes that the Army is still attempting to 
implement the first, and generally accepted easiest of five 
modules intended to replace 16 legacy systems. The committee 
additionally notes that the Army is changing its acquisition 
strategy forsubsequent modules, and questions the requirement 
for research and development until the revised strategy is clear.
    The committee recommends $51.9 million in PE 33140A, a 
decrease of $20.0 million for GCSS-A

Helmet mounted thermal imaging system

    The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63710A for 
night vision advanced technology, but included no funds for the 
helmet-mounted thermal imaging system.
    The committee is aware that thermal imaging offers 
potential for improved detection of personnel involved in 
casualties where emergency crews, be they military or civilian, 
must work in environments where visibility is obscured.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 
63710A for the helmet mounted thermal imaging system.

Hemoglobin based oxygen carrier

    The budget request contained $67.5 million in PE 62787A for 
medical technology, but included no funds for the hemoglobin-
based oxygen carrier.
    The committee is aware of a 2001 Department of Defense 
(DOD) Inspector General audit of the DOD Blood Program that 
highlights programmatic shortfalls in the Department's ability 
to meet its stated requirements. The committee is aware of a 
promising hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier technology that would 
minimize, and in some cases eliminate, the storage and 
transportation problems identified in the report. A hemoglobin-
based oxygen carrier has extended life and innovative health 
benefits due to its ability to deliver oxygen directly to human 
tissue. The committee supports this innovation and urges the 
Department of the Army to move expeditiously in a manner that 
will soon field this capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 
62787A specifically for the hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier.

Human factors engineering technology

    The budget request included $17.4 million in PE 62716A for 
Human Factors Engineering Technology, but included no funding 
for the Army's manpower and personnel integration (MANPRINT) 
modeling technologies.
    The committee supports efforts to maximize soldier 
performance and to match soldier effectiveness with the 
technological advances imbedded in the Army's Objective Force 
concept. The committee endorses efforts of the Army Research 
Laboratory to conduct field studies and collect performance 
data on the capabilities and limitations of soldiers, 
particularly in the area of soldier-equipment interaction. 
Further, the committee recognizes and fully encourages the 
cross-service integration of tools and methodologies in an 
effort to minimize total ownership costs of future weapons 
systems through improvements in design, operations, and 
maintenance.
    The committee recommends $20.4 million in PE 62716A, an 
increase of $3.0 million, for development of MANPRINT modeling 
and related technologies.

Hyperspectral long-wave imager for the tactical environment

    The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 305206A for 
Airborne Reconnaissance Operational Systems Development.
    The committee remains supportive of long-wave infrared 
(LWIR) hyperspectral imagery technology as a means for 
providing a unique, next-generation, all-terrain, day/night 
detection capability for camouflaged or concealed targets. The 
committee notes that the Army's planned efforts in this program 
include the development of greater integration of a variety of 
imaging techniques. The committee supports these initiatives 
yet remains particularly concerned with the need to integrate 
the stabilization of the LWIR sensor for ensuring enhanced 
target detection algorithms in pursuit of a full system 
capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million in PE 
35206A for hyperspectral long-wave imager.

Intelligence command global information portal

    The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 33028A for 
Security and Intelligence Activities, but included no funding 
for the Army intelligence and security command (INSCOM) global 
information portal.
    The committee notes that INSCOM is developing the global 
information portal to provide intelligence analysts with timely 
information and to provide software applications that improve 
analysis. The committee is aware that INSCOM is using 
commercial-off-the-shelf software to continue to develop the 
global information portal.
    The committee recommends $10.4 million in PE 33028A, an 
increase of $5.0 million for the INSCOM global information 
portal.

Javelin

    The budget request contained $489 thousand in PE 64611A for 
Javelin missile upgrades; however, no funds were included for 
upgrades to defeat advanced active protection systems (APS).
    The Javelin missile system is a fire-and-forget antitank 
weapon designed to defeat the most current armored systems 
fielded today. However, the committee understands some armored 
vehicles use APS to detect incoming missiles and defeat them by 
interfering with the missile guidance system.
    The committee is aware of an ongoing technology insertion 
program to overcome this problem that uses current off-the-
shelf technologies to develop counter APS (CAPS) for Tube-
launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided and Hellfire missiles 
to defeat existing generation I and II APS. The committee notes 
that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $13.1 million 
unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2003 for future generation 
III CAPS development, integration and testing for the Javelin.
    Based on increased threats and the need to develop CAPS for 
generation III APS threats to the Army's antitank missiles, the 
committee recommends $13.6 million, an increase of $13.1 
million, in PE 64611A for this purpose and strongly urges the 
Army to include funds in its fiscal year 2004 budget to 
accelerate this program.

Landmine warfare/barrier engineering development

    The budget request contained $129.0 million in PE 64808A 
for landmine warfare/barrier engineering development, of which 
$28.3 million was for non-self-destruct anti-personnel landmine 
alternatives (NSD-A).
    The committee understands that the Army has used a portion 
of the $37.2 million of fiscal year 2001 NSD-A funds as a 
reprogramming source and that $13.0 million of the funds remain 
withheld by the Department of Defense Comptroller. Since a 
portion of fiscal year 2001 funds have not been obligated for 
their intended purpose, additional funds remain on withhold, 
and the program is delayed, the committee believes that the 
remainder of these funds can be used to meet fiscal years 2002 
and 2003 requirements until the Department of Defense 
determines its course of action on this initiative.
    The committee recommends $101.7 million in PE 64808A for 
fiscal year 2003, a decrease of $27.3 million.

Lightweight x-band radar

    The budget request included $29.1 million in PE 12419A for 
Joint Land Attack Cruise Missiles Defense, but included no 
funding for lightweight x-band radar technology.
    The committee is aware of efforts to improve the 
discrimination capability of the Joint Land Attack Cruise 
Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) to better 
address the increased cruise missile threat. The committee 
understands the challenge of maintaining an advanced, cost-
effective, long endurance, precision-tracking defensive system. 
According to justification documents provided to the committee, 
JLENS has a requirement to develop, test, and provide a 
contingency-deployable Fire Control radar demonstration 
prototype to address this challenge. The committee understands 
that a lightweight electronically-steerable X-band antenna may 
be ideal. Therefore, the committee urges the Army to pursue 
further development of such technology.
    The committee recommends $31.1 million in PE 12419A, an 
increase of $2.0 million, for lightweight x-band radar 
technology.

M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner projectile

    The budget request contained $38.1 million in PE 62624A for 
weapons and munitions technology, but included no funds for the 
M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner projectile.
    The committee notes that modern warfare requires greater 
artillery range and is aware that the M795 extended range 
baseburner projectile offers the potential to enhance 
conventional field artillery capabilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 in PE 62624A 
million for the M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner 
projectile.

Metabolically engineered tissues for trauma

    The budget request contained $67.5 million in PE 62787A for 
medical technology, but included no funds for metabolically 
engineered tissues for trauma care.
    The committee notes that technologies are being developed 
to permit long-term storage of cells and tissues in an ordinary 
environment that would allow better treatment of battlefield 
casualties.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62787A for metabolically engineered tissues for trauma.

Metallic particles in defense applications obscurant smokes

    The budget request contained $3.7 million in PE 62622A for 
chemical, smoke and equipment defeating technology, but 
included no funds for metallic particles in defense 
applications obscurant smokes.
    The committee notes that metallic particles in defense 
applications obscurant smokes may have potential benefits for 
the warfighter.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62622A for metallic particles in defense applications obscurant 
smokes.

Metrology

    The budget request contained $50.3 million in PE 63001A for 
warfighter advanced technology development, $37.8 million in PE 
64215N for Navy standards development, and $1.3 million in PE 
72207F for precision maintenance and calibration.
    The Department of Defense's metrology research and 
development program develops new measurement standards and 
capabilities to support the development, test, evaluation, and 
maintenance of emerging military systems. The committee 
understands that shortfalls in the metrology budget of all the 
military departments have led to the erosion of critical 
calibration standards development and measurement services to 
the detriment of the development and support of new weapons 
systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 
63001A for the Army's metrology research and development 
program, an increase of $5.2 million in PE 64215N for the Navy 
program, and an increase of $1.5 million in PE 72207F for the 
Air Force metrology research and development program.

Micro electro-mechanical systems inertial measurement unit/global 
        positioning system

    The budget request contained $31.9 million in PE 62303A for 
missile technology, and included $10.0 million for micro 
electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) inertial measurement units 
(IMU).
    The committee is aware that MEMS integrated inertial 
measurement unit-global positioning systems (IMU-GPS) offer the 
potential to provide affordable precisionnavigation capability 
for a family of platforms and weapons. The committee notes that the 
Army has been designated as the lead service for this program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
62303A for MEMS IMU-GPS.

Mini-backpack unmanned aerial vehicle

    The budget request contained $46.5 million in PE 35204A for 
night vision advanced technology, and included $9.6 million for 
night vision airborne systems.
    The committee is aware that an advanced mini-backpack 
unmanned air vehicle (UAV) with day/night sensor capability has 
been developed and is ready for testing. The committee notes 
that this UAV has potential applications both with existing 
forces and as part of the future combat system.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
35204A for mini-backpack UAV.

Mobile tactical high energy laser

    The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A, 
including $3.5 million for the Mobile Tactical High Energy 
Laser (MTHEL), a mobile version of an existing high energy 
chemical laser system jointly developed by the United States 
and Israel to demonstrate the feasibility of defeating short 
range rockets using directed energy.
    The committee is aware of promising results with the 
current THEL, but believes that much work remains to be 
accomplished before the technology develops to a lethal and 
militarily useful capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $25 million in PE 
3308A for MTHEL.

Night vision fusion

    The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63710A for 
night vision technology, but included no funds for night vision 
fusion.
    The committee is aware that the ability to see 
significantly better at night and under conditions of obscured 
visibility than an adversary is critical to the success of the 
military. The committee notes that digital pixel-level fusion 
has demonstrated the potential to greatly enhance night vision.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 
63710A for night vision fusion.

Non-traditional intelligence analysis toolset

    The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 64321A for 
support of the All Source Analysis System (ASAS), but included 
no funds for the continued development of the non-traditional 
intelligence analysis toolset (NTIAT).
    The committee strongly supports the Army's objective force 
concept, yet remains concerned with the Department's lack of 
commitment to develop an open-architecture, information-
exchange capability as part of the more mobile, ASAS-Light 
alternative. The committee strongly supports the ASAS-Light 
modernization initiative as a means for maintaining situational 
awareness, battle-management interoperability, and targeting 
advantages at all echelons of command and in all deployment 
environments. The committee supports further investment in this 
multi-source fusion and processing effort.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
64321A to continue NTIAT development.

Nuclear biological, and chemical agent removal

    The budget request contained $11.4 million in PE 63804A for 
logistics and engineering equipment, and included $7.9 million 
to develop and demonstrate prototype petroleum and water 
distribution technologies.
    The committee strongly supports Army efforts to protect 
against potential contamination of water supply systems and 
recognizes the shortcomings of current analytical methods. The 
committee is particularly supportive of proposals designed to 
improve the real-time detection and removal of nuclear, 
biological, and chemical (NBC) contamination and is aware of 
promising analytical approaches in this field.
    The committee recommends $16.4 million in PE 63804A, an 
increase of $5.0 million, specifically for evaluating 
technologies and analyzing concepts for applicability to NBC 
contamination detection and removal.

P3 micro-power devices for missile defense applications

    The budget request included $7.4 million in PE 63308A for 
Army missile defense systems integration, but included no 
funding for the P3 micro-power device.
    The committee endorses the development work at the Army 
Space and Missile Defense Command aimed at producing a micro-
power device suitable for applications in autonomous and remote 
conditions. The committee notes the infinite number of 
applications for such a technology, particularly in 
intelligence, battle management, and missile defense systems. 
The committee understands the need for such technological 
weight and volume efficiencies and supports additional 
development.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63308A for further development of the P3 micro-power device.

Rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power unit

    The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A 
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, and 
included $39.2 million for combat vehicle mobility.
    The committee is aware that rotary multi-fuel auxiliary 
power unit (APU) technology may offer a reduced cost 
alternative to existing turbine APUs. The committee notes that 
rotary multi-fuel technology may also offer weight advantages 
suitable for a broad range of applications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63005A for the rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power unit.

Stable hemostat

    The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63002A for 
medical technology, but included no funds for the stable 
hemostat.
    The committee is informed that 50 percent of combat deaths 
are due to uncontrollable blood loss. The committee is aware 
that a hemostat has been developed that promotes blood clotting 
and has the potential to reduce the death rate on the 
battlefield.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 
63002A for stable hemostat.

Textile electronic garments for combat casualty care

    The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63002A, 
including $4.4 million for combat injury management, but 
included no funding for rugged textile electronic garments for 
combat casualty care.
    The committee is aware of advances in sensor technology, 
textile electronics, information management and medical science 
that have opened up the potential for remote diagnosis, 
monitoring, and treatment of a range of medical conditions. The 
committee notes positive results from combat casualty care and 
electronic textiles research strongly suggesting that major 
improvements can be made in wounded soldier survival. To 
benefit from these advances, the committee urges the Secretary 
of the Army to institute a program to develop, implement, and 
assess rugged textile electronic garments for combat casualty 
care. The committee expects the proposed effort to develop, 
implement and assess advanced textile electronic garments in an 
integrated system.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 
million in PE 63002A to develop rugged textile garments for 
combat casualty care.

Thermionic technology

    The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A for 
Army missile defense systems integration, but included no 
funding for thermionics technology.
    The committee notes that progress is being made in advanced 
thermionics technology to make it a more viable power option 
for space applications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63308A for thermionics technology.

Unmanned aerial vehicle/unmanned ground vehicle demonstration program

    The budget request contained $4.8 million in PE 63006A for 
command, control, communications advanced technology, but 
included no funds for an unmanned aerial vehicle /unmanned 
ground vehicle (UAV/UGV) demonstration program.
    The committee notes that integrated operations of unmanned 
aerial and ground vehicles may provide means to reduce 
personnel vulnerability especially while fighting in a complex 
urban environment.
    The committee recommends $7.2 million in PE 63006A, an 
increase of $2.4 million for the UAV/UGV demonstration program.

Volumetrically controlled manufacturing

    The budget request contained $87.9 million in PE 63313A for 
missile and rocket advanced technology, but included no funding 
for volumetrically controlled manufacturing (VCM).
    The committee is aware that the Army Medical Research and 
Material Command successfully conducted a research program for 
biomaterial application using an innovative process, VCM. The 
committee notes that VCM is a precision synthetic manufacturing 
process that precisely calculates the 3D material matrix 
coefficients, in discrete volumes, and then replicates the 
properties within a manufacturing process. The material matrix 
has the capability to vary, based on loading tolerances, and is 
scalable to macro, micro and the nano level, and could lead to 
new and higher performance materials for aerospace 
applications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $11.5 million in PE 
63313A for volumetrically controlled manufacturing.

Weapons and munitions engineering development

    The budget request contained $41.8 million in PE 64802A for 
weapons and munitions engineering development, but no funds 
were included to complete development of the shoulder-launched 
multipurpose assault weapon-disposable (confined space) (SMAW-
D(CS)) or the common remotely operated weapon system (CROWS).
            Shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon-disposable 
                    (confined space)
    The SMAW-D(CS) will enable soldiers to fire this single-
shot, disposable launcher weapon against earthen, timber 
bunkers and light armored vehicles and breech masonry walls 
from and an enclosed space, which is not possible with the 
current SMAW-D. This requirement is necessary due to the 
termination of the multipurpose individualized munition, which 
provided soldiers with a confined space launch capability. Due 
to the increased urban terrain engagements that soldiers are 
training for and operating in and the need for this confined 
space, launch and breeching requirement, the committee 
recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 64802A to complete 
development of the SMAW-D(CS).
            Common remotely operated weapon system
    The CROWS provides armored and light armored vehicles with 
remotely operated machine guns, allowing crewmembers to fire 
from and remain within the protection of their vehicles. The 
committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million in PE 64802A 
to continue development of the CROWS.

Wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters

    The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63710A for 
night vision advanced technology, but included no funds for a 
wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters.
    The committee is aware that helicopter combat operations 
are increasingly conducted at low level and at night. The 
committee notes that wire and other obstacle detection and 
avoidance is more difficult under those conditions.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63710A for a wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for 
helicopters.

                               Navy RDT&E

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $12,501.6 million for Navy 
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $13,274.5 
million, an increase of $772.9 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Navy 
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes 
to the Navy request are discussed following the table.

                       Items of Special Interest

Acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology insertion

    The budget request contained $98.5 million in PE 64503N for 
submarine system equipment development, including $64.6 million 
for acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology 
insertion (ARCI) of submarine sonars.
    The ARCI program upgrades current submarine sonar systems 
with open architecture commercial-off-the-shelf computer 
technology allowing continued upgrades as technology develops. 
Full implementation is currently planned for fiscal year 2008, 
but conversion of all submarines can be accelerated with 
additional funds. The committee believes that this technology 
upgrade is essential for the submarine fleet, and recommends an 
increase of $25.0 million in PE 64503N to continue the research 
and development necessary for the insertion of multi-purpose 
processor technology into submarine and other naval sonar 
systems.

Advanced cable design for mine/submarine warfare

    The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 64212N for 
anti-submarine warfare and other helicopter development.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
64212N for the development and evaluation of improvements in 
the cables used for towing mine and submarine warfare sensors 
and countermeasures.

Advanced camouflage coating demonstration

    The budget request contained $78.2 million in PE 63114N for 
power projection advanced technology development, including 
$16.3 million for advanced development of autonomous operations 
technology.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63114N for development and flight demonstration of an 
integrated set of advanced camouflage coatings and treatments 
for unmanned aerial vehicles that will dramatically decrease 
the detection range of threat sensors.

Advanced composite radome materials

    The budget request contained $60.8 million in PE 25601N for 
operational systems development of the high-speed, anti-
radiation missile (HARM), including $48.7 million for continued 
development of the advanced anti-radiation guided missile 
(AARGM).
    The committee notes the progress in the AARGM program, a 
Phase III Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) follow-on 
program designed to demonstrate an advanced multi-mode seeker 
on an existing high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) 
airframe. Successful controlled, captive flight, and guided 
vehicle test flights in the AARGM advanced technology 
demonstration and success in phase I of the Quick Bolt advanced 
concept technology demonstration have resulted in the Navy's 
decision to transition AARGM technology into the system 
development and demonstration phase.
    The committee notes that use of AARGM technology in the 
high-speed anti-radiation demonstration requires a new radome. 
The committee also notes that the speed of next-generation 
missiles for the suppression of improved enemy air defense and 
other time critical targets will require materials for radomes 
and conformal antennas that withstand higher temperatures and 
permit the use of higher frequency radars. The committee 
further notes the identification of several new material 
systems that have the potential for meeting both needs.
    The committee recommends $62.3 million in PE 25601N, an 
increase of $1.5 million to develop and qualify new composite 
materials for next-generation high-speed missile system 
applications.

Advanced composite sail

    The budget request contained $107.4 million in PE 63561N 
for advanced submarine system development.
    The committee notes that the Navy's technology insertion 
plan for the Virginia class submarine includes installation of 
an advanced sail on the seventh Virginia class submarine. The 
advanced composite sail program is intended to provide 
substantial additional payload capacity and stealth 
improvements over conventional submarine sails. Phase II of the 
program addresses the incorporation of full-scale design 
features and the complete spectrum of full-scale load 
specifications that would be encountered by operational 
submarines, including damage assessment and repair.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63561N for development, demonstration, and validation of 
technologies and techniques for advanced monitoring of the 
operational condition of composite sails, repair procedures, 
and procedures for enabling future payloads to be inserted into 
a composite sail without major redesign of the sail structure.

Advanced deployable system burial capability

    The budget request contained $35.9 million in PE 64784N to 
continue development of the advanced deployable system (ADS).
    ADS is an undersea surveillance system that is designed to 
detect and track modern diesel electric and nuclear submarines, 
as well as provide the capability for tracking surface ships 
and detecting sea mine laying. ADS is composed of distributed 
sensors that can be rapidly and unobtrusively deployed in 
regional contingency areas for use against enemy submarines and 
in support of littoral warfare. The committee notes that in 
fiscal year 2002 Congress added $4.0 million to the ADS program 
to accelerate the development of improvements in the ADS cable 
burial capability to enhance ADS cable survivability and 
installation of cable trunk extensions. Congress also added 
$4.0 million to the program to reduce risk in the development 
of remotely powered all optical array technology for the ADS.
    The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE 
64784N for the ADS program, including $6.0 million to 
accelerate development of the ADS cable burial capability, $4.0 
million for the development of ADS off board sensors, and $6.0 
million to continue the program for development of remotely 
powered, all optical array technology for application in the 
ADS program.

Advanced ducted electric propulsion pod

    The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology development, including 
$14.9 million for surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, 
and electrical advanced technology development.
    The committee notes the Navy's development of an advanced 
podded propulsion module that will demonstrate an advanced, 
hydrodynamically efficient, externally mounted electric ship 
propulsion module that reduces fuel consumption; eliminates the 
need for large and costly reduction gears, propeller shafts and 
hull penetrations; and offers quieter operation and higher 
power in a smaller diameter package, compared to other 
propulsor options.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63123N to accelerate the development and demonstration of the 
advanced ducted electric propulsion pod.

Advanced extended echo-ranging sonobuoy development

    The budget request contained $13.9 million in PE 64261N for 
development of acoustic search sensors, including $8.3 million 
for advanced extended echo ranging (AEER) development.
    The committee notes the role of multi-static active 
acoustic sonar systems in the Navy's airborne anti-submarine 
warfare capability and on-going programs to improve the 
capabilities of extended echo ranging (EER) sensors for 
undersea warfare in the shallow waters of the littoral.
    The committee recommends $33.9 million in PE 64261N for the 
development of acoustic search sensors, including $20.0 million 
to continue the program for development of the AEER sensor 
system.

Advanced land attack missile

    The budget request contained $108.7 million in PE 63795N 
for land attack technology demonstration and validation. No 
funds were requested for the advanced land attack missile 
program.
    The committee notes that Navy programs for development of 
the extended range guided munition (ERGM), land attack standard 
missile (LASM), and advanced land attack missile (ALAM) have 
focused on addressing the operational requirements for naval 
surface fire support for land forces operating in the littoral 
and the shortcomings in current naval surface fire support 
capabilities.
    In the statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report on H.R. 4205 (H. Rept. 106-945), the conferees placed a 
high priority on completing the analysis of alternatives to 
determine the appropriate course of action for providing Naval 
fire support and directed the Secretary of the Navy to report 
to the congressional defense committeesrecommended revisions to 
the ALAM program with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request.
    In April 2002, the Comptroller of the Navy executed a 
below-threshold reprogramming which redirected funds authorized 
and appropriated for ALAM and effectively halted the ALAM 
program. The Navy completed an ALAM analysis of alternatives in 
May 2001, which determined that a boost glide missile system 
was the most cost effective system, supersonic cruise missiles 
showed merit, and additional detailed design studies were 
warranted. In November 2002, the Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy for Research Development, and Acquisition terminated the 
LASM program. Section 211 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for 2002 (Public Law 107-107) required the Secretary of 
Defense to carry out an assessment of the requirements for 
naval surface fire support of ground forces operating in the 
littoral environment, including the role of an advanced fire 
support missile system for navy combatant vessels and to submit 
a report of the result of that assessment to the congressional 
defense committees by March 31, 2002. The committee has not yet 
received the Secretary's report.
    In the Navy's unfunded requirements list that was submitted 
to the committee following submission of the fiscal year 2003 
budget request, the Chief of Naval Operations identified the 
program as a high priority unfunded requirement.
    The committee has consistently supported the requirement 
for improvements in naval surface fire support to land forces 
operating in the littoral and believes that the Navy should 
proceed promptly to reestablish the program for development and 
demonstration of an advanced land attack missile.
    The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in PE 
63795N for the ALAM program.

Advanced light strike vehicle

    The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M for 
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration, but included no 
funds for the advanced light strike vehicle.
    The committee is aware that an advanced light strike 
vehicle is needed to give Marines on ground mobility and 
lethality.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63640M for advanced light strike vehicle.

Advanced smart propulsor product model

    The budget request contained $89.4 million in PE 62123N for 
force protection applied research, including $46.0 million in 
surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical 
applied research.
    The committee notes prior efforts by the Navy in the 
development of smart propulsor product models that use advanced 
computational analysis, modeling, and simulation in the design, 
performance modeling, and analysis of ship propulsors. 
Integration of advanced hydromechanical, hydroacoustic, and 
mechanical analysis tools in the product models would permit 
tighter coupling of performance modeling and simulation to 
analyze and make tradeoffs in the design and manufacture of 
propulsors that could improve performance, yet reduce 
manufacturing and life cycle costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
62123N for the development of an advanced smart propulsor 
product model that would incorporate advanced hydromechanical, 
hydroacoustic, and mechanical analysis tools to permit tighter 
coupling of performance.

Advanced stealth ship radar

    The budget request contained $65.1 million in PE 63271N for 
radio frequency systems advanced technology demonstration.
    The committee notes that Sea Lion is a small combatant 
craft that has been used as a baseline platform to design, 
build and test advanced high-speed craft for U.S. Special 
Operations Forces. The committee also notes that for small 
combatant craft operating in the littoral the capabilities for 
covert detection and avoidance of other forces are highly 
desirable for enhanced self and force protection.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.8 million in PE 
63271N for demonstration and evaluation of low probability of 
intercept and low observable radars on small combatant craft 
such as the Sea Lion technology demonstration platform.

Advanced variable speed drive systems

    The budget request contained $243.1 million in PE 63513N 
for shipboard system component development, but included no 
funds for the advanced variable speed drive (VSD) system.
    The committee is aware that the development of the advanced 
VSD system will enable fleet-wide implementation of state of 
the art variable speed motor controls, without the size and 
weight restrictions of existing VSD.
    The committee recommends $245.1 million in PE 63513N, an 
increase of $2.0 million for the advanced variable speed drive 
system.

AEGIS baseline 7 phase II open architecture

    The budget request contained $300.7 million in PE 64307N 
for AEGIS combat systems engineering, of which $13.2 million 
was included for continued development of the AEGIS baseline 7 
phase II open architecture effort on AEGIS combat systems.
    The AEGIS baseline 7 phase II open architecture effort 
provides upgraded computer programs for sensor improvements and 
to reduce life cycle costs, as well as development of a solid 
state replacement for the SPY-1 radar, aimed at providing 
increased sensitivity and bandwidth required for long range 
ballistic missile defense.
    The committee recommends $310.7 million in PE 64307N, an 
increase of $10.0 million, to accelerate AEGIS baseline 7 phase 
II open architecture efforts.

Affordable towed array construction

    The budget request contained $98.5 million in PE 64503N for 
submarine system equipment development, including $5.2 million 
in the submarine sonar improvement program to continue 
development of affordable towed array technology initiatives.
    The submarine sonar improvement program delivers block 
updates to sonar systems installed on SSN 688, 688I, 21 and 
TRIDENT class submarines to maintain clear acoustic, tactical 
and operational superiority over submarine and surface 
combatants in all scenarios through detection, classification, 
localization and contact following. The TB-29, TB-21A and TB-16 
towed array sonar systems support these requirements. The 
committee notes that the Navy initiated the affordable towed 
array technology program to develop fiber optic technology for 
more cost effective, more reliable towed arrays.
    The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE 
64503N to accelerate the Navy's affordable towed array 
technology development program.

Affordable weapon

    The budget request contained $78.2 million in PE 63114N for 
Power Projection Advanced Technology development.
    The Office of Naval Research (ONR) Affordable Weapon 
program is an advanced technology demonstration to design, 
develop, and build a 600-mile range, 200 lbs-payload, precision 
strike missile with global positioning system/inertial 
navigation system guidance and control and a data link. The 
committee notes the significant progress made in the Affordable 
Weapon development and flight test program to date, including 
launch and flight test. The committee has been advised that key 
to ONR's success has been the effective use and modification 
for military applications of commercially available equipment. 
The success of the program indicates that the demonstration 
program should continue with the development and integration of 
the seeker, data link, special survivability measures, ground 
station, and improved performance propulsion.
    The committee recommends an increase of $15.4 million in PE 
63114N for continuation of the Affordable Weapon demonstration 
project.

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

    The committee notes the Navy's capabilities for anti-
submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship self-defense 
are key enablers for the ability of the Navy to operate in the 
littoral regions of the world. For the last six years, the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) at the committee's request has 
conducted a series of assessments regarding the Navy's 
capabilities for mine countermeasures, antisubmarine warfare 
and ship self-defense, and completed a comprehensive update of 
the assessments in May 2001.
    In responding to the GAO assessments, the Department of the 
Navy has acknowledged that it lacks or has degraded 
capabilities in a number of key warfighting areas needed for 
operations in littoral regions: breaching enemy sea mines in 
the surf zone, detecting and neutralizing enemy submarines in 
shallow water, and defending naval ships against cruise 
missiles. The committee notes that the Navy has had programs 
under way to improve its capabilities in each of these areas 
for several years. However, even though mine countermeasures, 
anti-submarine warfare, and ship self-defense are regarded as 
essential core naval capabilities, progress has been slow. 
During committee hearings on the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request, the Chief of Naval Operations cited the continuing 
existence of shortfalls in these essential core naval 
capabilities.
    To address these shortfalls, the committee has recommended 
the following increases for the Navy's anti-submarine warfare, 
mine countermeasures, and ship self-defense programs. These 
recommendations are discussed further in the classified annex 
to this report:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  RDT&E      Procurement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-submarine warfare......................        $126.1         $82.0
Mine countermeasures........................          18.0           0.0
Ship self-defense...........................          61.4          24.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee intends to review the Navy's response to 
these initiatives and actions taken to improve its capabilities 
for anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship 
self-defense in hearings on the fiscal year 2004 budget 
request.

Anti-submarine warfare synthetic training environment

    The budget request contained $31.4 million in PE 24571N for 
consolidated training systems development.
    The committee is aware that the anti-submarine warfare 
(ASW) capability of the fleet is directly tied to the 
proficiency and level of training of the ASW component of the 
naval battle force. The committee also understands that, like 
most combat operations, ASW is a perishable skill that requires 
frequent practice of complex tasks on both the individual and 
the team level.
    The committee notes that the limitations of current ASW 
training facilities and systems inhibit the ability for 
integrated training and result in most integrated training 
being done at sea. The committee further notes that the Navy's 
ASW community has affirmed the need for a common, integrated 
ASW training environment that could link real and synthetic ASW 
forces in realistic operational training situations for 
training, mission planning, and mission rehearsal. The 
committee believes that such a capability can probably not be 
achieved by a simple integration of existing incompatible 
training systems and that an incremental migration to an 
integrated, interactive ASW training system will be required. 
The committee also believes that the first step toward 
realizing such a capability in the fleet should be the linking 
of air ASW simulators to the existing Battle Force Teams 
Trainers.
    The committee recommends $41.4 million in PE 24571N, an 
increase of $10.0 million to initiate a program for integration 
of fixed and rotary wing air ASW and other simulators into the 
Battle Force Tactical Trainer to establish an ASW synthetic 
training environment.

Autonomous maritime navigation

    The budget request contained $5.8 million in PE 63563N for 
advanced ship design, but included no funds for autonomous 
maritime navigation.
    The committee notes that autonomous maritime navigation 
will allow unmanned surface vessels to operate alone, or in a 
coordinated group without the need for continuous control from 
a remote operator, even near shore or other vessels.
    The committee recommends $10.8 million in PE 63563N, an 
increase of $5.0 million for the autonomous maritime 
navigation.

Aviation integrated life support system

    The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for 
aviation survivability, but included no funds for the aviation 
integrated life support system (AILSS).
    The committee is aware that the AILSS effort, which 
commenced in 1996, is ready to transition into a tactical 
variant for the F-18.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million in PE 
63216N for aviation integrated life support system.

Aviation-shipboard information technology initiative

    The budget request contained $24.6 million in PE 64512N for 
shipboard aviation systems development, but included no funds 
for development of the aviation-shipboard information 
technology initiative (AS/ITI), which would upgrade and 
integrate aircraft carrier information systems to reduce cost 
and improve the effectiveness of carrier aircraft launch and 
recovery operations.
    The committee notes that the Navy views the AS/ITI as a 
promising technology for both its next-generation aircraft 
carriers and those currently in service, which can enhance 
accuracy and minimize latency of information; distribute 
information where required; improve shipboard aircraft sortie 
rates and safety; and reduce carrier operating costs.
    The committee recommends $32.8 million in PE 64512N, an 
increase of $8.2 million, for development of the AS/ITI.

Biomedical research imaging

    The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63729N for 
warfighter protection advanced technology development.
    The committee notes the progress being made in the use of 
advanced imaging technology in biomedical research. New imaging 
technology has allowed the observation of tumors as small as 
1mm in diameter and has allowed scientist to observe critical 
biochemical changes associated with tumor, strokes, and other 
disease states. These findings have important implication for 
advances in real-time medical diagnosis and treatment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63729N to continue research in the application of advanced 
imaging technology to biomedical research.

Chemical agent warning network demonstration

    The budget request contained $12.2 million in PE 65873M for 
Marine Corps program-wide support, but included no funding for 
the chemical agent warning network demonstration.
    The committee recommends $15.2 million in PE 65873M, an 
increase of $3.0 million to continue the development of the 
chemical agent warning network for use by the Marine Corps 
Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force.

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

    The budget request included $68.9 million in PE 62236N for 
warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no 
funding for COTS carbon fiber qualification.
    The committee is supportive of efforts to transition new 
materials and processes for use on present and future aircraft 
and missile systems. The committee notes that the Department of 
Defense is currently required to use high-priced single-source 
fiber to reinforce composite structure. The committee is 
encouraged with efforts to establish a second source for 
intermediate modules fiber to ensure more competitive practices 
and supports further efforts in this regard.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62236N to qualify COTS fibers for further applications to Navy 
weapons platforms.

Compatible processor upgrade

    The budget request contained $13.0 million in PE 63739N for 
Navy logistics productivity demonstration and validation. No 
funds were provided for continuation of the compatible 
processor upgrade program (CPUP).
    The committee notes that CPUP system-on-a-chip processor 
products are used to modernize existing computer systems while 
preserving legacy software and infrastructure, adapt commercial 
designs for high radiation environments, and optimize system 
designs. Congress provided funds in fiscal year 2001 to 
initiate a program for the development of application-specific 
CPUP processors to upgrade the capability of the Navy's AN/AYK-
14, AN/AYK-44, and AN/UYK-20 computers at a fraction of the 
cost and time required to reengineer legacy software for new 
computer systems, and provided an additional $2.5 million to 
continue the program in fiscal year 2002.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63739N to complete the CPUP program.

DP-2 thrust vectoring system

    The budget request contained $78.3 million in PE 63114N for 
power projection advanced technology development, but included 
no funding for the DP-2 thrust vectoring system demonstration 
project.
    DP-2 is a proof-of-concept program to demonstrate the use 
of thrust vector control to achieve vertical takeoff and 
conventional takeoff capabilities in a one-half scale flight 
test vehicle. The technology offers the potential for a low 
cost, medium range aircraft of advanced composite construction.
    The committee notes the progress to date in the DP-2 
program and the initial hover test of the one-half scale test 
vehicle in January 2002. The committee believes that test 
progress and the potential of the DP-2 proof-of-concept justify 
continuation of the program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 
63114N to continue development and demonstration of the DP-2 
thrust vector system concept.

Electric propulsion/ship power system distributed test bed

    The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for 
Force Protection Advanced Technology development.
    As a part of the Navy's program leading to the development 
of an all-electric ship, the committee continues to support the 
development of a virtual, distributed test bed which will 
provide the software and hardware modeling tools for shipboard 
machinery design and allow government and industry ship 
designers and engineers to evaluate machinery alternatives in a 
virtual prototype before committing to full-scale development.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63123N to continue the program for advanced development of a 
distributed test bed for electric propulsion and ship power 
systems.

Electronic interconnection research and development program

    The budget request contained $82.5 million in PE 63236N for 
warfighter sustainment advanced technology development.
    The committee notes that printed circuit boards (PCB) are 
fundamental to the operation of military navigation, guidance 
and control, electronic warfare, missile, and surveillance and 
communication equipment. High density, highly ruggedized, 
highly reliable interconnection technology is essential to the 
performance of many PCB used in military systems. The committee 
notes that industry PCB focuses on high-volume, low-cost boards 
rather than the high performance, reliability, and extreme 
environmental requirements of PCB for use in military systems 
and at the same time the United States has lost much of its PCB 
manufacturing capability to overseas sources. The committee 
recognizes the need to enhance the U.S. capability for 
development and production of high density, high reliability 
PCB for use in military systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63236N to accelerate improvements in PCB technology to meet 
military requirements now and in the future.

Electronic warfare development

    The budget request contained $74.7 million in PE 64270N for 
electronic warfare (EW) development, but included no funds for 
risk reduction activities to develop an EA-6B electronic 
jamming aircraft replacement or to evaluate the location of 
global positioning system interferers (LOCO GPSI) system in 
fleet operations.
            Airborne electronic attack follow-on
    The committee notes that the December 2001 Airborne 
Electronic Attack Analysis of Alternatives recommended 27 
options to replace the EA-6B aircraft and that a final decision 
on its replacement is planned for fiscal year 2002. Consistent 
with the fiscal year 2002 decision, the committee further notes 
that the Department of the Navy has included funds in its 
future years defense program to develop an airborne electronic 
attack follow-on beginning in fiscal year 2004 and that the 
Chief of Naval Operations has included development funding for 
an EA-6B follow-on aircraft among his unfunded priorities for 
fiscal year 2003. To accelerate the development of the EA-6B 
successor, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in PE 64270N for pre-engineering and manufacturing 
development risk reduction activities.
            Location of global positioning system interferers
    Location of global positioning system interferers (LOCO 
GPSI) is a state-of-the-art precision surveillance and 
targeting system for location of global positioning systems 
interferers that is designed to protect global positioning 
system-guided weapons against jamming and interference. The 
committee understands that Naval operational fleet commanders 
continue to request deployment of the LOCO GPSI system in fleet 
exercises to demonstrate and evaluate the military utility of 
this system. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 64270N to continue to evaluate LOCO GPSI 
capabilities in fleet operations in fiscal year 2003.

Electro-optical framing sensor

    The budget request contained $5.5 million in PE 35206N for 
airborne reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for 
electro-optical framing.
    The committee is aware that additional improvement is 
required for SHARP sensors.
    The committee recommends $11.5 million in PE 35206N, an 
increase of $6.0 million for continued development of an 
integrated electronic shutter to upgrade SHARP sensors and 
prototype development of a cellular neural network airborne 
processor.

Extended range guided munitions

    The budget request contained $108.7 million in PE 63795N 
for land attack technology demonstration and validation, 
including $44.8 million for naval surface fire support and 
development of the Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM).
    The committee notes the progress in the ERGM program as it 
completes the controlled test flight phase of the development 
program and prepares to begin full-scale firings. The committee 
notes that the schedule for program risk reduction is being 
reviewed as a result of the decision to adopt a unitary warhead 
for the projectile. The committee also notes that both the Navy 
and the prime contractor have funded the development of low 
cost guidance electrical units to reduce the production cost of 
the projectile. The committee also notes that the Navy is also 
evaluating the ANSR projectile, not as a replacement for ERGM, 
but as a complementary capability to ERGM with the possible 
application of being fired from both current 5-inch, 54 caliber 
and 5-inch, 62 caliber gun systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $14.5 million in PE 
63795N for risk reduction in the ERGM program, acceleration of 
guidance and control system redesign and test, and continued 
evaluation of the ANSR projectile.

Fibrous monolithic materials insertion

    The budget request contained $68.9 million in PE 62236N for 
warfighter sustainment, but included no funds for fibrous 
monolithic materials insertion
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 
62236N for fibrous monolithic materials insertion.

Formable aligned carbon thermosets

    The budget request contained $68.9 million in PE 62236N for 
warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funds 
for formable aligned carbon thermosets (FACTS).
    The committee is aware that development of FACTS will allow 
increased use of advance fibers in tactical aircraft with the 
attendant benefits of such materials.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 
62236N for FACTS.

Hawk AN/TPS-59 radar service life extension program

    The budget request contained $174.7 million in PE 26313M 
for Marine Corps communications systems, and included $2.6 
million for the Hawk AN/TPS-59 radar service life extension 
program.
    The committee is aware that operational experience and 
engineering analysis has shown that the Hawk AN/TPS-59 radar 
requires an automatic false alarm reduction mode as part of the 
service life extension program. The Hawk radar has been 
continually upgraded and is still a high priority asset for 
rapid deployment forces.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
26313M for the AN/TPS-59 radar service life extension program.

High brightness electron source program

    The budget request contained $56.3 million in PE 62271N for 
RF systems applied research, but included no funds for the high 
brightness electron source program.
    The committee is aware that the high brightness electron 
source program is vital to maintenance of the microwave vacuum 
tube electronics for high power applications
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62271N for the high brightness electron source program.

High temperature superconducting AC synchronous Navy propulsion motor 
        and generator

    The budget request included $57.6 million in PE 63123N for 
Force Protection Advanced Technology and included no funding 
for the High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) AC Synchronous 
Navy Propulsion Motor and Generator.
    The committee supports the Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) 
program and recognizes that its success depends heavily on 
innovative scientific breakthroughs in areas such as 
electronics, sensor development, and propulsion. The committee 
understands the importance of component miniaturization to 
achieving FNC goals. In the area of propulsion development in 
particular, the committee is aware of engineering analyses and 
tests that have illuminated the potential benefits offered by 
HTS motors and generators, particularly in the areas of weight, 
cost, and noise reduction. The committee supports development 
in this field and encourages greater investment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 
63123N for the HTS AC Synchronous Navy Propulsion Motor and 
Generator development.

Human factors and improved performance integration tool

    The budget request included $6.6 million in PE 62236N for 
Manpower, Personnel, and Human Factors, but included no funding 
for the Improved Performance Integration Tool and related 
methodologies.
    The committee supports the development of modeling tools 
that optimize sailor job performance as a means for fulfilling 
the requirements of the Navy's Future Naval Capabilities. The 
committee is aware of several Navy force management initiatives 
and not only encourages a continuation in these areas, but also 
urges further sailor/unit performance optimization through the 
use of non-Navy methodologies found elsewhere in the Department 
of Defense. The committee is particularly interested in the 
potential benefit of the Improved Performance Integration Tool 
(IMPRINT) and the Army's manpower and personnel integration 
(MANPRINT) initiative. The committee urges the Navy to adopt 
IMPRINT and MANPRINT methodologies in an effort to minimize the 
total ownership costs of future acquisition programs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62236N for the Improved Performance Integration Tool and 
related modeling applications.

Hybrid fiber optic/wireless communications

    The budget request contained $76.6 million in PE 62114N for 
common picture applied research.
    The committee notes progress being made in applied research 
for hybrid fiber optic/wireless communications that are 
characterized by having very high bandwidth, mobility, and low 
probability of intercept. The overall goal of the program is to 
develop the technology for versatile, mobile, secure 
communications systems for military and commercial use that 
will combine the most desirable features of fiber optic and 
wireless communications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62114N to continue the program for applied research in hybrid 
fiber optic/wireless communications.

Integrated maritime picture system of systems

    The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 63235N, 
including $17.5 million for development of advanced technology 
for knowledge superiority and assurance.
    The committee notes ongoing activities in the Navy and in 
the other military departments to improve situational awareness 
and develop an integrated common operational picture for air, 
land, and sea commanders and their staffs. The committee also 
notes that the emphasis on increasing force protection for the 
fleet both in port and at sea will require the integration of 
information about sea ports, harbors, anchorages, and the 
maritime operational environment in the integrated maritime 
operational picture.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in 
PE63235N for advanced development of an integrated maritime 
common operational picture that will include both force 
protection and seaport security information and systems.

Interrogator for high-speed retro reflectometer communications

    The budget request included $76.6 million in PE 62114N for 
power projection applied research, but included no funding for 
a high-speed retro-reflectometer communication interrogator.
    The committee strongly supports advanced sensor, processor, 
and data-link exchange technologies as a means to support, 
among other things, a greater reliance on unmanned aerial 
vehicles. High-speed data links are especially needed to 
rapidly download high resolution imagery from airborne sensors. 
The committee is aware of a ground-based interrogator 
technology with the potential for developing fleet-deployable 
exploitation algorithms and processes for large-bandwidth 
applications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
62114N for developing a laser interrogator for high-speed 
covert retro-reflectometer communication.

Joint mission high-speed vessel

    The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M, 
but included no funding for the joint mission high-speed 
vessel.
    The committee notes that the Army, Navy and Marine Corps 
have been conducting very successful exploration of concepts 
and capabilities with commercially available advanced hull and 
propulsion capabilities. The committee also notes the desire to 
continue concept-based experimentation to enable networked sea-
basing as a future joint force expeditionary capability. The 
committee notes that the objective is to identify a 
transformational capability enabling high-speed, sustained, 
sea-based joint operations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 
63640M for the joint mission high-speed vessel.

Joint operational test bed

    The budget request contained $206.4 million in PE 35204N 
for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funds 
for the joint operational test bed system (JOTBS).
    The committee is aware that as a result of the revised 
unified command plan, the Joint Forces Command will focus on 
its responsibilities of helping transform the military, 
including improving joint interoperability and innovation. The 
committee notes that the JOTBS is fundamental to these 
responsibilities and vital to future joint use of unmanned 
aerial vehicles (UAVs). The committee also notes that the JOTBS 
is vital, not only to complete tactical control system (TCS) 
development for Predator, but also use by multiple UAVs such as 
Shadow, Marine Shadow, and other UAVs.
    The committee directs the Commander in Chief (CINC), Joint 
Forces Command to competitively contract for the new Government 
Flight Activity support contract as follows:
    (1) Preparation of the contract solicitation, analysis of 
responses to the solicitation, and contract award must be 
conducted in accordance with Department of Defense regulations 
by an established government contracting organization/office 
with previous extensive experience in writing GFA support 
contracts.
    (2) The solicitation must be open to all commercial vendors 
certified in the flight activities covered by the solicitation.
    Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy and the CINC Joint Forces Command to robustly fund the 
JOTBS in future years to remove any dependency on congressional 
increases for its viability. The committee strongly recommends 
that the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Naval Warfare 
(N7/N78), which sponsors both unmanned aerial vehicles and 
tactical control system development be designated as the Navy 
program sponsor for the JOTBS.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 
35204N for JOTBS.

Knowledge projection for fleet maintenance

    The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology development, but included 
no funds to continue the ``Knowledge Projection for Fleet 
Maintenance'' project.
    Congress provided $2.5 million in fiscal year 2002 to 
support the initiation by the Navy of a collaborative program 
for the development of a new system to remotely monitor Navy 
ships and enable off-board technical experts to assist on-board 
technicians who are part of the ship's crew in ship maintenance 
and repair. The committee believes that the successful 
development and implementation of this approach to knowledge-
based system diagnosis and repair could be increasingly 
important as the Navy makes the transition to ships with 
reduced numbers of personnel and as electronic equipment and 
other ships systems continues to be more complex and powerful.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63123N to continue the Knowledge Projection for Fleet 
Maintenance project.

Laser aim scoring system

    The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 64212N for 
anti-submarine warfare and other helicopter development, but 
included no funds for the sea-target laser aim scoring system 
(LASS).
    The LASS provides real-time quantitative feedback on 
critical aspects of laser-guided weapon employment not 
currently available from existing Navy laser scoring systems, 
and is being adapted to existing Navy seaborne targets to 
support Navy H-60 armed helicopter training and readiness 
events that require laser scoring capability. Since the 
committee continues to believe that the sea-target LASS could 
address a Navy training deficiency by allowing in-flight laser 
designation practice against a moving at-sea target while also 
providing immediate laser aiming result feedback to the pilot, 
it recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 64212N to 
develop the sea-target LASS.

Laser welding and cutting

    The budget request included $89.4 million in PE 62123N for 
force protection applied research, but included no funding for 
the laser welding and cutting program.
    The committee supports efforts to improve ship design 
processes and performance while simultaneously lowering overall 
construction costs. The committee is aware of laser welding and 
cutting as a means for design and fabrication enhancements. The 
committee supports further efforts in this area.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62123N for the laser welding and cutting program.

Littoral support craft--experimental

    The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for 
Force Protection Advanced Technology development, but included 
no funding to continue the development of the Littoral Support 
Craft--Experimental (LSC-X).
    The committee notes the continued progress by the Office of 
Naval Research (ONR) in the development of designs and 
operational concepts for a littoral support craft: a fast 
(above 40 knots), high performance, low cost platform that 
could be an effective adjunct to the major surface combatant 
and carrier battle group operating in the littoral. The 
committee strongly supports ONR proposals for a phased program 
for development of an experimental littoral support craft 
demonstrator (LSC-X) that would provide the basis for 
operational experiments on the contribution that such a craft 
and its variants could make to naval operations in the 
littoral. The committee understands that the LSC-X design will 
include development of a modular payload capability to allow 
the use of different technology demonstrators and warfare 
mission modules. As such, the committee believes that LSC-X 
could be an effective experimental test bed for many of the 
technologies that might be chosen for use on the Littoral 
Combat Ship (LCS). The committee also notes that among combat 
related features linked to the LSC-X program is continued 
development of the Affordable Weapon that is discussed 
elsewhere in this report.
    The committee notes that the ONR has made significant 
progress on the LSC-X, culminating recently in comprehensive 
and successful tow tank tests that have resulted in the 
authorization to proceed with fabrication of the LSC-X full 
scale prototype in fiscal year 2002.
    The committee recommends an increase of $13.7 million in PE 
63123N to continue development of the LSC-X.

Low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle program

    The budget request contained $76.6 million in PE 62114N for 
power projection applied research, but included no funds for 
the low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
    The committee is aware that cost reduction is important to 
make UAVs affordable at the small unit level. The committee 
notes that the swarm UAV has achieved significant cost 
reduction while maintaining meaningful performance, and has the 
potential to cost-effectively meet close-in surveillance 
requirements.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
62114N for low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle.

Marine mammal research program

    The budget request included $393.6 million in PE 61153N for 
defense research sciences.
    The committee supports the efforts of the Office of Naval 
Research (ONR) to research marine mammals' behavior and the 
broad aspects of the underwater environment. The committee is 
aware of a heightened public concern about underwater acoustic 
effects on these animals. To address these concerns and better 
understand the potential contributions of marine mammals to 
Department of Defense priorities, the committee encourages 
additional behavioral and acoustics research.
    The committee recommends $395.7 million in PE 61153N an 
increase of $2.1 million for marine mammal research.

Mark-48 advanced capability torpedo improvements

    The budget request contained $107.4 million in PE 63561N 
for Advanced Submarine System Development.
    The committee notes that the advanced rapid COTS insertion 
(A-RCI) program, which uses advanced processing builds (APB) 
and a multi-purpose processor (MPP) hardware architecture 
(developed under a small business innovative research (SBIR) 
phase III project) to achieve rapid, cost-effective advances in 
signal processing, has successfully and improved the 
performance of submarine sonar systems in the most cost-
effective manner. In fiscal year 2002 Congress provided funds 
to establish a similar A-RCI program for the MK-48 torpedo, 
leveraging the experience gained in the submarine sonar 
program. If successful, the MK-48, A-RCI program could have 
significantpotential to cost effectively improve performance of 
the MK-48 torpedo in the demanding littoral waters sonar environment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
63561N to continue the program for application of the advanced 
processing build/multipurpose processor technology insertion 
process to the MK-48 ADCAP torpedo.

Medical threat detection system

    The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 64771N for 
medical systems engineering development, but included no funds 
to develop a real-time medical threat detection system.
    The committee is aware of a medical surveillance and 
informatics system which would use advanced signal processing 
methods to routinely collect data and identify deviations for 
normal patterns of illness and detect potential health and 
medical threats. This system would augment existing Navy 
medical surveillance and information capabilities to provide 
real-time surveillance and clinical data for early medical 
threat detection of both naval force and civilian populations 
in support homeland security requirements.
    The committee is supportive of technologies enhancements 
for medical safety of personnel and recommends $10.3 million in 
PE 64771N, an increase of $3.1 million, to establish a real-
time medical threat detection system.

Mine countermeasures mine sweep mid-life assessment and upgrade

    The budget request contained $155.0 million in PE 63502N 
for surface and shallow water mine countermeasures 
demonstration and validation.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63502N to conduct a mid-life assessment of the MCM class Mine 
Sweeping suite and to evaluate potential upgrades to the 
system. This recommendation is a part of the committee's mine 
countermeasures initiative that is discussed in the classified 
annex to this report.

Mobile fire support system

    The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M for 
Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstrations and included 
$3.2 million for emerging fires and targeting technologies.
    The committee is aware of ongoing efforts at the Marine 
Corps Warfighting Lab to develop innovative medium-caliber 
indirect fire support technology to support rapid mobility on 
the battlefield. Known as Mobile Fire Support System (MFSS), 
the 120mm rifled mortar program has exhibited unparalleled 
accuracy, automation, and advanced fire control technology. 
Additional development is required to further lighten the 
system and incorporate other design improvements, such as an 
innovative breach loading capability for extreme firing angles. 
As a result, the committee is encouraged with the potential 
applications of this program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63604M, specifically for the acceleration of MFSS development. 
Furthermore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Army to 
conduct a comprehensive assessment of MFSS to determine 
potential applications in accordance with transformational 
objectives. The committee recommends $1.0 million in PE 63004A 
for this purpose, as reflected elsewhere in this report.

Modeling and simulation of surgical procedures for battlefield trauma

    The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63729N for 
warfighter protection advanced technology development, 
including $7.6 million for development of advanced technology 
for casualty care and management.
    The committee notes advances in the use of modeling and 
simulation for the development of advanced surgical procedures 
for battlefield trauma and the utility of such simulations for 
the training of field medical personnel.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 
63729N for the development of new protocols for modeling 
surgical procedures applicable to battlefield trauma.

Multi-purpose sensor

    The budget request included $65.1 million in PE 63271N for 
radio-frequency (RF) systems advanced development, but no 
funding for the multi-purpose power sensor.
    The committee is aware of a promising new surveillance 
radar detection capability managed by the Office of Naval 
Research. During initial concept of operation validation, the 
sensor demonstrated a capability for detecting the presence and 
intensity of radio frequency energy across a broad spectrum of 
frequencies. Additional field-testing and development is 
necessary to deliver a prototype capable of measuring RF 
exposure with consistent accuracy. The committee supports this 
initiative and recognizes the importance of this type of 
technology for meeting the Navy's future naval capabilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.4 million in PE 
63271N for the multi-purpose sensor.

National shipbuilding research program

    The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 78730N for 
the Navy's National Shipbuilding Research Project Advanced 
Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP ASE).
    The committee recognizes this innovative Navy-industry 
collaboration as a credible, cost-effective high-leverage focal 
point for productivity improvements across all navy ship 
construction programs. The projects in lean manufacturing, 
process re-engineering, and other new construction and ship 
repair technologies funded through the NSRP ASE address both 
prior year shipbuilding cost growth and the cost of future 
ships. Adequately funding this investment now helps to ensure 
that the resultant efficiencies are in place before the pending 
increase in naval ship construction rates needed to re-
capitalize the fleet. This program is a key imperative that 
enables significant reductions in the cost and time required 
for affordable naval ship construction, conversion, and repair.
    The committee recommends $9.9 million in PE 78730N for the 
NSRP ASE and recommends that all funds in this program element 
be focused only on those critical elements of the NSRP ASE 
program that identify and adopt improved business practices 
which maximize actual U.S. Navy ship production within 
available Navy shipbuilding and construction funding. The 
committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Navy to continue 
to place a high priority on the NSRP ASE program by funding it 
in future budget requests at an annual amount equal to or 
greater than the fiscal year 2002 level of $22.4 million.

Naval collaboration tool set

    The budget request contained $43.2 million in PE 65013N for 
Navy information technology development and modernization.
    The committee notes the development and application of 
emerging network centric information systems and collaboration 
tools that use basic web technology and commercial-off-the-
shelf computer and software products to enable operational 
commanders and their staffs to rapidly share battlespace 
information and situational awareness and achieve greater 
mission effectiveness and speed of command and operations. The 
accelerating proliferation and application of information 
sharing and collaboration tools create the opportunity for the 
Navy to capitalize on the experience gained in prototype web-
based information systems being used in the fleet in various 
warfare areas and develop a ``best of breed'', web-based set of 
collaboration tools that will enhance the ability of naval 
commanders and their staffs to operate in a common, integrated 
data environment.
    The committee recommends $48.2 million in PE 65013N, an 
increase of $5.0 million to accelerate the development of a 
naval collaboration toolset that can be used in all warfare 
areas and domains, including building a common undersea picture 
and facilitating collaboration in homeland security and 
counterterrorism.

Navy common command and decision system

    The budget request contained $40.5 million in PE 63582N for 
the Navy's combat systems integration demonstration and 
validation program.
    The common command and decision (CC&D) program is a pre-
planned product improvement (P3I) to the AEGIS Weapons System 
and the Ship Self Defense System MK 2 that replaces the command 
and decision capability presently in these systems with a 
common set of application computer programs and associated 
supporting software infrastructure which will perform selected 
command and decision functions in an identical manner across 
multiple Navy ships.
    The committee notes that the Navy has established a 
collaborative program for development of the CC&D that will 
build on the Multi-purpose Processor/Advanced Processor Build 
techniques developed and proven in the submarine Acoustic Rapid 
Commercial-off-the-shelf Insertion (A-RCI) program. The program 
of record would result in initial introduction of the CC&D 
system in the fleet in 2010; however, the committee notes that 
the Navy has indicated that with appropriate funding the CC&D 
capability could be fielded as early as 2005.
    The committee strongly believes that the Navy should 
accelerate the program for upgrade and insertion of advanced 
technology in combat systems of legacy surface ships of the 
battle fleet. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 
million in PE 63582N to accelerate development of the CC&D 
system.

Navy support of research in oceanography

    The budget request contained $55.2 million in PE 62435N for 
ocean warfighting environment applied research.
    The committee believes that scientific knowledge of the 
oceans and ocean environments makes a critical contribution to 
U.S. national security and commercial vitality. The committee 
notes, that in large part, U.S. scientific expertise in 
oceanography and ocean sciences is sustained by the Office of 
Naval Research and the National Science Foundation partnership 
that provides oversight of the University-National 
Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) fleet.
    The committee recognizes the age of the UNOLS fleet and the 
need for a rational plan for renewal of the fleet over the next 
ten years. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
the Navy to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and House Committee on Armed Services no later than February 1, 
2003, a report detailing specific requirements and outlining a 
specific plan for UNOLS fleet renewal. The report should 
include specific recommendations on the numbers of each class 
of ship to be maintained in the UNOLS fleet, their geographic 
distribution, the schedule for their replacement, and estimates 
of ship construction costs.
    In the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162), 
the committee noted the finding of the National Ocean Research 
Leadership Council's Ocean Research Advisory Panel that one of 
the most pressing concerns in oceanography is the need for 
integrated ocean observation systems. The committee notes 
recommendations that have been made for what it believes to be 
a piecemeal commitment to establishing regional coastal ocean 
observing systems without a clear concept or plan for how these 
regional systems will fit into a national integrated ocean and 
coastal observation system. The committee requests that the 
Secretary of the Navy as in his role as a member of the 
National Ocean Research Leadership Council encourage the 
Council to develop standards and plans for the establishment 
and administration of an integrated ocean and coastal observing 
system that provides for long-term, continuous, and real-time 
observations of the coastal oceans of the United States and to 
report those plans to Congress in the Council's next annual 
report on the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
    The committee recommends $60.2 million in PE 62435N, an 
increase of $5.0 million for the coastal ocean observation 
system. The committee directs that the increase for the coastal 
ocean observation system may not be obligated until 30 days 
after the Council's report detailing the standards and plans 
for the establishment and administration of an integrated ocean 
and coastal observation system is received by the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services.

Navy tactical unmanned aerial vehicle

    The budget request contained $206.4 million in PE 35204N 
for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV), and included 
$43.6 million for vertical TUAV (VTUAV), and $9.1 million for 
the tactical control system (TCS).
    The committee is aware that the Navy terminated the Fire 
Scout VTUAV program and has requested funds for developing the 
Air Force Global Hawk endurance UAV for broad area maritime 
surveillance. The committee notes that though the Navy, which 
is the lead service for the joint tactical control system (TCS) 
development, no longer has a TUAV program, its responsibilities 
for program management for TCS remain. The committee further 
notes that both the Army and Marine Corps are fielding variants 
of the Shadow UAV, are committed to TCS for Shadow, and are 
critically dependent on successful Navy program management of 
TCS.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $43.6 million in PE 
35204N for the Fire Scout VTUAV.

Nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance

    The budget request contained $13.2 million in PE 63254N for 
anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems development, for the 
continued development and evaluation of nonlinear dynamics and 
stochastic resonance (NDSR) for acoustic, magnetic, and other 
ASW sensor and signal processing applications.
    The NDSR program was initiated in 1999 to apply the 
principles and results from the emerging science of nonlinear 
dynamics towards critical problems in shallow water anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) with the goal of producing dramatic 
improvements in ASW system capability. The committee notes that 
the research conducted to date has demonstrated that there is a 
strong potential for greatly increased ASW system performance 
resulting from significantly extended electromagnetic detection 
ranges, enhanced sonar target discrimination and improved noise 
reduction.
    The committee recommends $18.2 million in PE 63254N, an 
increase of $5.0 million to continue the development, 
demonstration, and evaluation of NDSR technology for ASW 
applications.

Ocean modeling for mine and expeditionary warfare

    The budget request contained $43.7 million in PE 63782N for 
mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology development, 
including $19.3 million for advanced surveillance and 
reconnaissance.
    The committee notes the Navy's need for improved tactical 
and strategic information for the littoral battlespace 
environment, improved detection of submarine and mines in 
turbid littoral regions, development of predictive models for 
the littoral environment, and development of improved sensor 
technologies.
    The committee recommends $46.7 million in PE 63782N, an 
increase of $3.0 million for advanced technology development of 
ocean modeling for mine and expeditionary warfare.

Organ transfer technology

    The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63729N for 
warfighter protection advanced technology development. No funds 
were requested for continuation of the organ transfer 
technology program.
    The committee notes continued progress in the development 
of immune therapies by investigators at the Naval Medical 
Research Center that have been shown to prevent the rejection 
of tissue and organ transplants without the need for continuous 
use of immunosuppressive drugs. In fiscal year 2001, the Chief 
of Naval Research initiated a program to capitalize on these 
newly developed methods of treatment. Congress provided $3.0 
million to initiate a clinical trials program in fiscal year 
2001 and $2.0 million to continue the program in fiscal year 
2002.
    The committee notes the initial progress in the clinical 
trials program and plans to bring additional patients into the 
program to broaden the program base. The committee believes 
that the ability to transplant massive tissue segments without 
rejection could revolutionize the treatment of combat 
casualties who suffer significant tissue loss or organ damage 
from blast, missile fragments or burns.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63729N to continue the organ transfer technology clinical 
trials program.

Photovoltaic energy park

    The budget request contained $2.1 million in PE 63725N for 
demonstration and validation of improvements in naval 
facilities.
    The committee notes that rising energy costs, the 
availability and reliability of traditional sources of fossil 
fuels, and increased concerns about the effect of gaseous 
emissions on the environment and fossil fuel pollution have 
fostered great interest in developing renewable energy sources 
such as solar power, hydrogen, and fuel cells. The committee is 
aware of ongoing discussions for the development of prototype 
large-scale solar powered electrical generating systems and 
also understands that public/private partnerships have been 
established for development and evaluation of advanced fuel 
cells. The committee believes that renewable energy from 
electricity generated using solar power and from advanced fuel 
cells could meet the need for reliable and secure sources of 
non-polluting electric power and energy for military forces.
    The committee recommends $4.6 million in PE 63725N, 
including an increase of $2.5 million for development and 
demonstration of renewable energy sources, including solar-
powered electrical generation plants, hydrogen, and fuel cells.

Portable digital precision location system

    The budget request contained $76.6 million in PE 62114N for 
power projection applied research, but included no funds for 
the portable digital precision location system.
    The committee is aware that many shipboard functions are 
being automated, in order to reduce crew size. The committee 
notes that in order to maintain vigilance and combat 
effectiveness under reduced manning, personnel identification 
and location technologies are required.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in PE 
62114N for the portable digital precision location system.

Portable sterile water production device

    The budget request included $19.0 million in PE 63729N for 
warfighter protection advanced technology, but included no 
funds for the portable sterile water production device.
    The committee supports efforts by the Office of Naval 
Research to leverage ongoing research in the field of sterile 
water production and managed by the Army's Medical Research and 
Development Command. The committee understands this research 
promises to produce a lightweight portable remote water-for-
injection purification system for combat casualty care. The 
committee supports additional research on this project to 
facilitate testing of potential military applications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.6 million in PE 
63729N for the portable sterile water production device.

Rapid deployment fortification wall

    The budget request included $51.6 million in PE 63640M for 
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations, but included 
no funding for the rapid deployment fortification wall.
    The committee is aware of a potentially innovative 
technology for improving ground forces barrier defense. The 
Rapid Deployment Fortification Wall is an expandable, 
stackable, modular wall made of tough, lightweight, 
environmentally responsible plastic that can possibly serve as 
a replacement for sandbags. The committee believes that the 
technology can serve to rapidly construct field fortifications 
for bunkers, standoff blast and ballistic protection units, and 
other hardened shelters, and may prove more easily 
transportable and re-usable. The committee urges additional 
testing of this technology, with a particular focus given to 
transport (ground and aerial), manning, live-fire, and 
recycling requirements and capabilities.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 
63640M million for the rapid deployment fortification wall.

Rapid retargeting

    The budget request contained $13.0 million in PE 63739N for 
Navy Logistic Productivity demonstration and validation, 
including $4.9 million for rapid retargeting. The committee 
notes that, within the logistics productivity program, the Navy 
has implemented a rapid retargeting project to address obsolete 
designs in electronic systems.
    The project provides the technology to eliminate obsolete 
components and reduce multiple electronic modules to single 
programmable designs. The committee understands that the rapid 
retargeting process is also being employed to replace different 
types of standard electronic modules with programmable 
commercial-off-the-shelf components, thereby reducing the 
requirements for spare parts on board naval vessels.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63739N for the Navy's rapid retargeting project.

Real-time heart rate variability monitor

    The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for 
aviation survivability, but included no funds for real-time 
heart rate variability monitor.
    The committee notes that real time heart rate variability 
monitor technology can be used to automate protective systems, 
aid in survivor identification and remotely determine 
physiological status.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
63216N for real-time heart rate variability monitor.

Real-time precision tracking radar

    The budget request contained $78.3 million in PE 63114N for 
power projection technology, but included no funds for real-
time precision tracking radar.
    The committee is aware that real-time precision tracking 
radar will provide the warfighter with a lightweight, low-cost, 
high-resolution synthetic aperture radar with moving target 
detection capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 
63114N for real-time precision tracking radar.

SEALs Mark 5 patrol craft modification

    The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology development.
    The committee notes the progress in the Office of Naval 
Research (ONR) program to evaluate the ability of Project M 
technology to mitigate the high shock and vibration experienced 
by the Navy SEALs Mark V patrol craft crew and passengers in 
high-speed special operations. Project M is an active noise and 
vibration cancellation system that was developed in the Navy's 
advanced submarine technology program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
63123N to continue the ONR program for application of Project M 
technology to mitigate physical shock to crew and passengers in 
the Mark V patrol craft.

Shipboard integrated data environment

    The budget request contained $82.5 million in PE 63236N for 
war fighter sustainment advance technology development, 
including $17.0 million for expeditionary development and 
demonstration.
    The committee notes that the installation of fiber optic 
and Ethernet local area networks on ships makes possible not 
only the use of web-based communications and data sharing among 
the various elements in the network on board the ship, but also 
provides the capability for a fully interactive, ship-wide 
integration of physical plant and support operations, 
maintenance, logistics, training, and financial data systems. 
The committee believes that such a capability, coupled to other 
ships of the fleet and the Navy's shore establishment through 
the Navy's Information Technology 21, the Navy-Marine Corps 
Intranet, or the Global Combat Support System could provide a 
fully,integrated operations support and logistics network that 
would significantly improve maintenance and logistical support of the 
ships of the fleet and of forward-deployed shore activities, while 
potentially reducing Navy manpower requirements. The committee also 
notes that various naval operational support, engineering, and 
logistical activities are pursuing individual solutions for creating a 
capability for real-time in-service engineering, logistical, and life 
cycle support to the deployed ships of the fleet
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 
63236N to initiate a program for development and demonstration 
of a prototype shipboard integrated data environment. The 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to establish a 
common program among the various elements of the supporting 
shore establishment for development of the capability for 
providing real-time operational and logistical support to the 
deployed ships of the fleet.

Ship self defense electronic warfare systems

    The budget request contained $28.1 million in PE 64757N for 
the development of engagement and soft kill capabilities of 
ship self defense, of which $25.9 million was for continued 
development of the advanced integrated electronic warfare 
system (AIEWS).
    Subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request, the Department of the Navy notified the committee that 
it had terminated the AIEWS program due to cost overruns and 
continued schedule delays, which have adversely impacted the 
Navy's ability to field urgently needed surface electronic 
warfare improvements, and requested that the all funding for 
AIEWS research, development, test, and evaluation be 
transferred to the AN/SLQ-32, shipboard electronic warfare 
system, to initiate a product improvement program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million in PE 
64757N, including a decrease of $25.9 million to reflect the 
Navy's decision to terminate the AIEWS project and an increase 
of $27.5 for the development of AN/SLQ-32 shipboard electronic 
warfare system improvements.

Ship service fuel cell

    The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology development.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63123N to continue the development of a direct ship service 
fuel cell technology demonstrator for technology validation and 
training of ship systems engineers, designers, system 
integrators, operators and engineering students.

Small combatant craft

    The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
63123N for acquisition, test, and evaluation of a high-speed, 
shallow draft, off-shore capable assault boat for assault and 
troop transport insertion and extraction operations. The 
committee believes that this small combatant craft research 
will provide Marine Corps and Special Operations Forces with 
potential assault craft options by examining trade-offs between 
weight, payload, fuel efficiency and range, durability, and 
tactical survivability.

Sniper rifle improvements

    The budget request included $36.0 million in PE 26623M for 
Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems.
    The committee is aware that rifle accuracy is critical for 
long range snipers, and urges that platoon long-range sniper 
rifle capability be improved for maximum accuracy.
    Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $750 
thousand in PE 26623M for the weapons training battalion 
product improvement of sniper rifles and sniper rifle 
manufacturing capability.

Stationary lighter than air platform

    The budget request contained $174.7 million in PE 26313M 
for Marine Corps communications systems.
    The committee is aware that the Marine Corps stationary 
lighter than air platform (MCSLaP) would provide a means for 
the Marine Corps expeditionary forces to rapidly extend voice 
and data beyond the line-of-sight. The committee notes that the 
Marine Corps is investigating commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 
sensor and payload packages to combine with COTS aerostat 
technology to provide this over-the-horizon capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
26313A for MCSLaP.

Submarine payloads and sensors program

    The budget request contained $107.4 million in PE 63561N 
for development, demonstration, and validation of advanced 
submarine systems
    The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency/Navy submarine payloads and sensors program 
resulted in the development of a number of innovative, but 
realistic payload, sensor and platform concepts that would 
enable a revolutionary expansion of capabilities and allow the 
submarine to play a more decisive role in Joint Force 
operations, especially in the ability to exert greater 
influence over events on shore. The concepts provide a 
potential roadmap to the future through successive 
implementations that would use the Virginia class nuclear 
attack submarine as a baseline point of departure.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 
63561N for follow-on studies and demonstration of advanced 
submarine payloads and sensors capabilities.

Submarine tactical warfare system

    The budget request contained $14.0 million in PE 64562N for 
submarine combat control system (CCS) upgrades to the Mark two 
(MK2) variant.
    These upgrades replace obsolete equipment and converge 
multiple submarine CCSs into a single program, which provides 
component commonality, incorporates Tactical Tomahawk cruise 
missile launch capability, and reduces life cycle costs with an 
open architecture for future system enhancements.
    The committee believes that this system would increase the 
warfighting capability of submarines, and recommends $28.3 
million for PE 64562N, an increase of $14.3 million, to 
accelerate development of CCS MK2 upgrades.

Superconducting DC homopolar motor

    The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for 
force protection advanced technology development, including 
$14.9 million for surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical 
and electrical advanced technology, but included no funding to 
continue the program for development and demonstration of a 
superconducting direct current homopolar motor.
    The committee notes the progress being made in the Office 
of Naval Research project for development of a 5000 shaft-
horsepower superconducting, direct current, homopolar motor 
that may be used in the experimental littoral support craft 
program and could provide a prototype for a full-scale motor in 
the 25,000 to 50,000 shaft horsepower range which could be a 
primary power source for a major combatant or other class ship. 
The committee notes that completion of the program in fiscal 
year 2003 should provide information for the Navy to determine 
if development should continue on this motor for use in future 
integrated electric drive ships.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63123N to complete development and at-sea testing of the DC 
homopolar motor.

Supply chain best practices

    The budget request contained $929 thousand in PE 65804N for 
technical information services that support cooperative 
advanced technology initiatives between the Navy and U.S. 
industry with the goals of improving affordability, and 
reducing the life cycle costs of new and modernized Navy 
systems.
    The committee recommends $6.9 million in PE 65804N, an 
increase of $6.0 million to continue the program for 
development and adoption of industrial and logistical best 
business and management practices among government and industry 
in support of defense systems. The committee encourages the 
Office of Naval Research to include funding for this program in 
future Navy budgets.

Surface navy integrated undersea tactical technology

    The budget request contained $155.0 million in PE 63502N 
for demonstration and validation of surface and shallow water 
mine countermeasures.
    The committee notes that in order to effectively conduct 
the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and mine warfare (MIW) 
missions, naval forces must be able to reliably detect, locate, 
and target enemy mines and submarines, respond rapidly and 
decisively to these hostile contacts, employ integrated ASW and 
MIW systems with very high probability of neutralizing the 
target and provide all commanders with a common under sea 
picture of the undersea battle space. This requirement places a 
premium on development of a common undersea picture that 
includes threat and environmental characterization along with 
the undersea warfare platforms and sensors.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63502N for development of the common undersea picture.

Target location designated handoff system

    The budget request contained $36.0 million in PE 26623M for 
Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems, and 
included $14.6 million for the Marine Corps ground weaponry 
product improvement program, but included no funds for the 
target location designated handoff system.
    The committee is aware that it is imperative to continue to 
upgrade existing targeting capabilities to ensure 
interoperability with the emerging joint and Marine Corps 
tactical command, control, communications and computer 
architecture.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in PE 
26623M for the target location designated handoff system.

Vacuum electronics

    The budget request contained $56.3 million in PE 62271N for 
applied research in radio frequency technology, including $4.5 
million for applied research in radio frequency vacuum 
electronics power amplifiers.
    The committee report on H.R. 1402 (H. Rept. 106-162) noted 
the committee's support for a robust vacuum electronics 
research and development program in the Department of Defense 
and other federal agencies. The committee has reviewed the 
results of the Secretary of the Navy's report to Congress on 
the DOD vacuum electronics program and the DOD's April 2001 
Technology Area Review and Assessment (TARA) on creating a 
balanced tri-service investment strategy for RF vacuum 
electronics and solid state power technologies. The committee 
endorses the TARA views on the criticality of support for both 
vacuum electronics and solid-state power technologies. The 
committee notes the TARA review's recommendations for increased 
funding in the tri-service vacuum electronics program and for 
establishment of a combined tri-service initiative to rapidly 
advance wide bandgap semiconductor device technology to enable 
advanced military radar and other systems requiring power 
electronics in the mid-to-long term. The committee is 
disappointed that the Department of Defense has not implemented 
the recommendations from the TARA review.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
62271N for applied research in vacuum electronics, an increase 
of $8.0 million. The committee expects the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) through the 
Director of Defense Research and Engineering to ensure a 
balanced investment strategy for vacuum electronics and solid 
state power technologies that will meet DOD requirements for 
current and future systems that use radio frequency power 
electronics.

Water purification-expeditionary warfare

    The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M for 
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration, but included no 
funds for water purification-expeditionary warfare.
    The committee is aware that providing an adequate supply of 
water to deployed forces represents the number one logistical 
problem of expeditionary warfare. Expeditionary missions around 
the world must deal with ground water that has contaminates 
which range from high salinity to oil pollution. The water 
purification-expeditionary warfare program will conduct a field 
demonstration of advanced technology to show increased 
performance and/or reduced cost for water purification and 
offers to significantly upgrade existing water purification 
systems with advanced technology.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2 million in PE 
63640M for the water purification-expeditionary warfare 
program.

Wide band gap semiconductor materials

    The budget request contained $5.5 million in PE 61153N for 
basic research and $30.0 million in PE 62712E and $3.5 million 
in PE 62271N for applied research in wide band gap 
semiconductor electronics.
    Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Action 
for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) required the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out a cooperative program to 
develop and demonstrate advanced technologies and concepts for 
future Naval radar systems and other applications, with 
particular emphasis on development of high frequency and high 
power wide band gap semiconductor materials and devices. The 
provision also required the DDRE to report to the congressional 
defense committees on the implementation of the plan, including 
identification of the funding required to carry out the fiscal 
year 2003 program and for the future years defense program. The 
committee has not yet received the DDRE's report.
    The committee continues to place a high priority on the 
development of the technology for advanced wide band gap 
semiconductor materials and devices for future naval radar and 
other applications. The committee notes the results of the 
December 2000 Special Technology Review on Radio Frequency 
Applications for Wide Band Gap Technology by the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics that recommended an increased science and technology 
investment in wide band gap materials, devices, circuits, and 
packaging which would total approximately $50 million a year 
over a five-year period beginning in fiscal year 2002, in order 
to develop the technologies necessary to field advanced radar 
systems in time to meet the Navy's and the Department of 
Defense requirements in 2015.
    The committee recommends a total of $47.0 million for basic 
and applied research in wide band gap semiconductor materials 
technology, an increase of $8.0 million to the budget request 
and including $30 million in PE 62712N, $5.5 million in PE 
61153N, and $11.5 million in PE 62271N.

                            Air Force RDT&E

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $17,601.2 million for Air 
Force RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of 
$18,803.2 million, an increase of $1,202.0 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Air 
Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major 
changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 
table.

                       Items of Special Interest

Advanced aluminum aerostructures

    The budget request contained $22.3 million in PE 63211F for 
aerospace technology development, including $9.6 million for 
continued development of advanced aluminum aerostructures.
    The committee is aware that advanced aluminum 
aerostructures have demonstrated significant cost, weight, and 
production process reductions for the C-17 and C-130 aircraft, 
and offer similar improvements for future programs such as F-22 
and Joint Strike Fighter.
    The committee recommends $26.3 million in PE 63211F, an 
increase of $4.0 million for continuation of advanced aluminum 
aerostructures.

Advanced concept ejection seat II improvement

    The budget request contained $925 thousand in PE 64706F for 
development of aircraft life support systems, but included no 
funds for the advanced concept ejection seat (ACES) II pre-
planned product improvement (PPPI) program. The ACES II is the 
pilot ejection seat used on all Department of the Air Force 
combat aircraft except the B-52 bomber.
    The committee understands that Air Force pilots continue to 
experience injuries from high-speed ejections, which can be 
rectified by inflatable restraints and improved parachute 
design. The committee further understands that an improved 
modular ACES II seat design has the potential to both reduce 
maintenance requirements, thereby lowering life-cycle costs, 
and to accommodate smaller-sized females and larger-sized 
males.
    To address these improvements in the ACES II, the committee 
recommends $8.0 million in PE 64706F, an increase of $7.1 
million, for continuation of the ACES II PPPI program and 
encourages the Air Force to continue to provide funds for the 
ACES II PPPI in its future years defense program.

Advanced thermal protection systems

    The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 62102F for 
materials, but included no funds for advanced thermal 
protection systems (TPS).
    The committee is aware that current thermal protection 
materials are derivatives of materials designed specifically 
for long range missile applications and do not provide adequate 
protection for current and emerging requirements to address 
prolonged, high temperature stresses of in-atmosphere 
hypersonic flight. Advanced TPS materials have demonstrated the 
capability to provide enhanced protection, as well as weight 
reduction, and offer solutions for aerostructures in 
development and planned for the future.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 
62102F for advanced TPS.

Aging landing gear life extension program

    The budget request contained $19.9 million in PE 65011F for 
development of products and services to improve the performance 
of aging aircraft systems but included no funds for the aging 
landing gear life extension (ALGLE) program.
    The ALGLE program addresses the operational, safety and 
maintenance consequences of increased mishaps resulting from 
landing gear failures as well as low mission capable rates for 
KC-135, C-130, C-5 and F-16 aircraft that are attributable to 
either unavailable or unreliable landing gear assets. The 
committee notes that the ALGLE program is prototyping new 
landing gear component modifications, developing new repair 
techniques, and exploiting new technologies. The committee 
understands that these efforts have already resulted in life 
cycle cost reductions of over $62.0 million, and that the 
program has the potential to further reduce life cycle costs by 
over $400.0 million.
    Accordingly, the committee believes that this program 
should continue to address the Air Force's aging landing gear 
problems in fiscal year 2003 and in subsequent years. The 
committee recommends $34.9 million in PE 65011F, an increase of 
$15.0 million, for continuation of the ALGLE program.

Air combat training ranges

    The budget request contained $13.5 million in PE 64735F for 
combat training range development but included no funds to 
integrate tactical data information and ground tracking in the 
Nellis Air Combat Training System (NACTS).
    The NACTS, configured with instrumentation to determine 
aerial combat outcomes, is used to train aircrews and ground-
based participants for combat. The committee understands that 
the joint tactical information distribution system (JTIDS), an 
aircraft data system to exchange time-critical targeting data, 
will be integrated into the NACTS in fiscal year 2002, but that 
the NACTS does not have the capability to assess the 
effectiveness of JTIDS uses in NACTS tactics training scenarios 
for aircrew and ground participants.
    The committee recommends $16.5 million in PE 64735F, an 
increase of $3.0 million, to integrate tactical data 
information and ground tracking into the NACTS.

Air Force manufacturing technology program

    The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 78011F for 
the Air Force's Industrial Preparedness Manufacturing 
Technology program, a reduction of $21.4 million from the 
amount provided in fiscal year 2002.
    The committee is concerned by the low level of fiscal year 
2003 funding requested by the Air Force for the Manufacturing 
Technology (ManTech) program. The ManTech Program has an 
outstanding record of strengthening industrial base capability, 
shortening lead times for manufacturing applications and 
defense products, improving weapon system affordability, and 
speeding the transition and insertion of vital technology out 
of the laboratory and into operational use for the warfighter. 
The basic capability of the industrial base to produce military 
weapons is supported strongly by commercial investments, but 
military-unique industrial capabilities required to elevate our 
weapon systems above those of potential adversaries depend on 
military investment. The ManTech Program is a critical element 
of the investment needed to transform the industrial capability 
to support the transformation of the armed forces. The 
requested budget of $37.6 million is far short of the level 
needed to support, sustain, and enable such a transformation.
    The committee strongly recommends that the Secretary of the 
Air Force restore the program to a funding level of at least 
$70 million for fiscal year 2004, and to consider treating the 
ManTech Program as an Air Force corporate investment program 
with annual funding of at least 1 percent of the total funds 
budgeted for Air Force Research, Development, Test, and 
Evaluation.

Air Force/national systems cooperation

    The budget request contained $8.8 million in PE 63856F for 
Air Force/national systems cooperation.
    The committee is aware that the Air Force and national 
systems management are now combined within the office of the 
Under Secretary of the Air Force, and that therefore 
cooperation should result in reduced costs and should not 
require additional funding.
    The committee recommends $2.8 million in PE 63856F, a 
decrease of $6.0 million for Air Force/national systems 
cooperation.

Ceramic matrix composites

    The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 63112F for 
advanced materials for weapons systems, but included no funding 
for ceramic matrix composites.
    The committee notes that ceramic matrix composite materials 
offer significant weight reduction and enhanced durability for 
high performance jet engines used in the F-22 and Joint Strike 
Fighter.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63112F for continued development of ceramic matrix composites.

Compass Call upgrades

    The budget request contained $3.9 million in PE 27253F for 
Compass Call, and included $2.5 million to develop and 
integrate new technologies to sustain Compass Call.
    The committee notes that Compass Call is the Air Force's 
airborne wide area coverage offensive counter information 
system. The committee is aware that the Tactical Radio 
Acquisition and Countermeasures Subsystem (TRACS) represents 
the next evolutionary capability increase in receiver/
countermeasures capability for Compass Call.
    The committee recommends $11.9 million in PE 27253F, an 
increase of $8.0 million for TRACS.

Electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic radar target 
        generator

    The budget request contained $46.3 million in PE 64759F for 
major T&E investment, but included no funds for electronic 
countermeasures upgrades for the generic radar target generator 
(RTG).
    The committee is aware test ranges and training ranges are 
constantly challenged to provide operationally realistic threat 
environments for electronic countermeasures. The RTG will 
provide threat representative aircraft signatures and high 
fidelity models to represent the environments the warfighter is 
likely to encounter on today's battlefields.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
64759F for electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic 
RTG.

Electronic warfare development

    The budget request contained $65.1 million in PE 64270F for 
electronic warfare (EW) development, of which $10.6 million was 
included for the precision location and identification (PLAID) 
technology program, but included no funds for the development 
of the comet infra-red (IR) countermeasures system.
            Precision location and identification
    The PLAID technology program will improve aircrew 
situational awareness by providing accurate ground emitter 
location and unambiguous identification. The committee 
understands that the budget request for fiscal year 2003 does 
not provide for the development of a PLAID capability that 
would pass ground emitter target locations to other systems nor 
provide for risk-reduction flight testing of this capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $14.7 million for 
this purpose.
            Comet infra-red countermeasures system
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a 
procurement increase for the comet IR countermeasures system, 
but understands that further testing is required in fiscal year 
2003 to develop the comet IR countermeasures production 
configuration. Since the Air Force Chief of Staff included 
comet IR countermeasures among his top unfunded priorities for 
fiscal year 2003, the committee recommends an increase of $5.2 
million for this purpose.
    The committee recommends $85.0 million in PE 64270F, an 
increase of $19.9 million.

Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle

            Air Force
    The budget contained $309.0 million in PE 35205F for 
endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, and included $306.0 for 
Global Hawk high altitude endurance (HAE) unmanned aerial 
vehicle (UAV). The Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) 
contained an additional $128.3 million for Global Hawk and 
associated sensor electronics development.
    The committee notes the recent operational success of 
Global Hawk and supports introduction of this new capability. 
However, the committee is aware that the joint engineering team 
is methodically re-baselining the Global Hawk program and 
recognizes that this process must be thorough and complete to 
form the basis for a strong, well-structured production phase. 
The committee recognizes that while the air vehicle definition 
may be more mature than sensor packages, determining the proper 
sensors is fundamental to the future success of Global Hawk. 
The committee recalls the problems associated with other 
programs making the transition from an advanced concept 
technology demonstration to formal acquisition, and believes 
that those experiences have shown that extra attention to 
detail is important as the transition to acquisition is made. 
Some Global Hawk documentation required by the DOD 5000 series 
acquisition regulations is either incomplete or in various 
stages of development, and must be completed.
    The committee believes that the proper goal for the Global 
Hawk acquisition program should be to expeditiously field a 
meaningful operational capability for the warfighter. However, 
determination of a proper operational capability for Global 
Hawk that fits within the overall intelligence, reconnaissance 
and surveillance architecture, is essential to successful 
production.
    The committee believes that cost reduction efforts are 
essential to allow fielding Global Hawk in meaningful numbers 
and notes that while production rate affects average per unit 
cost, the proper design, robust but not gold plated, has an 
even greater potential to limit cost and schedule growth. 
Industrial facilities can be efficiently sized for a particular 
rate, given stable production goals. The Secretary of the Air 
Force should ensure that industrial production facilities are 
sized at an appropriate and realistic capacity, based on a firm 
commitment to a sustained rate of production, rather than an 
overly optimistic estimate that leads to unwarranted investment 
in production facilities.
    The committee also believes that the Air Force should make 
maximum appropriate use of off-the-shelf technology and open 
standards in order to minimize system costs and allow 
competition, rather than engaging in prolonged development that 
slightly improves performance while causing great expense and 
years of potential delay. The committee is also aware of the 
Navy's new UAV concept exploration effort examining Global Hawk 
and, should the Navy decide to use Global Hawk, believes that 
the sensors and platform should remain common with the Air 
Force variant unless modifications are justified as necessary 
to meet mission requirements.
    The committee notes that basing and infrastructure 
development are also cost drivers and must be developed with 
maximum commonality and minimum duplication, again based on a 
realistic estimate of procurement numbers. The committee notes 
that shared Air Force-Navy Global Hawk basing facilities might 
offer cost savings should the Navy decide, after its broad area 
maritime surveillance (BAMS) experimentation, to acquire Global 
Hawk.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to re-
baseline the Global Hawk by December 31, 2002. This new 
baseline should incorporate a clear roadmap of technology 
insertion leading to an objective configuration. The re-
baselining shall be established on realistic per unit costs, 
with and without sensors; address the evolutionary growth 
structure or ``spiral'' cost, schedule objectives, and 
milestone decisions.
    The committee recommends the budget request for Global 
Hawk.
            Navy
    The budget request contained $206.4 million in PE 35204N 
and included $152.0 million for Global Hawk and $28.3 million 
in the DERF fiscal year 2003 for sensor development.
    The committee is very concerned that the Navy enters the 
Global Hawk program with clear maritime requirements and notes 
that there is currently no mission needs statement, no analysis 
of multiple concepts, and no specific exit criteria. The 
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy not to obligate 
more that 20 percent of the Navy's Global Hawk funding until 
these requirements have been met for the Broad Area Maritime 
Surveillance (BAMS) Phase I demonstration in accordance with 
DOD 5000 series.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit 
the acquisition strategy for the BAMS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
(UAV) to the congressional defense and intelligence committees.
    The committee recommends $180.3 million in PE 35204N for 
Global Hawk, including $28.3 million for sensor development in 
the DERF for fiscal year 2003.

GPS-II program adjustment

    The budget request contained $324.1 million in PE 35165F 
for the NAVSTAR global positioning system (GPS).
    The committee is aware that recent program adjustments have 
eliminated funds included to modify future GPS-II satellites to 
increase power.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $275.1 million in PE 
35165F, a decrease of $49.0 million for GPS-II.

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

    The budget request contains $63.0M in PE 63851F for the 
development of guidance, propulsion, and re-entry vehicle 
technology demonstration and validation programs.
    The committee is concerned that a number of Air Force 
science and technology efforts to develop space vehicle and 
missile technologies are not being effectively coordinated and 
tested.
    Therefore, the committee recommends that the demonstration 
and validation efforts for development of guidance, propulsion, 
re-entry vehicles be executed by the Ballistic Missile 
Technology office and the Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, and 
demonstration/validation of advanced technologies and new 
capabilities be executed by the Space and Missile System Center 
Detachment Rocket Program.

High-accuracy network determination system

    The budget request contained $6.5 million in PE 63444F for 
the Maui space surveillance system, but included no funds for 
the high-accuracy network determination system (HANDS).
    The committee understands the importance of maintaining 
space situational awareness to ensure collision avoidance of 
national assets and space debris. The committee is aware that 
potential collisions can unduly draw attention from mission 
space-based national requirements. Accurate determination of 
target satellite orbits, neighboring satellites and debris is 
key to collision avoidance operations and threat management. 
HANDS can reduce the potential for collision by reducing errors 
in the current space-object maintenance catalog. The committee 
supports further development of this initiative.
    The committee recommends $11.5 million in PE 63444F, an 
increase of $5.0 million for the high-accuracy network 
determination system.

Identification of time critical programs

    The budget request contained $34.3 million in PE 63789F for 
C3I advanced development, including $4.2 million for continued 
development of identification of time critical programs.
    The committee is aware of the importance of reducing the 
sensor-to-shooter engagement time for hi-value, short-duration 
battlefield targets and fully supports continued development of 
technologies for this purpose.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE 
63789F for accelerated testing and evaluation of time critical 
target identification.

Information operation technology and fusion initiative

    The budget request included $9.4 million in PE 33140F for 
the information systems security program, but included no funds 
for the information operation technology and fusion initiative.
    The committee notes that the Information Systems Security 
Program conducts research and development of information 
protection tools and transitions them to operational systems. 
The committee also notes that the effort concentrates on 
transitioning state of the art information operation 
capabilities to the warfighter by demonstrating and validating 
advanced technology necessary to address specific deficiencies 
and shortfalls identified by the Air Intelligence Agency. The 
committee further notes that the aim of the program is to 
expedite technology to the field through rapid prototyping.
    The committee believes deficiencies exist in the area of 
information operations, information assurance, information 
fusion, and information security. The committee understands 
that advanced development can eventually eliminate these 
deficiencies, particularly when applied in a collaborative 
program utilizing industry, academia, and government resources. 
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to 
pursue this initiative.
    The committee recommends $12.4 million in PE 33140F, an 
increase of $3.0 million, for the information operation 
technology and fusion initiative.

Information security and intrusion detection development

    The budget request included $34.3 million in 63789F for 
command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) 
advanced development, and included $7.0 million for battlespace 
information exchange and $9.3 million for dynamic aerospace 
command and control execution.
    The committee is concerned with the growing threat to 
information exchange procedures, supports efforts to develop 
innovative security measures, and applauds Air Force efforts to 
develop and test components of a secure, deployable information 
grid. The committee understands that technology developments 
include an information assurance decision support system, 
advanced information management, multi-level secure 
communications, secure survivable networks, and communications 
transmission systems.
    The committee is also aware of efforts to develop an 
intrusion defense capability as a means for detecting and 
defeating hostile forces trying to embed digital information as 
a means of deception. The committee is supportive of these and 
other efforts aimed at reinforcing information integrity 
activities and urges further investment in these areas.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63789F for development, product tests, and the fielding of 
intrusion defenses and system security tools.

Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology

    The budget request contained $53.6 million in PE 62500F for 
Air Force Multi-disciplinary Space Technology, including $19.6 
million for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology 
and $76.6 million in PE 62114N for Navy Power Projection 
Applied Research, including $13.6 million for integrated high 
payoff rocket propulsion technology.
    The committee notes the improvements in large and small 
rocket engine propulsion capability made available through the 
Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) 
program and supports the increased emphasis placed on IHPRPT by 
the Department of Defense and the Air Force.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
62500F and $5.0 million in PE 62114N for integrated high payoff 
rocket propulsion technology.

Joint air to surface standoff missile

    The budget request contained $42.1 million in PE 27325F for 
the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), including 
$19.6 million for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion 
technology.
    The committee notes the recent series of successful JASSM 
flight tests and is aware of Air Force efforts to extend the 
missile range to provide longer stand-off and sustain or 
improve accuracy. The committee is encouraged by the proposed 
plan to develop the extended range segment of the JASSM 
program, and supports acceleration of that effort.
    The committee recommends $52.1 million in PE 27325F, an 
increase of $10.0 million for accelerated testing and 
evaluation of and extended range JASSM.

Joint integrated satellite communications technology

    The budget request contained $148.9 million in PE 64479F 
for Mistar LDR/MDR satellite communications, but included no 
funds for joint integrated satellite communications (SATCOM) 
technology (JIST).
    The committee is aware that JIST is a web-based satellite 
communications management technology that utilizes the 
Department's existing internet protocol router to expand the 
flexibility and efficiency of military satellite 
communications. The committee notes that development systems 
like JIST, based on common standards, is key to increased 
satellite communications efficiency.
    The committee recommends $157.0 million in PE 64479F, an 
increase of $8.1 million for JIST.

Joint services work station

    The budget request contained $55.5 million in PE 27581F for 
Joint STARS, including $19.3 million for the Joint Services 
Work Station.
    The committee is aware of the importance of maintaining 
multi-service interoperability for all supporting elements of 
the Joint STARS systems.
    The committee recommends $68.2 million in PE 27581F, 
including $32.0 million for the continued development of the 
Joint Services Work Station, an increase of $12.7 million.

Laser induced surface improvement technology

    The budget request contained $46.3 million in PE 64759F for 
major test and evaluation investment, but included no funds for 
laser induced surface improvement technology (LISI).
    The committee is aware that the LISI technology has been 
demonstrated to significantly extend product life by improving 
surface properties and increasing resistance to the effects of 
wear and corrosion. The committee notes that the technology has 
reached prototype development stage for demonstration projects 
on military components.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
64759F to complete the prototype processing facility to move 
laser induced surface improvement technology into fielded 
applications.

Lithium ion battery development

    The budget request contained $107.7 million in PE 62203F 
for aerospace propulsion, and included $9.9 million for lithium 
ion battery development.
    The committee notes the development of improved batteries 
and fuel cells continues to afford significant savings and 
enhancement in weapons and communicationsystem. The next 
generation, high-energy/density, lithium ion battery will enable 
development and production of smaller, lighter aircraft, space 
vehicles, and hand held electronic equipment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
62203F for continued development of the lithium ion battery.

Low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling truck propulsion

    The budget request contained $35.8 million in PE 78611F for 
support systems development, but included no funds for low 
emission/efficient hybrid fuel truck propulsion.
    The committee is informed that existing Air Force aviation 
refueling trucks operate short distances in a manner that 
causes high fuel usage, high emissions and decreased engine 
life. The committee notes that a heavy-duty hybrid drive 
technology has been developed for aviation refueling trucks.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 
78611F for installation and test of low emission/efficient 
hybrid aviation refueling truck propulsion.

Metals affordability initiative

    The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 62102F and 
$21.1 million in PE 63112F for materials development, and $37.6 
million in PE 78011F for industrial preparedness, but included 
no funds for continuation of the metals affordability 
initiative (MAI).
    The committee is aware that the MAI represents a unique 
government-industry collaboration to provide significant 
improvements in the manufacturing of specialty aerospace 
metals.
    The committee fully supports the continuation of the MAI 
and recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62102F, an 
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63112F, and an increase of $3.0 
million in PE 78011F for acceleration of the initiative.

Missile technology demonstration

    The budget request contained $16.2 million in PE 65860F for 
the rocket systems launch program, but included no funds for 
continuation of the missile technology demonstration (MTD-3b).
    The committee is aware that the MTD-3b continues to mature 
technologies that support high speed weapon system platforms.
    The committee recommends $27.2 million in PE 65860F, an 
increase of $11.0 million for MTD-3b.

Network centric collaborative targeting

    The budget request contained no funding in PE 35207F for 
manned reconnaissance systems.
    The committee recognizes the Air Force's thrust towards 
network centric warfare, but notes that the Air Force requested 
no money towards this effort.
    The committee recommends $20.0 million in PE 35207F, an 
increase of $20.0 million for network centric collaborative 
targeting advance concepts technology demonstration.

Pulse detonation engine

    The budget request contained $107.7 million in PE 62203F 
for propulsion development, including $16.0 million for 
continued development of the pulse detonation engine (PDE).
    The committee is aware that the PDE offers significant cost 
and performance advantages over conventional engines
    The committee supports Air Force plans to fabricate and 
test a flight worthy prototype and recommends an increase of 
$6.0 million in PE 62203F for accelerated testing and 
evaluation of the PDE.

Rapid attack support system

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 27027F for 
continued development of the rapid attack support system.
    The committee is aware that software development has 
progressed to the point that many of the systems in the DOD 
Joint Technical Architecture can be tied together to enhance 
the process of rapid targeting and attack.
    The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 27027F for 
transition of the rapid attack support system to production.

Scorpius

    The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 63401F for 
advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for 
Scorpius.
    The committee is aware that Scorpius development responds 
to the Air Force mission need statement for operationally 
responsive, affordable space lift. The committee notes that 
Scorpius had a successful sub-orbital launch on the first 
attempt.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 
63401F for Scorpius.

Space Technology

    The Air Force's budget includes significant out-year 
funding for Minuteman IV and future space vehicle development 
activities. To minimize development costs, common technologies 
and requirements for ballistic missiles and space vehicles 
should be shared between the Air Force and the Navy. To assure 
resources are properly focused on future strategic system 
development, the committee recommends that the Air Force ensure 
that efforts of the Space and Missile Systems Center and the 
Air Force ResearchLaboratory are combined so that both 
development and test facilities address technology requirements for 
future strategic missile and space systems in a coordinated fashion.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 
63311F, Ballistic Missile Technology, and $1.0 million in PE 
62201F, Aerospace Propulsion, to coordinate future missile and 
space systems requirements and technology.

Streaker small launch vehicle

    The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 63401F for 
advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for the 
Streaker small launch vehicle.
    The committee is aware that space launch remains a very 
expensive portion of the space program. The committee notes 
that a low cost launch technology is being developed for micro 
and nano satellites, which offers potential to significantly 
reduce, associated launch costs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63401F for the Streaker small launch vehicle.

Super wideband compressive receiver

    The budget contained $4.5 million in PE 63260F for 
intelligence advanced development, but included no funds for 
super wideband compressive receiver (SWCR) technology.
    The committee is aware SWCR technology has near-term 
potential to greatly improve receiver capability for multiple 
applications. SWCR technology combined with software 
reprogrammability may also offer rapid adaptation to new wave 
forms.
    The committee recommends $5.5 million in PE 63260F, an 
increase of $1.0 for million SWCR.

Synthetic theatre operations research model

    The budget request contained $21.9 million in PE 27601F for 
Air Force Modeling and Simulation, but included no funds for 
the synthetic theatre operations research model (STORM).
    The committee is aware that the Joint Model Transition 
(JMT) project has been created to support the development and 
upgrade of research and development models, and notes that 
STORM offers the potential to be an excellent candidate for the 
first year of the JMT initiative.
    The committee recommends $23.9 million in PE 27601F, an 
increase of $2.0 million for the continued development of STORM 
within the JMT project.

Texas regional institute for environmental studies

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 63723F for 
environmental engineering technology.
    The committee continues to support the ongoing Texas 
Regional Institute for Environmental Studies (TRIES) research 
and development of environmental technologies to protect 
military water supply systems. The committee encourages further 
work in this area, and remains supportive of the cooperative 
partnership arrangement between TRIES and the Air Force.
    The committee recommends $3 million in PE 63723F for TRIES 
to demonstrate new deployable bioreactor technologies.

Thermal management for space structures

    The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 62102F for 
materials, and more than $8.0 million the thermal management 
for aerospace structures.
    The committee is aware that the Office of Naval Research 
and the Air Force Research Lab have demonstrated the potential 
to improve performance and reduce weight on military aircraft 
and spacecraft by using ultra-high thermal conductivity carbon 
fibers for selected electronics/avionics components and 
structures. The Air Force launched a program in this area in 
fiscal year 2000, and significant progress has been made. The 
committee understands that the Air Force has qualified use of 
these carbon fibers for manufacturing compact electronic 
enclosures for satellite passive cooling systems. The committee 
supports further development in this initiative and encourages 
the qualification of these composite materials for applications 
across all fleets of military aircraft.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million in PE 
62102F for continued development of thermal management for 
space structures.

Thrust vector control and infrared signature reduction

    The budget request contained $85.7 million in PE 63216F for 
aerospace propulsion and power technology, but included no 
funding for thrust vector control and infrared signature 
reduction.
    The committee is aware that the Air Force is experimenting 
with a propulsion flow control to reduce the heat signature of 
fighter jets that will reduce vulnerability to heat seeking 
missiles.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63216F for continued development of thrust vector control and 
infrared signature reduction.

Upper atmospheric and astronomical training

    The budget request contained $219.1 million in PE 61102F 
for Defense Research Sciences, but included no funding for 
enhanced upper atmospheric and astronomical training.
    The committee is aware that the Air Force has provided 
extensive scientific training in upper atmospheric and 
astronomical research to both government and non-government 
audiences. However, the training facilities are limited in 
capacity and in need of expansion and enhancement. The 
committee notes that an Air Force investment of $5.0 million 
for enhanced scientific research equipment would be combined 
with non-government funding to complete the project.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for 
enhanced upper atmospheric and astronomical training.

Vacuum pump

    The budget request contained $39.9 million in PE 62605F for 
Directed Energy Technology, but included no funds for the 
vacuum pump.
    The committee is aware of the potential benefits afforded 
by upgrades to vacuum pump systems at Air Force laser 
facilities, and recommends $42.25 million in PE 62605F, an 
increase of $2.25 million for vacuum pump system upgrades.

Wind-corrected munitions dispenser development

    The budget request contained no funds in PE 64600F for 
munitions dispenser development.
    The committee understands that the Air Force intends to 
terminate the Joint Stand Off Weapon ``B'' variant dispenser 
weapon in fiscal year 2003 due to technical delays and cost 
increases.
    Accordingly, the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified a 
$16.2 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement to extend 
the range of the unpowered wind corrected munitions dispenser 
(WCMD) by developing a deployable wing system for the WCMD, 
which would enable the weapon to glide for an extended range 
(ER). The committee notes the effective use of the gravity fall 
WCMD in Operation Enduring Freedom and believes a WCMD-ER 
enhancement would provide an additional stand off weapon 
capability within the Air Force's war reserve munition stock, 
and, recommends $16.2 million in PE 64600F for development of 
the WCMD-ER.

                           Defense-Wide RDT&E

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $16,613.6 million for Defense-
Wide RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $17,191.2 
million, an increase of $309.1 million and the transfer of 
$268.6M million for missile defense programs from Army RDT&E to 
Defense-wide RDT&E.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 
Defense-Wide RDT&E program are identified in the table below. 
Major changes to the Defense-Wide request are discussed 
following the table.

                       Items of Special Interest

Advanced sensor applications program

    The budget request included $16.0 million in PE 63714D8Z 
for the advanced sensor applications program.
    The Committee is concerned that promising projects executed 
by the Navy's (PMA264) program office are appreciably under 
funded. Additional details are contained in the classified 
annex to this report.
    Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 63714D8Z for the advanced sensor applications 
program.

Aircraft affordability initiative

    The budget request included $10.3 million in PE 64805D8Z 
for the Department of Defense Commercial Operations and Support 
Savings Initiative (COSSI), and included no funds for the 
digital electronic warfare (EW) aircraft affordability 
initiative. The committee notes that the stated goal of COSSI 
is to adapt commercial technologies to reduce operations and 
support (O&S) costs and to improve overall weapons systems 
performance.
    The committee remains supportive of the EW digital product 
improvement program (PIP) based on its promise to substantially 
decrease high-performance aircraft O&S costs and increase 
combat performance. The committee understands the potential 
benefits associated with a reduction in both weight and power 
consumption requirements aboard such aircraft, and notes the 
potential savings associated with a wholesale conversion to a 
digital EW receiver. The committee notes significant progress 
to date in the requisite software development, design, and 
testing of a digital receiver and two associated modules for 
the F-22 aircraft. The committee supports a continuation of 
this effort, and encourages implementation of design 
verification testing and Lot 4 insertion in the F-22 program.
    The committee recommends $18.3 million in PE 64805D8Z, an 
increase of $8.0 million, for the digital EW PIP aircraft 
affordability initiative.

Backscatter mobile truck system

    The budget request contained $33.6 million in PE 63228D8Z 
for physical security equipment, but included no funds for the 
backscatter mobile truck system.
    The committee is aware that the backscatter mobile truck 
system is a commercial-off-the-shelf system capable of 
detecting organic materials in shipping containers and 
vehicles.
    The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE 
63228D8Z for the backscatter mobile truck system

Ballistic missile defense

    The budget request contained $7,763.0 million for ballistic 
missile defense and related activities, $12.6 million less than 
the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The request 
included $6,690.7 million in research, development, test and 
evaluation (RDT&E) and $23.4 million in military construction 
for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), as well as $312.3 million 
in Army RDT&E, $72.9 million in Defense-Wide RDT&E, and $663.7 
million in Army missile procurement.
    The committee recommends $7,784.0 million for ballistic 
missile defense, an increase of $21.0 million. The committee 
authorizes $7,003.7 million for MDA, reflecting transfers of 
$117.7 million for the Medium Extended Air Defense System 
(MEADS) program from the Army PE 63869A to the MDA PE 63881C 
and $150.8 million for Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) 
improvements from the Army PE 64865A to MDA in PE 64865C, and a 
net increase of $21.0 million. The transfers are consistent 
with the committee's view, as expressed in Section 23X, that 
responsibility for research and development related to 
improvements of fielded systems should remain with MDA to 
ensure component integration and interoperability with the 
ballistic missile defense ``system of systems''.
            Silicon carbide based wide bandgap technology
    The budget request contained $121.8 million in PE 63175C 
for advanced technology development, but included no funds for 
silicon carbide based wide bandgap technology.
    The committee remains concerned about the apparently small 
fraction of MDA's budget devoted to technology development (1.8 
percent in the request), noting that these activities lead to 
evolving capabilities for countering advanced threats. The 
committee understands that significant program specific 
technology development occurs within individual programs, and 
believes that MDA should establish a means to more fully 
account for its technology investments across-the-board.
    The committee recommends $127.3 million for technology, an 
increase of $5.5 million for development of silicon carbide 
based wide bandgap semi-conductor technology. Wide bandgap 
technology finds wide application in advanced power 
electronics, particularly ground based radar and next 
generation communication systems.
            Ballistic missile defense system
    The budget request contained $1,066.0 million in PE 63880C 
for the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system but included no 
funds for wide bandwidth technology and $8.1 million for 
Battlespace Environment and Signatures Toolkit.
    The BMD system elements comprise battle management, command 
and control (BM/C2), communications, targets and 
countermeasures, system engineering and integration, and 
system-wide test and evaluation. The committee understands that 
the globally distributed ballistic missile defense system will 
be the most complex architecture ever attempted by the 
Department of Defense. Although the scientific hurdles are 
relatively small, the engineering challenges associated with 
orchestrating an effective defense are considerable, and the 
committee supports MDA's efforts to build a national industry 
team to address system component integration and 
interoperability.
            Wide bandwidth technology program
    The committee recognizes the value of wide bandwidth 
information technology to improve operational efficiency and 
test infrastructure, and recommends $10.0 million for the Wide 
Bandwidth Technology program.
            Battlespace environment and signatures toolkit
    The committee notes the ongoing work to develop the 
Battlespace Environment and Signatures Toolkit program to model 
threat signatures and supports the efforts to maintain a 
current threat signature database and tools to integrate 
current information into ongoing missile defense program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to 
accelerate this effort.
            Terminal defense segment
    The budget request contained $170.0 million in PE 63881C 
for the terminal defense segment, including $65.7 million for 
Arrow.
            Enhanced Arrow deployability program
    The terminal defense segment includes $65.7 million for 
Arrow, primarily for the Arrow System Improvement Program to 
evolve system capabilities to counter advanced missile threats 
to Israel. The committee recommends an increase of $21.0 
million for the Enhanced Arrow Deployability Program to enhance 
Arrow system operational capabilities and interoperability with 
missile defense systems of the United States.
            Navy area program
    The terminal defense segment also contains $90.0 million 
for a sea-based terminal program to develop alternatives to the 
Navy Area program, which was terminated on December 14, 2001 as 
a result of a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach. The committee supports 
the Administration's efforts to enforce fiscal discipline in 
major development and acquisition programs, but notes the 
undiminished need for lower tier sea-based defense, and 
encourages MDA to move expeditiously in pursuing alternatives.
    The committee recommends $308.7 million, an increase of 
$117.7 million, which reflects transfer of MEADS into this 
program element, and an increase of $21.0 million for Arrow
            Midcourse defense segment
    The budget request contained $3,195.1 million in PE 63882C 
for the midcourse defense segment, including $426.6 million for 
sea-based midcourse defense.
            Ground based midcourse defense
    The budget request includes $533.9 million for the 2004 
Pacific Test Bed and $2,072.5 million for ground-based 
midcourse defense, both down significantly from fiscal year 
2002. The committee is encouraged by the recent flight test 
successes of this program, but more importantly by the test 
rate, which is now approaching three-month centers. The 
committee strongly believes that programs of this level of 
sophistication and maturity only seriously move forward when 
the test program reaches a critical momentum.
            Aegis LEAP interceptor flight demonstration program
    The committee understands that the sea based midcourse 
defense segment is still in its infancy, but is encouraged by 
the first intercept achieved in the Aegis LEAP Interceptor 
(ALI) Flight Demonstration Program with an interceptor launched 
from the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie in January. The committee 
recommends an increase of $27.0 million to purchase additional 
ALI test articles for threat representative testing.
            Long range S-band and X-band discrimination radar 
                    development
    The committee is also supportive of the new emphasis on 
improving existing shipboard radar to enable better ballistic 
missile discrimination and tracking and recommends an increase 
of $25.0 million to accelerate long range S-band and X-band 
discrimination radar development.
    The committee recommends $3,244.6 million, an increase of 
$52 million for ALI flight demonstration program and $25.0 
million for long range radar improvements.
            Boost defense segment
    The budget request contained $796.9 million in PE 63883C 
for the boost defense segment.
    The committee recommends $719.4 million, a decrease of 
$77.5 million.
    Of the amount requested, $144.0 million is for ``hit-to-
kill'' boost phase intercept programs that rely on the energy 
of motion (kinetic energy) of the interceptor to negate the 
target. The request supports two programs, consisting of $89.6 
million for a sea-based boost program leading to a 
demonstration in fiscal year 2005, and $54.4 million for a 
space-based boost program leading to a demonstration in fiscal 
year 2006. The committee is concerned that, given the amount of 
tactical air power already available, and recent successes with 
armed unmanned aerial vehicles in Operation Enduring Freedom, 
MDA may have overlooked the most promising near term 
alternative for boost phase defense--air--based kinetic energy 
boost phase intercept. The committee urges MDA to give serious 
consideration to this option.
    Of the amount requested, $625.4 million is for directed 
energy boost phase programs that rely on laser heating to 
induce structural failure of the target. The request for 
directed energy programs consists of $34.8 million for the 
space-based laser and $598.0 million for the airborne laser 
(ABL).
    In the case of ABL, the committee is concerned by 
escalating costs and the slip in schedule of a lethal shoot 
down demonstration from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005. 
The committee understands the formidable technical challenges 
this program faces. While the committee expects that one day 
directed energy will play a role in ballistic missile defense, 
the committee notes that the 30 plus year historical record on 
developing lethal, militarily-useful systems is singularly 
unimpressive. The committee questions a boost phase defense 
investment strategy that relies on this difficult technology to 
the extent that the current program does, and encourages MDA to 
more seriously pursue alternative approaches. The committee 
recommends $520.5 million for ABL, a reduction of $77.5 million 
specifically to funds requested to begin payments on a second 
aircraft and purchase long lead optics.
            Sensors segment
    The budget request contained $373.4 million in PE 63884C 
for the boost defense segment.
    The committee recommends the budget request. The committee 
believes that space-based sensors with play a key role in 
ballistic missile defense, and supports the restructured Space-
Based Infrared System-low (SBIRS-low) program proposed by MDA. 
The restructured program will begin to place satellites in 
orbit in the fiscal year 2006-2007 timeframe to support, with 
current developmental technologies, the activities of the 2004 
Pacific Test Bed, but will continue to compete and evolve more 
capable sensor payloads for later launches.
            THAAD and PAC-3
    The budget request contained $932.2 million in PE 64861C 
for the Theater High Altitude Air Defense system (THAAD, and 
$150.8 million in PE 64865A for PAC-3 engineering and 
manufacturing development (EMD). Funds for these two programs 
were requested under separate program elements, as required for 
programs in EMD by section 223(b) of title 10, United States 
Code, as amended by Section 232 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107).
    The committee supports the budget request, but moves PAC-3 
EMD funding into MDA for reasons previously discussed. The 
committee notes that the Army began fielding limited numbers of 
PAC-3 missiles in September of 2001 as planned, and has begun 
initial operational testing while continuing an RDT&E program 
to improve the system's capability against an expanded threat 
set.
    After a troubled test program culminating in intercept of 
two ballistic missile targets in 1999, THAAD entered EMD in 
fiscal year 2000. However, the program is not scheduled to 
resume flight tests until late fiscal year 2004. The committee 
understands that the THAAD interceptor is undergoing major 
redesign and re-engineering, but given the nearly $1 billion 
budget for this program, and the likelihood that certain flaws 
will only be uncovered in flight, the committee questions the 
advisability of such a long hiatus in flight testing.
            Cooperative programs
    Although the committee believes that the United States 
should lead in the development of ballistic missile defense 
systems, the committee does not think that missile defense 
should be a protection simply provided by the United States to 
the international community, but rather a capability whose 
benefits and costs are shared with friends and allies. 
Accordingly, the committee makes special note of support for 
international cooperative programs in the budget request, 
including $65.7 million for Israel's Arrow terminal missile 
defense program in PE 63881C, $69.1 million for the Russian-
American Observation Satellite program in PE 63884C, $79.0 
million for cooperative research with Japan on sea-based upper 
tier defense in PE 63882C, and $117.7 million for co-
development with Italy and Germany of the Medium Extended Air 
Defense System (MEADS) in PE 63869A. The committee is familiar 
with the special difficulties associated with execution of 
international cooperative programs, but believes that such 
programs help to advance the national security agenda of the 
United States.
            Exploration of alternative approaches
    The committee understands that the Department may 
investigate other options for ballistic missile defense--
nuclear--armed interceptors, blast fragmentation warheads, and 
directed energy technologies--as alternatives to current 
approaches based predominantly on hit-to-kill technology. The 
committee would consider such an examination of alternatives to 
be a prudent step, consistent with the commitment to evaluate 
all available technological options for this critical mission.
            Ballistic missile defense baseline reports
    The Committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA) is in the process of completing an internal planning 
document known as the Technical Objectives and Goals document 
(TOG). As the cornerstone of this system engineering process, 
the TOG and applicable supporting systems engineering documents 
provide a development baseline for each block within the 
overall ballistic missile defense system that sets performance 
goals at the system, project, and in some cases the component 
level. The Committee further understands that the TOG will be 
an essential document in formulating the 2004 budget request. 
The resulting Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System baseline 
from this process will be documented as part of the BMD System 
Selected Acquisition Reports, submitted annually to Congress.
    The Committee directs the Director of MDA to ensure that 
the relevant performance goals and development baselines of the 
TOG be communicated to Congress as part of the budget 
justification materials accompanying the FY 2004 and future 
budget requests. Such development baselines shall be made 
available for each block. In particular, the baselines shall be 
made available for projects developing systems that may be 
fielded, and other programs and projects identified as 
congressional special interest items.
    The Committee recognizes the difficulty in summarizing data 
to make it readily understandable for Congress. This difficulty 
is compounded by the transition from a requirements-based 
acquisition process to a capability-based process. The 
Committeefurther appreciates and supports the efforts made by 
MDA to respond in a timely fashion to requests for further information 
made by the Committee. To make the voluminous data that MDA provides 
more readily understandable, the Committee directs the Director of MDA 
to ensure that the annual budget justification material for each system 
include the funding profile for developing the major components of each 
of the projects that may be fielded, and for each block of that system.
    The committee notes that section 232(h) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-
107) requires a report by the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation (OT&E) by no later than February 15 of each year. To 
date, no specific report by the Director of OT&E has been 
received. The Committee directs the Director of OT&E to comply 
with the statutory requirement, and expects the Missile Defense 
Agency to continue to work cooperatively with the Director of 
OT&E so that the report may be prepared and submitted in a 
timely fashion in the future.

Cobra blue force tracking equipment

    The budget request contained $281.4 million in PE 116404BB 
for tactical systems development, but included no funds for 
blue force tracking equipment.
    The committee is aware that the Army Special Operations 
Command has an approved combat mission needs statement (MNS) to 
equip its teams with secure blue force tracking devices. It is 
also aware that the Marine Corps has a draft MNS for its Marine 
expeditionary units. The committee notes that a limited blue 
force tracking capability has been deployed, with unanimous 
praise from the units so equipped. The committee further notes 
that additional equipment is required to fully equip deployed 
Army Special Forces and Marine Expeditionary Units.
    The committee recommends $283.9 million in PE 116404BB, an 
increase of $2.5 million to develop the next generation cobra 
blue force tracking equipment.

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

    The budget request contained a total of $932.9 million for 
chemical/biological defense research, development, test, and 
evaluation, including $64.1 million in PE 61384BP for basic 
research, $262.2 million in PE 62384BP for applied research, 
$249.8 million in PE 63384BP for advanced technology 
development, $144.8 million in PE 63884BP for demonstration/
validation, $169.0 million in PE 64384BP for engineering and 
manufacturing development, and $43.0 million in PE 65384BP for 
RDT&E management support. The budget request also contained 
$133.0 million in PE 62383E for the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA) biological warfare defense research 
program.
            Engineered pathogen identification and countermeasures 
                    program
    The committee notes that the potential threat of using 
unknown or genetically modified pathogens as biological warfare 
agents places a high premium on the ability to rapidly identify 
the pathogen and its disease producing characteristics and to 
develop and implement therapies for countering the agent. The 
committee understands that human genome mapping promises 
beneficial advances both in medicine and in the identification 
and treatment of biological warfare pathogens. Advances in 
biotechnology, computational biology and computational 
chemistry promise the capability to shrink the drug research 
cycle significantly. In fiscal year 2002, Congress provided 
$2.0 million to initiate a program for rapid identification and 
development of countermeasures to biological warfare and 
engineering pathogens.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 
61384BP to continue the program for applied research in 
identification and development of countermeasures to 
genetically modified or engineered pathogens.
            Rapid antibody-based biological countermeasures
    The committee has been advised that recent advances in 
molecular biology combined with advances in microbiology have 
resulted in the development of powerful technologies, based 
upon a human antibody platform, which can be used to devise 
effective countermeasures against biological weapons.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62384BP for applied research in human antibody-based 
countermeasures against biological agents.
            Multi-wavelength surface scanning biological sensor
    The budget request contained $16.0 in PE 63714D8Z for the 
advanced sensors applications program.
    The committee understands that recent advances in multi-
wavelength excitation spectral technology shows promise for 
development of high spectral resolution fluorescence systems 
that would provide the capability to detect and identify 
biologic agents not discernible with conventional sensors by 
exploiting the fine spectral signatures of both the biologic 
target and the existing background. The committee notes 
oversight by the Office of the Secretary the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and 
Intelligence) of a program for development and demonstration of 
multi-wavelength excitation spectral technology that, if 
successful, could provide a leap-ahead improvement in the 
scanning and screening of potentially contaminated locations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
63714D8Z to continue the development of active, high-
resolution, broad-band infrared sensors for real-time detection 
and identification of pathogens. The committee directs the 
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Chemical-Biological 
Defense) and the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency to review the program for coordination and potential 
integration in related programs in the DOD chemical-biological 
defense program or DARPA biological warfare defense program.
            Chemical-biological regenerative air filters
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
62384BP to accelerate the program for applied research in 
chemical-biological regenerative airfiltration technology to 
replace activated charcoal filters in Navy and other collective 
protection systems.
            Chemical-biological mass spectrometer II
    The chemical-biological mass spectrometer (CBMS) is a 
detector capable of both biological and chemical agent 
detection and identification. The CBMS Block I system is a 
component of the P3I Biological Integrated Detection System 
(BIDS). The CBMS Block II system is an improved system that is 
being developed for inclusion in the NBCRS Block II system 
(IAV-NBCRV) and the Joint Service Lightweight NBCRS system. The 
CBMS II is being further enhanced to allow operation as a 
stand-alone system.
    The committee understands that CBMS Block has demonstrated 
an effective chemical agent detection and identification 
capability and that the currently funded effort would complete 
the development of this chemical capability. A January 2002 
peer review of further testing concluded that the CBMS Block II 
had demonstrated the potential capability for biological 
detection and that continued development should focus on the 
development and testing of biological agent identification 
algorithms, improve systems reliability and producibility, and 
develop a logistics and maintenance support program. Successful 
completion of the development program would result in a single 
integrated detection system for future nuclear, biological, 
chemical reconnaissance platforms.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
63884BP to accelerate the program for development and 
demonstration of the CBMS Block II.
            Asymmetric protocols for biological defense enhancement
    The committee recommends $137.0 million in PE 62383E, an 
increase of $4.0 million for applied research in asymmetric 
protocols for biological defense with emphasis on enhancing 
individual non-specific immunities to and blocking pathogens 
from biological warfare threat agents.
            Mustard gas prophylactic
    The budget request included $262.2 million in PE 62384BP 
for the Chemical Biological Defense program, but included no 
funding for the development of a mustard gas prophylactic.
    The committee recognizes the threat of mustard gas as a 
potential weapon of mass destruction and notes that existing 
methods of protection are focused primarily on external 
apparel. The committee is aware of a technology, referred to as 
Signal Transduction Interruption Methodology Antioxidant 
Liposomes (STIMAL) that might provide a prophylactic defense. 
The anticipated research product supports the body's immune and 
molecular systems to first stabilize and then accelerate the 
recovery process in cases of unprotected exposure. Prophylactic 
treatment testing has yielded a rate of treatment as high as 
83% and shows some promise for even higher rates with further 
development. The committee supports further research, 
development, and testing to accelerate this initiative.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62384BP for STIMAL.
            Biological defense homeland security test bed
    The budget request included $485.1 million for Department 
of Defense (DOD) homeland security initiatives requested by the 
Office of Homeland Security: the biological counterterrorism 
research program and the biological defense homeland security 
support program. The committee understands that the objective 
of the biological defense homeland security support program is 
to initiate a comprehensive pilot program to build a National 
Biological Defense System for the Office of Homeland Security. 
The program will create and deploy a national, multi-component, 
multi-organization defense capability that is targeted to 
protect urban areas, other high-value assets, and special 
events; and to provide an integrated homeland security 
capability designed to detect, mitigate, and respond to 
biological-related incidents. The committee notes that the 
Department's fiscal year 2003 plans for the program include 
establishment of a fully equipped DOD test bed in each of the 
military departments, an enhanced chemical-biological 
monitoring system in the National Capitol Region, and an 
initial biological surveillance and monitoring capability in 
two additional urban areas.
    The committee understands that the pilot project to 
increase chemical biological defense capabilities at DOD 
installations will equip nine diverse DOD installations 
selected by the military departments with state-of-the-art 
contamination avoidance, protection and decontamination 
equipment, enhanced emergency response capabilities for 
consequence management, and an integrated command and control 
network. The project will also include a comprehensive training 
and exercise plan for each installation.
    The committee notes, however, that the criteria and process 
for selecting the locations of, and establishing the two urban 
area test beds have not been determined.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense 
should proceed promptly with a pilot program for establishing 
the two urban area test beds to provide the capability to 
develop, test, validate and deploy technologies and systems 
that will provide for increased homeland security. The 
committee also believes that selection of the sites for these 
test beds should take into account the factors of the potential 
biological threat to the area, geography, transportation and 
other critical infrastructure networks, military and government 
presence. Other criteria should include previously established 
crisis and consequence response capabilities, industrial, 
medical, and academic activities, and the availability of 
state, regional, local governmental, and non-governmental 
activities that would participate in the test bed.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish 
a competitive program for selection of urban area test beds in 
the biological defense homeland security support program. The 
committee believes that the regional biological defense network 
will serve as a national model to develop and promote 
integrated solutions to secure America's borders, support first 
responders and defend against bioterrorism.

C3I intelligence programs

    The budget request contained $75.7 million in PE 35190D8Z 
and $5.6 million in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) 
for C3I intelligence programs.
    The committee notes that the program has a very significant 
increase over the prior year, due to a new program called 
horizontal fusion. This program has insufficient program 
definition associated with it.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $34.0 million in PE 
35190D8Z for C3I intelligence programs.

Combat sent data distribution upgrade

    The budget request included $4.6 million in PE 35207G for 
manned reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for the 
Combat Sent data distribution upgrade.
    The committee is aware that Combat Sent does not have a 
high data-rate communications link to allow near real-time 
distribution of data to theater commanders and analysis 
centers.
    The committee recommends $12.9 million in PE 35207G, an 
increase of 8.3 million for the Combat Sent data distribution 
upgrade.

Combating terrorism technology support

    The budget request contained $49.0 million in PE 63122D8Z 
for the combating terrorism technology support program. The 
program develops technology and prototype equipment that 
address DOD, interagency, and international technology 
requirements for combating terrorism.
            Lightweight biological detectors
    The committee notes a number of competing technologies for 
development of portable, light-weight, biological-detection and 
identification systems that are capable of rapidly detecting 
and positively identifying a broad range of biological agents 
and other organisms. The committee recommends an increase of 
$4.0 million in PE 63122D8Z to accelerate the competitive 
development and evaluation of these systems.
            Chemical-biological electrostatic decontamination system
    The committee notes that the electrostatic decontamination 
system is a photosensitive, electrostatically charged mist, 
which when sprayed onto a contaminated surface and illuminated 
with ultraviolet light destroys the chemical or biological 
agents that are present. Successful development and 
demonstration of the electrostatic decontamination system could 
result in a field expedient decontamination capability that 
would be less dependent on water and would not require the 
deployment of post-decontamination waste disposal equipment.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE 
63122D8Z to continue the development and evaluation of the 
electrostatic decontamination system.
            Facial recognition technology
    Given the rise in the number of terrorist attacks against 
Americans, the committee remains committed to anti-terrorism 
efforts and biometrics technology in particular. The committee 
notes the potential force protection applications and 
surveillance benefits of facial recognition technology and is 
aware of ongoing operational testing in this field.
    The committee understands that further development in this 
area is necessary to improve both image quality and automatic 
recognition performance rates.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63122D8Z for facial recognition technology.
            Magnetic quadrupole resonance explosives detection
    The committee notes the development, demonstration, and 
employment of scanning explosive detection systems that use 
magnetic quadrupole resonance technology to detect the presence 
of explosives in luggage and mail with a greatly enhanced 
detection probability and reduced false alarm rate.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
63122D8Z to accelerate the development and evaluation of 
magnetic quadrupole resonance technology for screening of 
personnel for the presence of explosives and to extend the 
application of the technology to the screening of cargo and 
vehicles.

Commercial imagery to support military requirements

    The budget request supported purchase of commercial 
imagery, products and services in support of national 
intelligence and military needs.
    The committee believes real progress has been made in the 
past year with respect to understanding the desirability of 
integrating commercial remote sensing into the national 
architecture.
    However, the committee believes that insufficient progress 
has been made by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of 
Central Intelligence in achieving the goals outlined by 
Congress in its fiscal year 2002 direction on this subject. 
Given the lateness of last year's defense bills, the committee 
appreciates the difficulty in complying fully with last year's 
direction. Nevertheless, the committee is genuinely disturbed 
by reports that the process for development and implementation 
of the commercial imagery strategy called for may now be on 
hold.
    The committee also questions the wisdom and cost 
effectiveness of continued investment in government 
infrastructure for imagery, products and services that would 
likely be contracted out by 2005 on implementation of the 
desired commercial strategy. This area will receive increased 
scrutiny by the committee.
    Finally, the committee is not satisfied with the geospatial 
readiness of our troops. There is no reason for them to not 
have the best geospatial products based on the most current 
geospatial data available in the United States today. 
Regrettably, they do not.

Complex systems engineering

    The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63704D8Z 
for special technical support, but included no funds for 
complex systems engineering.
    The committee is aware that multi-view data standards are 
being developed for an integrated digital design environment 
supporting complex systems design. The committee is also aware 
that this project is developing common data formats to permit 
data from advanced computer-based system design and analysis 
tools in use by DOD to be efficiently integrated, eliminating 
the costly and time-consuming manual interface that is standard 
today. The committee notes the significant success achieved in 
the development of the multi-view data framework and supports 
its application to additional pilot efforts.
    The committee recommends $17.0 million in PE 63704D8Z, an 
increase of $5.8 million for complex systems engineering.

Computer science and internet security degree program

    The budget request contained $394.3 million in PE 33140G 
for information systems security programs, but included no 
funds for the computer science and internet security degree 
program.
    The committee notes that there is an increasing dependency 
within the Department of Defense on the internet. This reality 
has generated a growing need for individuals who are highly 
trained in computer and internet security tools and procedures 
necessary to protect systems from attack.
    The committee recommends an increase of $750 thousand in PE 
33140G for the computer science and internet security degree 
program.

Defense agency science and technology funding

    The budget request contained $9,677.2 million for defense 
science and space technology, including all defense-wide and 
military service funding for basic research, applied research, 
and advanced development.
    The committee notes that this amount represents an increase 
of $919.5 million, or 10.5 above the amount requested for the 
fiscal year 2002 budget, and 2.7 percent of the budget request. 
However, the committee also notes that the amount requested for 
science and technology is a decrease of $199.3 million from the 
amount provided by Congress for fiscal year 2002. The committee 
commends the Department of Defense commitment to a goal of 3 
percent of the budget request for the defense science and 
technology program and progress toward this goal.
    The committee views defense science and technology 
investments as critical to maintaining U.S. military 
technological superiority in the face of growing and changing 
threats to national security interest around the world, and 
believes that both the defense agencies and the military 
departments have vital roles in DOD's science and technology 
investment strategy. Defense agencies focus on science and 
technology specific to the particular agency or, in the case of 
DARPA, on problems of national-level problems, operational 
dominance, and exploitation of high-risk, high-payoff 
technology. The military departments' science and technology 
programs focus on the development and transition of more mature 
technologies into future weapons systems.
    The committee notes that the defense-wide science and 
technology account increased over 14 percent while the Air 
Force account increased over 5 percent and the Army and Navy 
science and technology accounts each decreased more than 21 
percent (over $400 million each). Although the committee is 
pleased with the overall progress in the defense science and 
technology program, the committee continues to be disturbed by 
the continuing trend of overall reduction in the military 
departments' science and technology program in comparison to 
significant increases in the Defense-wide science and 
technology account and in the amount budgeted for the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in particular. The 
committee concern is not directed at the content of the DARPA 
program, but rather on the Department's continuing trend of 
placing higher priority on defense agency science and 
technology programs at the expense of the already inadequate 
service research and development budgets. The committee 
believes that the Department has not provided sufficient 
justification to support these imbalances in funding levels 
between defense agencies and the services, and, therefore, 
recommends correcting these imbalances by reductions in the 
DARPA accounts that appear to show disproportionate growth and 
distribution of those funds among service science and 
technology projects.
    The committee recommends the reductions in the program 
elements listed:

                        [In millions of dollars]

61101E--Defense research science..............................      12.0
62301E--Computing systems and communications technology.......      50.0
62712E--Materials and electronics technology..................      50.0
63285E--Advanced aerospace systems............................      50.0
    The committee directs that the reduction of $50.0 million 
in PE 62301E not be assessed against DARPA Information 
Awareness Office programs.

Defense counterintelligence programs

    The budget request contained $60.7 million in PE 35146D8Z 
for classified programs-C3I, but included no funding for an 
initiative to accelerate efforts to support specific 
counterintelligence awareness efforts.
    Additional details are contained in the classified annex to 
this report.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
35146D8Z for the Defense counterintelligence programs 
initiative

Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research

    The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 61114D8Z 
for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research (DEPSCoR).
    The committee is aware that DEPSCoR is helping to improve 
our nation's science and technology capability through funding 
of merit-reviewed research activities at universities in 21 
states and Puerto Rico. The committee notes that these programs 
helpindividuals, institutions and states improve their research 
capabilities and to become more competitive for other funding sources.
    The committee recommends $19.9 million in PE 61114D8Z, an 
increase of $10.0 for DEPSCoR.

Defense imagery and mapping program

    The budget request contained $143.5 million in PE 35102BQ 
for the Defense imagery and mapping program. The committee is 
concerned that promising projects are under-funded. Additional 
details are found in the classified annex to this report.
    The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million in PE 
35102BQ for the Defense imagery and mapping program.

Defense manufacturing supply chain management

    The budget request contained $25.5 million in PE 63712S for 
logistics research and development technology demonstration.
    The committee notes defense industry concerns about 
reducing lead time and increasing the quality of procured parts 
and equipment from their respective supply chains as a strategy 
to deliver weapons systems to their Department of Defense 
customers on time and on budget. These concerns extend to hard-
to-find and obsolete spare parts and equipment.
    The committee recommends $27.0 million in PE 63712S, an 
increase of $1.5 million to develop and demonstrate an 
integrated, multi-state, virtual defense manufacturing supply 
chain pilot capability.

Defense travel system

    The budget request contained $30.4 million in PE 65124D8Z 
for the defense travel system.
    The committee notes that the budget request for the defense 
travel system increased precipitously and believes that the 
last year's level is sufficient.
    The committee recommends $20.4 million in PE 65124D8Z, a 
decrease of $10.0 million for the Defense travel system

Enhanced techniques for the detection of explosives

    The budget request contained $33.6 million in PE 63228D8Z 
for physical security equipment research and development.
    The committee notes that the detection of explosives is a 
major concern. Standoff detection of hidden or buried ordnance, 
including improvised explosive devices, landmines, unexploded 
ordnance, is critical in mitigating the risk and increasing the 
safety of military and civilian personnel involved in the 
clearance of landmines and unexploded ordnance, explosive 
ordnance disposal operations and the response of security 
forces to an incident.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
63228D8Z for multidisciplinary research in the development of 
advanced technologies for the detection of explosives, 
improvised explosive devices, landmines, and unexploded 
ordnance that will lead toward the development of cost 
effective, highly reliable, computer integrated explosive 
detection systems.

Environmental security technical certification program

    The budget request contained $28.3 million in PE 63851D8Z 
for the Environmental Security Technical Certification Program.
    The committee believes that budget justification documents 
support funding at the previous year's level, but the 40 
percent increase requested is not sufficiently justified.
    The committee recommends $20.3 million in PE 63851D8Z, a 
decrease of $8.0 million for the Environmental Security 
Technical Certification Program.

Integrated optoelectronics technology

    The budget request contained $440.5 million in PE 62712E 
for applied research in materials and electronics technology.
    The committee notes the potential for advances in high 
capacity interconnects, innovative chip scale technologies, 
advanced microelectromechanical systems, and miniaturization 
and integration of optical systems that would enable the 
development of advanced optoelectronics devices for defense and 
other applications.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62712E for applied research in integrated optoelectronics 
technology.

Interdisciplinary biological nanoscience research

    The budget request included $175.6 million in PE 61101E for 
multidisciplinary science basic research, and included $9.3 
million for specific research in nanostructure biology.
    The committee views the Nanostructure in Biology program as 
potentially providing new and unprecedented opportunities to 
exploit a wide range of bio-functionality in a number of 
military application areas, including chemical and biological 
sensing, diagnostics, and therapeutics. Potential innovations 
in this area include the development of algorithms for real-
time atomic level resolution of molecules. Such resolution 
techniques could provide unique threat countermeasures, 
biomolecular sensors and motors, drug delivery devices, and 
advanced wound healing techniques, all sharing the potential 
for providing far-reaching applications in future battlefield 
environments.
    The committee notes the ongoing research involving 
nanospheres, nano-biosensors, and multi-crystal equipment, and 
encourages further work in this area for detecting 
cytotoxicity. The committee recognizes the unique benefit of 
interdisciplinary studies and strongly supports further 
investment in this area.
    The committee recommends $10.8 million in PE 61101E for the 
Nanostructure Biology program, an increase of $1.5 million, for 
interdisciplinary biological nanoscience research.

Joint technology office

    The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 63924D8Z 
for high energy laser advanced technology programs.
    The committee understands the challenges of developing high 
energy lasers for weapons applications. The committee is 
encouraged by the progress demonstrated in some of the large 
and more visible demonstration programs, but believes it 
necessary to proceed on a broad front to develop the full range 
of technologies required to bring directed energy to the 
battlefield.
    The committee recommends $28.6 million in PE 63924D8Z, an 
increase of $15.0 million.

Kinetic energy-anti satellite system

    The budget request contained no funding in PE 63XXXD8Z for 
kinetic energy-anti satellite (KE-ASAT) system.
    The committee notes that the kinetic energy-anti satellite 
system is to develop an option for space control, a critical 
capability for future space operations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 
63XXXD8Z for the kinetic energy-anti satellite system.

Medical free electron laser

    The budget request contained no funding in PE 62227D8Z for 
the ongoing medical free electron laser (MFEL) program and 
recommended transfer of program management to the National 
Institutes of Health.
    The committee is aware that the MFEL program has been a 
good example of a peer-reviewed program that is oriented toward 
military medical applications. The committee believes that the 
MFEL program transfer was inappropriate and supports MFEL 
retention within DOD.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense not to 
transfer the MFEL program and recommends $15.0 million in PE 
62227D8Z for MFEL.

Multi-function self-aligned gate

    The budget contained $11.9 million in PE 35206G for manned 
reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for multi-
function self-aligned gate (MSAG) tile antenna technology.
    The committee believes that MSAG has the potential to 
revolutionize antenna design and result in significant 
improvement in data rates to meet rapidly escalating demand for 
information exchange in the new digital warfare environment.
    The committee recommends $14.9 million in PE 35206G, an 
increase of $3.0 million for the development and demonstration 
of MSAG tile antenna technology.

Multi-link antenna system

    The budget request contained $199.6 million in PE 63750D8Z 
for advanced concept technology demonstrations, but included no 
funds for the multi-link antenna system (MLAS).
    The committee notes that MLAS technology has demonstrated 
communications using small arrays, and is at the point in 
development at which a larger, full-scale demonstration is 
appropriate. The committee is aware that the multi-link antenna 
system advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) has 
been planned and approved by the Secretary of Defense.
    The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million in PE 
63750D8Z for the multi-link antenna system ACTD.

National collaborative environment

    The committee, in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107), directed the 
Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence to 
develop a proposed architecture for a national collaborative 
environment. The committee is aware that the ongoing war 
against terrorism has increased the need for such a capability.
    The committee notes, with pleasure, that the Secretary of 
Defense has initiated a well-staffed program through the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop 
the fundamental architecture, technologies and tools necessary 
to enable a national collaborative environment. The committee 
realizes that architectural studies may well impact the 
direction and effort of the DARPA program, and requests the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Director, DARPA is a 
full participant in those study efforts and is made fully aware 
of all related work within the Department.
    The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense 
to provide continued support for this vital DARPA program and 
the ultimate establishment of a national collaborative 
environment.

``Smart'' fuzing

    The committee believes the United States should make every 
effort to reduce the susceptibility of friendly forces and non-
combatants to accidental death or injury--including that which 
results from inappropriate contact with unexploded ordnance--
without impairing military effectiveness, capability, or 
mission accomplishment. Hence, the committee recommends the 
Department of Defense place greater priority on the development 
of affordable and effective submunition fuses that have 
reliability rates comparable to those found in unitary 
munitions fuzing, thus increasing performance of these 
munitions while reducing the danger of unexploded ordnance to 
friendly forces and non-combatants. The committee also 
encourages the continued development of ``smart'' landmines 
with higher reliability and performance rates.

Spike urban warfare system

    The budget request contained $6.7 million in PE 116401BB, 
for special operations technology development, but included no 
funds for the Spike urban warfare system.
    The committee is aware that enhancements are required for 
shoulder fired guided missiles, and improvements to the 
guidance system in order to better defeat hard targets and 
reduce collateral damage in an urban environment.
    The committee recommends $11.7 million in PE 116401BB, an 
increase of $5.0 million for the Spike urban warfare system.

Strategic environmental research and development program

    The budget request contained $60.5 million in PE 63716D8Z 
for the strategic environmental research and development 
program (SERDP).
    The committee notes that insufficient budget specific 
justification has been provided for SERDP including an $11.0 
million increase over the level of funding projected for fiscal 
year 2003 in the fiscal year 2002 amended budget request.
    The committee recommends $30.5 million in PE 63716D8Z, a 
decrease of $30.0 million for the Strategic Environmental 
Research Program.

Tactical missile recycling

    The budget request contained $8.9 million in PE 63104D8Z 
for explosives demilitarization technology, and included $5.8 
million for tactical missile recycling.
    The committee is aware that the explosive demilitarization 
technology program is a cooperative interservice, interagency 
effort focused as the sole Department of Defense program 
dedicated to the development of safe, efficient, and 
environmentally acceptable processes for resource recovery and 
recycling or disposition of strategic, tactical, and 
conventional munitions including explosives and rocket motors.
    The committee recommends $11.9 million in PE 63104D8Z, an 
increase of $3.0 million for tactical missile recycling 
technology.

Thermobaric warhead development

    The budget request contained $77.4 million in PE 63160BR 
for development and demonstration of counterproliferation 
advanced technologies.
    The committee notes the effectiveness of thermobaric 
materials, a new class of explosives that demonstrate 
impressive capabilities for generation of pressure and thermal 
effects much greater than conventional high explosives. Weapons 
employing thermobaric warheads were developed rapidly and 
employed with great effectiveness in support of tunnel defeat 
operations in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The 
committee also notes the progress being made in the development 
and demonstration of advanced thermobaric warheads in the on-
going thermobaric warhead advanced concept technology 
demonstration lead by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63160BR for thermobaric warheads advanced technology 
development. The committee recommends continued close 
coordination of the DTRA program with the Navy's insensitive 
munitions program and the Army's advanced warheads development 
program.

Unmanned aerial vehicles major acquisition programs

    The committee is aware that recent successful operational 
employment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) has heightened 
military service efforts to develop and field several new 
variants, with additional capabilities. The committee notes 
that though the budget request has rapidly increased overall 
funding for UAVs, formal acquisition management documentation 
is incomplete or not yet developed in many instances.
    The committee expresses its concern about proper program 
management elsewhere in this report, and is specifically 
concerned that UAV programs adhere to the same standards as 
other acquisition programs. The committee recognizes the 
necessity for and benefit of acquiring a robust family of UAVs, 
but believes that the Secretary of Defense and military service 
Secretaries must ensure that the programs are managed well, to 
prevent unanticipated cost growth and schedule delays 
experienced by other new systems. The committee notes that 
while the acquisition per unit cost may be relatively small, in 
the aggregate, the acquisition cost rivals the investment in 
other larger weapon systems.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $222.1 million for Operational 
Test and Evaluation RDT&E. The committee recommends 
authorization of $222.1 million.
    The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 
Operational Test and Evaluation RDT&E program are identified in 
the table below. Major changes to the Operational Test and 
Evaluation request are discussed following the table.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

              Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would establish RDT&E funding levels for the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002.

           Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research

    This section would establish basic and applied research 
funding levels for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 
2002.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

              Section 211-RAH-66 Comanche Aircraft Program

    This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from 
obligating any of the funds in fiscal year 2003 for engineering 
and manufacturing development of the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft 
program until the Secretary submits to the congressional 
defense committees a report, prepared in coordination with the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics, containing an accurate estimate of funds to complete 
engineering and manufacturing development and the new 
restructured timeline for bringing the aircraft to initial 
operational capability.
    This provision would also impose a cost cap on the total 
cost of engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), 
require an annual report by the Department of Defense Inspector 
General (DOD IG) that would assess the progress of EMD and its 
prospect of completion under the cost cap, and allow 
adjustments to the cost cap for economic inflation and 
compliance with laws enacted after September 30, 2002. The 
annual report would be required until EMD is complete. Finally, 
the provision would limit the obligation of funds authorized to 
be appropriated for each year to 90 percent until the DOD IG 
annual report is submitted.

 Section 212--Management Responsibility for Navy Mine Countermeasures 
                                Programs

    This section would amend section 216 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 
(Public Law 102-190) and would extend the implementation of the 
Management Responsibility for Navy Mine Countermeasures 
programs through fiscal year 2008.
    The committee believes that the requirement that the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff provide an annual certification of the adequacy of the 
Navy's mine countermeasures program has had a positive impact 
on the program, increasing the visibility of and attention paid 
to the program by officials in the Department of Defense and 
the Navy. The committee notes the direction contained in the 
committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-532) that the 
annual certification by theSecretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff address the adequacy of funding 
for the mine countermeasures program for the budget year through the 
end of the future years defense program and also include objective 
measures against which the Navy's progress in enhancing its mine 
countermeasures capabilities can be evaluated.

  Section 213--Extension of Authority To Carry Out Pilot Program for 
 Revitalizing the Laboratories and Test and Evaluation Centers of the 
                         Department of Defense

    Section 246 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) 
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program 
for revitalizing the laboratories and test and evaluation 
centers of the Department of Defense with the objective of 
improving cooperative relationships for the performance of 
research and development with universities and other private 
sector entities. This provision would amend section 246 to add 
the demonstration of improved efficiency in the performance of 
the research, development, test, and evaluation functions of 
the Department of Defense to the objectives of the pilot 
program and would also extend the authorization for the program 
until March 1, 2008.

Section 214--Revised Requirements for Plan for Manufacturing Technology 
                                Program

    This provision would amend section 2525(e) of title 10, 
United States Code, to reduce the requirement for update and 
submission to Congress of the five-year plan for the Department 
of Defense (DOD) Manufacturing Technology Program from annually 
with the submission of the DOD budget to biennially. The 
amendment would also delete the requirement including in the 
report an annual assessment of program effectiveness and an 
annual assessment of the extent to which the costs of 
manufacturing technology projects are being shared.

             Section 215--Technology Transition Initiative

    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense, 
acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics, to carry out an initiative to 
facilitate the rapid transition of new technologies from DOD 
science and technology programs into DOD acquisition programs. 
The initiative would be managed by a senior official in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, who would be assisted by a 
board of directors composed of the acquisition executives of 
the military departments, the members of the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council, and the commander of the Joint Forces 
Command; and who would be responsible for identifying promising 
technology that have been demonstrated in DOD science and 
technology programs, identify potential sponsors and establish 
management agreements for the transition of such technologies 
into production, and provide not less that fifty percent of the 
funding for recommended projects that are selected for such 
funding support. The provision would also require the Secretary 
to establish a panel of highly qualified scientists and 
engineers to advise the Under Secretary on matters relating to 
the initiative.
    The provision would further require that the amount 
requested for activities of the initiative shall be set forth 
in a separate program element within amounts requested for 
Defense-wide research, development, test, and evaluation 
activities. The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense 
will establish a funding planning wedge for the Technology 
Transition Initiative program in the future years defense plan.
    The committee notes that the Technology Transition 
Initiative established pursuant to Sec. 215 does not replace, 
but complements the responsibility of the senior acquisition 
executives of the Department of Defense and the military 
departments and the heads of the Defense agencies with research 
and development responsibilities under section 5358, title 10, 
United States Code (section 904, Public Law 106-301) to ensure 
that the science and technology programs under their authority 
are carried out in such manner that will foster the transition 
of science and technology to higher levels of research, 
development, test, and evaluation.

           Section 216--Defense Acquisition Challenge Program

    This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a pilot program, the Defense Acquisition Challenge 
Program, to provide a person, institution, industrial 
corporation, or activity within or outside the Department of 
Defense the opportunity to propose the insertion of unique and 
innovative technologies (``challenge proposals'') at the 
component, subsystem, or system level of an existing DOD 
acquisition program that, compared to the incumbent component, 
subsystem, or system, would result in substantially superior 
improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, 
or operational capability of that acquisition program.
    The provision would require the Secretary to establish 
procedures under which challenge proposals would be submitted 
for review and evaluation by a panel of scientists and 
engineers established under the auspices of the Under Secretary 
of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics). The 
committee believes that these procedures should provide for the 
solicitation of component, subsystem, or system-level 
technologies that, if incorporated in the appropriate defense 
acquisition program would result in substantial improvements in 
the program and could be transitioned rapidly into a fielded 
program, a block change, or a spirally developmental increment. 
The committee expects that the review panel would take a ``best 
value'' approach that encompasses consideration of such 
criteria as potential improvement in performance, 
affordability, manufacturability, and operational capability. 
Those proposals with merit would be requested to submit a 
proposal to be reviewed by the government program office and 
the prime system contractor for the impacted program. The 
program office-prime contractor team would then conduct an 
independent review of the merits of the challenge proposal, 
including whether the challenge proposal is likely to result in 
improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, 
or operational capability at the component, subsystem, or 
system level of the applicable acquisition program and whether 
the challenge proposal could be implemented rapidly in the 
program through changes in fielded systems, through block 
changes to the component, subsystem, or system, or through a 
spiral development increment. Each challenge proposal 
determined under a favorable full review and evaluation by the 
program office and prime contractor to satisfy the criteria 
outlined above would then be considered by the prime system 
contractor for incorporation into the acquisition program as a 
new technology insertion at the component, subsystem, or system 
level.
    The committee believes that the challenge program could 
provide an excellent avenue for accelerating the introduction 
of new and innovative technology into defense acquisition 
programs and that appropriate incentives, such as share-in-
saving or other appropriate incentives, should be established 
to encourage the program office and the prime contractor to 
adopt successful challenge proposals that meet the criteria 
outlined above.

                 Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense

Section 231--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Procurement of (PAC-
        3) Missiles Pending Submission of Required Certification

    This section would prevent obligation of funds for 
procurement of PAC-3 pending submission to the congressional 
defense committees of criteria for the transfer of missile 
defense programs from the Missile Defense Agency to the 
military departments, and certification by the Secretary of 
Defense that those criteria have been met for the PAC-3 
program. The criteria and certification are required by 
sections 224(b)(2) and 224(c), respectively, of title 10, 
United States Code.

  Section 232--Responsibility of Missile Defense Agency for Research, 
  Development, Test, and Evaluation Related to System Improvements of 
              Programs Transferred to Military Departments

    This section would amend Section 224(e) of title 10, United 
States Code to require the Director of the Missile Defense 
Agency to retain responsibility for research, development, 
test, and evaluation related to improvements of missile defense 
systems and system components that have been transferred to the 
military departments for procurement and fielding.

Section 233--Amendments To Reflect Change in Name of Ballistic Missile 
        Defense Organization to Missile Defense Agency

    This section would amend a number of provisions of 
permanent law to reflect the name change of the ``Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization'' or ``BMDO'' to the ``Missile 
Defense Agency'' or ``MDA''.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for operation and maintenance represents 
an increase of $22.7 billion over spending levels authorized 
and appropriated for fiscal year 2002. Of this increase, $13.8 
billion has been included for the Defense Emergency Response 
Fund (DERF), and $3.3 billion represents the cost for 
Department of Defense civilian employees health care and 
retirement accrual funding. The remaining $5.6 billion, which 
represents three percent of the operation and maintenance 
budget request, is allocated to what the Department has termed 
``realistic budgeting'' and inflation. As detailed elsewhere in 
the report, $10.0 billion of the DERF, and the $3.3 billion for 
the civilian employees accrual funding have not been included 
in the committee's recommendations.
    Although the budget request has been portrayed as the 
largest increase in defense spending in many years, the reality 
is that there are little, if any, real increases. The committee 
is concerned with the Department's ability to achieve 
acceptable readiness in the military services. The proposed 
level of funding, coupled with the need to fight a war, and 
$25.4 billion in unfunded requirements identified by the chiefs 
of the military departments for fiscal year 2003, suggests that 
adequate military readiness will be difficult to sustain in the 
long term. Not only is there concern for sustaining adequate 
readiness for the duration of the current conflict, but also a 
looming concern for the inevitable reconstitution of our forces 
when the war has concluded. Many of the Department's combat 
weapons systems are long past their initial design lifespan, 
and there are only a few replacement systems on the drawing 
boards.
    The committee notes the increased attention and recognition 
of historic under-funding in many of the critical readiness 
accounts with the application of realistic funding this year. 
Even this approach of realistic funding, however, may not 
sustain readiness at acceptable levels. As an example, the 
budget request includes an increase for ship depot maintenance 
of $621.2 million. This significant increase will not provide 
any additional ship repair over previous years, it will merely 
fund previously programmed ship repair requirements and may 
negate the annual practice of re-programming and supplemental 
funding requests. Even with this laudable attempt at realistic 
funding, the committee notes that the ship repair accounts are 
only funded at the 95 percent level.
    The committee conducted a series of hearings in an effort 
to obtain a more accurate and detailed assessment of current 
and near-term readiness from senior DOD civilian and military 
leaders. As it has been for the past several years, the 
overwhelming impression left on the committee was of an 
overextended force struggling to maintain acceptable readiness 
levels in a wartime environment coupled with domestic terrorism 
concerns. The committee continues to hear complaints about lack 
of spare parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure, 
growing equipment and facility backlogs, and the difficulties 
of conducting quality training and operational deployments with 
significant personnel shortages. The committee notes that 
within the fiscal years 01, 02, and 03 DERF accounts, over $4.0 
billion has been dedicated for increased force protection 
requirements. The committee applauds the Department for these 
much needed security improvements and urges the Department to 
assign the same level of effort to the other infrastructure 
needs of the Department.
    The committee notes that the Department has made some 
progress, but must continue to take steps to reduce costs in 
non-readiness related accounts. At the same time, the 
Department must provide aggressive oversight over proposals to 
reduce costs through contracting out and privatization. The 
committee is concerned with the apparent differing opinions 
between the Department and the Office of Management and Budget 
as to the need for further mandated outsourcing studies. At the 
same time, the committee is aware that the Department has 
turned to strategic sourcing as a means to make outsourcing 
decisions without the need for prolonged studies. The committee 
is concerned that strategic sourcing may encompass 
consolidation, restructuring, privatization, and the outright 
termination of existing services, which may produce short-term 
savings, but may prove to be more costly in the future and may 
have an adverse impact on readiness. The committee fully 
supports well developed and justified programs that will reduce 
costs and prove over time to enhance readiness; however, at a 
time when military readiness is critical for the successful 
prosecution of the war effort, the committee does not believe 
the Department should conduct uncoordinated new programs.
    Consistent with past practice, the committee has identified 
spending that does not directly support readiness and has 
reprioritized it into areas that will. In making decisions on 
how best to apply resources to address readiness problems, the 
committee relied heavily on testimony received during extensive 
oversight hearings and on the unfunded priorities identified by 
the service chiefs.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                       Budget Request Adjustments

    The committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
fiscal year 2003 budget request:

Department of the Army Adjustments:s of dollars]
    AIT/RFID Maintenance......................................      +9.0
    AIT/RFID Prepositioned Stocks.............................      +8.0
    Army Aviation Warfighting Simulation Center...............      +4.0
    Army Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS)........................      +8.0
    Army Depot Apprenticeship Program.........................     +10.0
    Army National Guard Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS).........      +4.0
    Army National Guard Modular Sleep System..................     +10.0
    Army Reserve Modular Sleep System.........................      +6.0
    Army Reserve Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS)................      +4.0
    Army Reserve Military Technicians.........................      +8.0
    Azur Blue Cannon Bore Cleaning System.....................      +2.2
    BA-4 BRAC Preparation Funds...............................     -24.1
    BA-4 Global Command Support System........................      -5.0
    Controlled Humidity Preservation..........................     +20.0
    Corrosion Prevention and Control Program..................     +12.0
    Electronic Maintenance and Point to Point Wiring..........      +6.0
    Hydration on the Move (CamelBak)..........................      +4.1
    M-Gators..................................................      +4.0
    Training Range Modernizations.............................     +32.0
    Transfers to H.R. 4547....................................     -14.4
    USARSO Leasing Increases..................................     -2.55
Department of the Navy Adjustments:
    AV-8B Engine Life Maintenance Program.....................      +2.0
    BA-3 IMET Funding.........................................     -4.93
    BA-3 IMET Funding, USMC...................................     -1.33
    Corrosion Control Program ATC Glass.......................      +2.0
    Hydration on the Move CamelBak............................      +1.0
    LHA Stability Improvement Alterations.....................     +57.0
    Navy Aviation Depot Apprenticeship Program................      +6.0
    Navy Shipyard Depot Apprenticeship Program................      +6.0
    Stainless Steel Sanitary Spaces...........................     +15.0
    Navy Transfer to H.R. 4547................................      -5.3
    Naval Sea Cadets..........................................      +1.0
    USMC Facility Restoration and Modernization...............     +31.0
    USMC Transfers to H.R. 4547...............................     -11.5
    Uniting through Reading...................................      +0.1
Department of the Air Force Adjustments:
    Aging Propulsion Systems Life Extension...................      +7.0
    Air Force Logistics System/L-SMART........................      +2.5
    Air National Guard Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS)..........      +4.0
    B-1B Pivot Shear Replacement..............................     +80.0
    BA-4 BRAC Preparation Funds...............................     -16.5
    Combat Air Patrol Flying Hours............................    -300.0
    Hydration on the Move (CamelBak)..........................      +1.0
Office, Secretary of Defense Adjustments:
    Impact Aid................................................     +35.0
Defense-wide Activities Adjustments:
    CSRS/FEHBP Accrual Funding transfer out...................  -2,276.3
    Defense Human Resources Activity..........................     -20.0
    Defense Information Systems Agency........................     -37.0
    DERF transfer to other accounts...........................  -6,213.3
    Foreign Currency Account..................................    -522.4
    Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercise Program....................     -10.0
    Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund.............     -50.0
    Washington Headquarters Service...........................     -10.0
    TRICARE Prime Remote......................................      +6.0
    Marshall Island Diabetes Reversal/Wellness Program........      +2.0
    National Guard Challenge..................................      +2.5
    National Guard Youth Foundation...........................      +2.5

                  Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions

    Since the submission of the budget request, the U.S. dollar 
has increased in value compared to various foreign currencies. 
As a result, the committee believes that the budget request is 
overstated. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction in 
this account of $522.4 million to be apportioned to the 
military services by the Department of Defense.

                Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises

    The committee is concerned with the increasing pace of 
operations throughout the military services and the proposed 
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) training exercises program. The 
budget request includes an increase of $21.8 million for JCS 
training exercises. The committee believes that requirements 
for these additional training exercises will be leviedagainst 
units that are already overextended with the execution of the war on 
terrorism, other world-wide operational deployments, home station 
training exercises, and training exercises at the services' major 
combat training centers. The committee questions whether the benefit of 
additional JCS exercises, at this time, is worth the price paid by 
units already suffering the effects of high operational tempo. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for 
the JCS training exercises program.

                     Budget Request Display Issues

  Accrual Accounting for Civil Service Retirement and Health Programs

    The budget request proposed, for the first time, to include 
$3.3 billion for the costs of the Civil Service Retirement 
System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 
program for future retirees on an accrual basis in the accounts 
that pay the salaries of current civilian employees. Currently, 
these accrual accounts are funded by the Office of Management 
and Budget and are paid from a general account of the U.S. 
Treasury. Specific legislation is required to accomplish this 
change in these mandatory accounts. The Congress has not acted 
on the required legislation and, therefore, the committee 
recommends the continuation of the current practice of funding 
these accounts. The following represents the total budget 
request for CSRS and FEHB that have not been included in the 
committee's recommendation:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Operation and Maintenance--Army...............................   612.382
Operation and Maintenance--Navy...............................   324.278
Operation and Maintenance--Marine Corps.......................    47.210
Operation and Maintenance--Air Force..........................   531.055
Operation and Maintenance--Defense-Wide.......................   346.046
Operation and Maintenance--Army Reserve.......................    43.220
Operation and Maintenance--Navy Reserve.......................     6.227
Operation and Maintenance--Air Force Reserve..................    55.365
Operation and Maintenance--Army National Guard................    87.255
Operation and Maintenance--Air National Guard.................    88.416
Office of the Inspector General...............................     8.275
Court of Military Appeals.....................................     0.311
RDT&E--Army...................................................    98.161
RDT&E--Navy...................................................     5.565
RDT&E--Air Force..............................................    36.249
RDT&E--Defense-Wide...........................................    14.688
Military Construction--Army...................................    26.083
Military Construction--Navy...................................    10.470
Working Capital Fund--Army....................................   109.042
Working Capital Fund--Navy....................................   373.228
Working Capital Fund--Air Force...............................   122.365
Working Capital Fund--Defense Commissary Agency...............    27.589
Working Capital Fund--Defense-Wide............................   206.879
Family Housing--Army..........................................     3.267
Family Housing--Defense Logistics Agency......................     0.037
Defense Health Program........................................   126.230
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total................................................... 3,309.893

                    Defense Emergency Response Fund

    The budget request for operation and maintenance contained, 
for the first time, a single entry for a transfer account 
entitled the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF), which is 
intended to be used to support the efforts of the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to respond to, or protect against, acts or 
threatened acts of terrorism against the United States. Of the 
requested $20.1 billion for the DERF, $10.0 billion is 
designated as incremental funding for ongoing operations in the 
War on Terrorism. The remaining $10.1 billion contained in the 
DERF transfer account is intended for enhancements and new 
initiatives identified to assist the Department in force 
protection, munitions, military construction, security and 
communications requirements, continuity of operations 
requirements, and for additional flying hours to support combat 
air patrols within the United States.
    In accordance with the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 
2003, (H.Con. Res. 353), the $10.0 billion designated as 
incremental funding for ongoing operations in the war on 
terrorism has not been included in the committee's 
recommendation.
    The committee is concerned that maintaining a single 
transfer account for the additional items needed by the 
military services to increase security, and continue operations 
of the war on terrorism, will be difficult to manage and, of 
greater concern, will be difficult to audit. The committee 
notes that the Department provided detailed DERF justification 
materials based on the traditional appropriation account 
formats. Using this data, the committee has distributed all of 
the remaining DERF transfer account into the specific services' 
accounts by budget activities and sub-activities groups. The 
following shows the distribution of the DERF transfer account 
to the traditional appropriations accounts:

Operation and Maintenance............................... $ 3,847,048,000
Procurement.............................................   3,382,433,000
Research and Development................................   2,198,235,000
Military Construction...................................     594,384,000
Military Personnel......................................      32,900,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................  10,055,000,000

                   Information Technology (IT) Issues

                                Overview

    The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, 
Communications and Intelligence [ASD(C3I)] is a single position 
with various roles and responsibilities, one of those roles 
being the Department of Defense's (DOD) Chief Information 
Officer (CIO).Under title 10, United States Code, the DOD CIO 
is responsible for reviewing budget requests; ensuring 
interoperability; ensuring federal and Department of Defense standards 
are prescribed; and eliminating duplicative information technology and 
national security systems. The committee recognizes these are difficult 
and challenging responsibilities, yet these tasks are vital if DOD is 
to succeed in management reform and transformation.
    The committee is aware of several dominant problems 
regarding the purchase of information technology systems. These 
problems include the inability to aggressively control and 
manage user requirements; failure to integrate information 
technology reviews with budget and financial decisions; 
difficulty in properly using performance based contracts; and 
promotion or endorsement of program managers who do not have 
the varied skills necessary to run a successful information 
technology program.

Requirements

    Information technology systems have the ability to improve 
dramatically the Department's numerous administrative 
processes. The committee believes that too often tremendous 
resources are wasted on systems that do not meet the initial 
requirement for which the systems were intended. Without proper 
oversight and aggressive leadership, management reform will 
suffer and cases, such as described below, will prevail.
    The committee recognizes that requirements setting and 
management are particularly difficult for those IT systems that 
are intended to be joint or defense wide. Evidence suggests 
that these IT systems cannot move beyond the requirements phase 
without strong leadership making difficult trade-offs among the 
various requirements. Without leadership, joint or defense wide 
systems duplicate military or agency unique systems rather than 
replace those systems. Equally, a joint or defense-wide system 
often migrates into a more unique system as the various 
agencies and military services adapt the system to their 
individual requirements. One of the more glaring examples of 
failure to minimize requirement growth is the Standard 
Procurement System (SPS), a system touted as moving the 
procurement world into paperless contracting.
    This system was stunted by the services' and agencies' 
insurmountable requirements and lack of Department leadership 
to arrest unnecessary requirements growth. The services and 
agencies complained that their unique requirements were not 
being met and independently changed the system to fit their own 
needs. The committee is aware of other problems with SPS, but 
believes requirements growth was one of the more significant 
problems. The Department committed over $320.0 million to this 
system prior to Congress bringing SPS to a halt last year.

Budget Reviews

    The committee believes that the Department of Defense has 
not articulated or successfully integrated the CIO's 
responsibilities with budgeting and financial decisions. The 
committee believes the opportunity for such integration 
presents itself with the Department's recent commitment to a 
financial management modernization program.
    The Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, is committed 
to leadership and strong oversight over this program--which 
includes the development, funding, and financing of the 
information technology systems under the modernization program. 
The committee believes the Comptroller's interest in 
information technology should be captured and the Comptroller 
should have greater responsibility and oversight over all 
information technology systems within the Department of 
Defense. The committee believes that the need to integrate the 
CIO's responsibilities with the Comptroller's responsibilities 
is well within the foundation principles of the Clinger-Cohen 
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106).

Performance-based contracting

    A major concern for the committee is the way in which the 
Department uses performance-based contracts, or task orders, 
for IT services. The committee believes in the concept of 
payment for performance. When the Department chooses a 
performance based service contract for an IT system, the 
Department should design the contract in a way that ties 
contractor payment with performance. The committee believes 
that a performance metric, and thus payment, should be more 
than a delivery schedule. Payment should also include an 
affirmative evaluation of whether the service or product does 
in fact meet all of the contract objectives. Failure to 
incentivize the contractor to perform as originally agreed in 
the contract is a practice inconsistent with good management 
and good business practice.

Program management

    A successful IT program manager needs a strong and varied 
set of skills and knowledge. Not only does the program manager 
need acquisition experience, it is equally important to have 
technical and functional knowledge. The technical experience is 
important in evaluating the vendor product, understanding 
vendor progress, and recognizing technical difficulties ahead. 
Functional knowledge is a key to evaluating user requirements, 
recognizing the necessary degree of business re-engineering, 
and anticipating user concerns. These three skills can be 
difficult to find in one program manager. The committee 
believes, however, that at a minimum, the senior program 
management team must incorporate all three varied skills.

Defense Messaging System (DMS)

    This system was originally intended to replace the 
automatic digital network (AUTODIN), a messaging system that 
DOD uses to transmit messages ranging from unclassified to top 
secret, including sensitive compartmented information. Seven 
years after the original DMS contract was awarded, and the 
expenditure of $647.0 million, the AUTODIN is still not in 
operation because, in part, top secret and sensitive 
compartmented information cannot be transmitted with DMS. The 
committee believes this is just one of several examples where 
after general requirements for an IT system have been 
established, the Department has failed to provide the necessary 
leadership to manage and move the system in a positive and 
successful direction. The committee strongly believes that 
without proper oversight and aggressive leadership in this 
area, management reform will suffer and cases, such as 
demonstrated above, will prevail.

Defense Integrated Military Human Resources Systems

    The Department of Defense is attempting to develop and 
implement the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources 
System (DIMHRS), a single personnel and pay system that will 
support all military personnel. The committee is concerned with 
the Department's continued disparate efforts in the development 
of DIMHRS. Information technology systems of this magnitude and 
importance require uniform, rigid, and continuous oversight. 
The committee believes that such an oversight management 
structure is not in place.
    In the budget request for fiscal year 2003, the committee 
received three different budget exhibits from the three 
organizations that play a significant role in development of 
DIMHRS. None of the three organizations were aware of the other 
submissions, or could discuss information or data contained in 
the other's submissions. The program manager and program 
executive office could not even explain the purpose or work of 
all four prime contractors working for the program manager. The 
committee notes there are over 12 prime contracts under this 
initiative.
    The committee has seen total confusion, a lack of 
communication, and complete mistrust between the personnel 
community and the pay community. The two sides do not support 
each other's funding requirements, user requirements, or 
testing procedures. This system will fail unless the Secretary 
of Defense takes immediate steps to vastly improve the 
management structure of DIMHRS. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to obligate no funds appropriated for 
fiscal year 2003 for DIMHRS until a report is submitted to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 
Armed Services. The report shall include: a statement of the 
roles and responsibilities assigned to the Defense Human 
Resources Activity, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 
and the Department of the Navy; all funds appropriated and 
obligated, by appropriation, for DIMHRS since its inception; a 
list of each prime contractor and the work to be performed 
under the contract; a description of the pay and personnel 
module that will be used in DIMHRS and a description of the 
testing each module underwent and a statement whether the 
module can meet user requirements.

Global Command Support System--Army

    In 1997, the Army initiated actions that would transform 
the Army's information technology (IT) support systems. This 
included replacing 16 legacy IT systems with five modules. 
After spending over $320.0 million on this system to date, 
nothing has been fielded and no legacy systems have been turned 
off. In fact, the Army is still attempting to implement the 
first, and admittedly easiest, module. The committee is 
troubled by the amount of money and time needed for initial 
fielding of the first and easiest module, and is equally 
concerned with the Army's decision to start development of the 
second module, even before there is an Army decision about 
whether the second module will be a commercial off the shelf 
product or a government developed product. In light of these 
concerns, the committee recommendation includes a reduction of 
$5.0 million for the Global Command Support System.

Supply Maintenance Aviation Reengineering Team

    The Supply Maintenance Aviation Reengineering Team is one 
of four enterprise resource planning initiatives within the 
Department of the Navy. Although the objectives of this plan 
have commendable goals, the committee is concerned with the 
Navy's acquisition plan for this initiative. The Navy has 
awarded a performance based contract for this initiative; 
however, at the same time, the Navy is still developing 
performance measurements, quantifying mission improvements, 
resource savings and mission benefits. In addition, the Navy 
has informed the committee that it is still waiting for the 
contractor to document critical aspects of the project. The 
committee urges the Navy to re-evaluate this initiative.

Warfighters Simulation System

    The Warfighter Simulation system, initiated by the 
Department of the Army in 1994, is intended to allow Army units 
world wide to train in their local command posts using their 
assigned organizational equipment. The committee understands 
that no formal cost benefit or return on investment analysis 
was ever performed for this system. In April 2001, the system 
experienced a ``schedule breach''. At that time, the milestone 
decision authority for this system directed that a revised 
acquisition program baseline be developed and cost position 
established. To date, neither is complete. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to not obligate any 
funds for fiscal year 2003 for the Warfighter Simulation System 
until the military decision authority reviews the revised 
acquisition program baseline and cost position and determines 
it is appropriate to move forward with this program.

Wireless Priority Service

    The budget request includes $101.0 million in the Defense 
Emergency Response Fund, and $73.0 million in the operation and 
maintenance request for the Defense Information Systems Agency 
to initiate and implement a priority wireless service whereby 
government officials can achieve priority access when using 
cellular phones. Following White House guidance, the committee 
understands that the Department hopes to have priority access 
nationwide by December, 2003. However, the committee does not 
believe that the Department has developed a realistic 
implementation plan, and has not seen evidence that the 
Department can obligate $73.0 million in the first quarter of 
fiscal year 2003. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
reduction of $37.0 million for the Defense Information Systems 
Agency.

                          Environmental Issues

    Through a series of hearings, fact-finding trips and in-
depth briefings, the committee has received a growing number of 
reports from the Department of Defense and the military 
services that mandatory compliance with federal environmental 
laws is having an increasingly adverse impact on their ability 
to fully utilize training ranges that are critical to 
maintaining military readiness. The committee is concerned 
thatmaintaining military readiness is not only necessary to insure 
national security, but especially critical for the successful 
prosecution of the War on Terrorism.
    During the past several months, the committee has had 
numerous meetings with representatives from the Department, the 
military services, federal environmental regulators, state 
regulatory organizations and representatives of the nonprofit 
environmental community to consider their common and competing 
concerns regarding the impact on military readiness and 
national security caused by compliance with various federal 
environmental laws. In addition to meetings in Washington, 
D.C., the committee has visited numerous military facilities 
throughout the country to examine the positive effects of 
compliance with environmental laws and regulations, as well as 
the adverse impact environmental compliance is creating in 
other geographic areas, particularly in the context of 
encroachment upon existing and available land which can be used 
for military training and testing.
    The committee is of the opinion that it is essential that 
all federal agencies, including the Department, be required to 
comply with all federal environmental laws, including the 
Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205), the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (Public Law 92-522), the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act (Public Law 93-300), the Clean Air Act (Public Law 88-206), 
and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500), to name a few. 
However, due to its unique training and operational missions, 
the Department often faces unique challenges in balancing its 
obligations to comply with these environmental laws and 
sustaining military readiness. The ever increasing limitations 
and restrictions on lands and waters which are currently set 
aside for military training exercises, as well as restrictions 
on the times and conditions under which military training 
exercises can be conducted, are some examples of these 
environmental encroachment challenges.
    For example, the Navy spends approximately $2.4 million 
each year and is forced to close its shore bombardment range 
off the California coast at San Clemente Island four days each 
week during the breeding season due to the presence of a bird 
called the loggerhead shrike, an endangered species that 
inhabits the island. When the shrike was initially listed as an 
endangered species on San Clemente Island, the population was 
estimated to include only 13 birds. Today the population has 
grown to approximately 160 birds, of which approximately 70 
birds are in the wild. The rest are housed in the captive 
breeding programs on San Clemente Island or at the San Diego 
Zoo, all at the expense of the Navy. To achieve this 
environmental success, the Navy has found it necessary to 
reduce one of the island's two firing ranges in size by 90 
percent and the other by 50 percent during the fire season. 
Although the shrike population has increased dramatically, 
current laws establish no goal at which restrictions on the 
Navy's activities will be relaxed.
    Similarly, at Fort Hood, Texas, one of the Army's premier 
training installations, of approximately 200,000 training 
acres, 66,000 acres, or 33 percent, of the training land is 
committed to protect the habitat of two endangered species. The 
presence of cultural artifacts restricts an additional 11 
percent of Fort Hood's training area, and 128,000 acres have 
restrictions on digging, affecting 64 percent of the training 
area. Combined with additional restrictions of smoke and noise, 
a total of 84 percent of Fort Hood's available training area is 
currently subject to some kind of limitation. The committee 
notes that some type of encroachment problem exists at nearly 
every military installation.
    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is an important environmental 
statute that was enacted in 1918 to control the mass slaughter 
of birds for commercial purposes. Under the statute, a federal 
agency can obtain a permit to ``take'' migratory birds 
intentionally, such as clearing large flocks of Canadian Geese 
from a landing field or golf course. However, a federal court 
recently ruled that the Navy had violated the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act by accidentally taking migratory birds while 
conducting training at one of its facilities in Guam without a 
permit to take migratory birds. The court recognized a paradox 
in that the statute prohibits the issuance of a permit to 
authorize unintentional takings during military readiness 
activity. The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to correct this paradox.
    After several weeks of requesting that the Department 
communicate its environmental proposals to Congress, the 
Department delivered its proposed legislative language to the 
committee three business days prior to the Readiness 
Subcommittee markup. Among the requests received from the 
Department for relief of environmental encroachment was a 
proposal addressing encroachment of the Navy's operational 
activities by creating a new definition of ``harassment'' under 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
    The committee recognizes the need to balance important 
federal environmental laws against the need to safeguard the 
Navy's ability to maximize its readiness capabilities. The 
committee declined to adopt a provision addressing the 
encroachment challenges created by the current language in the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act due to the lack of a meaningful 
period during which the committee had to examine the long-term 
environmental impact of this legislative provision. The 
committee recognizes that modifications to the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act may be required to address the Navy's concerns 
and intends to continue its examination of this matter in order 
to derive the correct legislative solution to this issue.
    It is not the intent of the committee to weaken or repeal 
any of the existing federal environmental laws. The committee 
remains committed to fully funding the environmental programs 
of the Department. This commitment is demonstrated through 
annual authorizations to the Department and the military 
services of approximately $4 billion for environmental 
programs. The committee is similarly committed to preserving 
the invaluable natural resources that occupy the lands and seas 
upon which the military services operate, including 
authorization of important research and development projects 
with partners throughout the government and environmental 
community.
    The committee recommends several legislative provisions to 
promote a statutory balance between the need to preserve and 
protect our invaluable natural resources and the equally 
important imperative to ensure national security

                 Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues

 Appropriated Fund Support for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs

    The committee has long supported robust appropriated fund 
support to Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs of 
the Department of Defense and the military services. At the 
same time, the committee believes that the Department should 
conduct efficient, self-supporting business activities that 
both provide a benefit and some measureof income. The committee 
has discovered, however, that the tragic events of September 11, 2001, 
and the resultant tightened security on military bases have had a 
devastating impact on many installation MWR programs. Many business 
activities suffered significant financial losses as customers had 
difficulty accessing base facilities and a substantial number of 
personnel deployed. In testimony before the committee, Department of 
Defense officials stated that the Department was reviewing a proposal 
to provide some measure of financial relief for affected programs. The 
committee commends the Secretary of Defense for this initiative and 
urges him to follow through and provide needed funds to these important 
programs.

             Defense Commissary Agency Funding and Staffing

    The committee believes that the commissary benefit is one 
of the most important non-pay benefits provided to military 
families. The committee has learned in repeated family 
testimony and installation visits that the commissary store is 
a key element of a cohesive military community, especially in 
times of crisis and major deployments. The committee is aware 
that the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) has embarked on an 
aggressive cost cutting campaign that will eliminate 2,650 
civilian positions over a three-year period. While the 
committee believes that all Defense agencies should be operated 
at maximum efficiency, the committee has heard testimony that 
these cuts may have gone too far, to the point of jeopardizing 
service to the customer. The Secretary of Defense, in testimony 
before the committee on February 6, 2002, committed to maintain 
the present level of savings and customer service in commissary 
stores, and the committee fully supports that objective. There 
is dispute, however, on whether that commitment is being 
fulfilled. To answer that question and help the committee and 
the Department preserve this important benefit, the committee 
believes that an independent agency should be tasked to 
determine whether an adequate level of funding and staffing 
will be maintained.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
to review the DECA budget, staffing plan, and customer 
satisfaction survey methodology to determine the adequacy of 
the customer service survey methodology and whether current 
levels of savings and customer service can be maintained. The 
Comptroller General shall report his findings to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services not later than March 1, 2003. The committee further 
directs the Secretary of Defense to moderate the pace of these 
proposed personnel reductions until the results of the 
Comptroller General review are available.

    Force Protection for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
reviewing force protection standards for military 
installations. This review includes overall base security, 
facility stand off distances from installation perimeters, 
parking security, building engineering upgrades and the like. 
The committee believes that Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 
(MWR) activities of all types should be included in this 
review. The committee is aware of instances where major resale 
and other MWR activities are located outside the perimeter of a 
military installation. The committee affirms its long held view 
that the protection of Department of Defense assets and 
facilities, including MWR activities, wherever they may be 
located, is a command responsibility that must be resourced 
with appropriated funds.

                  Support of Privatized Housing Areas

    The committee supports the military services' efforts to 
improve military family housing through privatization 
initiatives. The committee has also acted to preserve the 
virtual monopoly of the military resale system on installations 
by prohibiting such projects from including facilities that 
would compete with military commissaries, exchanges, or other 
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs. The committee 
provided that protection because it believes that military 
communities are best served by military resale activities. In 
order to continue to receive such protection, the military 
services' resale and MWR programs have an obligation to 
aggressively support privatized housing with needed programs 
such as shoppettes, child care centers, and other necessary 
facilities, especially if such housing is isolated from the 
parent installation.

                              Other Issues

   Automatic Identification Technology/Radio Frequency Identification

    The committee believes that equipment maintenance is a 
critical requirement to achieving readiness. The Department of 
the Army is developing depot level maintenance programs to re-
capitalize equipment and mitigate the impact of aging combat 
equipment. The key to the maintenance process of these 
programs, is the ability to track and manage critical parts 
within the repair cycle process. Currently, the ability to 
accurately see the location of items in the repair cycle is 
limited. Many items undergoing repair are often lost, 
misrouted, or misplaced requiring procurement of a replacement 
part, or work being deferred until the part can be found. 
Either action results in production delays and increased repair 
costs.
    The committee is aware of a promising automatic 
identification technology that would enable the tracking and 
management of critical parts and equipment known as Radio 
Frequency Identification (RF/ID) for maintenance. In January 
2001, the Army successfully concluded a pilot program using RF/
ID to continuously track and monitor critical and essential 
repair parts of selected major aviation components undergoing 
maintenance at their aviation depot. In addition, the committee 
believes that every opportunity to obtain and employ 
technologies that will aid in Total Asset Visibility (TAV) of 
all materiel in storage, transit, and from manufacturer or 
vendor, to depots, through ports, afloat on the high seas, and 
in land based storage sites. This is particularly important to 
optimize the processes associated with the storage and shipment 
of pre-positioned stocks, sets, kits, and outfits stored 
throughout the globe to support contingency requirements.
    Because these new technologies have the potential to 
improve readiness, the committee recommends the addition of 
$8.6 million for Maintenance RF/ID, and $7.9 million for Pre-
Positioned Stocks RF/ID. Procurement requirements for these 
systems are discussed elsewhere in the report.

                         Cold Weather Clothing

    The committee is aware that within the active and reserve 
components, there is a need for additional funding for the 
Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS), which is 
designed to provide protection during cold and wet weather. As 
an example, many military units operating in harsh weather 
environments, including Afghanistan, continue to provide 
individuals with obsolete cold weather clothing that was 
designed and fabricated with 1970's fabric technology and 
construction techniques. These critical protective items, now 
approaching 25 years in the inventory, represent the oldest and 
most inefficient items of clothing in use by soldiers in the 
field. Faced with the dilemma of wearing the outmoded cold-
weather gear and being uncomfortable, many soldiers rely on 
personal outdoor wear to keep warm purchased from commercial 
sources at their own expense. The committee believes that 
individual mobility, protection and comfort is a significant 
contributor to the combat readiness of the individual war-
fighter and would significantly improve their quality of life. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of funding for 
ECWCS as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Army..........................................................       8.0
Army Reserve .................................................       4.0
Army National Guard ..........................................       4.0
Air National Guard ...........................................       4.0

           Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities

    The committee continues to believe that the Commercial 
Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) program, created 
by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 1998 and designed to 
bring the most modern and advanced manufacturing capabilities 
used from commercial industry in DOD maintenance depots and 
related maintenance activities, is of great value as a 
technology resource and will have a positive effect on the 
efficiency and effectiveness of DOD industrial activities. The 
CTMA program is in direct support of section 361 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public 
Law 105-85) that required DOD to re-engineer industrial 
processes and adopt best-business practices at their depot-
level activities. Although DOD initially funded the CTMA 
program in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to carry out the mandate 
of Section 361, it has failed to keep CTMA in its budget 
despite the strong support of the program by Congress and the 
depot activities of the Department. Therefore, the committee 
recommends the addition of $20.0 million for the Defense 
Logistics Agency to continue the CTMA program at depot-level 
activities that will lower operations and sustainment costs. 
The committee believes the addition of these funds will allow 
depot-level activities to participate in manufacturing 
technology demonstration projects in collaboration with more 
than 220 of the leading U.S. manufacturers and urges the 
Department of Defense to include funding for the CTMA program 
in future budget requests.

       Industrial Mobilization Capacity/Unutilized Plant Capacity

    Industrial Mobilization Capacity (IMC)/Unutilized Plant 
Capacity (UPC) funding at Department of the Army arsenals is 
required to compensate the arsenals for the costs of that 
capability that is maintained only for mobilization. If the 
arsenals were a private business, they would get rid of this 
mobilization capacity and associated costs. The arsenals, 
however, have been directed to retain this mobilization 
capacity. Absent direct IMC/UPC funding the arsenals would have 
to include these mandated mobilization costs in their overhead 
rates. These inflated overhead rates would greatly hamper the 
arsenals as they compete for work from outside the Army as well 
as drive up production costs. The practical implication of not 
fully funding IMC/UPC has been costly to the arsenals. The 
Congress has expressed its concern about the Army's lack of 
support of IMC/UPC for the past several years, including a 
requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) to fully budget for IMC/
UPC. The committee is aware that the budget request includes 
$24.8 million for IMC/UPC for Rock Island Arsenal and $25.2 
million for IMC/UPC for Watervliet Arsenal. The committee 
congratulates the Secretary of the Army for finally fully 
budgeting for this critical requirement and expects the 
secretary to use the funding only for IMC/UPC needs at the 
Army's production arsenals.

                        Fuel Savings Technology

    The United States uses more petroleum each year than the 
next five largest consuming nations combined. Military fuel 
consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities 
makes the department of Defense the single largest consumer of 
petroleum in America. Ten years after the end of the Cold War, 
over 70 percent of the tonnage required to deploy Army combat 
units is fuel. Naval forces depend each day on millions of 
gallons of fuel to operate around the globe. The Air Force is 
the largest Department consumer, and spends approximately 85 
percent of its fuel budget to deliver, by airborne tankers, 
just 6 percent of its annual jet fuel usage. Due to 
unpredictable changes in fuel costs, the projected loss in the 
Department's fuel account in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 is 
expected to be approximately $1.2 billion.
    The committee believes the Department should consider new 
technologies to reduce the amount of required fuel. A report 
issued by the Defense Science Board Task Force in January 2001 
titled: ``More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel 
Burden'', stated ``High payoff, fuel-efficient technologies are 
available now to improve warfighting effectiveness in current 
weapon systems through retrofit and by new systems 
acquisition''. One of these new technologies to reduce fuel 
usage is a bolt-on fuel catalyst that treats fuel prior to 
ignition and has shown remarkable reductions not only in fuel 
usage, but also in engine emissions.
    The committee is aware that a fuel catalyst system, 
designed for diesel engines, has been tested over a 14 month 
period by the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton, California with 
results showing an average 38.7 percent fuel economy and a 44.8 
percent reduction in certain engine emissions. This same 
technology was also tested by the Navy Facilities Engineering 
Service Center onboard a Navy vessel that resulted in a 39 to 
50 percent reduction in exhaust pollution and a 21 percent 
reduction in fuel consumption.This new technology would 
increase fuel efficiency resulting in substantial cost savings on fuel, 
would extend vehicle range, and would reduce the attendant logistical 
cost to supply fuel. The committee understands the cost of this new 
technology can be amortized in as little as six months through fuel 
savings alone.
    Given the magnitude of potential fuel savings and emissions 
reductions, the committee does not understand why the 
Department has not taken advantage of this technology. The 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take immediate 
steps for the application of this new technology as soon as 
practicable.

                  Energy Savings Performance Contracts

    Authority for the Department of Defense to enter into 
Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) is contained in 
section 8287 of title 42, United States Code, and Executive 
Order 13123. Based on this authority, the Department of the Air 
Force has entered into numerous ESPCs. Under current Air Force 
policy, a single contractor is awarded an ESPC for each of the 
five regions, which make up the continental United States. The 
committee believes there could be instances where an 
installation is interested in entering into an ESPC, but the 
capabilities of the contractor assigned to that region do not 
meet the installation's requirements. The committee, therefore, 
requests the Secretary of the Air Force to re-evaluate its 
current policy of dividing the country into regions and 
entering into only one ESPC per region.

                        Long Term Depot Strategy

    The committee is concerned that the Air Force has not yet 
completed a long-term depot strategy. Over the past few years, 
the committee has expressed a need for the Air Force to develop 
a strategy that provides a roadmap for how the air logistics 
centers will be used and supported in the future. While the 
committee is pleased that the Air Force has made significant 
progress in developing such a strategy, the committee is 
concerned that the strategy has not yet been finalized and 
looks forward to receiving, as soon as possible, a completed 
long-term depot strategy that will identify:
          (1) Future weapon systems and how they will be 
        supported in the depots,
          (2) The plans for future investments in 
        infrastructure and technology to ensure that the depots 
        are fully equipped and resourced to support critical 
        weapon systems, and
          (3) The parameters of public-private partnerships to 
        ensure effective and efficient support of weapon 
        systems for the Air Force.

                  National Defense Sealift Fund Issues

    The budget request contained $388.8 million for one T-AKE 
vessel in the National Defense Sealift Fund. The T-AKE is a 
Department of the Navy cargo and ammunition ship that provides 
at-sea replenishment. Twelve T-AKE ships are planned for 
procurement between fiscal years 2000 and 2007.
    The committee notes that the previous future years defense 
program (FYDP) submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2001 
included two T-AKE ships in fiscal year 2004 but the FYDP for 
fiscal year 2003 includes only one ship in this year, and 
understands that costs for T-AKE ships in fiscal year 2004 and 
later years are based on the option that the Navy would procure 
two T-AKE ships in fiscal year 2004.
    Since the committee understands that fixed-price contracts 
have been awarded under the assumption that the Department of 
the Navy would provide funding for two ships in fiscal year 
2004 and to deviate from that assumption would increase unit 
costs, it encourages the Navy to return to a funding profile 
that would exercise the option to procure two T-AKE ships in 
fiscal year 2004.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

             Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding

    This section would authorize $129.8 billion in operations 
and maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other 
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense.

                   Section 302--Working Capital Funds

    This section would authorize $2.4 billion for Working 
Capital Funds of the Department of Defense.

               Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home

    This section would authorize $69.9 million from the Armed 
Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed 
Forces Retirement Home, including the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home--Washington, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Gulfport.

                    Subtitle B--Environmental Issues

   Section 311--Incidental Taking of Migratory Birds During Military 
                           Readiness Activity

    This section would amend section 704 of title 16, United 
States Code, to give the Department of Defense statutory 
authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, P.L. 93-300, to 
obtain a permit for incidental taking of birds during 
authorized military readiness activity.

   Section 312--Military Readiness and the Conservation of Protected 
                                Species

    This section would amend section 1533 of title 16, United 
States Code, (Public Law 93-205), to amend the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 to prohibit furtherdesignations of critical 
habitat for endangered species in areas for which an Integrated Natural 
Resources Management Plan has been prepared under section 101 of the 
Sikes Act, (Public Law 86-797). This section would also require 
regulatory agencies to consider national security concerns in addition 
to economic impact prior to designating future areas of critical 
habitat. This section would not annul existing critical habitat 
designations, but it would permit the Secretary of the Interior to 
exercise discretion to revise existing critical habitat designations on 
military installations. No existing critical habitat can be revised, 
however, if such action would result in the extinction of an endangered 
or threatened species.

 Section 313--Single Point of Contact for Policy and Budgeting Issues 
   Regarding Unexploded Ordnance, Discarded Military Munitions, and 
                         Munitions Constituents

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a single point of contact in the Department of 
Defense for policy and budgeting issues involving the 
characterization, remediation, and management of explosive and 
related risks with respect to unexploded ordnance, discarded 
military munitions, and munitions constituents at defense sites 
that pose a threat to human health or safety. The section would 
also permit the Secretary to establish an independent advisory 
and review panel to report annually to Congress on progress 
made by the Department of Defense regarding unexploded 
ordnance.

  Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities

  Section 321--Authority for Each Military Department To Provide Base 
                   Operating Support to Fisher Houses

    This section would amend section 2493 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the secretary of a military 
department to provide appropriated fund support to Fisher 
Houses associated with the health care facilities of that 
military department. Currently, only the Secretary of the Navy 
may provide such support. This provision would expand that 
authority to the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force.

  Section 322--Use of Commissary Stores and MWR Retail Facilities by 
        Members of National Guard Serving in National Emergency

    This section would amend section 1063a of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize members of the national guard who are 
ordered to non-federal service in response to a federally 
declared national emergency to use commissary and exchange 
stores. Many members of the national guard have been called to 
service in their states to help secure the homeland in the War 
on Terrorism, and the committee believes that they should be 
authorized commissary and exchange privileges.

  Section 323--Uniform Funding and Management of Morale, Welfare, and 
                          Recreation Programs

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
permit installation commanders to manage funds appropriated for 
installation Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs 
under the procedures used for nonappropriated funds. In effect, 
the installation commander would be allowed to pool 
appropriated and nonappropriated MWR funds into a single 
nonappropriated fund account, resulting in greater flexibility 
and a more streamlined financial accounting system. The 
Department of Defense conducted a successful test of this 
concept, and the committee believes adoption of this initiative 
throughout the Department will increase the efficiency of MWR 
programs operated at the installation level.

                 Subtitle D--Workplace and Depot Issues

  Section 331--Notification Requirements in Connection With Required 
 Studies for Conversion of Commercial or Industrial Type Functions to 
                         Contractor Performance

    This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
notify Congress when the public sector maintains performance of 
a commercial function after competing against the private 
sector to determine which workforce could perform the work in 
the most efficient and effective manner.

 Section 332--Waiver Authority Regarding Prohibition on Contracts for 
                Performance of Security-Guard Functions

    This section would provide a waiver to section 2465(a) of 
title 10, United States Code, which currently prohibits the 
contracting out of security guard functions of the Department 
of Defense. The waiver authority would allow the Secretary of 
Defense or the secretary of a military department to contract 
for security guard functions if these functions are or will be 
performed by members of the armed forces, and at locations 
where security-guard functions are now required since September 
11, 2001.

    Section 333--Exclusion of Certain Expenditures From Percentage 
 Limitation on Contracting for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance 
                          and Repair Workloads

    Currently, section 2474(f) of title 10, United States Code, 
excludes, until the year 2005, all work performed by non-
federal personnel at Department of Defense maintenance and 
repair depots from the percentage limitations (50/50) on 
contracting for depot-level maintenance by the private sector. 
This provision would remove the date limitation. The committee 
believes that the date limitation impedes the ability of both 
the public and the private sectors to fully achieve the 
benefits of public-private partnerships.

    Section 334--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding Depot-Level 
   Maintenance and Repair Workloads That Were Performed at Closed or 
                    Realigned Military Installations

    This provision would repeal section 2469a of title 10, 
United States Code, that addressed depot-level maintenance and 
repair workloads that were performed at installations closed or 
realigned under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of1990 (Public Law 101-510). All applicable installations have 
completed closure or realignment actions and, therefore, section 2469a 
is no longer necessary.

   Section 335--Clarification of Required Core Logistics Capabilities

    This provision would amend section 2464(a)(3) of title 10, 
United States Code to change the definition of core logistics 
to include acquisition logistics, supply management, system 
engineering, maintenance, and modification management.

               Subtitle E--Defense Dependents' Education

  Section 341--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That Benefit 
  Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense 
                           Civilian Employees

    This section would authorize $30.0 million for educational 
assistance to local education agencies where the standard for 
the minimum level of education within the state could not be 
maintained because of the large number of military connected 
students. The committee's commitment to military children has 
provided much needed boosts to the education of military 
children around the country. Even so, the committee notes that 
the Department of Education impact aid program provides 
supplementary funds to eligible school districts nationwide, 
and believes that the Department of Education bears the 
principal responsibility for providing support for the 
educational needs of the nation's children.

   Section 342--Availability of Quarters Allowance for Unaccompanied 
  Defense Department Teacher Required To Reside on Overseas Military 
                              Installation

    This section would amend section 905 of title 20, United 
States Code, to provide a method for the Department of Defense 
Education Activity (DODEA) to reimburse the Department of the 
Navy for the costs associated with making excess family housing 
available to unaccompanied DODEA teachers assigned to 
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba. The provision would also 
provide DODEA with a needed incentive to attract and retain 
qualified educators to accept employment at Guantanamo Bay.

   Section 343--Provision of Summer School Programs for Students Who 
              Attend Defense Dependents' Education System

    This section would amend section 921 of title 20, United 
States Code, to clarify that the Secretary of Defense may 
provide optional summer school programs in the defense 
dependents' education system at no cost to those students who 
would normally be entitled to a free public education.

                   Subtitle F--Information Technology

            Section 351--Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract

    This provision would authorize the Department of the Navy 
to expand the duration of the current contract for Navy Marine 
Corps Intranet services from the current five years to seven 
years. The committee believes that this extension is necessary 
for the continued success of this program.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(P.L. 106-398) authorized a phased implementation for the Navy-
Marine Corps Intranet. Under this approach, the first phase 
consisted of implementing and testing the first 15 percent of 
the total number of seats to be provided under the contract. 
Although the Navy agreed that this approach was reasonable, the 
following year the Navy sought legislative relief. In response, 
Congress granted Navy the authority to order 250,000 seats, 
over half the program, before the operational testing of the 
original 15 percent was complete. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 107-107) granted 
this authority. The Department of the Navy has recently 
notified the committee that it needs authority to lengthen the 
duration of the original contract. The committee recognizes the 
enormous infrastructure the contractor has built and 
implemented in order for the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet to be 
successful. The committee believes it is appropriate for the 
contractor to have a longer period of time to recoup its 
investment costs.
    The committee, however, continues to have significant 
concerns over this program. At this time, the primary concerns 
are cost and funding. The budget request for NMCI is $1.4 
billion. This funding request, however, does not include the 
costs for maintaining legacy systems, being connected to the 
SIPRNET, or to fund a transition office. The committee is 
concerned these unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2003 will 
exceed $600.0 million.

Section 352--Annual Submission of Information on National Security and 
                 Information Technology Capital Assets

    This provision would codify information and data the 
Department of Defense must supply Congress on information 
technology systems. In the past, the committee has received 
information technology documents that describe the various 
information technology initiatives and provide budget data on 
these initiatives. These documents, however, are too often 
inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete. The Department must 
provide the committee accurate and precise information and data 
on information technology systems. The committee will rely on 
the documents, submitted pursuant to this provision, when 
making recommendations. It is not the committee's intention, 
however, to eliminate data or information the Office of 
Management and Budget or the Department of Defense may 
internally request on information technology and national 
security systems.

Section 353--Implementation of Policy Regarding Certain Commercial Off-
               the-Shelf Information Technology Products

    This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure effective implementation, throughout the military 
services and defense agencies, of the federal government's 
policy to purchase only those commercial off-the-shelf 
informationassurance and information assurance-enable 
information technology products that have been evaluated and validated 
in accordance with specified criteria, schemes, or programs.

    Section 354--Installation and Connection Policy and Procedures 
                    Regarding Defense Switch Network

    This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a clear, uniform, and enforceable policy, applicable 
to all military and defense agencies, regarding the testing and 
certification requirements that must be satisfied before a 
telecom switch can be connected to the Defense Switch Network.
    The committee understands that there is a current policy in 
place, but believes the current policy is not well defined and 
does not have clear requirements for certifying and connecting 
telecom switches. The Department of Defense must apply the new 
policy consistently, or risk vendor re-evaluating the 
Department as a customer.

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters

  Section 361--Distribution of Monthly Reports on Allocation of Funds 
         Within Operation and Maintenance Budget Subactivities

    This provision would amend section 228 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify that the report required by section 
228, concerning the allocation of funds within the various 
operation and maintenance accounts of the Department of 
Defense, be provided to the congressional defense committees.

Section 362--Minimum Deduction From Pay of Certain Members of the Armed 
             Forces to Support Armed Forces Retirement Home

    This provision would amend section 1007(i) of title 37, 
United States Code, to require that the minimum amount to be 
collected monthly from all active duty enlisted and warrant 
officer personnel for the support of the Armed Forces 
Retirement Home be no less than $1. The committee notes that 
the current rate of deduction, $.50 cents, was established in 
1977 and; although Congress authorized the Department of 
Defense to increase the monthly deduction to $1 in section 371 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
(Public Law 103-337), the Department has not acted on this 
authority. The committee further notes that had the Department 
increased the monthly deduction to the authorized level of $1 
in 1995, the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund would have 
received, approximately, an additional $55.0 million thereby 
maintaining the stability of the Trust Fund.

 Section 363--Condition on Conversion of Defense Security Service to a 
                     Working Capital Funded Entity

    This provision would prohibit the Department of Defense 
from converting the Defense Security Service (DSS) to a working 
capital fund (WCF) entity until the Secretary of Defense 
certifies to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services that the financial tools and 
systems are in place to support DSS as a WCF.

    Section 364--Continuation of Arsenal Support Program Initiative

    This section would amend Section 343 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to extend the 
Arsenal Support Initiative Program through fiscal year 2004. It 
would also require the Secretary of the Army to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2003, 
on the benefits of this program for Army manufacturing arsenals 
and to the Army and the success as of that date in achieving 
the goals of the program.

    Section 365--Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of 
      Resources and Training System, and Training Range Inventory

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a comprehensive plan for addressing problems created by 
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and 
airspace reserved, withdrawn, or designated for training and 
testing activities by the Department. The section would also 
require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on plans 
of the Department to improve the Global Status of Resources and 
Training System to better reflect the extent that military 
units are achieving training requirements and the impact of 
encroachment and other factors negatively affecting military 
readiness. In addition, the section would require the Secretary 
of Defense to develop and maintain a training range data bank 
for each of the military services.

    Section 366--Amendments to Certain Education and Nutrition Laws 
      Relating to Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing

    This section would amend section 8003(b)(2) of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, (section 
7703(b)(2) of title 20, United States Code), to prevent changes 
in the daily attendance, caused by the privatization of family 
housing on military installations, from affecting payments 
under the impact aid program. The section would also amend 
section 9(b)(3) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
Act (section 1758(b)(3) of title 42 United States Code), to 
exclude payments to military personnel for privatized military 
housing from affecting the eligibility of students for free or 
reduced price school lunches.

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee's military personnel recommendations directly 
reflect its considerations of the impact that the war on 
terrorism is having on service members and their families. 
Following the September 11, 2001 attack on America, the 
nation's military forces, already stressed by years of high 
operations tempo and under-resourcing, responded magnificently 
to a range of challenges, and many new missions. 
Notwithstanding that magnificent response, the committee 
believes that the wartime operations have both masked and 
exacerbated the same debilitating stresses of high operations 
and personnel tempos that existed before the global war on 
terrorism. While fully supporting the efforts of the Secretary 
of Defense to reduce operational and mission requirements, the 
committee recognizes that the war on terrorism will be a long-
term effort and that some growth in active manpower is prudent 
at this time. Therefore, the committee's recommendation would 
increase active duty end strength by 12,600 above fiscal year 
2002 levels, the largest single-year growth in active strength 
since 1985-1986, and provide an additional $550.0 million to 
support the increase.
    The committee also understands that service in uniform, 
whether in peace or war, often inflicts disabling injuries on 
military personnel. Heretofore, disabled military retirees were 
prohibited by law from receiving both their full military 
retired pay and their disability payments from the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (VA). The committee's recommendation would 
end this injustice by authorizing the most severely disabled 
military retirees, those rated 60 percent and above, to receive 
both their full retired pay and their full VA disability 
payments by 2007.
    Building on its continuing multi-year effort to improve pay 
and benefits, the committee continues to believe that fully 
funded and flexible compensation programs are essential to 
successful recruiting and retention. Accordingly, the committee 
would provide a pay raise that combines both across-the-board 
and targeted increases for mid-grade noncommissioned officers 
and officers, and a new, more flexible approach to managing the 
retention of critical health care providers. Furthermore, the 
committee's recommendation would reduce out-of-pocket housing 
expenses from the current 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent in fiscal 
year 2003 and sustain the commitment to eliminate out-of-pocket 
expenses by fiscal year 2005.
    Responding to the Secretary of Defense's desire for 
increased freedom to manage, the committee remains committed to 
providing military and civilian personnel managers within the 
Department of Defense the flexible authorities needed to 
promote efficient, effective, equitable, and timely management 
practices. Accordingly, the committee would include more 
flexible legislative initiatives for promotion, retirement, 
education programs, leave management, medical deferment of 
separation or retirement, support for veterans' funerals, 
privately-owned vehicle storage, and recruit candidate testing.
    Finally, in the area of health care, the committee 
continues to seek better implementation of the TRICARE For Life 
program and to improve existing programs. To this end, the 
committee's recommendations focus on several limited benefit 
changes, necessary improvements to TRICARE's management and 
business practices, the future of the managed care support 
contracts and optimization efforts.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

              Section 401-End Strengths for Active Forces

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 
30, 2003.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2003                   Change from
                                                FY 2002   ------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                     authorized                  Committee      FY 2003      FY 2002
                                                             Request    recommendation    request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................      480,000      480,000        484,800         4,800        4,800
Navy........................................      376,000      375,700        379,457         3,757        3,457
USMC........................................      172,600      175,000        175,000             0        2,400
Air Force...................................      358,800      359,000        360,795         1,795        1,995
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...............................    1,387,400    1,389,700      1,400,052        10,352       12,652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee's strength recommendation approves the 1.4 
percent growth for the Marine Corps requested by the Secretary 
of Defense, and also provides for one percent increases for the 
Army and Navy, and a one-half of one percent increase for the 
Air Force that are in addition to the budget request. The 
committee's concerns about the inadequacy of active component 
manning levels extend back for at least five years prior to the 
commencement of the worldwide war on terrorism on September 11, 
2001. Since that date, new military force requirements have 
emerged and the operations tempo has increased. In only one 
case--the increased Marine Corps end strength--did the budget 
request recognize these new realities. For the other services, 
the net end strength requested in the budget was just below the 
fiscal year 2002 authorized levels. While the committee fully 
supports the efforts of the Secretary of Defense to require the 
military services to comprehensively review their total force 
manpower requirements, the committee also believes that some 
increases in end strength are prudent now, that the recommended 
increases are within the discretionary end strength growth 
permitted by current law, and that the recommended increases 
can be achieved by each of the military services. To support 
the additional end strength, the committee recommends 
increasing by $550.0 million the total amount authorized for 
the military personnel accounts of the Army, Navy and Air 
Force.

     Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels

    This section would amend section 691 of title 10, United 
States Code, by establishing end strength floors for the active 
forces at the fiscal year 2003 strength levels recommended by 
the committee in section 401.

Section 403--Authority for Military Department Secretaries To Increase 
             Active-Duty End Strengths by Up to One Percent

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to increase the authorized active duty end 
strength of their respective military service by up to one 
percent. The increase allowed to the secretaries of the 
military departments would be within the overall two percent 
increase in end strength that current law now permits the 
Secretary of Defense to authorize. The committee recommends 
this expanded authority for the secretaries of the military 
departments to allow them flexibility to enhance manning and 
readiness in essential units or critical specialties or 
ratings, and to assist them in managing dynamic strength 
fluctuations occurring in the military services as a result of 
new requirements, hard-to-predict recruiting and retention 
variables, and variables induced by the movement of reserve 
component personnel on and off active duty.

            Section 404--General and Flag Officer Management

    This section would increase by one the limit on the number 
of United States Marine Corps three- and four-star general and 
flag officers authorized to be on active duty, thereby 
permitting the commanding general, II Marine Expeditionary 
Force, to serve as a lieutenant general. This section would 
also exempt the senior military assistant to the Secretary of 
Defense from counting against the limits on three- and four-
star general and flag officers that apply to that officer's 
specific military service. In addition, the section would also 
require that the chief of the Army Veterinary Corps serve in 
the grade of brigadier general. This section would become 
effective upon Congressional receipt of a report, using current 
requirements and data, that complies fully with section 1213, 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 
(Public Law 104-201).

Section 405--Extension of Certain Authorities Relating to Management of 
         Numbers of General and Flag Officers in Certain Grades

    This section would extend to December 31, 2004, three 
expiring authorities relating to general and flag officer 
management. Those authorities provide for: the process by which 
the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff fill vacant senior joint four-star general and flag 
officer positions; the exemption of the senior joint four-star 
general and flag officers appointed by that process from the 
general and flag officer limits that apply to the military 
services; and, the process by which the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff designates and fills 12 general and flag 
officer positions on the joint staff and 10 reserve component 
general and flag positions on the staffs of the commanders of 
the unified and specified commands.

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

            Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for the selected reserve personnel, including the end strength 
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves, as of 
September 30, 2003:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2003                   Change from
                                                FY 2002   ------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                     authorized                  Committee      FY 2003      FY 2002
                                                             Request    recommendation    request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................      350,000      350,000        350,000             0            0
Army Reserve................................      205,000      205,000        205,000             0            0
Naval Reserve...............................       87,000       87,800         87,800             0          800
Marine Corps Reserve........................       39,558       39,558         39,558             0            0
Air National Guard..........................      108,400      106,600        106,600             0       -1,800
Air Force Reserve...........................       74,700       75,600         75,600             0          900
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...............................      864,658      864,558        864,558             0         -100
Coast Guard Reserve.........................        8,000        9,000          9,000             0        1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of 
                              the Reserves

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of 
September 30, 2003:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2003                   Change from
                                                FY 2002   ------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                     authorized                  Committee      FY 2003      FY 2002
                                                             Request    recommendation    request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................       23,698       23,768         24,562           794          864
Army Reserve................................       13,406       13,588         14,070           482          664
Naval Reserve...............................       14,811       14,572         14,572             0         -239
Marine Corps Reserve........................        2,261        2,261          2,261             0            0
Air National Guard..........................       11,591       11,697         11,697             0          106
Air Force Reserve...........................        1,437        1,498          1,498             0           61
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...............................       67,204       67,384         68,660         1,276        1,456
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee believes that full time manning is a crucial 
component of readiness in the reserve components and for the 
last several years has supported continued overall growth in 
full-time manning. In that vein, the committee's recommendation 
for fiscal year 2003 would provide for a 2.2 percent growth 
over the previous year's end strength for reserves on active 
duty in support of the reserves.

   Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)

    This section would authorize the following end strengths 
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 
2003:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2003                   Change from
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                      FY 2002                    Committee
                                               authorized    Request    recommendation    FY 2003      FY 2002
                                                                            (floor)       request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Army National Guard                   23,615       23,615         24,102           487          487
Army Reserve................................        6,249        6,349          6,599           250          350
Air National Guard..........................       22,422       22,495         22,495             0           73
Air Force Reserve...........................        9,818        9,911          9,911             0           93
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...............................       62,104       62,370         63,107           737         1003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee's recommendation would provide for a 1.6 
percent growth in the strength of military technicians above 
the levels authorized in fiscal year 2002.

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

    This section would establish the following limits on the 
numbers of non-dual status technicians as of September 30, 
2003:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2003                   Change from
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                   Service                      FY 2002                    Committee
                                                 limit       Request    recommendation    FY 2003      FY 2002
                                                                            (limit)       request       limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard.........................        1,600        1,600          1,600             0            0
Army Reserve................................        1,095          995            995             0         -100
Air National Guard..........................          350          350            350             0            0
Air Force Reserve...........................           90            0             90            90            0
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total...............................        3,135        2,945          3,035            90         -100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee's recommended increase in the number of Air 
Force Reserve non-dual status technicians results from revised 
data provided by that component subsequent to the committee's 
receipt of the budget request. The committee notes that the 
Army Reserve and the Air Force Reserve are required by section 
10217 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the total 
number of non-dual status technicians in both components to no 
more than 175 by September 30, 2007, and the committee urges 
both components to coordinate their efforts to reach that 
objective.

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

  Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel

    This section would authorize $93,725.028 million to be 
appropriated for military personnel. This authorization of 
appropriations reflects both reductions and increases to the 
budget request that are itemized below.

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Military
                                                 personnel       O&M
                                                  accounts     accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Recommended Increases

Active End Strength:
  Army........................................       247.00  ...........
  Navy........................................       201.00  ...........
  Air Force...................................       102.00  ...........
RC End Strength:
  Army National Guard AGRs....................        28.40  ...........
  Army Reserve AGRs...........................        11.50  ...........
  Army National Guard Military Technicians....  ...........        11.30
  Army Reserve Military Technicians...........  ...........         8.00
Defense Health Program:
  TRICARE Prime Remote........................  ...........         6.00
  Marshall Island diabetes program............  ...........          2.0
Other Programs:
  Military personnel funding in Defense               32.90  ...........
   Emergency Response Fund....................
  Naval Sea Cadets............................  ...........         1.00
  National Guard Challenge....................  ...........         2.50
  National Guard Youth Foundation.............  ...........         2.50
  Uniting Through Reading.....................  ...........         0.13
                                               -------------------------
      Total Recommended Additions.............       622.80        33.43

            Recommended Reductions

Effect of FY 2002 NDAA legislation on accrual        810.00  ...........
 payment to Uniformed Services Retiree Health
 Care Fund....................................
Savings from not adopting DOD legislative             29.20  ...........
 proposals....................................
Savings from repeal of Special Stipend for            33.43  ...........
 Severely Disabled............................
Transfer funding for wartime-related pays to         320.80  ...........
 H.R. 4547....................................
                                               -------------------------
    Total Recommended Reductions..............     1,193.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee remains committed to providing military and 
civilian personnel managers within the Department of Defense 
the flexible authorities needed to promote efficient, 
effective, equitable, and timely management practices. 
Accordingly, the committee would include more flexible 
legislative initiatives for promotion, retirement, education 
programs, leave management, medical deferment of separation or 
retirement, support for veterans' funerals, privately-owned 
vehicle storage, and recruit candidate testing.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                  Absentee Voting for Military Members

    Section 1604 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) requires the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct during the November 2002 general election a 
statistically valid demonstration project under which uniformed 
voters may cast their absentee ballot through an electronic 
voting system. The committee is aware that the Secretary of 
Defense has exercised the discretionary authority included in 
section 1604 to delay the electronic voting demonstration 
project until the general election in November 2004. The 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to continue to 
investigate the potential to participate in, and provide 
funding for, smaller scale tests during the November 2002 
election as preparation for the major effort envisioned for the 
November 2004 election. The committee is aware of existing 
initiatives that would benefit from the support of the 
Department of Defense and would provide such an interim step 
opportunity during the November 2002 election.

        Compensation and Benefits for Reserve Component Members

    The committee recognizes that the current level of reserve 
component participation and responsibility in military 
operations changed dramatically during the last decade of the 
twentieth century. Today the reserve components represent a 
significant portion of the capability of the total force and 
are an essential element in the full spectrum of worldwide 
military operations. Since 1996, the reserve components have 
contributed between 12 and 13 million full time equivalent days 
in direct support of DOD missions, a ten-fold increase over a 
1989 benchmark period. In addition, the current national 
military strategy calls for a significant number of military 
occupational specialties and skills to reside solely in the 
reserve components. The recent war on terrorism has required 
the call-up of over 85,000 reservists to active duty, and the 
current operational tempo gives no indication that there will 
be significant reductions in the near future. This increase in 
operations tempo of reserve forces raises questions about 
compensation and benefits of particular concern to the citizen-
soldier.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to review the terms and elements of 
reserve compensation, benefit, and personnel support programs, 
including the retirement system. The review should address the 
effectiveness and adequacy of compensation and benefit 
programs, income protection for reservists called to active 
duty, family support programs, health care access, and other 
programs of interest to reservists serving on active duty. The 
review should assess the need for these programs to be improved 
and, if appropriate, offer recommendations for achieving needed 
improvements. The review should also include a comparison of 
these programs to similar programs conducted for the benefit of 
active duty forces to determine if the reserve programs are 
fair and equitable given the increased contributions by reserve 
forces to the defense of the nation.
    Additionally, the review should include an examination of 
the differences in benefits and protections provided to 
reservists who are called to serve under different authorities 
to include: title 10, United States Code; title 32, United 
States Code; and state active duty. The review should assess 
the need for benefits and protections to be made consistent 
regardless of the authority under which reservists are called 
to serve and, if appropriate, offer recommendations for 
achieving that objective.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to report his 
findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 
2003.

       Consideration of Innovative Readiness Training Initiatives

    The committee recognizes the success of the Department of 
Defense Civil Military Innovative Readiness Training Program, 
which is authorized by section 2012 of title 10, United States 
Code. This program provides military unit and individual 
support and services to non-Department of Defense organizations 
in a manner that accomplishes unit and individual training 
requirements. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 
consider training opportunities that provide a benefit to our 
nation's youth and support the President's education 
priorities. The committee recommends the secretary to consider 
applications from local schools, particularly those in rural 
and urban areas, for support of training initiatives to 
establish computer networks in schools.

 Review and Report on Increased Participation of U.S. Navy Officers in 
                  Intermediary and Senior War Colleges

    The committee is concerned about the challenges facing the 
Navy in providing its officers with appropriate and timely 
opportunities for professional military education. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review the 
plans and progress achieved to increase participation of active 
and reserve Navy officers in intermediate and senior war 
colleges. The review should include an assessment of the 
attendance objective for each level, as well as actions being 
taken to achieve the objectives. Specific attention should be 
given to responses that may require enabling congressional 
action. The Secretary of the Navy shall provide the results of 
the review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 
House Committee on Armed Services by April 18, 2003.

                        Uniting Through Reading

    The committee is pleased to note the success of the Navy's 
Uniting Through Reading program. Uniting Through Reading 
improves literacy and strengthens the quality of life for Navy 
and Marine Corps families separated during deployments. This 
popular family support program is currently available to all 
ships preparing for deployment, and is being extended to the 
Naval Construction Forces (Seabees), Marine Expeditionary 
Units, the Naval Reserve Forces, individual deployers, and 
deployed, shore-based squadrons. Uniting Through Reading helps 
maintain the emotional bond between children and parents during 
extended periods of separation. The committee recommends an 
additional $130,000 for this important program.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

          Subtitle A--General Personnel Management Authorities

  Section 501--Increase in Number of Deputy Commandants of the Marine 
                                 Corps

    This section would increase the authorized number of deputy 
commandants at Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, from 
five to six. This authorization would permit the commander, 
Marine Corps Combat Developments Command, to be designated a 
deputy commandant, but would not increase the number of three-
star Marine Corps general officers on active duty because the 
commander, Marine Corps Combat Developments Command, already 
holds that rank.

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

    This section would extend to December 31, 2004, the 
authority of the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement 
for significant joint experience as a qualification for 
appointment as the chief of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or 
Marine Corps reserve or as director of the Army or Air National 
Guard. The committee recommends the extension because it 
understands that the requirement for significant joint 
experience was established just two years ago with the 
enactment of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), and that the 
Department and service secretaries will require a period of 
time for future candidates for appointment as chiefs of the 
reserve and national guard components to acquire that joint 
experience. However, the committee also believes that unless 
the Secretary of Defense acts aggressively, it could be many 
years before senior reserve component officers will gain the 
requisite experience. Therefore, this section would also 
require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress 
regarding the steps that he, together with the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs and the secretaries of the military departments, 
will take to ensure that no further extensions of this waiver 
authority will be required after 2004.

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

    Section 511--Reviews of National Guard Strength Accounting and 
                      Management and Other Issues

    This section, like section 512, is a result of the 
committee's continued concerns about the national guard's unit 
strength management, senior officer selection and oversight, 
and whistleblower protections. This section would require both 
the Comptroller General and the Secretary of Defense to conduct 
reviews and to provide the committee assessments of:
          (1) The effectiveness of the Department of Defense's 
        continuing effort to improve unit strength management 
        in the Army National Guard;
          (2) The effectiveness of the federal recognition 
        process for senior national guard officers;
          (3) The nature and extent of administrative and 
        judicial actions taken in cases of substantiated 
        misconduct by senior national guard officers;
          (4) The effectiveness of federal protections for 
        whistleblowers and the national guard and the nature 
        and extent of corrective actions taken against those in 
        the national guard who retaliate against 
        whistleblowers; and
          (5) The differing Army and Air Force policies for 
        taking adverse administrative actions against national 
        guard general officers serving in a state status.

Section 512--Courts-Martial for the National Guard When Not in Federal 
                                Service

    This section would amend title 32 United States Code, to 
update and streamline the administration of military justice in 
the national guard when it is not in a federal status. 
Furthermore, reflecting the committee's support for the 1998 
recommendation of the Department of Defense Panel to Study 
Military Justice in the National Guard, this section would 
require the Secretary of Defense to develop a model state 
Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as a model state 
Manual for Courts-Martial, and undertake an effort to present 
these two models for consideration and possible adoption by all 
the states and territories. As noted in the panel's report, 
such an effort would promote the modernization and uniformity 
of the administration of military justice in the national guard 
while in state status.

  Section 513--Matching Funds Requirements Under National Guard Youth 
                           Challenge Program

    This section would revise the Department of Defense cost 
share for each state's National Guard Challenge Program from 60 
percent to 75 percent.

         Subtitle C--Reserve Component Officer Personnel Policy

   Section 521--Exemption from Active Status Strength Limitation for 
 Reserve Component General and Flag Officers Serving on Active Duty in 
Certain Joint Duty Assignments Designated by the Chairman of the Joint 
                            Chiefs of Staff

    This section would exempt the 10 reserve component general 
and flag officers who are serving on active duty on the joint 
staffs of the commanders of the unified and specified commands 
from counting against the numbers of reserve component general 
and flag officers authorized by section 12004 of title 10, 
United States Code. These 10 reserve component general and flag 
officers, the so-called ``Chairman's ten'' because the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff designates the joint staff 
positions they fill on active duty, already are exempted by 
section 526 of title 10, United States Code, from counting 
against active duty general and flag officer limits. The 
proposed exemption from reserve component general and flag 
officer authorizations would enable the reserve components not 
on active duty to fill 10 more general and flag officer 
mobilization positions. The authority for this exemption would 
expire on December 31, 2004.

 Section 522--Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion to Grade of 
 Major General for Certain Reserve Component Brigadier Generals Who do 
  Not Otherwise Qualify for Consideration for Promotion Under the One-
                               Year Rule

    Section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, precludes 
promotion eligibility for reserve officers who are serving on 
the reserve active-status list or the active-duty list (or 
combination of both lists) for less than one year as of the 
convening of the promotion board. This section would permit 
reserve brigadier generals of the Army and Air Force to be 
eligible for promotion with less than one year on the reserve 
active-status list or the active-duty list (or combination of 
both lists) when the following three factors apply to the 
officer:
    (1) The officer had been transferred from an inactive 
status to the active status list during the one-year period 
preceding the date of the convening of the promotion board.
    (2) The officer had been in an inactive status for less 
than one year immediately before the officer's most recent 
transfer to an active status.
    (3) The officer had continuously served for at least one 
year on the reserve active status list, the active duty list 
(or a combination of both lists) before the officer's most 
recent transfer to an inactive status.

 Section 523--Retention of Promotion Eligibility for Reserve Component 
      General and Flag Officers Transferred to an Inactive Status

    Section 14317 of title 10, United States Code, requires 
that reserve officers forfeit their status as a selectee for 
promotion when they are transferred to inactive status. They 
may be promoted upon return to active status, but only if 
recommended for promotion by a subsequent promotion board. This 
section would permit reserve officers selected for promotion to 
major general and rear admiral to retain their promotion 
eligibility and, if otherwise qualified, be promoted to the 
higher grade upon returning to an active status from an 
inactive status.

 Section 524--Authority for Limited Extension of Medical Deferment of 
        Mandatory Retirement or Separation for Reserve Officers

    This section would authorize the secretaries of the 
military departments to defer mandatory retirement or 
separation of reserve officers undergoing hospitalization or 
medical observation when such hospitalization or medical 
observation is part of an evaluation to determine the officer's 
eligibility for disability retirement or separation. The 
secretary of the military department would be authorized to 
extend the retirement or separation for 30 days after 
completion of the evaluation requiring hospitalization or 
medical observation.

                   Subtitle D--Education and Training

   Section 531--Authority for Phased Increase to 4,400 in Authorized 
                  Strengths for the Service Academies

    This section would permit the secretaries of the military 
departments, beginning with classes entering the service 
academies during the 2003-2004 academic year, to increase the 
end strengths for cadets or midshipmen at their respective 
service academies, in annual increments of up to 100, from the 
current limit of 4,000 to 4,400. In addition, this section 
would specify that the annual increase in service academy end 
strength could not exceed the increase achieved during the 
preceding year in enrollments in the senior Reserve Officers 
Training Program (ROTC) of that service. This section also 
urges the secretaries of the military departments to ensure 
that by the 2006-2007 academic year the corresponding increase 
in enrollments in the senior ROTC program are all scholarship 
participants. The committee recommends a linkage between end 
strengths at the service academies and senior ROTC enrollments 
because it firmly believes that the long-term effectiveness of 
the officer corps of the military services will be enhanced by 
growth in both commissioning sources.

 Section 532--Enhancement of Reserve Component Delayed Training Program

    This section would authorize members who enlist in the 
reserve delayed training program to remain in that program for 
one year, a full three months longer than authorized in current 
law. The one-year duration would be consistent with the active 
duty delayed entry program.

                   Subtitle E--Decorations and Awards

     Section 541--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain 
                     Decorations to Certain Persons

    This section would waive the statutory time limitations for 
the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross to individuals 
recommended for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross by the 
service secretary concerned.

  Section 542--Option To Convert Award of Armed Forces Expeditionary 
   Medal Awarded for Operation Frequent Wind to Vietnam Service Medal

    This section would authorize participants in Operation 
Frequent Wind, the evacuation of Vietnam conducted on April 29 
and 30, 1975, to return the award of the Armed Forces 
Expeditionary Medal and to receive the Vietnam Service Medal in 
its place.

                   Subtitle F--Administrative Matters

   Section 551--Staffing and Funding of the Defense Prisoner of War/
                        Missing Personnel Office

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
increase the military and civilian manning levels, as well the 
annual funding, for the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in 
Action Office (DPMO) in fiscal year 2004 and subsequent years 
to enable the DPMO to adequately perform its full range of 
missions. This section would also prohibit the secretary in 
fiscal year 2003 from reducing the assigned military and 
civilian personnel and funding below the levels requested in 
the budget. The committee makes this recommendation because it 
believes the DPMO plays a crucial role in the fulfillment of 
the national commitment to provide a full accounting for the 
prisoners of war and missing in action of the nation's wars. 
The committee is disappointed that the secretary did not heed 
the committee's direction in the committee report on H.R. 2586 
(H. Rept. 107-194), to increase DPMO resources. The committee 
also understands that the DPMO faces a potential reduction of 
15 percent or more in fiscal year 2003 as part of the 
secretary's plan to reduce the size of headquarters. The 
committee believes such a reduction in DPMO to be imprudent.

 Section 552--Three-Year Freeze on Reductions of Personnel of Agencies 
       Responsible for Review and Correction of Military Records

    The committee considers the review boards agencies, and 
specifically the boards for correction of military records, 
within each military department as representing congressional 
interests in safeguarding fairness and equity for all service 
members. The committee views these boards differently from 
other headquarters functions and becomes concerned when 
announced management decisions to reduce manpower levels within 
the boards threaten their efficiency and effectiveness.
    Accordingly, this section would preclude the secretaries of 
the military departments from reducing the number of military 
and civilian personnel assigned to duty within the boards 
through fiscal year 2005 until 90 days after the secretary of 
the military department concerned submits a report that 
describes the proposed reduction, provides the rationale for 
the reduction, and specifies the number of personnel that will 
be assigned to the board after the reduction is complete.

Section 553--Department of Defense Support for Persons Participating in 
                    Military Funeral Honors Details

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
prescribe a flat-rate daily stipend for military retirees and 
others who are not service members or government employees 
participating in funeral honors details. The stipend would be 
paid in lieu of separate payments for transportation and 
miscellaneous expenses.

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

    This section would authorize the secretaries concerned to 
accept the voluntary services of educators and other 
individuals to assist recruiters in administering the Armed 
Services Vocational Aptitude Battery to high school students.

  Section 555--Annual Report on Status of Female Members of the Armed 
                                 Forces

    This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit an annual report to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the 
status of female members of the armed forces regarding 
assignments and assignments policies, deployment, promotion and 
retention rates, and sexual harassment.

                          Subtitle G--Benefits

 Section 561--Voluntary Leave Sharing Program for Members of the Armed 
                                 Forces

    This section would authorize a service member to transfer 
accrued leave to another member when the recipient is likely to 
require a prolonged absence from duty due to a medical 
condition of a family member or other hardship condition. The 
commander of the recipient and the commander of the contributor 
would be required to approve such transfer of leave.

  Section 562--Enhanced Flexibility in Medical Loan Repayment Program

    This section would repeal the bar against providing loan 
repayment benefits to participants in the armed forces health 
professions scholarship and financial assistance program and 
would remove the limit on the total benefit that may be paid.

       Section 563--Expansion of Overseas Tour Extension Benefits

    Section 705 of title 10, United States Code, authorizes 
members who have been granted leave and transportation benefits 
in connection with an extension of an overseas tour to travel 
to the nearest port of entry within the 48 contiguous states 
and return. This section would authorize members who have been 
granted leave and transportation benefits in connection with an 
extension of an overseas tour to travel to an alternative 
location within the 48 contiguous states, so long as the cost 
does not exceed the cost of transportation to the nearest port 
of entry.

 Section 564--Vehicle Storage in Lieu of Transportation When Member Is 
 Ordered to a Nonforeign Duty Station Outside Continental United States

    This section would authorize members to store a privately-
owned vehicle when the member is ordered to a duty station in a 
nonforeign area outside the continental United States and the 
shipment of a vehicle is prohibited or contingent upon 
completion of extensive modification.

                  Subtitle H--Military Justice Matters

   Section 571--Right of Convicted Accused to Request Sentencing by 
                             Military Judge

    This section would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United 
States Code, to permit the sentencing phase of trial in courts-
martial to be conducted by a military judge sitting alone, 
rather than by court members.
    Under the present courts-martial process, a military judge 
alone may not sentence an accused if the accused elects to be 
tried by court members. Such a result, however, has 
disadvantages. Sentencing trials involving members may be more 
lengthy and complicated than judge-alone proceedings, costing 
the government time and expense and keeping court members away 
from their regular duties for extended periods. Moreover, 
military judges generally have as sound a sense of community 
and disciplinary norms and mores as court members because they 
typically preside over many cases at a single installation.
    This section would permit a separate choice of forum 
decision to be made following announcement of findings of guilt 
or innocence by the court but before evidence on sentencing is 
received. A request for sentencing by judge-alone could be made 
orally on the record or in writing. Consistent with article 18 
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, section 818 of title 
10, United States Code, and Rule for Courts-Martial 
201(f)(1)(C), judge-alone sentencing would not be permitted in 
capital cases.
    This section would apply to offenses committed after 
January 1, 2003. The committee notes that Congress considered a 
similar provision last year but deferred legislative action 
pending receipt of a report from the Secretary of Defense on 
this issue. The report was due March 1, 2002, but has not been 
received. The committee has been provided no explanation for 
the failure to timely provide this report. The committee 
anticipates receipt of the report in time to permit full 
consideration of this issue before the effective date of this 
provision.

 Section 572--Report on Desirability and Feasibility of Consolidating 
       Separate Courses of Basic Instruction for Judge Advocates

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
study the feasibility and desirability of consolidating the 
separate Army, Navy and Air Force courses on basic instruction 
for judge advocates into a single course to be conducted at a 
single location. Recent deployments of American military 
personnel have demonstrated increased interoperability 
requirements, as well as the likelihood that joint military 
operations will be more common in the future. Given this 
reality, questions must be asked about whether cost savings in 
training activities can be achieved and whether common courses 
of instruction among the services in certain disciplines 
leading to better interoperability in joint operations make 
sense.
    In the context of the services' judge advocate officer 
corps, the legal subjects officers should learn in order to be 
successful military attorneys are not service-specific. For 
example, the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
and courts-martial practices are substantially the same for all 
the services, as are the majority of laws pertaining to claims, 
civil law and legal assistance. Moreover, overhead and 
infrastructure cost savings could be achieved by consolidating 
the physical facilities of the three service judge advocate 
schools into a single location. Service-unique instruction or 
acculturation could easily be provided as an adjunct to a 
generic legal course of instruction. The result of this 
consolidation could be well-trained legal officers who could 
perform better in joint operational environments and whose 
training costs are less than those of officers who attend the 
separate courses of instruction provided at present. The 
committee requires the secretary to report on his findings to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee 
on Armed Services by February 28, 2003.

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                                OVERVIEW

    The committee continues to believe that fully funded and 
flexible compensation programs are essential to successful 
recruiting and retention. Accordingly, the committee would 
include a pay raise that combines both across-the-board and 
targeted increases for mid-grade noncommissioned officers and 
officers, increases to wartime pays and benefits and a new more 
flexible approach to managing the retention of critical health 
care providers.
    The committee remains committed to achieving for disabled 
military retirees concurrent receipt of military retired pay 
and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA). The committee is pleased that the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 2003 (H. Con. Res. 353), 
adopted in the House includes an allocation of $5.8 billion 
over 5 years in mandatory spending to fund full concurrent 
receipt during fiscal year 2007 for disabled retirees rated by 
the VA as 60 percent disabled and above. Accordingly, the 
committee would include a provision that achieves full 
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability 
compensation during fiscal year 2008 for military retirees 
rated by the VA as 60 percent disabled and above.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

       Integrating Basic Allowance for Subsistence into Basic Pay

    The committee has grown increasingly concerned that 
similarly situated deployed service members receive disparate 
treatment regarding receipt of basic allowance for subsistence 
(BAS). Based on the type of deployment and service-unique 
policies, some service members receive their full BAS while 
others serving at the same duty location receive only a portion 
of their BAS. While the committee remains committed to 
resolving such inequities, this concern has prompted the 
committee to question the larger issue of whether BAS continues 
to be a useful management tool. It occurs to the committee that 
the services would benefit from eliminating the administrative 
burden and structure associated with managing BAS and 
integrating the value of the allowance into basic pay for all 
personnel. While such a strategy would raise the issue of how 
to deal with the increase in the tax burden for individuals, 
the committee notes that the increase in personal taxes would 
be counterbalanced by an increase in the value of retired pay 
for those that remain for a full career. The committee is aware 
that the Seventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation 
recognized the benefits of simplifying military pay systems and 
made a recommendation that included the elimination of BAS.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to study this issue, examine the cost implications, develop 
implementation strategies, and determine the Department of 
Defense position. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to report the findings of his review to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 31, 2003.

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

    The committee has received complaints that the benefits of 
the Montgomery G.I. Bill for members of the selected reserve 
have not kept pace with the benefits provided under the 
Montgomery G.I. Bill for members serving on active duty. The 
committee recognizes that there are necessary differences 
between the programs and that benefit levels will be different 
due to the different purposes of the programs. However, the 
committee believes that some of the existing differences 
between the programs are not justified and have resulted from 
administrative oversight or neglect. Accordingly, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to study the differences 
between the two programs and report the findings and 
recommendations of his review to the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 
2003.

   Reducing the Gap Between Military and Private Sector Pay Increases

    The committee believes that eliminating the gap in pay 
raise rates between the military and the private sector is 
fundamental to an effective compensation strategy and an 
essential prerequisite to successful recruiting and retention. 
While a variety of other allowances, special pays, and bonuses 
must be constantly monitored and adjusted when required, basic 
pay is the foundation upon which the other elements of 
compensation are based and it must keep pace with private 
sector pay raises.
    Section 602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) requires that military pay 
raises exceed the private sector rate by one-half of one 
percent during fiscal years 2001 through 2006. The committee 
recognizes that, depending on the pay raises planned for the 
defense budgets through fiscal year 2006, the pay gap will 
likely not be eliminated during fiscal year 2006. The committee 
is inclined to extend beyond fiscal year 2006 the period of 
time that military pay raises are required to exceed the 
private sector pay raise rates. While such an action would 
signal military forces and their leaders that the committee is 
committed to restoring and maintaining parity between military 
and private sector pay raises, it may also prematurely set a 
goal that will ultimately be unnecessary.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report the details of his long-term plan for military pay 
raises and his estimate as to when the gap in pay raise rates 
between the military and the private sector will be eliminated. 
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the 
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2003.

        Use of the Critical Skills Retention Bonus for Linguists

    The committee urges the secretaries of the military 
departments to fully utilize the flexibility provided in the 
critical skills retention bonus to address the need to retain 
qualified foreign language speakers. The war on terrorism has 
highlighted the need to attract and retain foreign language 
speakers, including, but not limited to, critical languages 
such as Arabic, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Persian-Farsi, and 
Russian. For example, a January 2002 report by the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) indicated thatthe Army had a 
requirement for 608 Korean linguists, but was only able to fill 480 
positions. This shortfall did not result because of inadequate training 
levels. The Defense Language Institute has graduated 693 Korean 
linguists over the previous 5 years, or 114 percent of the Army's total 
requirement. The committee believes that more needs to be done to 
retain skilled linguists to take advantage of the higher productivity 
inherent with more experienced and proficient linguists. The committee 
believes that the critical skill retention bonus offers the means to 
achieve the needed improvement in the retention of military linguists.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

        Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2003

    This section would increase basic pay a minimum of 4.1 
percent for all members of the uniformed services. In addition, 
the section would provide additional increases to mid-grade and 
senior noncommissioned officers, and mid-grade officers to 
maintain incentives to serve throughout the enlisted career and 
to increase incentives to retain junior officers and highly 
skilled enlisted members.
    This raise would continue to fulfill Congress' commitment 
to increasing pay for the uniformed services. The combined 
across-the-board and targeted raise would be the equivalent of 
a 4.7 percent across-the-board raise and would reduce the pay 
gap between military and private sector pay increases over time 
from 7.5 percent to 6.4 percent.

 Section 602--Expansion of Basic Allowance for Housing Low-Cost or No-
 Cost Moves Authority to Members Assigned to Duty Outside United States

    This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay 
members assigned overseas who complete low-cost or no-cost 
moves to continue to receive basic allowance for housing (BAH) 
based on the BAH rate for the member's previous duty location 
if the secretary determines that it would be inequitable to pay 
the member the BAH rate for the member's new duty location. The 
provision would bring the treatment of BAH rates for low-cost 
or no-cost moves in an overseas area in line with the treatment 
of BAH for similar moves inside the United States.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

   Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
                     Authorities for Reserve Forces

    This section would extend the authority for the selected 
reserve reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment 
bonus, special pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve 
assigned to certain high priority units, the selected reserve 
affiliation bonus, the ready reserve enlistment and 
reenlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment bonus 
until December 31, 2003.

   Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay 
           Authorities for Certain Health Care Professionals

    This section would extend the authority for the nurse 
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists, the special pay for selected reserve health care 
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, and the 
accession bonus for dental officers until December 31, 2003. 
The provision would also extend the authority for repayment of 
educational loans for certain health professionals who serve in 
the selected reserve until January 1, 2004.

 Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities 
                          for Nuclear Officers

    This section would extend the authority for the special pay 
for nuclear-qualified officers extending the period of active 
service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career 
annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2003.

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

    This section would extend the authority for the aviation 
officer retention bonus, the reenlistment bonus for active 
members, the enlistment bonus for active members, the retention 
bonus for members with critical military skills, and the 
accession bonus for new officers in critical skills until 
December 31, 2003.

Section 615--Minimum Levels of Hardship Duty Pay for Duty on the Ground 
                   in Antarctica or on Arctic Icepack

    This section would specify a hardship duty pay rate of not 
less than $240 per month for duty performed by service members 
on the ground in Antarctica or on the Arctic icepack. The 
provision would specify that the monthly rate be prorated and 
paid for each day of qualified service.

  Section 616--Increase in Maximum Rates for Prior Service Enlistment 
                                 Bonus

    This section would increase the rates paid to reservists 
with critical skills under the prior service enlistment bonus 
from $5,000 to $8,000 in the case of a member who enlists for 
six years, from $2,500 to $4,000 in the case of a member who 
enlists for three years, and from $2,000 to $3,500 in the case 
of a member who received a prior bonus for a three year 
enlistment and who reenlists or extends for an additional three 
years.

 Section 617--Retention Incentives for Health Care Providers Qualified 
                      in a Critical Military Skill

    The committee recognizes that, in some cases, the 
legislative authorities for health care provider special and 
incentive pays and bonuses have not been updated for a decade 
andhave lost their value to attract and retain quality 
practitioners. The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
is studying health care provider compensation and that a new structure 
for these incentives will be forthcoming. In an effort to facilitate 
the ultimate implementation of the new pay and bonus structure, the 
committee elects to adopt a more flexible legislative authority for 
this purpose that preserves through an annual report the capability of 
Congress to provide oversight. Accordingly, this section would amend 
the critical skill retention bonus to provide exceptions to the limits 
on bonus amounts and years of service for bonuses paid to health care 
providers.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

  Section 631--Extension of Leave Travel Deferral Period for Members 
             Performing Consecutive Overseas Tours of Duty

    This section would authorize members who have been granted 
travel and transportation benefits in connection with a 
consecutive overseas tour to defer those benefits for the full 
duration of the additional tour of duty. If the member is 
unable to undertake the travel before the completion of the 
additional tour because of duty in connection with a 
contingency operation, the provision would authorize the member 
to defer the travel and transportation for a year after the 
contingency operation duty ends.

             Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits

 Section 641--Phase-in of Full Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired 
  Pay and Veterans Disability Compensation for Military Retirees with 
               Disabilities Rated at 60 Percent or Higher

    The committee is opposed to reducing retired pay due to 
members of the uniformed services to offset the receipt of 
compensation for service-connected disabilities paid by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The committee believes 
that retirees are entitled to receive both the retired pay for 
which they contributed years of faithful service and the VA 
compensation for a service-connected disability intended to 
recognize a lifelong limitation on earning potential. The 
committee intends to continue to promote concurrent receipt for 
all eligible retirees and is committed to adopt the legislative 
changes needed to achieve advances in concurrent receipt to the 
extent that funding for this purpose is made available in 
future concurrent budget resolutions.
    Accordingly, and consistent with the Concurrent Resolution 
on the Budget--Fiscal Year 2003 (H. Con. Res. 353) adopted in 
the House, this section would authorize retirement-qualified 
members of the uniformed services with disabilities rated as 60 
percent and above to receive during the fifth year of a 5-year 
transition program, full VA disability compensation without a 
reduction in retired pay. In the case of a member who receives 
a disability retirement, the section would allow the retired 
pay to be reduced, but only to the extent that the member's 
retired pay exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the 
member would have been entitled based solely on the member's 
years of service.
    The transition program would provide the following amounts 
to disabled retirees during fiscal year 2003:
    (1) Members rated 100 percent disabled would receive $750 
per month.
    (2) Members rated 90 percent disabled would receive $500 
per month.
    (3) Members rated 80 percent disabled would receive $250 
per month.
    (4) Members rated 70 percent disabled would receive $250 
per month.
    (5) Members rated 60 percent disabled would receive $125 
per month.
    The transition program during fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 
2006 would reduce for each retiree the difference between the 
amount of retired pay received the previous year and full 
concurrent receipt by 23 percent, 30 percent, and 64 percent, 
respectively. During fiscal year 2007, all retirees with 
disability rating of 60 percent and above would receive their 
entire retired pay and VA disability compensation.

Section 642--Change in Service Requirements for Eligibility for Retired 
                      Pay for Non-Regular Service

    This section would reduce the number of years of continuous 
reserve component service required immediately before 
qualifying for non-regular retired pay from eight to six.

 Section 643--Elimination of Possible Inversion in Retired Pay Cost-of-
             Living Adjustment for Initial COLA Computation

    This section would limit partial-year retired pay cost-of-
living adjustments (COLAs) in the first year of retirement to 
be no greater than the COLA paid to retirees who were retired 
for the entire year.

  Section 644--Technical Revisions to So-Called ``Forgotten Widows'' 
                            Annuity Program

    This section would make technical and administrative 
changes to section 644 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) that addressed 
annuities for certain military surviving spouses.

            Subtitle E--Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill

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

    This section would extend the eligibility window for 
educational assistance for members of the selected reserve 
through the Montgomery G.I. Bill from 10 to 14 years from the 
date of first eligibility.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters

  Section 661--Addition of Definition of Continental United States in 
                                Title 37

    This section would amend section 101 of title 37, United 
States Code, to include the definition of continental United 
States as the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia 
and amend other sections of title 37, United States Code, to 
reflect the addition of the definition.

                     TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS

                                OVERVIEW

    Enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) limited changes to 
TRICARE in fiscal year 2002 to necessary improvements intended 
to facilitate better implementation of TRICARE For Life or to 
improve existing programs. The committee commends the Secretary 
of Defense for the Department's efforts to ensure smooth 
implementation of the new benefits for Medicare-eligible 
military retirees and their eligible beneficiaries and other 
improvements to TRICARE. With this in mind, the committee has 
focused this year's legislation on several limited benefit 
changes, necessary improvements to TRICARE's management and 
business practices, the future of the managed care support 
contracts, and optimization efforts.
    The committee was encouraged that the defense health 
program budget request relied on more realistic cost and 
budgeting assumptions. The commitment to fully fund the defense 
health program (DHP) is commendable. However, the committee 
continues to urge the Department of Defense (DOD) to more fully 
optimize the military treatment facilities. Although the direct 
care system of military treatment facilities has received an 
increase in the budget request, a sustained period of under-
investment in optimization, maintenance, and repair of these 
facilities has eroded the capacity of the military hospitals 
and clinics of the direct care system. The committee is 
concerned that current funding for the direct care system 
continues to undermine optimization efforts, forcing some 
patients into the private sector. On balance, this phenomenon 
drives up the cost of the defense health program and limits the 
resources available for treating patients in the direct care 
system. The committee expects to be kept informed of the 
efforts to allocate defense health resources in a manner that 
will maximize the effectiveness of the entire DHP.
    For the past several years, the committee has focused its 
efforts to reduce the high cost of TRICARE claims processing. 
In testimony this year, the committee again heard from 
providers and managed care support contractors that DOD's 
unique claims processing system costs continue to far exceed 
those of equivalent civilian systems for processing claims. The 
testimony suggested that impediments to a cost-effective, 
provider and beneficiary friendly system for TRICARE claims 
processing continue to exist. Hearing testimony also suggested 
that the committee needs to better understand the nature, 
reasons, and extent of trends in the TRICARE network provider 
instability, and the effectiveness of DOD's and TRICARE managed 
care support contractors' efforts to measure and mitigate such 
turbulence. The committee was encouraged by testimony from DOD 
health officials that they would examine the policies and 
practices associated with the managed care support contractors, 
and the committee urges the Department to move forward and 
examine and formulate plans to address these issues. However, 
the committee is concerned about the long-term impact of these 
issues on the program and requires the Comptroller General to 
also study these areas.
    The committee recognizes that DOD is negotiating extension 
periods to existing managed care support contracts even as it 
considers how to structure the next generation of TRICARE 
contracts. Much remains to be known of the Department's plans 
to redesign the contracts and possible initiatives to carve out 
specific contract areas such as marketing and pharmacy 
services. The committee notes DOD's intent to include suitable 
best business practices found in the health care industry and 
to incorporate mechanisms that share risk between TRICARE's 
partners--the Department of Defense and the managed care 
support contractors. The successful implementation of the new 
contracts should also keep in mind the potential impact on the 
beneficiaries. The committee urges the Department to continue 
to ensure all stakeholders are included. The committee expects 
to be kept fully informed as the Department approaches its 
final design of new contract vehicles.
    The committee continues to be pleased with the nature and 
extent of DOD's engagement with the private non-governmental 
associations representing the interests of the beneficiaries of 
the military health care system during its deliberations on the 
design of next generation contracts and implementation of 
TRICARE programs. The committee encourages DOD to continue to 
reach out to beneficiaries of the military health care system 
and other key stakeholders including DOD's managed care support 
contractors. The Department should consider broadening and 
enhancing this outreach to include other health care 
organizations and providers in more routine consultations 
regarding benefit design and delivery, industry best practices, 
management initiatives, and beneficiary and provider 
communications and consultation. Such outreach could provide 
valuable insight regarding provider and beneficiary incentives 
and satisfaction.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

     Claims Processing for Under-65 Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries

    The committee is aware that Medicare-eligible beneficiaries 
under the age of 65 are not currently able to have their health 
care claims filed electronically because the Department has not 
yet resolved cross-over claims issues. Until the Department 
remedies this shortcoming, under-65 Medicare-eligible 
beneficiaries are unable to fully participate in TRICARE For 
Life (TFL) and, in essence are denied participation in the 
program because they must pay their fees upfront. For many, 
this is not a viable option. Until this cross-over claims issue 
is resolved, these beneficiaries are effectively denied the 
ready access to Medicare providers they are entitled to under 
the TFL program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to expeditiously resolve this barrier to TFL participation and 
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2003, on 
actions taken to resolve claims processing problems for under-
65 Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.

    Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System 
                              Improvements

    The committee is concerned about the accuracy and 
timeliness of the current process to update information in the 
Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). In 
particular, there appears to be some delay in entering updates 
when changes occur in the sponsor's military status, 
demographics, or duty station. The DEERS database determines 
the eligibility and benefit program of service members. If 
there are delays in accurately processing and transmitting 
personnel changes to DEERSby the military services, then 
beneficiaries are denied health care, or health care is delayed. The 
committee believes the Department should set a goal of near real-time 
updates with 100% accuracy. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, to assess the ability of the military services to update 
information in DEERS in a more timely and accurate manner, and, if 
necessary, implement a plan to make the improvements the secretary 
believes are necessary. The secretary's report to the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services would be 
required by September 30, 2003.

                        Force Health Protection

    The committee remains strongly committed to ensuring that 
the force health protection of our troops continues to remain a 
high priority for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the 
military services. The committee is pleased to note the 
implementation of new clinical guidelines for use by DOD and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) physicians in caring 
for the unique needs of military personnel and their families. 
However, as utilization of the active, guard and reserve 
components continues to increase to meet the growing demand for 
deployments around the world, force health protection remains 
at the forefront of our ability to meet these requirements. The 
Department was tasked with developing a system that can be used 
to track military personnel who are deployed, monitor in-
theatre medical requirements, and conduct post-deployment 
assessments to ensure that DOD and the military services know 
where and when our men and women are deployed, the environment 
in which they are deployed, any medical requirements they are 
subject to while in theatre, and any post-deployment health 
developments. These issues were raised as a result of the 
Persian Gulf War. In view of the continuing and increasing 
deployments around the world, we need to ensure that we are 
doing everything possible to protect the health of our troops. 
The committee recently requested that the General Accounting 
Office examine the DOD-VA medical surveillance system. In view 
of this, the committee urges that the Secretary of Defense take 
this opportunity to review the entire spectrum of force health 
protection issues in order to ensure that a collaborative, 
focused and adequately resourced effort is underway, and that 
appropriate medical surveillance policies and procedures are in 
place throughout the DOD and the military services.

           Military Health Care System Information Management

    The committee remains interested in developments by the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to improve its health care 
information management systems. The committee, therefore, is 
concerned that the Department has yet to provide the interim 
report requested in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) to conduct a 
comprehensive study of DOD medical data systems that will 
facilitate management, clinical treatment, system performance 
evaluations, costs, manpower and enrollment. The establishment 
of a comprehensive medical data system is vital to the 
Department on a number of levels, including improving benefits 
and services to military personnel, retirees and their 
families, increasing resource sharing activities between the 
Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs or other 
federal agencies and private organizations, improving resource 
management and reducing barriers to ensure medical readiness. 
The committee urges the Department to provide adequate 
resources to ensure that the development and implementation of 
these information management systems moves forward in a timely 
manner.

               TRICARE Access Standards for Appointments

    The committee is aware of the many advantages available to 
beneficiaries under TRICARE Prime, including the access 
standards for the wait time for appointments. The committee is 
concerned that these standards may not be uniformly met by all 
managed care support contractors and military treatment 
facilities, thereby impacting their ability to adequately 
address the health care needs of TRICARE Prime enrollees. The 
Department needs to ensure that beneficiaries calling for 
appointments receive them within the required access standards.
    The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
review and improve current processes to ensure that military 
treatment facilities inform the managed care support 
contractors of available appointments.

   Waiver of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Deductible for Beneficiaries in 
                             Nursing Homes

    The committee is concerned that TRICARE beneficiaries who 
are patients in nursing homes are currently subject to the 
annual deductible for using out-of-network pharmacy services. 
Because TRICARE considers the pharmacy services used by nursing 
homes in most states to be out-of-network pharmacies, the 
committee believes the Department could resolve this inequity 
by waiving the annual deductible for patients in nursing homes. 
This non-network pharmacy deductible policy is aimed at 
creating an incentive for beneficiaries to use the National 
Mail Order Pharmacy or network pharmacies. However, the policy 
unintentionally penalizes beneficiaries in nursing homes. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to implement such 
policies and regulations or recommend any legislative changes 
that may be necessary to waive the deductible for these 
patients, and report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2003, on 
actions taken.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

              Subtitle A--Health Care Program Improvements

Section 701--Elimination of Requirement for TRICARE Preauthorization of 
    Inpatient Mental Health Care for Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries

    This section would eliminate the redundant TRICARE 
preauthorization requirement for specific cases in which 
Medicare has already authorized such care and Medicare is the 
primary payer. This provision would take effect on October 1, 
2004.

 Section 702--Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for Certain Dependents

    This section would extend the TRICARE Prime Remote benefit 
to active duty family members who are not authorized to 
accompany the member to the member's permanent duty station. 
This benefit would apply in cases when the dependent continues 
to reside at the location of the former duty assignment and 
that location is more than 50 miles, or approximately 1 hour of 
driving time, from the nearest military medical treatment 
facility adequate to provide the needed care; or when there is 
no reasonable expectation the member will return to the 
location of the former duty assignment and the dependent moves 
to a location that is more than 50 miles, or approximately 1 
hour of driving time, from the nearest military medical 
treatment facility adequate to provide the needed care. This 
provision would take effect on October 1, 2002.

 Section 703--Enabling Dependents of Certain Members Who Died While on 
          Active Duty to Enroll in the TRICARE Dental Program

    This section would amend section 1076a(k)(2) of title 10, 
United States Code, to permit the dependents of members who die 
while serving on active duty tours of more than 30 days to 
enroll in the TRICARE Dental Program under that section 
regardless of the dependent's dental plan enrollment status on 
the date of the member's death. Many dependents outside the 
continental United States temporarily discontinue participation 
in the premium sharing dental plan under section 1076 because 
they receive their dental care in DOD dental facilities. In 
cases where the member dies while assigned overseas, their 
dependents' nonparticipation disadvantages their future 
eligibility. This section would authorize these dependents to 
participate in the dental plan in the same manner as other 
dependents of members who die while on active duty.

Section 704--Improvements Regarding the Department of Defense Medicare-
                   Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund

    This section would align the normal cost contribution 
funding for the Department of Defense (DOD) Medicare-eligible 
retiree health care fund with the military personnel accounts 
since the payments into the fund are related to post-retirement 
health benefits associated with military service, this change 
would treat accrual funding for health benefits for Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries in a manner consistent with funding for 
retirement pension costs under chapter 74 of title 10, United 
States Code.
    This section would mandate participation in the Uniformed 
Services Retiree Health Care Fund by non-DOD uniformed 
services. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 
(Public Law 107-107), made participation in the fund 
discretionary for the Coast Guard, the commissioned corps of 
the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The committee 
views the President's request to require such participation by 
the secretaries of the federal departments administering non-
DOD uniformed services without prejudice and has included such 
a provision.

   Section 705--Certification of Institutional and Non-Institutional 
                  Providers Under the TRICARE Program

    This section would amend section 1079 of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe 
regulations to allow, to the extent practicable, providers 
authorized under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 
section 1395 et seg. of title 42, United States Code, to be 
deemed TRICARE providers in addition to their current 
certification as TRICARE For Life (TFL) providers. This 
provision would allow the acceptance of Medicare certification 
as the basis of TRICARE provider authorization. Moreover, this 
provision reduces administrative requirements associated with 
the credentialing of Medicare providers so that they may treat 
TRICARE patients in addition to TFL patients. This provision 
will take effect on October 1, 2003.

  Section 706--Technical Correction Regarding Transitional Health Care

    The transitional health care benefit for certain 
involuntarily separated members made permanent in the National 
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-
107), inadvertently failed to include the dependents of the 
service members. This technical correction ensures transitional 
health care benefits for the dependents of the service members 
entitled to such benefit.

                          Subtitle B--Reports

  Section 711--Comptroller General Report on TRICARE Claims Processing

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
evaluate the continuing impediments to a cost-effective, 
provider and beneficiary friendly system for TRICARE claims 
processing. The committee has long had an interest in claims 
processing reform, including a range of reforms directed in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public 
Law 106-65). Recently the committee heard testimony from 
providers and industry that DOD's unique claims processing 
system features individual claim costs far exceeding those of 
equivalent civilian systems for processing claims. Moreover, 
the requirements associated with DOD's claims processing system 
may discourage some providers from participation in the TRICARE 
program, thus creating an impediment to beneficiary access. The 
committee is concerned that these issues were among those that 
led to the reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act of 
2000 (Public Law 106-65). The committee is also concerned that 
on balance, the additional cost and administrative burdens 
associated with this unique claims processing system may serve 
as a hindrance to more efficient beneficiary care and 
satisfaction, as well as improved provider participation. The 
study mandated under this section would pay special attention 
to:
          (1) The extent of progress implementing improvements 
        in claims processing particularly the application of 
        best industry practices;
          (2) The extent of progress in simplifying claims 
        processing procedures and eliminating or reducing the 
        reliance on and complexity of, the Health Care Service 
        Record;
          (3) The suitability of a Medicare-compatible claims 
        processing system with regard to the data requirements 
        necessary to administer TRICARE and related information 
        systems; and
          (4) The extent to which the TRICARE claims processing 
        system impedes provider participation and beneficiary 
        access, and provide recommendations for improvements.
    The Comptroller General's report of findings and 
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services would be required by 
March 31, 2003.

Section 712--Comptroller General Report on Provision of Care Under the 
                            TRICARE Program

    This section would require the Comptroller General to 
evaluate the nature, reasons, and extent of trends in TRICARE 
network provider turbulence, and the effectiveness of DOD's and 
TRICARE support managed care contractors' efforts to measure 
and mitigate such turbulence. The committee has heard testimony 
that provider network instability exists in certain geographic 
areas, that such instability may be associated with the 
administrative requirements, preauthorization procedures and 
the reimbursement rates of the TRICARE program, that the 
measurement of past and future trends may be instructive, that 
DOD's existing authority to adjust reimbursement rates to 
address provider network adequacy in certain areas is largely 
unused, and that the administrative requirements of the TRICARE 
program merits review. The study mandated under this section 
would pay special attention to:
          (1) The adequacy of provider/network stability 
        measurement tools and their current use by DOD and/or 
        managed care support contractors to assess network 
        adequacy/stability;
          (2) The relationship of reimbursement rates and 
        TRICARE administration requirements, (including 
        preauthorization requirements) to provider/network 
        turbulence;
          (3) The current extent of the problem and likely 
        future trends with and without intervention using 
        existing authority;
          (4) DOD's and TRICARE managed care support 
        contractors' use of existing authority to apply higher 
        reimbursement rates in specific geographic areas;
          (5) Recommendations for improvements needed in 
        measurement tools or their application; and
          (6) Recommendations for specific fiscally prudent 
        measures that could mitigate negative trends or improve 
        provider/network stability.
    The Comptroller General's report of findings and 
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services would be required by 
March 31, 2003.

               Section 713--Repeal of Report Requirement

    This section would repeal the reporting requirement 
specified in section 712 of the Floyd D. Spence National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398). The committee notes that the reporting requirement has 
been superceded by the TRICARE For Life program and obviated by 
decisions by the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Health and Human Services not to pursue the Medicare subvention 
demonstration project.

  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                     Acquisition Program Management

    The Department of Defense acquisition programs continue to 
experience significant cost increases and schedule delays. No 
military service is exempt from this problem. Examples of major 
acquisition programs with significant cost increases and 
schedule delays include:
          (1) Army--CH-47 helicopter upgrade and Comanche 
        helicopter.
          (2) Navy--Virginia class submarine and LPD-17.
          (3) Air Force--Space based infrared system and 
        advanced extremely high frequency communications 
        satellite.
          (4) Marine Corps--UH-1/Cobra helicopter upgrades.
          (5) Special Operations Command--Advanced seal 
        delivery system.
    The continued prevalence and the pervasive nature of 
unscheduled cost growths and schedule delays lead the committee 
to conclude that the Department of Defense is not yet 
practicing the improvements espoused to be included in the new 
Department of Defense Directive 5000 series and Department of 
Defense Instruction 5000 series.
    Each military service has a program or programs that have 
exceeded the Nunn-McCurdy limits, which necessitates review by 
the Secretary of Defense, program re-base-lining, and re-
certification to Congress.
    It is well recognized that cost growth and time delays are 
often associated with poor program structure and unsatisfactory 
program management, often involving both government and 
contractors. Examples of poor management include:
          (1) Contractors submitting low cost estimates--an 
        action inconsistent with best business practices.
          (2) The Department failing to sufficiently analyze 
        the scope of work, estimate costs accurately, establish 
        affordable requirements and avoid requirement creep, 
        resulting in increased system development and 
        procurement cost.
          (3) Both the Department and contractors establish 
        high performing program management teams, but then 
        disband the teams as other projects reach high profile.
          (4) Discontinuity in program management.
          (5) Allowing too many programs to progress to SDD/
        EMD, without sufficient funding available to adequately 
        fund programs in the out years.
    The committee believes that the issue is not to re-write 
Department of Defense Directive 5000 series again, but rather 
to properly baseline programs, beginning with the mission needs 
statement and operational requirements specification. Programs 
must be based on realistic cost estimates, which are fully 
funded. Program operational requirements must be complete and 
remain stable. The joint requirements oversight council (JROC) 
must guard against requirements creep and ensure compliance 
with applicable Department of Defense acquisition regulations, 
including JROC validation and approval.
    The committee also believes that in order to manage 
acquisition properly, DOD must have and use a modern financial 
control system, as is discussed elsewhere in this report.

           Defense Logistics Agency's Best Value Contracting

    The committee is aware of concerns over how the Defense 
Logistics Agency (DLA) is implementing best value contracting 
in the acquisition of select items. DLA is responsible for 
acquiring and managing over 13,000 different items that outfit 
military troops and civilian customers with uniforms, helmets, 
body armor, chemical protective suite, footwear, tents, and 
other related items. DLA is one of the Department of Defense's 
principal buyers of goods and services, yet DLA's buying 
practices have often come into question. The committee 
understands the difficult task facing DLA and other defense 
acquisition organizations in balancing the imperative to ensure 
the best possible value for the military customer while also 
providing for the broad participation of qualified private 
sector suppliers. To better understand how DLA is performing in 
executing this goal, the committee directs the Comptroller 
General to conduct a review on whether DLA is properly 
implementing applicable statutory and regulatory guidance for 
best value purchases. In particular, the review should examine 
DLA's use of past performance as an evaluation factor in the 
selection of suppliers and the impact this practice is having 
on the imperative to maintain an adequate domestic supplier 
base for key items of supply. The report shall be provided to 
the House Armed Services Committee no later than March 1, 2003.

    Report on Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by Women

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report 
whether the Department of Defense has met its annual goal of 
awarding procurement contracts to small business concerns owned 
or controlled by women from fiscal years 1998--2002. To the 
extent the Department of Defense has not met its goals the 
Secretary of Defense shall include in the report actions taken 
to try to meet its goal. This report shall be provided to the 
House Committee on Armed Services no later than February 15, 
2003.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

  Section 801--Plan for Acquisition Management Professional Exchange 
                             Pilot Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a pilot program for the exchange of personnel between 
Department of Defense acquisition management community and the 
private sector. The committee believes such an exchange program 
would improve knowledge and foster understanding between the 
two communities with the ultimate benefit of the Department 
acquiring better quality products and services.

Section 802--Evaluation of Training, Knowledge, and Resources Regarding 
           Negotiation of Intellectual Property Arrangements

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
evaluate the adequacy of training, education and resources 
within the acquisition community on the negotiation of 
intellectual property. This section would require the Secretary 
of Defense to report the results of the evaluation in a report 
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services. The report shall also include any 
actions that should be taken to meet the Department's needs, 
and the number of legal personnel within the Department of 
Defense (DOD) who are trained in the negotiation of 
intellectual property arrangements.
    The committee is concerned that DOD does not have the 
resources to adequately negotiate intellectual property rights 
with the private sector. The committee notes that in 1995 DOD 
updated the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations pertaining 
to rights in technical data and computer software. The updates 
resulted from the work of a Government-Industry Technical 
Advisory Committee, established by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 
102-190). The committee is concerned that the flexibility and 
commercially-friendly intellectual property terms and 
conditions contained in these regulations are not understood, 
and are thus underutilized within DOD.

  Section 803--Limitation Period for Task and Delivery Order Contracts

    This section would amend sections 2304a and 2304b of title 
10, United States Code, by proscribing the period of time for 
which these contracts can be awarded, and by more clearly 
characterizing advisory and service task order contracts as a 
type of task and delivery order contract. The committee 
believes it is appropriate to limit contract duration in order 
to better promote the use of competition. The committee also 
believes that all task and delivery order contracts should be 
treated as congruently as is possible and appropriate.

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

    This section would amend section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen 
Act of 1996 (divisions D and E of Public Law 104-106) by 
extending for one more year the authority for the Secretary of 
Defense to use simplified acquisition procedures for the 
purchase of commercial items not greater then $5.0 million. The 
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to report 
to Congress, no later than January 15, 2003, whether authority 
under the pilot program should be made permanent. The report 
should also address the benefits and usefulness of this pilot 
program.

   Section 805--Authority to Make Inflation Adjustment to Simplified 
                         Acquisition Threshold

    This section would provide the Administrator of the Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy with the authority to adjust the 
simplified acquisition threshold every five years to account 
for inflation.

     Section 806--Improvement of Personnel Management Policies and 
      Procedures Applicable to the Civilian Acquisition Workforce

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop an implementation plan for improving the personnel 
management policies and procedures for the Department of 
Defense acquisition workforce based on the demonstration 
project authorized by section 4308 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106). 
The section would additionally require the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to Congress by February 15, 2003, 
containing the implementation plan and any areas within the 
implementation plan needing legislative relief.
    The committee supports the ongoing Department of Defense 
(DOD) Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration 
Project, which is designed to determine the effectiveness of 
initiatives to increase organizational efficiencies, enhance 
retention rates and rewards for performance, and increase 
quality of the workforce and the products it acquires. The 
committee is concerned with the delay in commencing the 
demonstration project and believes that the Secretary of 
Defense must ensure that lessons learned from the first three 
years of the demonstration project are incorporated into the 
Department's overall acquisition management, organizational 
structure, and personnel systems.

Section 807--Modification of Scope of Ball and Roller Bearings Covered 
                 for Purposes of Procurement Limitation

    This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United 
States Code, by expanding the definition of ball and roller 
bearings to include unconventional or hybrid ball and roller 
bearings, cam follower bearings, ball screws and other 
derivatives of ball and roller bearings. This section would not 
extend the time period for which the procurement limitation is 
in place.

        Section 808--Rapid Acquisition and Deployment Procedures

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop rapid procedures for the acquisition and the deployment 
of items a commander of a unified combatant command urgently 
requires. The procedures would require the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the secretary 
of the military service, as well as the Director, Operational 
Test & Evaluation to work together in an expedited manner in 
order to deliver to the commander of a unified combatant 
command the item urgently needed to react to an enemy or to 
provide safety.

     Section 809--Quick-Reaction Special Projects Acquisition Team

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a special projects acquisition team to examine and 
address issues affecting expeditious procurements. The special 
projects acquisition team shall specifically address industrial 
base issues, lengthy acquisition procedures due to acquisition 
regulations, environmental issues, small business concerns, and 
the purchase of products made in the United States.

  Section 810--Report on Development of Anti-Cyberterrorism Technology

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to Congress by February 1, 2003, on Department 
of Defense efforts to enter into contracts with private 
entities to develop anti-cyberterrorism technology.

        Section 811--Contracting with Federal Prison Industries

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
acquire a product or service from Federal Prison Industries in 
accordance with chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code. 
This provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
assure that Federal Prison Industries, Inc. does not provide 
contractor services if an inmate were to have access to certain 
information.

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                 Regional Centers for Security Studies

    The committee has been concerned that the Department of 
Defense's regional centers for security studies, and some of 
its staff, have not accurately represented the views and 
policies of the United States government with regard to foreign 
affairs and national security matters. As such, the committee 
was inclined this year to propose legislative provisions that 
would seek to redress this problem. However, the committee is 
reassured by recent reports that senior officials in the 
Department of Defense are reviewing how the regional centers 
are organized, managed, and staffed, as well as studying a 
number of ways to ensure coherence with regard to policy 
matters and positions. As a result, the committee has withheld 
action this year regarding this matter, but looks forward to 
receiving the results of the Department's assessment, and its 
plans, if any, for subsequent action.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 901--Change in Title of Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary 
                      of the Navy and Marine Corps

    This section would redesignate the title of the Secretary 
of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Section 902--Report on Implementation of United States Northern Command

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
House of Representatives a report by September 1, 2002, 
containing an implementation plan for the United States 
Northern Command that addresses organizational, legal, 
diplomatic, budgetary, and personnel matters associated with 
the establishment of the command.

Section 903--National Defense Mission of Coast Guard to be Included in 
                   Future Quadrennial Defense Reviews

    This section would amend section 118(d) of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to include the 
national defense mission of the U.S. Coast Guard when 
conducting the Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee 
recognizes that the U.S. Coast Guard currently performs a range 
of national security missions, and anticipates that in the 
future the U.S. Coast Guard will increasingly be integrated 
with the other military services in the conduct of deployments 
and joint operations. Accordingly, the committee believes the 
Secretary of Defense should assess and include the capabilities 
of the U.S. Coast Guard as part of the Quadrennial Defense 
Review process.

   Section 904--Change in Year for Submission of Quadrennial Defense 
                                 Review

    This section would amend section 118(a) of title 10, United 
States Code, to move the submission of the Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR) to the second year after a year divisible by four.
    The committee notes the importance of the QDR to the 
Department's planning guidance and other important decisions. 
While the committee believes the QDR allows a new 
Administration the opportunity to lay out a blueprint for its 
future defense plan and activities, it also recognizes that the 
complexity of preparing the QDR can be compounded by the 
lengthy confirmation process for Presidential appointees. The 
committee feels that moving the submission of the QDR back a 
year will give senior civilian Department of Defense leadership 
more time to conduct the type of critical review of all aspects 
of the Department's operations envisioned by the statute.

 Section 905--Report on Effect of Operations Other Than War on Combat 
                     Readiness of the Armed Forces

    This section would require a report on the impact of 
operations other than war on the combat readiness of the United 
States Armed Forces. These operations include humanitarian 
operations, counter-drug operations, peace operations 
(including peace monitoring activities and observer missions), 
and nation assistance, which is defined as the assistance 
provided to a host nation to promote stability, develop 
sustainability, and establish institutions responsive to the 
needs of the people. In order to better account for, 
understand, and highlight the impact of these operations on the 
Department of Defense, and to assist Congress in assessing 
these costs and benefits relative to the nation's foreign 
policy and national security interests, the committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to prepare and submit to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House a detailed 
report on the pecuniary and non-pecuniary costs and benefits of 
these operations.

   Section 906--Conforming Amendment to Reflect Disestablishment of 
Department of Defense Consequence Management Program Integration Office

    This section would amend section 12310(c) of title 10, 
United States Code, to conform to an internal Department of 
Defense reorganization involving the Consequence Management 
Program Integration Office.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                 Chartering of Special Purpose Vessels

    Each year the Department of the Navy charters a number of 
special purpose vessels in order to meet both its ongoing and 
emergency requirements. These vessels generally include salvage 
ships, oceanographic survey and research vessels, cable laying 
ships, and other vessels not traditionally used in special 
purpose roles. The committee notes that despite the Navy's 
desire to increase competition for these charters, there have 
been several instances where only one contractor submitted bids 
for these charters. In some cases, the method of procurement or 
the type of contract proposed for the charter may have served 
to inadvertently eliminate a class of vessels that are capable 
of performing these functions but are not technically 
classified or cataloged as being able to perform the mission.
    In view of this and the committee's desire to increase 
competition in these programs, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report that will address the 
following matters:
          (1) Identification of barriers, including legal, 
        regulatory, administrative, or acquisition procedures, 
        that may exist with respect to the use of U.S.-flag 
        vessels or that otherwise may decrease competition;
          (2) A market survey which identifies vessels capable 
        of performing the required activities;
          (3) The need for increased use of innovative 
        contracting methods, including greater use of 
        performance based contracts;
          (4) Identification of methods for increasing the use 
        of U.S.-flag vessels in such special purpose 
        activities;
          (5) Any proposals for legislation or administrative 
        steps that the Secretary considers necessary to 
        increase competition and use of U.S.-flag vessels.
    The report shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and to the House Committee on Armed Services not 
later than February 1, 2003.

                        Counter-Drug Activities

                                Overview

    The budget request for counter-drug activities maintained a 
steady-state level of effort as compared with prior years. The 
committee continues to support a robust counter-drug program 
and is cognizant of the linkages between terrorist 
organizations and the international narcotics trade. In that 
regard, the committee is concerned with the lack of targeting 
of opium storage facilities in Afghanistan that were identified 
early in the conduct of Operation Enduring Freedom. The 
committee understands that U.S. Central Command deemed that 
opium in any form did not constitute a credible military 
target. However, as well established, the ruling Taliban 
maintained close ties to the narcotics trade in Afghanistan and 
used illicit narcotics trafficking profits to bolster their 
regime. Accordingly, the committee believes the Department of 
Defense should review and revise its policy in this regard to 
ensure that such targets are properly prosecuted in Afghanistan 
and any future conflicts.
    The committee is also aware that the U.S. Southern Command 
Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in El Salvador, Ecuador, and 
Curacao are all nearing full operational capability. The 
committee remains fully supportive of this important effort but 
is concerned that recent statements by senior Ecuadorian 
officials may restrict the use of the airfield at Manta, 
Ecuador. The committee believes that U.S. aircraft based at 
Manta should be available to conduct search and rescue and 
humanitarian relief operations. Accordingly, the committee 
urges the Administration to engage the government of Ecuador to 
seek approval for use of the Manta FOL for these specific 
purposes.
    The budget request contained $848.9 million for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $149.8 
million for operational tempo which is included within the 
operating budgets of the military services.
    The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 
2003 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

FY03 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request.................  $848,900
    Educate America's Youth...................................    27,100
    Increase Safety of Citizens...............................    81,800
    Reduce Health & Social Costs..............................    82,500
    Shield America's Frontiers................................   335,700
    Break Drug Sources of Supply..............................   321,800
Recommended Decreases:
    DEA Support...............................................     1,300
    Riverine Training Deployments.............................     1,000
    Tethered Aerostat Radar System............................     5,000
    Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft.....................     3,000
Recommended Increases:
    Mexico Information Analysis Center........................     1,500
    National Guard C-26 Aircraft..............................     2,100
    Southwest Border Fence....................................     6,700
Recommendation................................................  $848,900

                       Items of Special Interest

DEA support

    The budget request contained $6.2 million for Department of 
Defense support to federal law enforcement, namely the Drug 
Enforcement Agency (DEA) for data processing and analysis. 
While the committee fully supports the underlying merit of the 
classified program, the committee strongly believes the Drug 
Enforcement Agency (DEA) must assume responsibility for 
adequately funding the program requirements. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $1.3 million for this 
activity.

Mexico information analysis center

    The budget request contained $790,000 for the Mexico 
Information Analysis Center (IAC). The committee is aware that 
the IAC provides tactically actionable intelligence in support 
of U.S. and Mexican counter-narcotics efforts and has 
contributed to significant gains in this area. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for this 
successful program.

National Guard C-26 aircraft

    The budget request did not contain funds to complete the 
upgrade of counter-narcotics National Guard C-26 aircraft with 
Electro-Optical (EO) digital cameras. The committee is aware 
that of the current fleet of 11 aircraft, only 10 C-26s are 
outfitted with an EO camera. The committee understands the 
requirement for the National Guard is to complete the 
standardization and additionally procure two EO camera spares. 
The committee supports this program and recommends $2.1 million 
for this purpose.

Riverine training deployments

    The budget request contained $4.1 million for worldwide 
riverine deployments. The committee supports this activity but 
is aware that deployments of this nature are frequently 
postponed or delayed. Accordingly, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $1.0 million for this program.

Southwest border fence

    The Southwest border continues to be a heavily utilized 
drug trafficking corridor into the United States. The committee 
has been supportive of fence and road-building activities in 
this area and continues to support this effort. Accordingly, 
the committee recommends an increase of $6.7 million for this 
purpose.

Tethered aerostat radar system

    The budget request contained $40.7 million for the Tethered 
Aerostat Radar System (TARS) which includes $13.3 million for 
procurement of equipment as compared to $3.4 million in fiscal 
year 2002. The committee is concerned with the relative size of 
this increase and, therefore, recommends a decrease of $5.0 
million in the TARS program.

Transit zone maritime patrol aircraft

    The budget request contained $9.0 million for Transit Zone 
Maritime Patrol Aircraft, a new contractor lease program to 
assist in maritime surveillance. The committee understands the 
basis for this initiative but is concerned that the total 
budget request is not fully executable in fiscal year 2003. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 
million for this program.

                  Principles of Federal Appropriation

    The General Accounting Office wrote a comprehensive text on 
the body of law governing federal appropriations, ``Principles 
of Federal Appropriations Law,'' in 1982, with a second version 
published in 1991. This committee considers this text to be a 
useful resource in deciphering federal appropriations law. As 
material in this publication is subject to change by statute or 
through decision-making process, the committee requests that 
the General Accounting Office update this text.

             Security Requirements for Contractor Employees

    The committee is concerned with the level of access 
contractor employees have to military facilities and 
installations within the United States. In today's environment 
it is appropriate for any and all security risks to be 
examined, and to the extent necessary precautions taken. The 
committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense to 
evaluate the security risk that may be associated with 
contractor employee's access to military facilities and 
installations, and to report to the House Committee on Armed 
Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services, no later 
than February 1, 2003, the results of the evaluation. The 
evaluation shall include: A determination whether the 
Department of Defense should require contractors to conduct 
background investigations on contractor employees; if 
background checks are appropriate, to describe the type of 
background checks that should be implemented and the cost of 
these background checks.

                     Strategic Force Structure Plan

    The most recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), submitted to 
Congress by the Department of Defense on January 8, 2002, is a 
broad policy document. Despite setting levels for active 
forward deployed strategic weapons of 3800 in fiscal year 2007 
and 1700-2200 in fiscal year 2012, it contains no comprehensive 
description of the baseline force structure required to execute 
the national defense strategy that supports those levels. A 
force structure plan, including the number of warheads by type 
in both active (deployed, ``responsive'' and spares) and 
inactive status, the number and type of each associated weapons 
system, and the number and type of each associated delivery 
platform, is the point of departure for making intelligent 
decisions regarding weapons complex infrastructure 
recapitalization, as well as investments in stockpile life 
extension programs. Such a plan would also provide a framework 
for Department of Defense investments in weapons systems and 
delivery vehicles.
    Accordingly, Section 1014 requires the Secretaries of 
Defense and Energy to jointly prepare a baseline nuclear force 
structure plan for the period covered by the NPR, and a budget 
plan to support that force structure. It requires, in addition, 
submission of a report on the force structure and supporting 
budget plans to the congressional defense committees by January 
1, 2003.
    The committee recognizes and endorses the Administration's 
efforts to reach an agreement with the Russian Federation on 
future strategic force levels. The committee does not intend, 
in this regard, to hinder or limit the President's options in 
carrying outthe foreign policy of the United States. 
Consequently, the committee has allowed an extension of the due date of 
the report to Congress should the President determine that deferment is 
in the national security interests of the United States.

                        U.S. Strategic Deterrent

    The committee believes that a flexible, reliable, and 
robust nuclear deterrent is critical to the national security 
of the United States. Capable and credible strategic forces are 
essential to deterring enemies and potential adversaries, 
defending our friends and allies, promoting global stability, 
and ensuring that the United States can protect and advance its 
interests abroad.
    Given these vitally important goals and interests, 
juxtaposed against a strategic environment that is as 
uncertain, dangerous, and complex as ever in history, the 
committee has outlined in a Sense of Congress provision the 
purposes and need for the United States to maintain a reliable, 
flexible and robust strategic deterrent. The key to achieving 
such a posture is revitalization of the nation's nuclear 
weapons industry, and the retention and training of skilled 
nuclear and weapons technicians, scientists, and engineers.
    Finally, the committee firmly believes that improvements 
and changes to the nation's strategic deterrent should be made 
in accordance with the national defense strategy, the Nuclear 
Posture Review, and the global strategic environment.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

                    Section 1001--Transfer Authority

    This section would provide fiscal year 2003 transfer 
authority to the Department of Defense for amounts up to $2.0 
billion.

 Section 1002--Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal 
                               Year 2002

    This section would authorize amounts enacted in the 
Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002 (Division B of Public Law 107-
117) for the Department of Defense and for the national 
security activities of the Department of Energy.
    This section would also authorize those defense items 
appropriated pursuant to any fiscal year 2002 emergency 
supplemental appropriations legislation enacted during the 
second session of the 107th Congress.
    This section would further limit the obligation of 
emergency supplemental funds to the Department of Defense until 
the Secretary submits a report to the congressional defense 
committees detailing the appropriation accounts to which the 
funds have been transferred and the purpose for which the 
transferred amounts are to be used.

 Section 1003--Uniform Standards Throughout Department of Defense for 
  Exposure of Personnel to Pecuniary Liability for Loss of Government 
                                Property

    This section would extend the authority for imposition of 
pecuniary liability for government property that is lost, 
damaged or destroyed to military members of the Navy and Marine 
Corps, and to all civilian employees of the Department of 
Defense. Currently, only military members and civilian 
employees of the Departments of the Army and the Air Force are 
subject to this liability. This section would also extend the 
authority to deduct the amount of the pecuniary liability from 
the pay of a member of the Navy and Marine Corps. Currently, 
the authority to deduct the liability applies only to members 
of the Army and Air Force.

    Section 1004--Accountable Officials In the Department of Defense

    This section would establish pecuniary liability for those 
Department of Defense officials who submit illegal, improper, 
or incorrect data or information to an official who could rely 
on that data to make payment on a voucher. This provision 
provides the Department the ability to enforce responsibilities 
assigned to personnel in the management of purchase cards, as 
well as other areas where personnel are required to review and 
submit data that the Department will rely on to make payments.

         Section 1005--Improvements in Purchase Card Management

    This section would amend section 2784 of title 10, United 
States Code, by enhancing the Secretary of Defense's 
responsibilities for management and oversight of the Department 
of Defense's purchase card program. Recent reports, including 
the Department of Defense's March 2002 Inspector General Report 
demonstrate that additional managerial steps are needed to 
prevent negligence, misuse, or abuse of the purchase card. This 
section would add those safeguards necessary to improve 
internal controls over this program.

 Section 1006--Authority to Transfer Funds Within a Major Acquisition 
                   Program from Procurement to RDT&E

    This section would amend Chapter 131 of title 10, United 
States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense limited 
authority to transfer funds from Procurement to Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), for the same 
acquisition program when that program's development effort 
cannot transition to procurement as planned.
    This transfer authority is limited to a total of $250.0 
million for any fiscal year and $20.0 million per acquisition 
program per fiscal year. This authority also specifically 
prohibits the use of transferred amounts for new starts.

Section 1007--Development and Procurement of Financial and Nonfinancial 
                           Management Systems

    This section would require: (1) the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
providing the goals and objectives of the department'sfinancial 
management modernization plan; and (2) the approval of the Under 
Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, prior to the expenditure of funds by 
any department or agency within the Department of Defense for new or 
upgraded financial management and non-financial feeder systems.
    On July 19, 2001, the Secretary of Defense established the 
Financial Management Modernization Program and directed the 
program management office to ``develop a DOD-wide blueprint--an 
Enterprise Architecture--that prescribes how the Department's 
financial and non-financial feeder systems and business 
processes will interact.'' The National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) authorized $100.0 
million for the Financial Management Modernization Program in 
PE 65016D8Z. The fiscal year 2003 budget request was $96.3 
million.
    The committee believes that this program is one of the most 
important developmental programs within the Department. The 
committee also believes that the major impediment to 
implementing a viable financial management program within the 
Department will be overcoming the cultural and bureaucratic 
resistance to change.
    Consequently the committee believes that strict control 
over expenditures for new and upgraded financial and non-
financial feeder systems is required and that until the 
architecture is established for the new system that no agency 
or department within DOD should be permitted to commit funds 
for new, upgraded or interim financial management systems 
without the explicit approval of the Comptroller. In addition, 
implementation of the objective system under prescribed 
milestones must be mandatory.
    This can only be accomplished if the responsible agency, 
the Department's comptroller, is given total authority for all 
funds authorized for obligation for financial management and 
feeder systems within the Department.

                          Subtitle B--Reports

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

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
the Commander-in-Chief of United States Central Command, and 
the Director of Central Intelligence, to submit to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed 
Services, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence two reports on 
the conduct of military operations conducted as part of 
Operation Enduring Freedom. The first report, an interim 
report, would be required not later than June 15, 2003, and the 
final report not later than 180 days after the cessation of 
hostilities associated with Operation Enduring Freedom.
    The committee is aware that the campaign in Afghanistan 
demonstrated new war fighting doctrine and concepts and 
believes an appropriate record must be established as soon as 
possible to assist in the conduct of future military 
operations. Therefore, the committee supports a requirement for 
the Secretary of Defense to produce two reports to address the 
accomplishments and shortcomings of the overall military 
operation, including personnel, readiness, basing, air and sea 
lift, joint operations, and equipment matters. The committee 
notes that after-action reports of Operation Desert Storm and 
Operation Allied Force can serve as a guide for the Department 
in this regard. The committee is particularly concerned with 
the factors that promoted or inhibited the timely insertion of 
Special Operations Forces (SOF) personnel and assets into the 
theater of operations, their operational utility and 
effectiveness once in Afghanistan, and the scope and adequacy 
of logistical and operational support provided to both SOF and 
Central Intelligence Agency personnel.

    Section 1012--Report on Biological Weapons Defense and Counter-
                             Proliferation

    This section would require a report on the Department's 
biological weapons defense, nonproliferation, and counter-
proliferation programs. Given the anthrax letter attacks of 
2001, efforts by the al Qaeda terrorist organization to acquire 
dangerous pathogens, and continuing reports by the intelligence 
community that several rogue states and other countries have 
active biological warfare programs, the committee is concerned 
about the United States' ability to halt, defend against, and 
counter these present and emerging threats.
    As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
and the House Committee on Armed Services on the Department's 
programs and initiatives to defend against and counter the 
development, production, and proliferation of biological 
weapons agents, technology, and expertise to terrorist groups 
and other states. The purpose of this report is to inform 
Congress of the legal (including U.S. and international law), 
policy, resource, and other impediments to the Department's 
biological warfare defense, nonproliferation, and counter-
proliferation initiatives, activities, and programs.

    Section 1013--Requirement That Department of Defense Reports to 
             Congress Be Accompanied by Electronic Version

    This section would amend section 480(a) of title 10, United 
States Code, to require the Department of Defense to submit to 
Congress electronic versions of all unclassified required 
reports, to include certifications, notifications, or other 
written communications.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
failed to comply with section 1042 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) 
which required the Department of Defense to provide electronic 
reports only upon request from Congress. Accordingly, the 
committee reaffirms its view that this requirement is 
consistent with the Department's intention to make greater use 
of electronic media and will facilitate broader dissemination 
of, and wider access to, official DOD information.

 Section 1014--Strategic Force Structure Plan for Nuclear Weapons and 
                            Delivery Systems

    This section would require the Secretaries of Defense and 
Energy to jointly prepare a baseline nuclear force structure 
plan for the period covered by, and consistent with, the 
Nuclear Posture Review submitted to Congress on January 8, 
2002. The planwould include the warheads, weapon systems, and 
delivery vehicles required to execute the national defense strategy, as 
well as the infrastructure, modernization and life extension plans, and 
other elements of the defense program of the United States necessary to 
sustain that force structure. The section would also require a budget 
plan to support that force structure. The section would require 
submission of a report on the force structure and supporting budget 
plan to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 2003, but 
would permit the President to defer submission of the report to a date 
certain should the President determine that it is in the national 
security interest of the United States to submit the report on a later 
date.

  Section 1015--Report on Establishment of a Joint National Training 
                   Complex and Joint Opposing Forces

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than six months 
after the date of enactment that outlines a plan to develop and 
operate a joint national training complex capable of supporting 
field exercises and experimentation at the operational level of 
war across a broad spectrum of adversary capabilities.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense 
currently lacks the infrastructure to support joint high-
fidelity field exercises and experiments and is aware that the 
National Defense Panel recommended in 1997 that the Department 
establish a Joint National Training Complex to fully support 
joint transformation initiatives. Accordingly, the committee 
believes that the Department must assess the benefits of 
establishing a Joint National Training Complex in order to 
enhance future joint warfighting.

 Section 1016--Repeal of Various Reports Required of the Department of 
                                Defense

    This section would repeal a number of reporting 
requirements contained in title 10, United States Code, and 
annual National Defense Authorization Acts.

   Section 1017--Report on the Role of the Department of Defense in 
                      Supporting Homeland Security

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report by 
December 31, 2002, on Department of Defense responsibilities, 
missions, and plans for military support of homeland security, 
with particular focus on defense against biological agents.

  Section 1018--Study of Short-term and Long-term Effects of Nuclear 
                        Earth Penetrator Weapon

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
request a report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 
which will be submitted to the Congress with the Secretary's 
comments as appropriate, on the short- and long-term effects on 
a civilian population and/or U.S. military personnel in the 
proximity of the target area, as a result of:
          (1) The use of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, 
        to include the effects on the target area itself;
          (2) The use of an above-ground nuclear detonation to 
        destroy hard or deeply-buried targets in the target 
        area;
          (3) The use of an advanced conventional weapon to 
        destroy an adversary's weapons of mass destruction 
        storage or production facilities in the target area.

  Section 1019--Study of Short-term and Long-term Effects of Nuclear-
                  tipped Ballistic Missile Interceptor

    This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
request a report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 
which will be submitted to the Congress with the Secretary's 
comments as appropriate, on the short- and long-term effects 
of:
    (1) The use of a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile 
interceptor in the outer atmosphere on the civilian population 
and U.S. military personnel in proximity to the target area;
    (2) A nuclear weapon detonated above a major U.S. city on 
the population of that city and on the nation as a whole.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

Section 1021--Sense of Congress on Maintenance of a Reliable, Flexible, 
                     and Robust Strategic Deterrent

    This section would express the Sense of Congress regarding 
the purposes and need for the United States to maintain a 
reliable, flexible and robust strategic deterrent in accordance 
with the national defense strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review, 
and the global strategic environment.

  Section 1022--Time for Transmittal of Annual Defense Authorization 
                          Legislative Proposal

    This section would require the Secretary of Defense to 
transmit to Congress the annual defense authorization request 
for a fiscal year within 30 days of the date the President 
transmits to Congress the budget for that fiscal year. In this 
section ``defense authorization request'' is defined as a 
legislative proposal submitted to Congress for enactment and 
includes the authorization of appropriations for that fiscal 
year as required by section 114 of title 10, United States 
Code, personnel strengths for that fiscal year as required by 
section 115 of title 10, United States Code, and any other 
matter that is proposed by the Secretary of Defense for 
enactment as part of the annual defense authorization bill for 
that fiscal year.

            Section 1023--Technical and Clerical Amendments

    This section would make a number of technical and clerical 
amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis.

    Section 1024--War Risk Insurance for Vessels in Support of NATO-
                          Approved Operations

    This section would authorize the Secretary of 
Transportation to provide war risk insurance to a commercial 
vessel that is supporting a shared logistics military operation 
approved by the North Atlantic Council. This section would also 
authorize the Secretary of Transportation, with the concurrence 
of the Secretary of State, to seek from another nation a 
commitment to indemnify the United States for any amounts paid 
by the United States for claims against such insurance.

        Section 1025--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Portland, Oregon

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
sell Navy Drydock No. YFD-69, located in Portland, Oregon, to 
Portland Shipyard, LLC at an amount equal to the fair market 
value at the time of the conveyance, as determined by the 
Secretary.

  Section 1026--Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 
                                 Teams

    This section would express the sense of the Congress that 
the Secretary of Defense should establish 23 additional Weapons 
of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, raising the total to 
55, and provide at least one team be established in each state 
and territory.

           TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1101--Eligibility of Department of Defense Nonappropriated Fund 
                 Employees For Long-Term Care Insurance

    This section would amend sections 9001 and 9002 of title 5, 
United States Code, to permit nonappropriated fund employees of 
the Department of Defense to participate in the employee-funded 
Federal Long Term Care Insurance program.

  Section 1102--Extension of Department of Defense Authority to Make 
                      Lump-Sum Severance Payments

    This section would amend section 5595 of title 5, United 
States Code, to extend the lump-sum severance payment authority 
to employees of the Department of Defense who are involuntarily 
separated from September 30, 2003, to September 30, 2006. This 
section would also direct that the President report to Congress 
within twelve months whether this new authority should be made 
permanent or extended to other federal agencies.

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

    This section would amend sections 5343 and 5545 of title 5, 
United States Code, to establish a common standard for payment 
of hazardous duty differential pay for reason of exposure to 
asbestos for prevailing rate and general schedule federal 
employees.

Section 1104--Continuation of Federal Employee Health Benefits Program 
                              Eligibility

    This section would amend section 8905a of title 5, United 
States Code, to extend eligibility for health benefits to 
Federal employees separated before October 1, 2006, or February 
1, 2007, if specific notice of separation is given to the 
employee before October 1, 2006.

  Section 1105--Triennial Full-Scale Federal Wage System Wage Surveys

    This section would amend section 5343 of title 5, United 
States Code, to change the full-scale federal wage system wage 
survey cycle conducted by the Office of Personnel Management 
from two to three years.

              TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

 Section 1201--Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts to Inspect 
                  and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities

    This section would extend the authority under section 1505 
of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992, section 
5859a of title 22, United States Code, for the Department of 
Defense to expend up to $15.0 million in fiscal year 2003 in 
support of the United Nations efforts to account for Iraqi 
weapons of mass destruction items, facilities, and 
capabilities.

           Section 1202--Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan

    This section would strengthen the self-defense capability 
of Taiwan and promote regional stability. The Taiwan Relations 
Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-8) states that ``the United States 
will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense 
services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan 
to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' This law 
further stipulates that the President and Congress shall 
determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and 
services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of 
Taiwan. While the committee is generally satisfied with the 
Administration's actual and proposed sales of defense articles 
to Taiwan, China's missile buildup and arms acquisitions have 
heightened concern about Taiwan's ability to defend itself. The 
committee is concerned that if the balance of power in the 
Taiwan Strait continues to shift in China's favor, China may be 
tempted to seize Taiwan by force.
    The United States has stated, through policy and law, that 
it desires a peaceful resolution to the differences between 
China and Taiwan. In 2000, the Department released a report 
that stated, ``As long as Taiwan has a capable defense, the 
environment will be more conducive to peaceful dialogue, and 
thus the whole region will be more stable.''
    Given these reports and assessments, the committee believes 
that Taiwan's self-defense capability could be enhanced, and 
regional stability promoted, through the conduct of operational 
training and exchanges of senior officers between the armed 
forces of the United States and the armed forces of Taiwan. 
This training would cover a broad range of military matters, to 
include improving civil-military relations. The committee 
believes that weapons sales alone do not guarantee capability. 
Rather, these systems are only as effective as the military 
personnel trained to operate, integrate, and employ them.
    The committee is confident that the preparation and 
implementation of a comprehensive training plan by the 
Department, for the conduct of training between the armed 
forces of the United States and the armed forces of Taiwan, 
will help Taiwan maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, 
deter aggression, promote dialogue, and enhance regional 
stability.
    This section would also require that the Secretary of 
Defense submit the joint training and exchange plan, at least 
30 days before implementation, to the Congress,specifically the 
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate, the Committee on International Relations in the House of 
Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate.

 Section 1203--Administrative Services and Support for Foreign Liaison 
                                Officers

    This section would amend Title 10, United States Code, by 
making clear that the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries 
of the military departments may pay for, or provide without 
cost, administrative services and support to foreign liaison 
officers performing duties at military facilities in the United 
States. Through the Department of Defense Foreign Liaison 
Officer Program, military representatives of foreign 
governments are temporarily assigned to components or commands 
of U.S. armed forces. The administrative services and support 
that could be provided under this section include base or 
installation operation support services, office space, 
utilities, copying services, fire and police protection, and 
computer support. This section would not authorize the 
Secretary to provide pay and allowances and other similar 
benefits for foreign liaison officers. The U.S. government 
would also not cover, among other things, the following costs 
associated with foreign liaison officers stationed in the 
United States: pay and allowances; travel by the officers and 
their dependents; movement of the household effects of the 
officers or their dependents; preparation and shipment of the 
remains and funeral expenses associated with the death of an 
officer or the officer's dependents; formal and informal 
training of the officers; and expenses in connection with the 
return of an officer whose assignment has been terminated or 
expired, along with his dependents.
    This provision was requested by the Department of Defense. 
However, given the committee's concern that this authority 
could evolve over time to cover costs and activities that would 
be unauthorized under this provision (as outlined above), a 
report shall be required before this authority is either 
reauthorized or expires on September 30, 2005.

  Section 1204--Additional Countries Covered by Loan Guarantee Program

    This section would amend section 2540(b) of title 10, 
United States Code, to expand the list of countries eligible 
under the Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program to include 
countries that are determined by the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, to be important to 
the United States' efforts to combat drug trafficking 
organizations or foreign terrorist organizations.
    The committee continues to believe that the Defense Export 
Loan Guarantee Program can serve as an alternative to U.S. 
foreign assistance programs, and can support legitimate foreign 
defense equipment requirements. However, the committee is 
concerned that many nations, such as Colombia, that are 
combating drug trafficking organizations or foreign terrorist 
organizations do not currently qualify for the Defense Export 
Loan Guarantee Program. Therefore, the committee believes that 
it is in the interest of the United States to expand the list 
of nations eligible to participate in the program.

 Section 1205--Limitation on Funding for Joint Data Exchange Center in 
                                 Moscow

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of more than 50 percent of fiscal year 2003 funds for 
activities associated with the Joint Data Exchange Center in 
Moscow, Russia, until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense 
submits to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House 
Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations, and the House Committee on International Relations 
the agreement required by section 1231 of the Floyd D. Spence 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public 
Law 106-398) and an agreement exempting the United States from 
Russian taxes and liability.
    The committee remains concerned by Russia's apparent 
unwillingness to move forward with this project by agreeing to 
the same kinds of tax and liability exemptions that apply to 
other U.S.-Russia cooperative programs. The committee urges the 
Department of Defense to reach agreement with Russia on such 
exemptions, or risk continued congressional support for this 
endeavor.

  Section 1206--Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in Colombia

    This section would restrict funds available to the 
Department of Defense to support or maintain more than 500 U.S. 
military personnel in Colombia at any time. The amendment would 
provide exemptions from the limitation for military personnel 
assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Colombia as an attache, part of 
the security assistance office or the Marine Corps security 
contingent, participating in natural disaster relief efforts, 
involved in non-operational transit through Colombia, engaged 
in rescuing or retrieving U.S. military or governmental 
personnel, or participating in a ship port call. The provision 
would also provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to 
waive the military personnel limitation should the Secretary 
determine that such a waiver is in the national security 
interests of the United States.

  TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER 
                              SOVIET UNION

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $416.7 million for cooperative 
threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing a 3.4 percent 
increase from the $403 million appropriated for fiscal year 
2002. The request included $239.9 million to dismantle former 
Soviet Union (FSU) weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and 
associated infrastructure; $94.4 million to consolidate and 
secure FSU WMD and related technology and materials; $8.8 
million to increase transparency and encourage higher standards 
of conduct; $58.9 million to support defense and military 
cooperation with the objective of preventing proliferation; and 
$14.7 million for other program support, including 
administrative and management costs. Finally, from these 
program categories, $55.0 million would go toward preventing 
the proliferation of biological weapons.
    The committee recommends the budget request with 
modifications.
    The committee has traditionally supported the overriding 
goal of the CTR program: to reduce the threat to the United 
States posed by the former Soviet Union's residual weapons of 
mass destruction and their delivery systems. Nevertheless, in 
recent years the committee has raised numerous concerns, 
including: the expansion in the program's scope; the 
Department's willingness--especially in the absence of prior 
congressional consultation--to absorb project costs that 
Russia, in particular, has not funded; the difficulty in 
determining whether assistance provided is accomplishing 
intended objectives; the lack of appropriate access and 
transparency agreements; the challenge of ensuring that 
assistance provided is not directly or indirectly facilitating 
the process of arms modernization; possible duplication and 
redundancies in similar projects executed by multiple federal 
agencies; fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the program; and 
whether CTR activities are more appropriately funded outside 
the Department of Defense.
    This year, the committee faces a much more daunting 
problem. Current law stipulates that United States assistance 
for CTR projects may not be provided to any independent state 
of the former Soviet Union for any year unless the President 
certifies to Congress for that year that the proposed recipient 
state is committed to a number of conditions that are in the 
national interest of the United States. The President currently 
has no authority to waive this certification or any of these 
conditions.
    These conditions and certification were mandated given the 
amount of financial assistance being provided to these 
countries, and the obvious need for reciprocal financial and 
political commitment by recipient countries to the goals and 
objectives of these threat reduction programs. Granting the 
President unlimited waiver authority for the annual 
certification, or any of the conditions that compose it, would 
most certainly weaken the President's ability to insist that 
recipient countries fully support, participate in, and share 
the fundamental goals of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act 
(Public Law 103-160). However, completely suspending these 
programs would itself be contrary to U.S. interests in ensuring 
the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
    The Administration informed Congress in early 2002 that the 
President cannot certify that Russia is committed to complying 
with relevant arms control agreements, specifically the 
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical 
Weapons Convention (CWC). The purposes of these conventions are 
to prevent the use of these types of weapons of mass 
destruction by prohibiting any research, development, 
production, or stockpiling of these weapons.
    The purpose of the United States CTR programs with the 
states of the former Soviet Union is to similarly prevent the 
use of weapons of mass destruction, or their acquisition or 
theft by third parties, by assisting these countries in 
reducing their excess stockpiles, production facilities, 
materials, and delivery systems, among other things. By doing 
so, presumably the risk of proliferation, theft, and illicit or 
accidental use--prevention of which are in the national 
security interests of the United States and its allies--would 
also be reduced.
    If Russia is not committed, let alone not complying with, 
its obligations under the BWC and CWC, then its illicit 
activities undermine the purpose and goals of the CTR program. 
Moreover, noncompliance with its arms control agreements calls 
into question Russia's fundamental commitment to 
nonproliferation and demilitarization, its credibility and 
trustworthiness as a treaty partner, and its strategic 
intentions and plans toward the United States and other 
nations.
    Given that the President has been forthright about Russia's 
questionable activities, and has put Moscow on notice regarding 
its commitment to comply with all relevant arms control 
agreements, the committee is granting the President limited 
waiver authority in Section 1308 so as to allow the CTR program 
in Russia to continue. This waiver authority, however, is 
limited in both duration and scope, and includes appropriate 
reporting requirements to ensure that Congress is properly 
apprised of the nature and extent of this ongoing matter, and 
why it is important to the United States national security to 
exercise this waiver authority.
    Additionally, the President is required to develop a plan 
or policy to promote Russian compliance with its relevant arms 
control agreements. Needless to say, failure by Russia to take 
immediate action to demonstrate its commitment to the BWC and 
CWC risks further restrictions on CTR assistance to Russia.
    The committee continues to believe that the focus of the 
CTR program should be the elimination of those weapons that 
pose the most serious and direct threat to U.S. security--first 
and foremost, strategic nuclear weapons and associated 
infrastructure. As such, the committee does not fully support 
the Administration's budget request for chemical weapons 
destruction in Russia, particularly when that country is 
failing to meet its obligations under the CWC.
    The committee also notes that the CTR program was 
originally envisioned as a short-term emergency effort to 
reduce the threat posed to the United States by the thousands 
of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles left behind 
after the demise of the Soviet Union. However, the original 
focus of the CTR program has expanded significantly in scope 
since its inception. Now, there is an effort to expand the CTR 
program beyond the FSU. The committee does not believe this is 
wise given the amount of CTR work still needing to be done in 
the FSU, and has therefore placed a prohibition on further 
expansion of the CTR program.
    The committee believes that the oversight provided by 
Congress since the program's inception has served to improve 
the overall management of the program and to increase its 
effectiveness. As such, the committee remains troubled that the 
Departmenthas not complied with the various reporting 
requirements mandated by law that are designed to enhance congressional 
visibility and oversight of the CTR program. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends a provision (sec. 1303) that would prohibit or limit the 
obligation or expenditure of all fiscal year 2003 CTR funds until the 
necessary reports are submitted.
    The committee expects the Department to consider carefully 
and fully the concerns the committee has identified with 
respect to the CTR program as the Department prepares its 
budget and program request for fiscal year 2004.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                  Arms Elimination Projects in Russia

    The budget request contained $70.5 million for strategic 
offensive arms elimination projects in Russia, a 47 percent 
decrease from the fiscal year 2002 appropriated amount of 
$133.4 million. The committee recommends the budget request.

              Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention

    The budget request contained $55.0 million for biological 
weapons proliferation prevention activities in the former 
Soviet Union, a 223 percent increase from the fiscal year 2002 
appropriated level of $17.0 million. The committee recommends 
the budget request.
    Although generally supportive of efforts to prevent the 
proliferation of biological weapons expertise, the committee 
remains concerned over the lack of transparency with respect to 
Russia's biological weapons programs, the risk that 
collaborative research on defensive biotechnology can be 
applied to offensive weapons purposes, the perpetuation of a 
knowledge and skills base among Russian scientists that may 
increase their attractiveness to foreign states seeking to 
develop biological weapons, the difficulty of verifying that 
assistance provided is not being diverted to illicit purposes, 
and the lack of an exit strategy for this activity.

                 Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia

    The budget request contained $133.6 million for chemical 
weapons elimination activities in Russia, which represents a 
167 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated 
level of $50.0 million. The committee does not fully support 
this request.
    Rather, the committee supports funding this request at 
$50.0 million, and making the balance of the DOD request--$83.6 
million--also available for strategic offensive arms 
elimination in the former Soviet Union and nuclear weapons 
transportation and storage security in Russia.
    As previously stated, the committee continues to believe 
that the focus of the CTR program should be the elimination of 
those weapons that pose the most serious and direct threat to 
U.S. security: strategic nuclear weapons and associated 
infrastructure. As such, the committee does not support a 
budget request that proposes to spend $133.6 million on 
chemical weapons destruction in Russia, particularly when that 
country is failing to live up to its obligations under the 
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
    As it stands, Russia has failed to meet any of the time and 
destruction milestones outlined in the CWC; in fact, Russia is 
admittedly years behind schedule and shows little sign of 
making progress in complying with the convention. While Russia 
may claim economic hardship, and the failure of other 
countries--particularly the United States--to help fund the 
destruction activities outlined in the CWC, the committee notes 
that Russia's obligations under the CWC are Russia's 
responsibilities--not others'. Moreover, the Russian government 
could meet its obligations under the CWC by freeing up funds 
dedicated to the production of SS-27 ballistic missiles, the 
development of other offensive arms, and the pursuit of 
military modernization initiatives.
    Finally, the committee is troubled by the fact that Russia 
has yet to meet all of the necessary conditions, particularly 
the requirement to provide full and accurate information 
regarding its chemical weapons stockpile, before CTR funds can 
be expended on the chemical weapons destruction facility 
(CWDF). Because Russia has failed to meet these conditions, no 
CTR funds have been expended on the destruction facility to 
date. Given the totality of facts, the Committee has decided to 
flat line this year's budget request for chemical weapons 
destruction rather than endorse a 167% increase in funding for 
this project. Additionally, continued Russian reluctance to 
resolve these issues not only undermines congressional support 
for the CTR program, it also jeopardizes continued funding for 
the CWDF project in particular.

                     Defense and Military Contacts

    The budget request contained $18.9 million for defense and 
military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union, a 
slight increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of 
$18.3 million. The committee recommends the budget request. 
Last year, the CTR program funded approximately 500 defense and 
military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union. 
This year's budget request would also support 500 events. 
However, the committee continues to believe that the utility of 
these activities is difficult to quantify, yet fully expects 
the Department to do so as it plans, implements and evaluates 
these activities. As such, the committee has required a 
detailed report on this program's activities before more than 
50% of fiscal year 2003 CTR funds are obligated or expended.

                   Fissile Material Storage Facility

    The budget request did not contain funding for this 
activity. The committee notes that Russia continues not to seek 
assistance to build a second wing at the Mayak storage facility 
and that sufficient funds remain to complete activity on the 
first wing. Accordingly, the committee supports the 
Department's action not to seek additional funds for this 
activity and recommends a provision (section 1305) that would 
continue to prohibit CTR funds from being used for the design, 
planning, or construction of a second wing. The committee notes 
that Russia has consistently refused to agree to transparency 
measures that would allow the United States to verify that the 
fissile material stored at thefacility in Mayak, Russia, is 
from dismantled nuclear weapons and reiterates its view that the 
Department should continue to seek an agreement with Russia on this 
issue.

               Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia

    The budget request contained $39.9 million for nuclear 
weapons storage security in Russia, a 27 percent decrease from 
the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $54.7 million. The 
committee recommends the budget request, but reiterates the 
need for the Secretary of Defense to seek an agreement with 
Russia allowing appropriate U.S. access to nuclear weapons 
storage sites for which CTR assistance is provided.

                Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security

    The budget request contained $19.7 million for nuclear 
weapons transportation security in Russia, a 107 percent 
increase from the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $9.5 
million. The committee recommends the budget request. The 
committee notes that these costs were previously paid by Russia 
and again urges the Department to seek an agreement that would 
once again shift the burden of financial responsibility for 
this activity back to Russia.

              Other Assessments and Administrative Support

    The budget request contained $14.7 million for other 
program support, including management and administrative costs, 
project development, and audits and examinations, an 11 percent 
increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $13.2 
million. The committee recommends the budget request.
    The committee notes that a portion of these funds has 
traditionally been applied to new initiatives in the concept 
development stage. The committee understands that Russia has in 
the past proposed various initiatives for CTR consideration, 
including initiatives involving conventional weapons or 
delivery platforms. The committee believes that the statutory 
language of section 1303 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), which prohibits 
the use of CTR funds for conventional elimination purposes, 
should be strictly adhered to and that CTR funds should not be 
expended on concept development studies designed to assess the 
viability of elimination projects specifically prohibited under 
the statutory prohibition.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination in Kazakhstan

    The budget request contained $9.0 million for weapons of 
mass destruction infrastructure elimination activities in 
Kazakhstan, a 50 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 
appropriated level of $6.0 million. This would include funding 
for activities related to the prevention of fissile and 
radioactive material proliferation, and the elimination of 
facilities used to support the deployment and operation of 
weapons of mass destruction, including infrastructure at former 
bomber bases. The committee recommends the budget request.

   Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination in Ukraine

    The budget request contained $8.8 million for weapons of 
mass destruction infrastructure elimination activities in 
Ukraine, a 47 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 
appropriated level of $6.0 million. This would include funding 
for activities related to the elimination of facilities used to 
support the deployment and operation of weapons of mass 
destruction, including facilities for storage and maintenance 
of nuclear weapons. The committee recommends the budget 
request.

                     Russian Proliferation to Iran

    The committee is deeply concerned about continued Russian 
proliferation to Iran, and the clear threat that this dangerous 
activity presents to the national security and vital interests 
of the United States. Needless to say, Russian proliferation to 
Iran, and to other countries, conflicts with the purpose and 
goals of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, and 
could undermine continued congressional support for threat 
reduction efforts in Russia.
    According to the U.S. intelligence community, Russian 
proliferation to Iran consists primarily of nuclear and missile 
technology, goods, and know-how, and dual-use items that could 
contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction 
(WMD) and ballistic missiles. This proliferation also includes 
other WMD technologies and advanced conventional weapons; and 
Russian entities are also transferring similar items to other 
countries, including China, Libya, and Syria.
    As a result of Russian assistance, the intelligence 
community estimates that Iran could attempt to launch an 
intercontinental ballistic missile by 2005, and could possess a 
nuclear weapon by 2010. Combined, these capabilities would 
create a new strategic threat to the United States, and an 
immediate threat to American forces, interests, allies and 
friends in the region.
    Unclassified intelligence reports indicate that Russian 
proliferation to Iran takes place either covertly, under the 
guise of peaceful cooperation, or through academic and 
scientific exchanges that take place in both Russia and Iran. 
In either case, this matter has been raised by United States 
officials at the highest levels of the Russian government. Yet, 
despite U.S. efforts, this activity continues with either the 
knowledge or acquiescence of senior Russian officials, who 
support these illicit transfers or are tolerating them for 
strategic or financial reasons.
    To make matters worse, Iran has a longstanding history of 
providing safe harbor, money, arms and assistance to foreign 
terrorist organizations. As a result, Iran has been rightly 
designated a ``state sponsor of terrorism'' by the United 
States. The most dangerous aspect of Russian proliferation to 
Iran, therefore, is that weapons of mass destruction 
technologies or materials might be passed onto foreign 
terrorist organizations supported by Teheran. It goes without 
saying that the combination of foreign terrorists organizations 
and weapons of mass destruction would constitute a grave threat 
to the national security of the United States, since an attack 
of this nature would be extremely difficult to prevent, deter, 
or defend against.
    Therefore, it would be fair to state that the ongoing 
proliferation of WMD technologies, materials, and know-how from 
Russia to Iran represents a greater, broader,and more likely 
threat to the national security and vital interests of the United 
States than the potential proliferation of these same items from 
Russia.
    Russian proliferation to Iran and other countries raises 
serious questions about Moscow's intentions, commitment to 
nonproliferation, and desire for improved U.S.-Russian 
relations. Thus, the President must make nonproliferation a top 
priority when dealing with Moscow, and must demonstrate United 
States resolve and commitment to nonproliferation through 
clear, firm and coherent policies and strategies that employ 
the full-range of diplomatic and economic tools at his 
disposal, both positive and negative, to eliminate this 
dangerous activity once and for always.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

 Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 
                               and Funds

    This section would specify the kinds of programs to be 
funded under this title and would make fiscal year 2003 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) funds available for 
obligation for three years.

                   Section 1302--Funding Allocations

    This section would allocate fiscal year 2003 funding for 
various CTR purposes and activities.

  Section 1303--Prohibition Against Use of Funds Until Submission of 
                                Reports

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of fiscal year 2003 CTR funds until 30 days after the annual 
report required by section 1308 of the Floyd D. Spence National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398), and the update for the multi-year plan required to be 
submitted for fiscal year 2001, are submitted.

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

    This section would place a new reporting requirement, as 
practicable, in the annual report required by section 1308 of 
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) regarding use of the 
revenue generated by CTR activities in the states of the former 
Soviet Union.

   Section 1305--Prohibition Against Use of Funds for Second Wing of 
                   Fissile Material Storage Facility

    This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for the 
design, planning, or construction of a second wing for the 
fissile material storage facility in Mayak, Russia.

   Section 1306--Sense of Congress and Report Requirement Regarding 
                     Russian Proliferation to Iran

    This section would express the Sense of Congress regarding 
continued Russian proliferation of goods, technology, and know-
how that directly or indirectly contribute to Iran's 
development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic 
missiles, and the threat that this illicit activity could pose 
to United States national security and vital interests.
    This section would also require the President to report to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on 
Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and 
the House Committee on International Relations regarding the 
scope, nature, and extent of Russian proliferation to Iran, and 
to other countries of concern; the impact this activity could 
have on the United States and its national security interests; 
and the plan, policy, or strategy that the President intends to 
pursue to halt Russian proliferation.

 Section 1307--Prohibition Against Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction 
          Funds Outside the States of the Former Soviet Union

    This section would prohibit expanding the CTR program to 
states outside of the former Soviet Union.

      Section 1308--Limited Waiver of Restriction on Use of Funds

    This section would provide limited authority for the 
President to waive the certification requirement of paragraph 
(d)(5), section 5952 of title 22, United Stated Code--which 
states that Russia is committed to complying with all relevant 
arms control agreements--for national security purposes.
    This waiver authority is limited in both duration and 
scope. It includes appropriate reporting requirements to ensure 
that Congress is properly apprised of the nature and extent of 
Russia's lack of commitment to all relevant arms control 
agreements, why it is important to the United States national 
security to exercise this waiver authority and continue CTR 
activities with Russia, and the President's plan or policy to 
promote Russian compliance with its relevant arms control 
agreements.
    The committee notes that while it may be in the national 
security interest of the United States to continue CTR programs 
in Russia, it is even more important to the nation's security 
that Russia comply with all relevant arms control agreements, 
particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction.

Section 1309--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of Report on 
                Defense and Military Contacts Activities

    This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of more than 50% of fiscal year 2003 CTR funds for ``Defense 
and Military Activities'' until the Secretary of Defense 
submits a report to Congress detailing the activities, 
operation, and performance of the previous year's events under 
this program.

                TITLE XIV--UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE

                                OVERVIEW

    The Utah Test and Training Range is used for operational 
training, testing of new systems, and missile motor storage, 
testing and destruction. The range provides the largest 
overland safety footprint available in the Department for 
aircrew training and weapons testing. The continued operation 
of the Utah Test and Training Range is vital for meeting test 
and training requirements for the Air Force, allied forces, 
other national agencies, civilian industry and civilian 
academic institutions.
    In order to fulfill its mission, the Air Force must 
maintain overflight capability, including low-altitude 
overflight, by manned and unmanned aircraft and vehicles as 
well as the ability to undertake supersonic events. The Air 
Force must protect established rights-of-way to existing ground 
instrumentation and communications gear, and the capability to 
upgrade or add additional equipment as necessary. The Air Force 
also requires emergency access to certain areas and the ability 
to control or restrict public access.
    In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management recommended that 
approximately 1.9 million acres in Utah be designated as 
wilderness, including approximately 200,000 acres within the 
Utah Test and Training Range. The Wilderness Act of 1964, P.L. 
88-577, defines wilderness as lands upon which ``the imprint of 
man's work [is] substantially unnoticeable'' such that the 
lands provide ``outstanding opportunities for solitude.'' In 
recent years, the Department's readiness capabilities have been 
encroached by threatened litigation wherein parties have 
asserted that military training activities conducted at or near 
proposed wilderness areas nationwide are unlawful in instances 
where the activities interfere with a solitude wilderness 
experience.
    Continued unrestricted access to the special use airspace 
and lands that comprise the Utah Test and Training Range is a 
national security priority that is compatible with the 
protection and proper management of the natural, environmental, 
cultural and other resources of these lands. This provision 
would not amend the Wilderness Act, which is silent on the 
issue of military activities above wilderness areas.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

        Section 1401-Definition of Utah Test and Training Range

    This section would define the ``Utah Test and Training 
Range'' as those portions of the military operating area of the 
Utah Test and Training Area located solely in the State of 
Utah, including the Dugway Proving Ground.

  Section 1402--Military Operations and Overflights at Utah Test and 
                             Training Range

    This section would specify that the Wilderness Act would 
not restrict the ability of the military to conduct overflights 
or designate new training routes on the Utah Test and Training 
Range. The section would specify that the Wilderness Act would 
not require the removal of existing communication, 
instrumentation or electronic tracking systems, and would 
permit maintenance of or installation of any such equipment in 
the future. This section would also instruct the Secretary of 
the Air Force and the Secretary of Interior to enter into a 
Memorandum of Understanding to determine procedures and 
guidelines regarding emergency access, the restriction of 
public access for safety and security reasons and the temporary 
placement of communications equipment for training and testing 
of military activities.

  Section 1403--Designation and Management of Lands in Utah Test and 
                             Training Range

    This section would specify the Federal lands located in the 
Utah Test and Training Range that will be designated as 
wilderness. All areas designated as wilderness would be 
administered by the Secretary of the Interior subject to the 
conditions specified in the provision.

          Section 1404--Designation of Pilot Range Wilderness

    This section would designate specified Federal lands in Box 
Elder County, Utah, as wilderness known as the Pilot Range 
Wilderness Area.

         Section 1405--Designation of Cedar Mountain Wilderness

    This section would designate specified Federal lands in 
Tooele County, Utah, as wilderness known as the Cedar Mountain 
Wilderness Area.

            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of Division B is to provide military 
construction authorizations and related authority in support of 
the military departments during fiscal year 2003. As approved 
by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in 
the amount of $9,953,476,000 for construction in support of the 
active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) security 
infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2003.

                     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW

    The Department of Defense requested $4,713,916,000 for 
military construction and $4,220,133,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2003. Within the military construction request, 
$545,138,000 was requested for implementation of base closure 
and realignment actions. The committee recommends authorization 
of $5,702,368,000 for military construction, including 
$545,138,000 for base closure implementation, and 
$4,251,108,000 for family housing.
    Although the last two military construction budgets will be 
the highest in several years, the committee remains concerned 
about the state of our military installations and facilities. 
Despite these two relatively robust budgets, the situation at 
installation after installation remains grim, with little hope 
for the future without a serious commitment to the 
modernization of the Department's infrastructure. Even the 
improved funding for sustainment, modernization and restoration 
does not provide enough resources to keep the condition of 
these facilities from falling further behind.
    The budget request would have funded little more than 
beddown of new missions and some quality of life projects. 
While important, these projects do nothing to improve the 
situation for long neglected current mission requirements, 
which continue to suffer. To address some of this shortfall, 
the committee recommends an increase in new budget authority of 
$1,019,427,000, and carefully reviewed the projects contained 
in the budget request. While the committee approved all but a 
few of the requested projects, the committee withheld approval 
of seemingly redundant projects overseas and withheld judgment 
on the value of additional North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
headquarters.
    The committee is pleased that three of the four military 
services expect to have all military families living in 
adequate family housing by 2007 through the housing 
privatization program. The committee has recommended further 
enhancements to this program in the effort to hasten the day 
when all military families will live in decent homes.
    A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in 
Division B for fiscal year 2003 follows:

                            TITLE XXI--ARMY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $1,476,521,000 for Army 
military construction and $1,405,620,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,521,433,000 for military construction and $1,400,700,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2003.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                          Planning and Design

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete 
planning and design activities for the following project: 
$1,600,000 for a railhead at Baumholder, Germany.

                     Unspecified Minor Construction

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army 
execute the following project: $1,050,000 for sewage plant 
environmental compliance upgrades at White Sands Missile Range, 
New Mexico.

                     Water Tanks, Fort Bliss, Texas

    The committee authorizes $10,200,000 for phase two of a 
project to replace elevated water tanks at Fort Bliss, Texas, 
and recommends authorization of appropriation of $5,200,000. 
The committee notes that sufficient authorization of 
appropriations to complete phase two of this project was 
provided by section 2101 of the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public 
Law 107-107).

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized Army 
construction projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2102--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 
2003.

      Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2003.

          Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year 
2003. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount 
the Army may spend on military construction projects.

  Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2002 Projects

    This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 
(division B of Public Law 107-107) to provide for an increase 
in the amounts authorized for military construction at Fort 
Carson, Colorado, and Fort Jackson, South Carolina.

                            TITLE XXII--NAVY

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $895,131,000 for Navy military 
construction and $1,243,488,000 for family housing for fiscal 
year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of 
$1,245,585,000 for military construction and $1,245,404,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2003.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

      Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System Land Based Test Site

    The committee commends the Secretary of the Navy for 
including planning and design funding in the budget request for 
the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) Land Based 
Test Site at Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station, New 
Jersey. The committee believes this project is a critical 
component of the CVN-X program and understands that the 
Secretary of the Navy intends to request full funding for the 
project in fiscal year 2004. The committee endorses the 
secretary's plan to fund this project in fiscal year 2004.

 North Chicago Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center And Naval 
                    Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to consult 
with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and provide a report of 
the plan required by the House of Representatives report on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Report 
107-333) to jointly make maximum use of the North Chicago 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The report should be 
transmitted to the committee by January 30, 2003.
    The committee believes that efficiencies are possible if 
the Department of the Navy and the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs share a single, modern facility. The committee 
recognizes the many bureaucratic impediments to such a 
proposal, among them the reality that construction of medical 
facilities for the military departments is managed and budgeted 
by the Department of Defense (DOD). With the understanding that 
the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
agree on the design of a new joint facility that will be no 
more costly to each department than respective single use 
facilities, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a request to fund the DOD portion of a joint facility 
to the Secretary of Defense for consideration in the fiscal 
year 2004 or future medical construction budget requests.
    The committee believes that any joint venture undertaken at 
Great Lakes Naval Hospital and the North Chicago Veterans 
Affairs Medical Center should meet jointly identified needs in 
a cost effective manner, be mutually beneficial to the 
beneficiaries of both departments, and incorporate the best 
business practices and lessons learned from previous joint 
ventures. To this end, the Secretary of the Navy, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs shall consult on further development of 
compatible budget, reimbursement and accounting systems, 
andcompatible information technology goals. The consultation shall seek 
to identify restrictive regulations, policies and regulatory 
redundancies that inhibit resource sharing, and provide milestone dates 
to address each identified issue.

                          Planning and Design

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy complete 
planning and design activities for the following projects: 
$1,100,000 for a child development center at North Island Naval 
Air Station, California and $180,000 for a fire station at 
Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Washington.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized Navy 
construction projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2202--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 
2003.

      Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2003.

          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 2003. This 
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy 
may spend on military construction projects.

  Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2002 Project

    This section would amend the table in section 2201 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 
(division B of Public Law 107-107) to provide for an increase 
in the amounts authorized for military construction at Naval 
Station Norfolk, Virginia.

                         TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $644,090,000 for Air Force 
military construction and $1,521,113,000 for family housing for 
fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of 
$929,721,000 for military construction and $1,555,092,000 for 
family housing for fiscal year 2003.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                          C-17 Assault Strips

    The committee endorses the decision by the Secretary of the 
Air Force to base C-17 aircraft at March Air Reserve Base, 
California, and Travis Air Force Base, California. The 
committee notes that fully trained C-17 crews must practice 
combat landings at assault strips located at air bases near 
their home station. The committee has learned that a facility 
at Bicycle Lake, Fort Irwin, California, may be able to serve 
as an assault strip for March Air Reserve Base and Travis Air 
Force Base crews with some minor improvements. The committee 
urges the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the 
Army to consider upgrading the facility at Fort Irwin for use 
as an assault strip and urges the Secretary of the Air Force to 
construct assault strips at locations at appropriate distances 
from other bases where C-17 aircraft are stationed.

                          Planning and Design

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects: $675,000 for an air traffic control tower at Dover 
Air Force Base, Delaware, $2,160,000 for the 1st Air Force 
operations support center at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, 
and $2,430,000 for corrosion control paint facility at Robins 
Air Force Base, Georgia.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

 Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized Air Force 
construction projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.

                      Section 2302--Family Housing

    This section would authorize new construction and planning 
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal 
year 2003.

      Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2003.

        Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 2003. 
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount 
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.

                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $687,535,000 for defense 
agencies military construction and $47,912,000 for family 
housing for fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends 
authorization of $779,896,000 for military construction and 
$47,912,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2003.

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                          Planning and Design

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of Defense complete 
planning and design activities for the following project: 
$1,300,000 for the fifth building of the Uniformed Services 
University of Health Sciences at Bethesda, Maryland.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section contains the list of authorized defense 
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2003. The 
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

      Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

    This section would authorize improvements to existing units 
of family housing for fiscal year 2003.

               Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out energy conservation projects.

    Section 2404--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

    This section would authorize specific appropriations for 
each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year 
2003. This section also would provide an overall limit on the 
amount the defense agencies may spend on military construction 
projects.

  Section 2405--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 2000 Project

    This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 
(division B of Public Law 106-65) to provide for an increase in 
the amounts authorized for military construction at Blue Grass 
Army Depot, Kentucky.

  Section 2406--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 1999 Project

    This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 
(division B of Public Law 105-261) to provide for an increase 
in the amounts authorized for military construction at Newport 
Army Depot, Indiana.

  Section 2407--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 
                           Year 1997 Project

    This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 
(division B of Public Law 104-201) to provide for an increase 
in the amounts authorized for military construction at Pueblo 
Chemical Activity, Colorado.

      TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $168,200,000 for the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) infrastructure fund (NATO 
Security Investment Program) for fiscal year 2003. The 
committee recommends $168,200,000.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

    Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 
                                Projects

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of 
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill 
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for 
construction previously financed by the United States.

          Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

    This section would authorize appropriations of $168,200,000 
as the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization security investment program.

            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

                                SUMMARY

    The budget request contained $297,301,000 for military 
construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year 
2003. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 
2003 of $512,395,000 to be distributed as follows:

Army National Guard.....................................   $ 170,793,000
Air National Guard......................................     119,266,000
Army Reserve............................................      86,789,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................      66,971,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................      68,576,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total.............................................     512,395,000

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                      Dual Use Reserve Facilities

    The committee understands that select Marine Reserve units 
are developing innovative programs with local educational 
institutions that may result in greater synergy between the 
military and civilian community at the local level. The 
committee is aware that these initiatives may involve 
efficiencies in the form of dual use of some facilities. The 
committee is interested in this initiative and directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to report to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 
March 1, 2003, on the value of this program.

          Joint Army Reserve and National Guard Reserve Center

    The committee believes that the reserve components should 
construct joint facilities wherever possible. The committee 
understands that both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve 
have inadequate facilities in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The 
committee urges the Secretary of the Army to consider 
establishing a joint Army Reserve and Army National Guard 
center in the Scranton, Pennsylvania area to properly support 
the reserve components in northeast Pennsylvania. The committee 
is also aware that the Army National Guard and Army Reserve are 
considering such a joint project in the Moreno Valley, 
California, area, and urges the Secretary of the Army to 
complete this needed joint facility as soon as possible.

                Planning and Design, Air National Guard

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force 
complete planning and design activities for the following 
projects: $1,650,000 for a fire crash rescue station and 
control tower at Otis Air National Guard Base, Massachusetts, 
$1,110,000 for an aircraft maintenance complex at Duluth 
International Airport, Minnesota, and $347,000 for phase two of 
an aircraft maintenance complex in Nashville, Tennessee.

                Planning and Design, Army National Guard

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete 
planning and design activities for the following projects: 
$990,000 for an armed forces reserve center in Haleyville, 
Alabama, $1,126,000 for an aviation transformation readiness 
center at Windsor Locks, Connecticut, $1,580,000 for an 
aviation support facility at Fort Stewart, Georgia, $659,000 
for a readiness center in Methuen, Massachusetts, $2,014,000 
for an aviation support facility at North Kingstown, Rhode 
Island, and $856,000 for an information operations armory at 
Camp Murray, Washington.

                     Unspecified Minor Construction

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army 
execute the following project: $586,000 for readiness center 
utilities upgrades at Worcester, Massachusetts.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

   Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land 
                          Acquisition Projects

    This section would authorize appropriations for military 
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for 
fiscal year 2003. The state list contained in this report is 
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects 
authorized at each location.

        TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

 Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to Be 
                            Specified by Law

    This section would provide that authorizations for military 
construction projects, repair of real property, land 
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, 
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will 
expire on October 1, 2005 or the date of enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2006, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to 
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated 
before October 1, 2005 or the date of enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.

Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2000 
                                Projects

    This section would provide for selected extension of 
certain fiscal year 2000 military construction authorizations 
until October 1, 2003, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2004, whichever is later.

 Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1999 
                                Projects

    This section would provide for selected extension of 
certain fiscal year 1999 military construction authorizations 
until October 1, 2003, or the date of the enactment of the act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2004, whichever is later.

                      Section 2704--Effective Date

    This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, 
XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 
1, 2002, or the date of the enactment of this act, whichever is 
later.

                    TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

          Impact of Privatized Housing on Local School Systems

    The committee commends the Secretary of Defense's 
initiative to eliminate substandard military family housing by 
2007 by aggressive use of housing privatization authorities. 
The committee believes that such initiatives, while worthy, 
should carefully consider the impact on all local support 
facilities, especially local school systems. It is particularly 
challenging for Department of Defense Education Activity 
Schools to respond effectively to sudden shifts in student 
population, since these schools must accommodate all students 
on a given installation, and since new school construction must 
be approved in the Department's military construction budget 
request. Local education activities feel the effects as well, 
and have little chance to react as federal impact payments are 
slow to adjust. The committee notes that service secretaries 
are authorized to include new school facilities in privatized 
housing contracts, and is concerned that this authority has not 
been used to its fullest advantage. In order to understand how 
the Department is addressing this issue both at installations 
with and without Department of Defense schools, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 
Services by March 1, 2003, the impact of privatized housing on 
local and any Department of Defense schools at Fort Bragg, 
North Carolina, Fort Hood, Texas, and Lackland Air Force Base, 
Texas, together with the measures taken to ameliorate those 
impacts.

               Integrated Water Management System on Guam

    The committee recognizes the need for efficient management, 
utilization and conservation of water resources for the 
civilian and military communities on Guam. For some years, the 
committee has encouraged the military services to privatize 
utility systems where possible. In that regard, the committee 
encourages the Department of Defense to work collaboratively 
with the Government of Guam for a comprehensive and integrated 
water supply system and wastewater system on the island. To 
achieve this goal, the committee urges the exploration of a 
public-private partnership to manage the distribution and 
supply of potable water on a more efficient basis in Guam.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 
                                Changes

  Section 2801--Changes to Alternative Authority for Acquisition and 
                    Improvement of Military Housing

    This section would amend several provisions of subchapter 
IV of chapter 169, title 10, United States Code, to provide the 
secretaries of the military departments with additional 
flexibility in the management of family and unaccompanied 
housing underalternate authorities. This section would amend 
section 2872a of title 10, United States Code, to add police and fire 
protection services to the services that may be provided by a service 
secretary under these authorities; would amend section 2874 of title 
10, United States Code, to permit service secretaries to lease existing 
housing and incorporate such housing into contracts negotiated under 
these authorities; would repeal section 2879 of title 10, United States 
Code; would amend section 2880 of title 10, United States Code, to 
remove restrictions on space limitations by grade for unaccompanied 
housing provided under these authorities on a military installation; 
and would amend section 2883 of title 10, United States Code, to 
consolidate the existing separate family housing and unaccompanied 
housing improvement funds into a single fund.

   Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Construction 
           Projects as Part of Environmental Response Action

    This section would amend section 2810 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify that the secretaries of the military 
departments are required to notify Congress of their intent 
carry out military construction projects not otherwise 
authorized by law necessary to carry out an environmental 
response action when the cost of that project exceeds the minor 
construction threshold.

       Section 2803--Leasing of Military Family Housing in Korea

    This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to lease in 
Korea no more than 2,400 units of family housing for a maximum 
lease amount of $35,000 per year and no more than 1,175 units 
of family housing for a maximum of $25,000 per year.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

 Section 2811--Agreements with Private Entities to Limit Encroachments 
  and Other Constraints on Military Training, Testing, and Operations

    This section would authorize the secretary of a military 
department to enter into an agreement with a private 
organization whose principal purpose is the conservation of 
natural resources to acquire an interest in land near military 
installations for the purpose of preserving natural habitat and 
limiting commercial development near military installations. 
The committee believes that judicious use of this initiative 
will help to preserve the last refuge habitat of some 
endangered species and will reduce the risk of urban 
encroachment impacting training at military installations.

Section 2812--Conveyance of Surplus Real Property for Natural Resource 
                         Conservation Purposes

    This section would authorize the secretary of a military 
department to convey surplus real property under the 
administrative control of the secretary to an entity of state 
or local government or a nonprofit conservation organization 
for the purpose of maintaining the property for the 
conservation of natural resources in perpetuity.

  Section 2813--National Emergency Exemption From Screening and Other 
  Requirements of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act for Property 
                 Used in Support of Response Activities

    This section would amend section 11411 of title 42, United 
States Code, to provide an exception to the requirement to 
screen excess or surplus property for various other uses when 
the property may be needed by federal, state, or local agencies 
to support emergency efforts in times of war, national 
emergency, or the occurrence of a major disaster.

Section 2814--Demonstration Program on Reduction in Long-Term Facility 
                           Maintenance Costs

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a demonstration program to assess whether the inclusion 
of facility maintenance requirements in military construction 
contracts may reduce the long-term facility maintenance costs 
of the military departments. This program is limited to 12 
contracts, but is in addition to similar authority provided to 
the Secretary of the Army by section 2814 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B 
of Public Law 107-107).

   Section 2815--Expanded Authority to Transfer Property at Military 
Installations to Be Closed to Persons Who Construct or Provide Military 
                             Family Housing

    This section would amend section 204 of the Defense 
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act 
(Public Law 100-526) and section 2905 of the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) to 
provide greater flexibility to the secretary of a military 
department to exchange property at a closed military 
installation for needed military family housing.

                      Subtitle C--Land Conveyances

                        Part I--Army Conveyances

Section 2821--Land Conveyances, Lands in Alaska No Longer Required for 
                        National Guard Purposes

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey to the State of Alaska, a local government entity, or 
Indian tribe in the State of Alaska certain parcels of real 
estate in the National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska that 
are excess to the needs of the Alaska National Guard.

         Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property at 
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, consisting of approximately 50 acres 
containing an abandoned railroad spur, to the city of 
Hopkinsville, Kentucky. The property is to be used by the city 
for storm water management, recreation, and other public 
purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance 
shall be borne by the city.

 Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Training Center, Buffalo, 
                               Minnesota

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property, with 
improvements, to the Buffalo Independent School District 877 of 
Buffalo, Minnesota. The property is to be used by the school 
district as a learning center. The cost of any surveys 
necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the school 
district.

            Section 2824--Land Conveyance, Fort Bliss, Texas

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property at 
Fort Bliss, Texas, consisting of approximately 44 acres with 
and without improvements to the State of Texas. The property is 
to be used by the State for the construction of a veterans' 
nursing home. The cost of any surveys necessary for the 
conveyance shall be borne by the State.

            Section 2825--Land Conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
convey, without consideration a parcel of real estate at Fort 
Hood, Texas, consisting of approximately 174 acres with and 
without improvements, to the Veterans Land Board of the State 
of Texas. The property is to be used by the State to establish 
a State run veterans' cemetery. The cost of any surveys 
necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the board.

                       Part II--Navy Conveyances

 Section 2831--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, San 
                           Diego, California

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
convey a parcel of real property at Marine Corps Air Station 
Miramar, San Diego, California, to ENPEX Corporation for 
consideration. The section would require that the corporation 
construct family housing in the San Diego area and convey such 
housing and underlying real estate to the Secretary of the Navy 
as consideration for the parcel to be conveyed by the 
secretary. The section would also require that the value of the 
housing and real estate to be acquired by the secretary be of 
at least equal value to real estate being conveyed, and would 
restrict the use of the land conveyed by the secretary to the 
generation of electric power.

 Section 2832--Boundary Adjustments, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, and 
                  Prince William Forest Park, Virginia

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
and the Secretary of the Navy to adjust the boundaries of 
Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia, and Prince William 
Forest Park, Virginia. The boundary adjustment will require the 
Secretary of the Navy to transfer approximately 352 acres of 
land to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
Interior, and will require the Secretary of the Interior to 
transfer approximately 3,400 acres of land to the 
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy.

                    Part III--Air Force Conveyances

Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field, 
                                 Nevada

    This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
and the Secretary of the Air Force to convey certain parcels of 
real property at Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field, 
Nevada, to the City of West Wendover, Nevada, and Tooele 
County, Utah, without consideration, for the purpose of 
establishing a runway protection zone and the development of an 
industrial park.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

 Section 2861--Easement for Construction of Roads or Highways, Marine 
                 Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California

    This section would amend section 2867 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B 
of Public Law 107-107) to clarify that any state law that would 
restrict the construction of the proposed road through Camp 
Pendleton, California, has no effect on the authority of the 
Secretary of the Navy to grant the easement or on the 
Transportation Corridor Agency to construct and operate the 
road.

  Section 2862--Sale of Excess Treated Water and Wastewater Treatment 
       Capacity, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

    This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to 
enter into an agreement that would allow Camp Lejeune, North 
Carolina, to provide treated water and wastewater treatment 
services to Onslow County, North Carolina, if the secretary 
determines that such an agreement is in the public interest and 
will not interfere with current or future utility needs at Camp 
Lejeune. The section would also require the county to reimburse 
the Navy for the fair market value of the services provided and 
specify that any amounts paid would be credited to the base 
operations and maintenance accounts of Camp Lejeune.

 Section 2863--Ratification of Agreement Regarding Adak Naval Complex, 
                  Alaska, and Related Land Conveyances

    This section would ratify an agreement made by the 
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Navy, and the 
Aleut Corporation in September 2000 concerning the reuse of the 
Adak Naval Complex, Alaska, and other related land conveyances. 
The agreement would provide that real estate on Adak Island 
withdrawn for use by the Secretary of the Navy may be 
transferred to the Aleut Corporation without regard to the 
requirements of section 1621 of title 42, United States Code, 
pertaining to lands in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife 
Refuge. In return, the Aleut Corporation would agree to 
transfer to the Secretary of the Interior at least 36,000 acres 
of land suitable for inclusion in the Alaska Maritime National 
Wildlife Refuge. The committee believes that this agreement 
promotes the public interest by equitably preserving wildlife 
habitat and allowing the Secretary of the Navy to divest of 
unneeded real property.

Section 2864--Special Requirements for Adding Military Installations to 
                              Closure List

    This section would amend section 3003 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B 
of Public Law 107-107) to require that the base closure 
commission vote unanimously to add an installation to the list 
of bases being considered for closure and that at least two 
commissioners must visit any base ultimately recommended for 
closure.

 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request contained $15,434.0 million for the 
national security activities of the Department of Energy for 
fiscal year 2003. Of this amount, $8,038.7 million is for the 
programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration and 
$7,395.2 million is for environmental and other defense 
activities. The committee recommends $15,400.9 million, the 
amount requested less $33.1 million for retirement accrual, 
representing an increase of $1,324.2 million from the amount 
authorized for fiscal year 2002. The following table summarizes 
the budget request and the committee recommendations.

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

 Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request

    The Administration proposed legislation to require 
agencies, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to pay the full 
government share of the accruing cost of retirement for current 
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees and to pay the 
full accruing cost of postretirement health benefits for 
current civilian employees who are enrolled in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). At the present time, 
agencies pay about half of the employer's share for accruing 
benefits, and the remainder is covered by a mandatory general 
fund payment. The Administration's proposed change would 
require specific legislation to move the full government share 
to each agency's budget.
    The committee understands that the appropriate committee 
with jurisdiction to initiate this change has declined to 
consider the required legislation and, therefore, recommends 
continuing the current practice of funding these benefits. The 
fiscal year 2003 budget request for the atomic energy defense 
activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) includes $33.1 
million to fund this proposed change in the CSRS and the FEHB 
program. The following represents the total budget request for 
funding for CSRS and FEHB that has not been included in the 
committee's recommendation for the atomic energy defense 
activities of the Department of Energy:

                                 Program

National Nuclear Security Administration:dollars]
    Weapons Activities--Secure Transportation Asset program 
      direction...............................................     2,379
    Naval Reactors--program direction.........................     1,230
    Office of the Administrator...............................    11,776
Environmental Management: Defense Environmental Restoration 
    and Waste Management--program direction...................    14,227
Other Defense Activities:
    Office of Security--program direction.....................     1,703
    Intelligence..............................................       313
    Counterintelligence.......................................       128
Independent oversight and performance assurance...............       185
Environmental, Safety and Health--program direction...........       869
Worker and community transition--program direction............        91
Office of Hearings and Appeals................................       203
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

        Total.................................................    33,104

                National Nuclear Security Administration

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $8,038.7 million for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for fiscal year 
2003. The committee recommends $8,034.3 million, representing 
an increase of $913.3 million from the amount authorized for 
fiscal year 2002.

                       Items of Special Interest

Adjustments to the budget request

    The committee recommends $8,034.3 million for the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), including reductions 
for retirement accrual, and makes adjustments to individual 
programs.
    The budget request contained a record $5,869.4 million for 
Weapons Activities, including $1,234.5 million for directed 
stockpile work. The committee remains concerned that NNSA 
nuclear weapon life extension program goals are not properly 
matched to Department of Defense needs, as evidenced by life 
extension and modernization activities for the weapon systems, 
and the delivery vehicles designed to carry those warheads and 
bombs.
    The budget request contained a record $1,113.6 million for 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs. The committee 
remains concerned that, as evidenced by a pattern of high 
unobligated balances, many international cooperative programs 
have been funded at a rate in excess of what the programs can 
effectively absorb.
            Reductions
    The budget request contained $14.6 million for 
international nuclear safety programs. The committee recommends 
$11.6 million, a reduction of $3.0 million. The committee 
cautions that other federal and international entities already 
have nuclear safety as a primary mission.
    The budget request contained $49.3 million for the 
elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program. The 
committee recommends $19.3 million, a reduction of $30.0 
million. The committee notes that this program is being 
transferred from the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program, with $57.8 million in unobligated balances. 
The committee believes that NNSA's request for an additional 
$49.3 million in fiscal year 2003 is excessive, especially 
given that the Administration has no detailed plan for 
execution of the program, or even a formal agreement with the 
Russian Federation with regard to cost sharing and shut down of 
the reactors at Seversk and Zheleznogorsk.
    The budget request contained $98.0 million for Russian 
surplus fissile materials disposition. The committee recommends 
$88.0 million, a reduction of $10.0 million specifically to 
program support and oversight in the United States. The 
committee notes that the budget request more than doubles funds 
for these activities in fiscal year 2003 to over one-third of 
the request for the program. The committee has cautioned NNSA 
in the past regarding excessive levies on international 
programs.
    The budget request, less retirement accrual, contained 
$335.9 million for the Office of the Administrator. The 
committee recommends $315.9 million, a reduction of $20.0 
million to hold this appropriation account to the comparable 
fiscal year 2002 level. The committee expects economies to 
result from the organizational streamlining and management 
efficiencies that Congress in large part created NNSA to 
effect.
            Increases
    The budget request contained $949.9 million in Readiness in 
Technical Base and Facilities for operations of facilities. The 
committee recommends $994.9 million, an increase of $45.0 
million. The committee is aware of the poor condition of 
weapons complex infrastructure, particularly at the production 
plants, and the continuing need to address maintenance 
backlogs. The committee recommends $25.0 million for 
infrastructure maintenance and mission essential upgrades and 
replacements at the Pantex Plant. The committee recommends an 
additional $20.0 million for repairs of facilities and priority 
upgrades at the Y-12 Plant.
    The budget request contained $451.8 million for the high 
energy density physics (HEDP) campaign, including $237.7 
million for operations and maintenance, and $214.0 million for 
National Ignition Facility construction. The committee 
recommends $262.7 million, an increase of $25.0 million, for 
HEDP campaign operations and maintenance. The HEDP campaign 
comprises experimental programs directed towards developing 
data on the properties and behavior of matter under extreme 
conditions of temperature and pressure, and is critical to 
gaining a scientific understanding of how nuclear weapons work. 
Data developed in HEDP programs are used to validate computer 
simulations, which in turn are used to assess weapon 
characteristics, and excursions from nominal performance. In 
particular, the committee is concerned by reductions and 
terminations in the budget request of high technical quality 
programs such as the high average power laser program and the 
petawatt initiative.
    The budget request contained $194.0 million for U.S. 
surplus materials disposition programs. The committee 
recommends $198.0 million, an increase of $4.0 million to 
investigate alternative technologies and fuel cycles for 
disposition of weapons grade plutonium excess to defense needs. 
The committee understands that the Administration has selected 
fabrication of mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for consumption in 
commercial power reactors as its baseline approach. However, 
the committee is aware that, in the longer term, other 
approaches such as fuel cycles based on thorium could offer 
significant advantages in terms of proliferation resistance and 
efficiency of plutonium consumption. The committee encourages 
NNSA to work with both the private sector and the Russian 
Federation to assess the technical feasibility and economic 
viability of thorium-based fuel cycles.

Federal workforce restructuring

    A number of independent assessments have described federal 
management of the nuclear weapons complex as burdened by 
excessive, and in some cases duplicative, staffing.
    In its 1999 Report on Security Problems at the U.S. 
Department of Energy, the President's Foreign Intelligence 
Advisory Board (PFIAB) described a management structure 
comprising ``layer upon layer of bureaucracy'' that made it 
nearly impossible toassign responsibility or accountability. 
The PFIAB singled out for special comment the field offices, which have 
been described as redundant ``shadow headquarters,'' pressing their own 
agendas and priorities, concluding that the weapons labs reported to 
``far too many DOE masters''. The PFIAB report was highly instrumental 
in triggering Congress to pass in 1999 the National Nuclear Security 
Administration Act, title XXXII of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), leading to establishment 
of a semi-autonomous agency within the Department to manage the weapons 
complex.
    In its report NNSA Management: Progress in the 
Implementation of Title 32 dated December 12, 2001, GAO noted 
that longstanding issues of organizational roles and 
responsibilities remained unaddressed in a substantive way, and 
that NNSA reform efforts appeared to be losing momentum in some 
areas.
    In its FY 2001 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess 
the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States 
Nuclear Stockpile of March 15, 2002, the Panel emphasized a 
continuing need to reduce duplicative and non-value added 
management practices, and correspondingly to implement 
significant reductions in NNSA staff. The Panel recommended 
that this smaller government organization focus on oversight 
and policy responsibilities, and ``restore management 
responsibility, authority and accountability to the laboratory 
directors and plant managers for meeting requirements, 
standards, timelines, and budgets''.
    The committee concurs with these assessments. While NNSA's 
Report to Congress on the Organization and Operations of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration of February 25, 2002 
appears to anticipate that ``streamlined processes and 
redefined roles'' will lead to a ``significant reduction'' in 
federal staff, the report provides no specifics on the size of 
the reductions or the timeline over which they will occur. In 
the meantime, the committee notes that justification materials 
submitted with the budget request show that federal staffing 
levels at NNSA have actually grown since fiscal year 2001. The 
committee strongly urges the Administrator to move forward 
decisively and expeditiously with a restructuring of the NNSA 
federal workforce, and start NNSA on the path to realizing the 
organizational streamlining and management efficiencies 
Congress intended in passing the NNSA Act in 1999.

Foster Panel Assessment of NNSA Reform Efforts

    The last underground test of a nuclear weapon at the Nevada 
Test Site occurred a decade ago. Since that time the United 
States has observed a moratorium on testing, relying instead on 
a science-based stewardship program to certify the continued 
viability of the nation's nuclear stockpile. Concerns regarding 
the efficacy of this approach led Congress in 1998 to establish 
a panel to assess the process for certifying the safety, 
reliability and performance of nuclear weapons in the absence 
of testing. Section 3159 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) 
established the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and 
Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile (commonly know 
as the Foster Panel after its chairman, Dr. John S. Foster). 
The Panel, established for a period of three years, has 
consistently noted in its annual reports ``* * * the disturbing 
gap between the nation's policy that maintaining a safe and 
reliable nuclear stockpile is a supreme national interest and 
the actions taken to support this policy''. The committee has 
benefited greatly from the Panel's independent assessments, and 
expresses its appreciation for the contributions to national 
security of its members.
    In 1999, Congress fundamentally restructured how the 
Department of Energy manages defense nuclear activities. Title 
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2000 (Public Law 106-65), the National Nuclear Security 
Administration Act, established a semi-autonomous NNSA within 
DOE. In passing the Act, Congress intended to address 
significant and long-standing problems relating to DOE's 
management of defense nuclear programs by establishing an 
organization that would be responsible for, and accountable 
for, management of the nation's nuclear stockpile and related 
programs. NNSA was statutorily established over two years ago, 
on March 1, 2000. The committee has been fortunate that the 
Panel's tenure has included the first two years of NNSA's 
organizational life.
    In standing up and staffing a new organization, Congress 
has provided a rare opportunity to address the difficult and 
important problems that have confounded efforts to properly 
manage the nation's nuclear stockpile. On March 15, 2002, the 
Foster Panel submitted its fiscal year 2001 report to 
Congress--Expectations for the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile 
Stewardship Program. In it, the Panel notes that some progress 
has been made. However, the report also states:

          There remains an urgent need for NNSA to address the 
        fundamental problems that Congress created it to 
        correct. The start-up phase is now over. If NNSA cannot 
        within the current year achieve the autonomy and 
        provide the leadership Congress intended, it is 
        appropriate for Congress to revisit other options for 
        managing the nuclear weapons program.

The committee concurs with this assessment.
    The committee regards the current year as a watershed, 
during which NNSA's organizational and management reform 
efforts are likely to succeed or fail. Because of the value the 
committee places on independent assessment, and the critical 
need for attaining a functional nuclear weapons complex, the 
committee, in Section 3141, extends the termination date of the 
Panel to April 1, 2003.

Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign

    The budget request contained $194.5 million for plutonium 
pit manufacturing and certification programs. The committee 
recommends the budget request.
    The United States remains the only nuclear power without 
the ability to produce all the components of a nuclear weapon. 
In particular, the United States has not produced a plutonium 
pit, a critical weapon component, since manufacturing 
operations ceased at Rocky Flats in 1989. The goal of the 
manufacturing campaign is to produce a certifiable W88 pit in 
fiscal year 2003, and establish a limited production capability 
of 10 pits per year at Los Alamos National Laboratory by 2007. 
The National Nuclear Security Administration intends to be able 
to certify a W88 pit without underground testing by fiscal year 
2009, with a goal of sooner achieving this capability in 2007.
    The campaign as described above is designed to meet a 
limited need for W88 surveillance pits for destructive 
evaluation purposes. Ultimately the nation will require the 
ability to produce replacement pits at a far higher rate in 
order to meet the needs of the enduring stockpile. While the 
effects of aging, and consequently the lifetime of pits, are 
not known with certainty, and international agreements may 
further affect requirements for new pits, the committee 
believes that prudence dictates a need to proceed immediately, 
with preliminary steps to re-establish a large scale pit 
production facility, especially given that site selection and 
permitting will likely entail an extended process. The 
committee is somewhat concerned that the budget request of $2.0 
million for design of a modern pit facility, half that 
appropriated in fiscal year 2004, is not commensurate with the 
seriousness of the need.

Robust nuclear earth penetrator

    The committee understands that the NNSA intends to 
reprogram $7.0 million of fiscal year 2002 funds, and requests 
$15.0 million in fiscal year 2003, to begin formal design 
studies for a robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP). The 6.2/
6.2a design study has been approved by the Nuclear Weapons 
Council with a cost to completion of $46.0 million, and will 
involve repackaging of an existing stockpile warhead. The 
committee understands that RNEP is not a new design, is not a 
low yield ``mini nuke'', and is not ``clean'' in the sense that 
fallout and collateral damage can be contained. Consequently 
the committee does not believe that RNEP represents a 
significant departure from current stockpile weapons. The 
committee expects to be informed of any changes to the 
parameters of this study.

Stockpile certification

    In 1995 the President established a requirement for annual 
certification of the nuclear stockpile. The committee believes 
this annual certification, including an assessment of the need 
to resume underground tests, provides a valuable measure of the 
health of the nation's strategic deterrent. In section 3144, 
the committee has taken action to strengthen this certification 
process by requiring an assessment of other factors that have 
strong bearing on the certification process, including the 
adequacy of the tools and methods on which those certifications 
are based, and the ability of the weapons complex 
infrastructure to detect and resolve problems in the stockpile. 
The committee has also taken measures to strengthen peer review 
in the certification process.

Test readiness

    The President has stated that resumption of underground 
nuclear testing is not required at this time, and the 
Administration continues to observe the moratorium on nuclear 
testing. As reflected in justification materials submitted to 
Congress in support of the President's fiscal year 2003 budget 
request, the policy of the NNSA is to be capable of resuming 
underground testing within two to three years, should the 
President determine that such tests are necessary. The NNSA 
Administrator has stated that the current test readiness 
posture of the weapons complex is closer to three years.
    The most recent Nuclear Posture Review, submitted to 
Congress by the Department of Defense on January 8, 2002, 
supports reduction of the Department of Energy's test readiness 
lead-time.
    In its fiscal year 2001 report to Congress submitted on 
March 15, 2002, the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, 
and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile recommends 
a test readiness of 3 months to a year depending on the type of 
test. The Panel notes that the test ``pedigree'' of existing 
weapons is deteriorating with time, and that prudence dictates 
that the President should have a ``realistic option'' to resume 
nuclear testing if technical or political events so require.
    The committee concurs with these recommendations. The 
committee believes that test readiness could be greatly 
enhanced by, among other actions, planning for specific tests, 
conducting site preparation activities, laying in diagnostics, 
and maintaining test articles at the Nevada Test Site. Section 
3145 requires the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the 
NNSA Administrator, to develop and report to Congress on a plan 
and budget to achieve a one-year readiness posture within one 
year of a decision to do so.

Tritium readiness campaign

    The budget request contained $126.3 million for the tritium 
readiness campaign. The committee recommends the budget 
request.
    Tritium is a perishable radioactive element that is 
essential to the proper functioning of stockpile weapons, and 
consequently must periodically be replaced. The United States 
has not had the capability to produce tritium since 1988, and 
has relied on reserves, and tritium recovered and recycled from 
dismantled weapons, to maintain the stockpile. The committee 
understands that the tritium readiness campaign is on schedule 
to begin irradiation of tritium producing bars in commercial 
light water reactors at Watts Bar and Sequoyah in fiscal year 
2003, and to begin production extraction for the stockpile in 
fiscal year 2006 at the Savannah River Site. The committee 
urges the National Nuclear Security Administration to continue 
to maintain the schedule for this critical project.

               Environmental and Other Defense Activities

                                Overview

    The budget request contained $7,395.2 million for 
environmental and other defense activities for fiscal year 
2003. The committee recommends $7,366.5 million, including 
reductions for retirement accrual, representing an increase of 
$410.9 million from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2002.

                       Items of Special Interest

Adjustments to the Budget Request

    The budget request, less retirement accrual, contained 
$99.0 million for Other Defense Activities environment, safety, 
and health (ES&H) programs. The committee recommends $94.0 
million, a reduction of $5.0 million. The committee notes that 
the budget had increased in recent years to accommodate 
administrative functions associated with assessment and 
compensation programs that should present a relatively short 
term increase in funding requirements, and that other worker 
health studies should be nearing completion.
    The budget request, less retirement accrual, contained 
$25.7 million for Other Defense Activities worker and community 
transition programs. The committee recommends $19.7, a 
reduction of $6.0 million to hold these programs to fiscal year 
2002 levels.

Environmental management cleanup reform program

    The budget request contained $800.0 million to establish a 
new environmental management cleanup reform program. This new 
program is designed to provide the vehicle for implementing the 
recommendations of the Department of Energy's recently 
completed ``top to bottom review'' of its environmental 
management programs (EM). As structured today, this review 
concluded that the EM program now has a life cycle cost of $220 
billion and, that without significant change in business 
processes, the cost estimate could easily increase to more than 
$300 billion. In fact only about one-third of the EM program 
budget is going toward actual cleanup and risk reduction work. 
The remainder is spent on maintenance, fixed costs, and other 
activities required to support safety and security. Not only 
have the dollar estimates proven to be overly optimistic, the 
schedule estimates have followed a similar path. Numerous sites 
are already unable to meet their commitments as outlined in an 
earlier 1998 Departmental report. Moreover, the three largest 
sites--Savannah River, Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory, and Hanford--have such long term 
completion dates (2038, 2050, and 2070, respectively) that the 
estimates for cost and schedule are highly uncertain and 
subject to change. The reality of an extended cleanup schedule 
is that eventually it could lead to more prolonged and 
potentially severe public health and environmental risks.
    With these facts not in dispute, it was critical for the 
Department to seek alternative cleanup approaches that would be 
designed to produce more real risk reduction, accelerated 
cleanup, and cost and schedule improvements. This new program 
is established for the purpose of meeting these goals. Evidence 
does suggest that a program can be turned around if a site can 
adopt an approach similar to that taken at Rocky Flats, 
Colorado. By adopting a risk based management approach, 
combined with a clear mission, a culture of urgency, and a 
performance based contract, the cleanup at Rocky Flats is now 
scheduled to be completed 50 years ahead of schedule and $30 
billion below the original baseline. The goal of the new 
program is in essence to take the successes at Rocky Flats and 
apply those principles complex-wide.
    Under this new cleanup reform program it is contemplated 
that the Department will work with the States and federal 
regulators with a goal of reaching an agreement on an 
accelerated and risk-based cleanup--a cleanup that eliminates 
unneeded activities. Once an agreement or ``site performance 
management plan'' is reached and a new cost savings and funding 
profile is established for the acceleration or alternate 
cleanup strategy, funds will be made available from the EM 
Cleanup Reform account to fund or supplement existing funding 
of a site's base budget. The committee expects that the site's 
entire budget for cleanup will be used for activities addressed 
and agreed to in the site performance management plan. Finally, 
this new program is designed to ensure that constant or greater 
funding levels are available to those States whose cooperative 
efforts lead to greater and faster risk reduction. In that 
regard, the committee understands that the Department has been 
in initial discussions with state officials representing the 
sites most affected by this new program. As a result of these 
discussions, the committee has been advised that a ``letter of 
intent'' has been signed with the State of Washington to 
accelerate cleanup at that state's Hanford site. The agreement 
proposes an allocation of approximately $433.0 million from 
this new cleanup reform account. This agreement, if and when it 
is fully implemented, would accelerate cleanup by 35-45 years 
and result in cost savings of $33 billion over the current 
projected costs. The committee understands that negotiations 
with the State of South Carolina are moving rapidly toward a 
similar agreement. The committee understands that this 
agreement, if finalized, will result in a substantial monetary 
increase above the site's base budget for fiscal year 2003 of 
$961.1 million and at the same time result in an accelerated 
cleanup and risk reduction. The committee is encouraged by 
these efforts and urges other sites to develop proposals for an 
accelerated and risk-based cleanup.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

         Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration

    This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear 
Security Administration for fiscal year 2003, including funds 
for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation 
programs, naval reactors programs, and the Office of the 
Administrator.

        Section 3102--Environmental and Other Defense Activities

    This section would authorize funds for environmental and 
other defense activities for fiscal year 2003, including funds 
for defense environmental restoration and waste management, 
defense environmental management cleanup reform, defense 
facilities closure projects, defense environmental management 
privatization, other defense activities, and defense nuclear 
waste disposal.

   Subtitle B--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations 
                           General Provisions

                 Section 3120--Short Title; Definitions

    This section would designate this subtitle as the 
``Department of Energy National Security Authorizations General 
Provisions Act''. This Act will make permanent lawcertain 
recurring provisions governing the use of funds authorized for national 
security programs of the Department of Energy. This section would also 
define the terms ``DOE national security authorization'', 
``congressional defense committee'', and the term ``minor construction 
project''.

                      Section 3121--Reprogramming

    This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in 
excess of the amount authorized for the program until the 
Secretary of Energy has notified the congressional defense 
committees and a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date 
on which the notification is received.

               Section 3122--Minor Construction Projects

    This section would limit the initiation of a minor 
construction project if the current estimated cost for the 
project exceeds $5.0 million, and would require the Secretary 
of Energy to notify the congressional defense committees in the 
event the estimated cost of any project exceeds $5.0 million 
and the reasons for the cost variation.

             Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects

    This section would permit the initiation and continuation 
of any construction project only if the estimated cost for the 
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the 
amount authorized for the project; or (2) the most recent total 
estimated cost presented to Congress as justification for such 
project. To exceed this limit, the Secretary of Energy must 
report in detail the reason therefore to the congressional 
defense committees and the report must be before the committees 
for 30 legislative days. This section would also specify that 
the 125 percent limitation would not apply to projects 
estimated to cost under $5.0 million.

                 Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
transfer funds to other agencies of the government for 
performance of work for which funds were authorized and 
appropriated. The provision would permit the merger of such 
funds with the funds made available to the agency to which they 
are transferred.

     Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
certify that a conceptual design for a construction project has 
been completed prior to requesting funding for that project, 
except in the case of emergencies.

      Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and 
                        Construction Activities

    This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
perform planning and design for construction activities 
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national 
security program whenever the Secretary determines that the 
design must proceed expeditiously to protect the public health 
and safety, to meet the needs of national defense, or to 
protect property.

Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security Programs of the 
                          Department of Energy

    This section would authorize, subject to section 3121 of 
this act, amounts appropriated for management and support 
activities and for general plant projects to be made available 
for use in connection with all national security programs of 
the Department of Energy.

                  Section 3128--Availability of Funds

    This section would allow funds authorized for atomic energy 
activities of the Department of Energy to remain available 
until expended, except for amounts appropriated for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration pursuant to a DOE 
national security authorization. Amounts appropriated for the 
Office of the Administrator for Nuclear Security will remain 
available until the end of that fiscal year and all other 
amounts appropriated to the National Nuclear Security 
Administration will remain available for a total of three 
fiscal years.

    Section 3129--Transfer of Defense Environmental Management Funds

    This section would provide the manager of each field office 
of the Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer 
defense environmental management funds from a program or 
project under the jurisdiction of the office to another such 
program or project.

           Section 3130--Transfer of Weapons Activities Funds

    This section would provide the manager of each field office 
of the Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer 
weapons activities funds from a program or project under the 
jurisdiction of the office to another such program or project.

      Section 3131--Scope of Authority to Carry Out Plant Projects

    This section would clarify that the authority of the 
Secretary of Energy to carry out plant projects includes 
authority for maintenance, restoration, planning, construction, 
acquisition, modification of facilities, and continuation of 
projects authorized in prior years, and related land 
acquisition.

   Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

 Section 3141--One-year Extension of Panel to Assess the Reliability, 
      Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile

    This section would extend the statutory termination date of 
the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of 
the United States Nuclear Stockpile (also known as the Foster 
Panel) to April 1, 2003. The section would also require an 
additional report from the Panel on February 1, 2003.

 Section 3142--Transfer to National Nuclear Security Administration of 
   the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction Program 
      Relating to Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium in Russia

    This section would transfer the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program relating to elimination of weapons grade 
plutonium production in Russia from the Department of Defense 
(DOD) to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of 
the Department of Energy. The section would transfer specified 
assets of the program to the NNSA, including any unexpended 
balances of appropriations. The provision would not remove 
program limitations or restrictions, including the period of 
availability of funds for obligation. The section would also 
transfer responsibility for obligations under federal law from 
officers of DOD to those of NNSA.

Section 3143--Repeal of Requirement for Reports on Obligations of Funds 
              for Programs on Fissile Materials in Russia

    This section repeals a duplicative reporting requirement 
related to programs to improve the protection, control, and 
accountability of fissile materials in Russia.

Section 3144--Annual Certification to the President and Congress on the 
        Condition of the United States Nuclear Weapons Stockpile

    This section would require an annual certification to the 
President and Congress on the safety, reliability, and 
performance of each nuclear weapon type in the active stockpile 
of the United States. The certifications would be required from 
the directors of the National Laboratories and the commander of 
United States Strategic Command for each weapon type for which 
they are responsible. The section would also require a report 
from the aforementioned on other matters related to the 
certifications, including an assessment of the need for the 
United States to resume underground nuclear testing, and would 
require the National Laboratory directors to use certain ``red 
team'' procedures for the certification process. The section 
would require the submission of the certifications and reports 
to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, as appropriate, by 
January 15th of each year, and would require that the 
Secretaries forward the certifications and reports unchanged to 
the President and Congress not later than February 1st of each 
year.

 Section 3145--Plan for Achieving One-Year Readiness for Resumption by 
         the United States of Underground Nuclear Weapons Tests

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
submit to Congress with the fiscal year 2004 budget request a 
report on a plan and a budget to enhance underground nuclear 
test readiness. The report would detail the plan and budget 
required to achieve a one-year readiness posture for resumption 
of underground nuclear weapons tests. A one-year readiness 
posture is the capability of the Department of Energy to resume 
underground tests not later than one year after so directed by 
the President, should the President determine that such tests 
are necessary. The provision would require that the plan and 
budget provide for attainment of a one-year readiness posture 
within one year of a decision to execute the plan.

  Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Defense Environmental Management

 Section 3151--Defense Environmental Management Cleanup Reform Program

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to carry 
out a program to reform the Department's environmental 
management activities using the funds authorized in section 
3102(a)(2) of this act. The Secretary would be authorized to 
transfer funds to each site upon the execution of a site 
performance management plan and upon its submission to the 
congressional defense committees. The site performance 
management plan for a site is defined as a plan, agreed to by 
the applicable federal and state agencies with regulatory 
jurisdiction with respect to the site, that provides for the 
performance of activities that will accelerate the reduction of 
environmental risk and will also accelerate the environmental 
cleanup at the site. Upon the transfer and merger of the funds, 
all funds in the merged account are available only to carry out 
the site performance management plan at the site.

Section 3152--Report on Status of Environmental Management Initiatives 
to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed 
                     by the Legacy of the Cold War

    This section would require the Secretary of Energy to 
prepare a report on the status of the management initiatives 
recommended in the Department's report entitled ``Top-to-Bottom 
Review of the Environmental Management Program'' and dated 
February 4, 2002. Specifically, this report is to address the 
progress being made in streamlining risk reduction processes, 
contract management, acquisition strategy, and consolidation of 
special nuclear materials. This section would require the 
report to be submitted to the congressional defense committees 
with the submission of the Department's budget justification 
materials for fiscal year 2004.

          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                        ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

 Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request

    The Administration proposed legislation to require 
agencies, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to pay the full 
government share of the accruing cost of retirement for current 
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees and to pay the 
full accruing cost of post-retirement health benefits for 
current civilian employees who are enrolled in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). At the present time, 
agencies pay about half of the employer's share for accruing 
benefits, and the remainder is covered by a mandatory general 
fund payment. The Administration's proposed change would 
require specific legislation to move the full government share 
to each agency's budget. The committee understands that the 
appropriate committee with jurisdiction to initiate this change 
has declined to consider the required legislation and, 
therefore, recommends continuing the current practice of 
funding these benefits. The fiscal year 2003 budget request for 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board includes $0.5 
million to fund this proposed change in the CSRS and the FEHB 
program. The committee recommendation does not include this 
amount.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                      Section 3201--Authorization

    This section would authorize $19.0 million for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2003.

                TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

            Section 3301--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds

    This section would authorize $76.4 million from the 
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation 
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal 
year 2003. The provision would also permit the use of 
additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 
days after a notification to Congress.

                 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

             Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations

    This section would authorize $21.1 million for fiscal year 
2003 for the operation of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale 
Reserves.

                  TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

                       ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

     Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget

    The Administration proposed legislation to require 
agencies, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to pay the full 
Government share of the accruing cost of retirement for current 
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees and to pay the 
full accruing cost of post-retirement health benefits for 
current civilian employees who are enrolled in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). At the present time, 
agencies pay about half of the employer's share for accruing 
benefits, and the remainder is covered by a mandatory general 
fund payment. The Administration's proposed change would 
require specific legislation to move the full Government share 
to each agency's budget.
    The committee understands that the appropriate committee 
with jurisdiction to initiate this change has declined to 
consider the required legislation and, therefore, recommends 
continuing the current practice of funding these benefits. The 
fiscal year 2003 budget request included $4.4 million dollars 
for the Maritime Administration to fund this proposed change in 
the CSRS and the FEHB program. The following represents the 
total budget request for funding for CSRS and FEHB that has not 
been included in the committee's recommendation for the 
Maritime Administration.

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Operations and Training.......................................     4,089
Title XI Administrative Expenses..............................       356
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................     4,445

                Blanket Approval of Vessel Time Charters

    Section 9 of the Shipping Act, 1916, (46 App. United States 
Code 808), requires prior approval of the Secretary 
Transportation of vessel charters to persons who are not U.S. 
citizens. In 1992, the Maritime Administration, which is 
charged with responsibility for administering section 9, issued 
regulations that granted ``blanket'' prior approval of time 
charters and other forms of temporary use agreements to persons 
who are not U.S. citizens. The committee urges the Maritime 
Administration to review this policy, as implemented by this 
regulation, to determine whether changes should be made in 
light of recent concerns over the security in our nation's 
ports. The committee expects to receive a report on the 
Maritime Administration's findings and any recommendations for 
legislative changes, by November 1, 2002.

Financial Assistance to States to Prepare Vessels for Use as Artificial 
                               Fish Reefs

    The budget request contained $11.1 million for the disposal 
of four vessels from the National Defense Reserve Fleet. The 
committee recommends $20.0 million, an increase of $8.9 million 
above the budget request for disposal of obsolete 
vesselsincluding assistance to states. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) required 
the Maritime Administration to dispose of all vessels in the National 
Defense Fleet that are not otherwise assigned to the Ready Reserve 
Force or otherwise designated for a specific purpose by September 30, 
2006. The cost to accomplish this goal will likely exceed $350.0 
million based on current estimates. While scrapping of certain vessels 
is the only method of disposal, there also appears to be a substantial 
demand for use of a number of these obsolete vessels as artificial 
fishing reefs.
    While the Maritime Administration's artificial reef program 
was established in 1972, it has not been utilized to the extent 
possible since the individual states that take title to these 
vessels must pay for the cost of moving the vessel to the 
location for sinking, pay for the cost of removal of oil and 
other hazardous substances, and pay for the cost of sinking the 
vessel. In order to make this program more appealing to the 
states and to help offset the cost of reefing a vessel, the 
committee has established a new program which will allow the 
Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Maritime 
Administrator, to provide financial assistance to a state to 
prepare the vessel for use as an artificial reef. This 
assistance will include the cost of environmental remediation, 
towing, and sinking. The committee has not set a specific 
amount of assistance that can be awarded to a state but rather 
allows the Maritime Administrator to consider a number of 
elements including the total amount of funding available in the 
program. The committee understands that it may be substantially 
less expensive to sink a vessel for use as a reef than paying 
for the scrapping of the vessel.
    The committee recognizes that the process of obtaining 
approval to sink a vessel as an artificial reef involves the 
coordination with various agencies of government, including the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Coast Guard, 
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, however 
this new program of financial assistance is intended to remove 
at least one obstacle in the system. While nothing in this 
section alters or removes any current environmental 
requirements, the committee urges the responsible agencies to 
work together to establish national standards for the cleaning 
of hazardous materials from ships prior to their sinking as 
artificial reefs. The committee understands that it typically 
takes nine months for a state to complete the federal agency 
coordination. The committee expects that the financial 
assistance provided in this act, coupled with a uniform 
national standard, can result in a cost effective and 
environmentally responsible partial alternative to traditional 
vessel disposal techniques.

                         Loan Guarantee Program

    The budget request, excluding the accrued agency costs of 
Civil Service Retirement and Federal Health benefits, contained 
$4.1 million to fund administrative expense associated with the 
management of the title XI loan guarantee program. The budget 
request contained no funds for costs, as defined in section 502 
of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 93-344). 
The committee recommends $54.1 million for the title XI 
program, an increase of $50 million above the budget request.

              Marketing Efforts to Reduce Potential Losses

    The committee is concerned with the recent defaults that 
have occurred in the title XI loan guarantee programs as a 
result of the bankruptcy filing by American Classic Voyages and 
the potential costs of these defaults on the United States 
Treasury. Although the recent defaults occurred for a variety 
of reasons, including the downturn in the economy and the 
events of September 11, 2001, the committee is also concerned 
that the Maritime Administration may be moving ahead too 
quickly in its efforts to dispose of the assets which it has or 
will receive as a result of the bankruptcy filing. It was 
indeed unfortunate that two of the ships in question were 
partially completed at the time of the filing; however, the 
committee is of the opinion that the Maritime Administration 
should use every effort possible to avoid scrapping these 
ships. In that regard, the committee strongly urges the 
Maritime Administration to explore options that will allow 
these ships to be completed as originally designed, including 
an aggressive marketing effort to find a new buyer. The 
committee likewise urges the shipyard where these partially 
completed ships are located to join in that effort. The 
committee believes that completion of these ships offers the 
best long-term opportunity for reducing the ultimate cost to 
the title XI program. In that regard, the committee expects to 
be advised on a regular basis of the progress being made in 
securing a suitable buyer for these ships.

                         LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

   Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003

    This section would authorize a total of $167.3 million for 
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $54.4 million above the budget 
request for the Maritime Administration. Of the funds 
authorized, $93.1 million would be for operations and training 
programs, $50.0 million would be for the costs as defined in 
section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public 
Law 93-344), of loan guarantees authorized by title XI of the 
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, (46 App. United States 
Code 1271 et seq.), $4.1 million would be for administrative 
expenses related to providing these loan guarantees, and $20.0 
million would be for the disposal of obsolete ships in the 
National Defense Reserve Fleet.

         Section 3502--Authorization to Transfer the USS Sphinx

    This section would authorize the Secretary of 
Transportation to convey the vessel USS SPHINX to the Dunkirk 
Historical Lighthouse and Veterans Park Museum for use as a 
military museum.

    Section 3503--Financial Assistance to States for Preparation of 
              Obsolete Vessels for Use as Artificial Reefs

    This section will allow the Secretary of Transportation to 
provide financial assistance to states to offset the cost of 
transferring the vessel to the state and preparing the vessel 
for use as an artificial reef. The specific amount of funding 
provided shall be based on the availability of funds, the 
benefit to the program, and the cost effectiveness compared to 
other ship disposal options.

  Section 3504--Independent Analysis of Title XI Insurance Guarantee 
                              Applications

    This section would grant authority to the Secretary to 
obtain an independent analysis of an application for a 
guarantee or commitment to guarantee under the Title XI 
program. It would also, subject to limits contained in current 
law, allow the Secretary to be reimbursed for the cost of this 
outside independent analysis.

                           DEPARTMENTAL DATA

    The Department of Defense requested legislation, in 
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by 
the correspondence set out below:

              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, April 19, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the 
enclosed draft legislation, ``To authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2003 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal 
year 2003, and for other purposes.''
    This legislative proposal is part of the Department of 
Defense Legislative Program for the Second Session of the 107th 
Congress and is necessary to carry out the President's budget 
plans for fiscal year 2003. The Office of Management and Budget 
advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this 
proposal to the Congress, and that its enactment would be in 
accord with the program of the President.
            Sincerely,
                                      William J. Haynes II,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosures.
                              ----------                              

              MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

                             Department of Defense,
                                 Office of General Counsel,
                                    Washington, DC, March 25, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the 
enclosed bill, Military Construction Authorizations, as part of 
its legislative program for the Second Session of the 107th 
Congress, and we urge its enactment.
    The enclosed bill will authorize military construction and 
facility management for the military departments, the defense 
agencies, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 
Investment program, and the National Guard and Reserve 
components. It will enhance our efforts to mitigate 
encroachment on and around our installations and facilities 
through both partnering with natural resource conservation 
organizations to purchase property and conveying surplus real 
property to conservation organizations. Revisions to the house 
privatization legislation will improve program execution and 
enable privatization of barracks. We also propose to purchase 
land near the Pentagon on Boundary Channel Drive in Arlington, 
Virginia, in order to build a new office building that meets 
anti-terrorism force protection standards and consolidates 
activities currently in leased space. Our proposed military 
construction legislation also includes legislation that will 
increase our freedom to manage and help us to achieve greater 
efficiency in our installation management.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program, to the presentation of these initiatives for your 
consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                      William J. Haynes II,
                                                   General Counsel.
    Enclosures.
                              ----------                              

                           COMMITTEE POSITION

    On May 1, 2002 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 
being present, approved H.R. 4546, as amended, by a vote of 57-
1.

                  COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee of Resources,
                                       Washington, DC, May 1, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for contacting me with regard 
to several provisions within H.R. 4546, the Defense 
Authorization Act of 2003. Specifically, you requested to know 
the Resources Committee's recommended disposition with regard 
to:
          Section 311--Incidental Taking of Migratory Birds 
        During Military Readiness Activity
          Section 312--Military Readiness and the Conservation 
        of Protected Species
          Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay
          Section 602--Expansion of Basic Allowance for Housing
          Section 614--One-Year Extension of Other Bonus and 
        Special Pay Authorities
          Section 615--Minimum Hardship Duty Pay for Antarctica 
        and Artic Icepack
          Section 631--Extension of Leave Travel Deferral 
        Period
          Section 641--Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired 
        Pay and Veterans Disability
          Section 2821--Land Conveyance, Lands in Alaska
          Section 2832--Boundary Adjustments, Marine Corps 
        Base, Quantico
          Section 2841--Land Conveyances, Wendover Air Force 
        Base Auxiliary Field, Nevada
          Section 2863--Ratification of Agreement Regarding 
        Adak Naval Complex, Alaska
          Section 3503--Financial Assistance to States for 
        Preparation of Transferred Obsolete Ships for Use as 
        Artificial Reefs
          Title XIV--Utah Test and Training Range
    Because of the urgent need to bring this bill to the floor 
of the House in order to provide crucial support of our 
military, I am writing to inform you that I have reviewed 
theabove-referenced provisions and am in full support of their 
inclusion in H.R. 4546. Therefore, I will not seek a sequential 
referral of the bill. This action does not affect any future 
jurisdictional claims over these, or similar, provisions. In addition, 
I would request that the Committee on Resources be represented during 
any conference proceedings on all matters within its jurisdiction.
    I recognize that our two committees have historically 
worked very closely together on matters of mutual interest, and 
I am pleased that I have had a hand in the drafting of several 
of these provisions. I also greatly appreciate the assistance 
and competence of your staff, and look forward to continuing to 
work with you to ensure that H.R. 4546 is enacted into law.
            Sincerely yours,
                                         James V. Hansen, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Ways and Means,
                                    Washington, DC, April 30, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 4546, the 
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,'' 
which is scheduled for action by your committee this week.
    As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
jurisdiction over matters concerning Medicare. Section 713 of 
the bill repeals the report requirement on the Medicare 
Subvention Demonstration Project. However, in order to expedite 
this legislation for floor consideration, we will not take 
action on this particular proposal. This is being done with the 
understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the 
Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its 
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
    I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
this understanding with respect to H.R. 4546 and would ask that 
a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in 
your committee report.
            Best Regards,
                                             Bill Thomas, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                       Washington, DC, May 1, 2002.
Hon. Bill Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of April 30, 
2002 regarding H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
    I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has valid 
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 
request such a referral in the interest of expediting 
consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a 
sequential referral, the Committee on Ways and Means is not 
waiving its jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this 
exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on 
the bill.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                               Bob Stump, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter concerns the jurisdictional 
interest of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
in H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003.
    H.R. 4546, as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed 
Services, contains many provisions over which the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction. These 
include all sections that affect the pay, benefits, and 
personnel of the United States Coast Guard and the United 
States Coast Guard Reserve as well as provisions concerning war 
risk insurance.
    Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4546 and 
the need for this legislation to move expeditiously. While we 
have a valid claim to jurisdiction over several provisions, I 
do not intend to request a sequential referral of the bill. 
This is, of course, conditional on our mutual understanding 
that nothing in this legislation waives or affects the 
jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee, that every effort 
will be made to include any agreements worked out by our staffs 
as the bill is taken to the Floor, and that a copy of this 
letter and your response will be included in the Committee 
Report and as part of the Record during consideration of the 
bill by the House.
    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also 
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                               Don Young, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 2, 2003 
regarding H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003.
    I agree that the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain 
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most 
appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in 
the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 
that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee 
onTransportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. 
Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will be included in 
the Committee report on the bill.
    Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
            Sincerely,
                                               Bob Stump, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I wish to inform the Committee on Armed 
Services that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs hereby waives 
any jurisdiction it may have over sections 641 and 651 of Title 
VI of the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2003, has 
no objection to them and does not desire their referral.
            Sincerely,
                                    Christopher H. Smith, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for working with me in your 
development of H.R. 4546, the ``National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2003,'' specifically:
    1. Section 341, ``Assistance to Local Educational Agencies 
that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and 
Department of Defense Civilian Employees.''
    2. Section 342, ``Availability of Quarters Allowance for 
Unaccompanied Defense Department Teacher Required to Reside on 
Overseas Military Installation.''
    3. Section 343, ``Provision of Summer School Programs for 
Students who Attend Defense Dependent's Education System.''
    4. Section 366, ``Amendments to Certain Education and 
Nutrition Laws Relating to Acquisition and Improvement of 
Military Housing.''
    As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction 
of the Education and the Workforce Committee. While I do not 
intend to seek sequential referral of H.R. 4546, the Committee 
does hold an interest in preserving its future jurisdiction 
with respect to issues raised in the aforementioned provisions 
and its jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of 
this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a 
conference with the Senate. We would expect to be appointed as 
conferees on these provisions should a conference with the 
Senate arise.
    I do have concerns regarding the change made in Committee 
to the length of the authorization amending the National School 
Lunch Act; however, I am certain that we can work together to 
address our mutual goals.
    Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the 
amendments to H.R 4546 and look forward to working with you on 
these issues in the future.
    Sincerely,
                                            John Boehner, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 1, 2002, the Committee on Armed 
Services ordered reported H.R. 4546, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. As ordered reported by 
the Committee on Armed Services, this legislation contains a 
number of provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. These provisions include the 
following:
    Section 601. Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2003.
    Section 602. Increase basic allowance for subsistence for 
members forced to purchase meal outside messing facilities.
    Section 612. One-year extension of certain bonus and 
special pay authorities for certain health care professionals.
    Section 614. One-year extension of other bonus and special 
pay authorities.
    Section 615. Minimum levels of hardship duty pay for duty 
on the ground in Antarctica or Arctic icepack.
    Section 631. Extension of leave travel deferral period for 
members.
    Section 641. Phase-in of full concurrent receipt of 
military retired pay and veterans disability compensation for 
military retirees with disabilities rated at 60 percent or 
higher.
    Section 704. Improvements regarding the Department of 
Defense Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund.
    Section 713. Repeal of report requirement.
    Section 3201. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
Authorization.
    Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation 
before the House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the bill 
based on the provisions listed above. By agreeing not to seek a 
sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does 
not waive its jurisdiction over these provisions or any other 
provisions of the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction. 
In addition, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves its 
right to seek conferees on any provisions within its 
jurisdiction which are considered in the House-Senate 
conference, and asks for your support in being accorded such 
conferees.
    I request you include this letter as part of the report on 
H.R. 4546 and as part of the Record during consideration of 
this bill by the House.
            Sincerely,
                                   W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on International Relations,
                                       Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 1, 
2002, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably 
reported H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003. The bill includes a number of provisions that 
fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on 
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of 
Representatives.
    The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction 
are: (1) Section 1201, Support of United Nations-Sponsored 
Efforts to Inspect and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities; (2) 
Section 1202, Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan; (3) Section 
1204, Additional Countries Covered by Loan Guarantee Program; 
(4) Title XIII, Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the 
Former Soviet Union; (5) Section 3142, Transfer to National 
Nuclear Security Administration of Department of Defense 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Relating to Elimination of 
Weapons Grade Plutonium in Russia; and (6) Section 3143, Repeal 
of Requirement for Reports on Obligation of Funds for Programs 
on Fissile Materials in Russia.
    Pursuant to Chairman Dreier's expected announcement that 
the Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a 
rule for H.R. 4546 and your desire to have the bill considered 
on the House floor next week, the Committee on International 
Relations will not seek a sequential referral of the bill as a 
result of including these provisions, without waiving or ceding 
now or in the future this committee's jurisdiction over the 
provisions in question. I will seek to have conferees appointed 
for these provisions during any House-Senate conference 
committee.
    I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of 
the report on H.R. 4546 and as part of the record during 
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
            With best wishes,
                                           Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                    Washington, DC, April 30, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that Representative Van 
Hilleary may offer an amendment to the FY 2003 DOD 
Authorization bill relating to Federal Prison Industries. I 
have reviewed the amendment and support it. If it is included 
in the DOD Authorization bill, I do not intend to seek a 
referral on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary.
            Sincerely,
                             F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

                              FISCAL DATA

    Pursuant to clause 3(d) Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual 
outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2003 and the 
following four years. The results of such efforts are reflected 
in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this 
report pursuant to clause 3(c)(3)

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House 
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
                                                       May 3, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4546, the Bob 
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
    The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen, who can be 
reached at 226-2840. If you wish further details on this 
estimate, we will be pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Dan L. Crippen.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Summary: H.R. 4546 would authorize appropriations totaling 
$382 billion for fiscal year 2003 and an estimated $14 billion 
in additional funding for 2002 for the military functions of 
the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy. 
It also would prescribe personnel strengths for each active-
duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. 
CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts for 
2002 and 2003 would result in additional outlays of $392 
billion over the 2002-2007 period.
    The bill also contains provisions that would raise the 
costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2004-2007 
period. CBO estimates that those provisions would require 
appropriations of $7.0 billion over those four years.
    The bill contains provisions that would increase direct 
spending by an estimated $5.8 billion over the 2003-2007 period 
and $17.7 billion over the 2003-2012 period, primarily from the 
phase-in of concurrent payment of retirement annuities with 
veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the military 
and the other uniformed services who have service-connected 
disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater. Because it would 
affect direct spending, the bill would be subject to pay-as-
you-go procedures.
    H.R. 4546 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary 
        impact of H.R. 4546 is shown in Table 1. Most of the costs of 
        this legislation fall within budget function 050 (national 
        defense).

 TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 4546, THE BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law for Defense Programs:
    Budget Authority a..............................   346,285         0         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays...............................   346,878   116,344    38,941    13,273     5,536     2,724
Proposed Changes:
    Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations
     for 2002:
        Estimated Authorization Level b.............    14,048         0         0         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays b.........................     5,345     5,782     1,941       660       174        79
    Authorization of Appropriations for 2003:
        Estimated Authorization Level...............         0   381,522         0         0         0         0
        Estimated Outlays...........................         0   252,982    86,639    27,346     7,944     2,726
Spending Under H.R. 4546 for Defense Programs:
    Estimated Authorization Level a.................   360,333   381,522         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays...............................   352,223   375,108   127,521    41,279    13,654     5,529

                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority..........................         0       509       637     1,021     1,599     1,997
Estimated Outlays...................................         0       509       637     1,021     1,599    1,997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This table excludes estimated authorizations of appropriations for years after 2003. (Those additional
  authorizations are shown in Table 3.)
a The 2002 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.
b The estimates shown for the 2002 supplemental are amounts contained in the Administration's supplemental
  request for defense programs. The outlay estimate for 2003 includes $5,684 million of spending from funds
  requested as emergency appropriations. Excluding emergency spending would lower total outlays in 2003 to
  $369,424 million.

Basis of Estimate

            Spending Subject to Appropriation
    The bill would specifically authorize appropriations 
totaling $381.4 billion in 2003 (see Table 2) and additional 
amounts as may be necessary for supplemental appropriations for 
defense in 2002, which CBO estimates would total $14 billion 
based on the Administration's request.\1\ Most of those costs 
would fall within budget function 050 (national defense). H.R. 
4546 also would specifically authorize appropriations of $113 
million for the Maritime Administration (function 400--
transportation), $70 million for the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home (function 600--income security), and $21 million for the 
Naval Petroleum Reserves (function 270--energy).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ After adding the $92 million estimated authorization for the 
Coast Guard Reserve, the bill would authorize appropriations of 
slightly more than $381.5 million for 2003.
    \2\ The authorization shown here for the Maritime Administration 
does not include any amounts for maritime loan guarantees and related 
administrative costs because they are already authorized under existing 
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The estimate assumes that the estimated authorization 
amount for 2002 is appropriated by the end of June 2002, and 
that the amounts authorized for 2003 will be appropriated 
before the start of fiscal year 2003. Outlays are estimated 
based on historical spending patterns.
    The bill also contains provisions that would affect various 
costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the 
fiscal year 2003 authorization and by authorizations in future 
years. Table 3 contains estimates of those amounts. In addition 
to the costs covered by the authorizations in the bill for 
2003, these provisions would raise estimated costs by $7.0 
billion over the 2004-2007 period. The following sections 
describe the provisions identified in Table 3 and provide 
information about CBO's cost estimates for those provisions.

                                 TABLE 2.--SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN H.R. 4546
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                           Category                            -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2003      2004      2005      2006      2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
    Authorization Level a.....................................    93,670         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................    88,612     4,402       281        94         0
Operation and Maintenance:
    Authorization Level.......................................   130,159         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................    96,425    26,006     5,538     1,186       378
Procurement:
    Authorization Level.......................................    73,160         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays 20,860..................................    27,671    15,218     5,170     1,789
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
    Authorization Level.......................................    56,424         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................    31,792    20,381     3,286       591       151
Military Construction and Family Housing:
    Authorization Level.......................................     9,954         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................     2,687     3,718     2,192       793       324
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
    Authorization Level.......................................    15,420         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................    10,369     4,094       826        74        55
Other Accounts:
    Authorization Level.......................................     2,643         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................     1,874       418       125        96        49
General Transfer Authority:
    Authorization Level.......................................         0         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................       280       -60      -120       -60       -20
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
Total
    Authorization Level b.....................................   381,430         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays.........................................   252,899    86,630    27,346     7,944    2,726
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a This authorization is for discretionary appropriations and does not include $55 million for mandatory payments
  from appropriations for military personnel.
b These amounts comprise nearly all of the proposed changes for authorizations of appropriations for 2003 shown
  in Table 1; they do not include the estimated authorization of $92 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, which
  is shown in Table 3.

            TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4546
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
                           Category                            -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2003      2004      2005      2006      2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT

Virginia Class Submarine......................................       -37       -54       -60       -73       -93
C-130J Aircraft...............................................        15       -63      -121      -142      -162

                                                 FORCE STRUCTURE

DoD Military Endstrengths.....................................       528     1,089     1,122     1,155     1,191
Coast Guard Reserve Endstrengths..............................        92         0         0         0         0

                                         COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS (DoD)

Military Pay Raises...........................................       276       381       398       415       430
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances...............................       706       796       417       234       152
Education and Training........................................         3         6         9        13        10

                                             DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

TRICARE Prime Remote..........................................        12        10         9         8         8
Transitional Health Care......................................         7         
 5         3         2         1

                                                OTHER PROVISIONS

National Guard Challenge Program..............................        16        16        17        17        18
Asbestos Payments.............................................      -110      -110      -110      -110      -110
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.....................         0         2         3         3         3
School Impact Aid.............................................         0         0         0        14        14
Military Housing Privatization Initiative.....................         0         0        80        80        80

                                          TOTAL ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS

Estimated Authorization Level.................................     1,508     2,078     1,767     1,616    1,542
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For every item in this table except the authorization for the Coast Guard, the 2003 levels are included in
  the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2.
  Amounts shown in this table for 2004 through 2007 are not included in Table 1.

            Multiyear Procurement
    In most cases, purchases of weapon systems are authorized 
annually, and as a result, DoD negotiates a separate contract 
for each annual purchase. In a small number of cases, the law 
permits multiyear procurement; that is, it allows DoD to enter 
into a contract to buy specified annual quantities of a system 
for up to five years. In those cases, DoD can negotiate lower 
prices because its commitment to purchase the weapons gives the 
contractor an incentive to find more economical ways to 
manufacture the weapon, including cost-saving investments. 
Annual funding is provided for these multiyear contracts, but 
potential termination costs are covered by an initial 
appropriation.
    Section 111 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
enter into a multiyear contract for procurement of Virginia 
class submarines starting in fiscal year 2003. This authority 
would be conditional on the prime contractor for the Virginia 
class submarine program entering into a binding agreement with 
the U.S. government to expend from its own funds an amount not 
less than $385 million for nuclear and non-nuclear components 
purchased in economic quantities.
    Based on information provided by the Navy, CBO assumes that 
the Navy would buy five Virginia class submarines over the 
2003-2007 period if this agreement can be reached. CBO 
estimates that savings from buying these submarines under a 
multiyear contract would total $317 million, or just over $60 
million a submarine, over the 2003-2007 period. CBO estimates 
that funding requirements to purchase these submarines, as well 
as funding the advance purchase of components for future boats, 
would total about $13 billion over the 2003-2007 period 
(instead of the more than $13.3 billion that would be needed 
under annual contracts).
    Section 121 would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force 
to enter into a multiyear contract to purchase C-130J aircraft 
beginning in 2003 after the Secretary of Defense certifies that 
two variants of the C-130J--the CC-130J airlift aircraft and 
the KC-130J tanker aircraft--are operationally effective and 
suitable. The Secretary of Defense also must certify that this 
multiyear contract will result in substantial savings relative 
to the cost of annual contracts, that requirements for the 
system and the design of the system are stable, and that the 
program is fully funded in the department's plans for 
subsequent outyear budgets. Based on information provided by 
the Air Force, CBO assumes that DoD will procure 64 aircraft 
over the 2003-2008 period--40 CC-130J aircraft for the Air 
Force and 24 KC-130J aircraft for the Marine Corps. CBO also 
assumes that the CC-130J and KC-130J aircraft would be 
purchased under one contract administered by the Air Force and 
covering six years of production beginning in 2003. CBO 
estimates that savings from buying these aircraft under a 
multiyear contract would total $473 million, or about $95 
million a year, over the 2003-2007 period. CBO also estimates 
that additional savings of $182 million would accrue in 2008. 
Funding requirements to purchase these aircraft would total 
just under $3.4 billion over the 2003-2007 period (instead of 
the almost $3.9 billion that would be needed under annual 
contracts).
    Multiyear procurement of C-130Js would raise costs in 2003 
because the KC-130J did not receive advance procurement in 2002 
in anticipation of multiyear procurement starting in 2003, and 
because the Air Force would need to provide advance procurement 
for the aircraft that it would purchase in 2004.
            Military endstrength
    The bill would authorize active and reserve endstrength 
levels for 2003 and would increase the minimum endstrength 
authorization in permanent law. The authorized endstrengths for 
active-duty personnel and personnel in the selected reserve 
would total about 1,400,000 and 865,000, respectively. Of those 
selected reservists, about 69,000 would serve on active duty in 
support of the reserves. The bill would specifically authorize 
appropriations of $93.7 billion for the discretionary costs of 
military pay and allowances in 2003. The authorized endstrength 
represents a net increase of 12,552 servicemembers that would 
boost costs for salaries and other expenses by $528 million in 
the first year and about $1.1 billion annually in subsequent 
years, compared to the authorized strengths for 2002.
    The bill also would authorize an endstrength of 9,000 in 
2003 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost 
about $92 million and would fall under budget function 400 
(transportation).
    Section 403 would allow the service secretaries to increase 
endstrength by 1 percent above the level authorized by the 
Congress. Under current law, only the Secretary of Defense has 
this authority. While there is the potential for increased 
costs, the service secretaries would still have to manage their 
resources given the finite amount of money appropriated each 
year for military personnel. As such, CBO estimates that this 
provision would not significantly increase costs.
            Compensation and benefits
    H.R. 4546 contains several provisions that would affect 
military compensation and benefits for uniformed personnel.
    Military Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 
4.1 percent across-the-board and authorize additional targeted 
pay raises, ranging from 0.9 percent to 4.4 percent, for 
individuals with specific ranks and years of service at a total 
cost of about $2.3 billion in 2003. Because the pay raises 
would be above those projected under current law, CBO estimates 
that the incremental costs associated with the larger pay raise 
would be about $276 million in 2003 and total $1.9 billion over 
the 2003-2007 period.
    Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would 
extend DoD's authority to pay certain bonuses and allowances to 
current personnel. Under current law, most of these authorities 
are scheduled to expire in December 2002, or three months into 
fiscal year 2003. The bill would extend these authorities 
through December 2003. Based on data provided by DoD, CBO 
estimates that the costs of these extensions would be as 
follows:
           Payment of reenlistment bonuses for active-
        duty personnel would cost $327 million in 2003 and $191 
        million in 2004; enlistment bonuses for active-duty 
        personnel would cost $133 million in 2003 and $361 
        million in 2004;
           Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready 
        Reserve would cost $99 million in 2003 and $114 million 
        in 2004;
           Special payments for aviators and nuclear-
        qualified personnel would cost $67 million in 2003 and 
        $72 million in 2004;
           Retention bonuses for officers and enlisted 
        members with critical skills would cost $29 million in 
        2003 and $19 million in 2004;
           Accession bonuses for new officers with 
        critical skills would cost $14 million in 2003 and $5 
        million in 2004; and
           Authorities to make special payments and 
        give bonuses to certain health care professionals would 
        cost $37 million in 2003 and $34 million in 2004.
Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller costs 
in subsequent years because payments are made in installments.
    Education and Training. Section 531 would allow the 
military services to increase the number of students at each of 
the service academies from the current ceiling of 4,000 to 
4,400 students over a four-year period at a maximum rate of 100 
students a year for academic years 2003-2004 through 2007-2008. 
Under this provision, the annual increase in service-academy 
students could not exceed the increase in the number of 
students in the Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC) for the 
previous academic year.
    Based on information from DoD, CBO expects that only the 
Navy would increase its service-academy strength and that it 
would bring on about 50 extra academy students a year, as well 
as an additional 50 ROTC students, at an average annual cost of 
about $34,000 per student. According to the Navy, these 
additional students would not be used to increase overall 
officer endstrength, but rather to offset a desired drawdown in 
the number of officers commissioned through the Officer 
Candidate School (OCS) program. Thus, the actual cost of the 
increase for the academy and ROTC students would be offset 
somewhat by the cost of the OCS graduates they would replace. 
Because the OCS program lasts less than one year, the 
offsetting costs would not begin to affect net outlays until 
2007, when the first of the additional academy and ROTC 
students would graduate and be commissioned. CBO estimates the 
cost of implementing this provision would be $1 million in 2003 
and $31 million over the 2003-2007 period, assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
    Section 651 would extend the period during which eligible 
reservists may use their education benefits from 10 years to 14 
years. In 2001, over 82,000 reservists trained under this 
program and received an average annual benefit of $1,653. These 
benefits are paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the 
DoD Education Benefits Fund. Each month, DoD pays into the fund 
the net present value of the education benefit granted to each 
person who enlisted in the previous month. Based on information 
from DoD about current contributions to the fund and expected 
accessions, CBO estimates section 651 would increase payments 
into the fund by about $2 million each year. (CBO estimates 
that there also would be direct spending of about $29 million 
over the 2003-2012 period for increased outlays from the fund. 
CBO's estimate of those costs is discussed below under the 
heading of ``Direct Spending.'')
            Defense health program
    Title VII contains several provisions that would affect DoD 
health care and benefits. Tricare is the name of DoD's health 
care program; Tricare Prime and Tricare Prime Remote are 
managed care programs, and Tricare Standard is a fee-for-
service program.
    Tricare Prime Remote. Section 702 would affect dependents 
of servicemembers on active duty who live in a remote area, 
which is defined as roughly a one-hour or more driving distance 
from a military treatment facility. Under certain conditions, 
this sectionwould allow dependents of personnel on active duty 
who live in a remote area to participate in Tricare Prime Remote if the 
servicemember is transferred to a different duty station and is not 
allowed to bring his or her family. Section 702 also would allow the 
family members of reservists called to active duty to participate in 
the Tricare Prime Remote program if they live in a remote area. Under 
current law, dependents of personnel on active duty living in remote 
areas must reside with the active-duty member to participate in Tricare 
Prime Remote. If the active-duty servicemember is transferred to a duty 
station where he or she cannot bring family members, the family can no 
longer participate in the Tricare Prime Remote program. Families of 
reservists called to active duty also are not allowed to participate in 
this program.
    Based on information provided by DoD, CBO estimates that 
about 36,000 dependents of personnel on active duty and about 
50,000 dependents of reservists called to active duty would be 
affected by this provision. While CBO expects the number of 
family members of active-duty personnel to remain fairly 
constant, CBO assumes that the more than 80,000 reservists 
currently on active duty will decline to about 65,000 in 2003 
and 10,000 by 2006. If the number of reservists called to 
active duty were to remain at current levels over the 2003-2007 
period, then the estimated costs would be correspondingly 
higher.
    According to DoD, about 40 percent of those dependents who 
would be eligible for Tricare Prime Remote under this section 
already participate in Tricare Standard. Based on data provided 
by the department, CBO estimates that the additional 
incremental cost of providing Tricare Prime Remote to those 
individuals would be $113 per person. In addition, CBO 
estimates that the new benefit would attract about 4,300 
dependents to Tricare Prime Remote who had not previously used 
any Tricare program at an estimated annual cost of $1,900 per 
person. Thus, CBO estimates that the cost of providing Tricare 
Prime Remote to more individuals would be $12 million in 2003 
and $47 million over the 2003-2007 period, assuming 
appropriation of the estimated amounts.
    Transitional Health Care. Under section 706, family members 
of reservists who were called to active duty for more than 30 
days would be eligible for health care coverage under Tricare 
for 60 days after the reservist is released from active duty. 
Under current law, only the reservist is eligible for health 
care coverage under Tricare for the 60 days after he or she is 
released from active duty. While there are currently more than 
80,000 reservists on active duty, CBO assumes for this estimate 
that the number of reserves will fall to about 65,000 in 2003 
and 10,000 by 2006. If the number of reservists remains at 
current levels over the 2003-2007 period, the estimated costs 
would be correspondingly higher.
    Based on data from DoD and the General Accounting Office, 
CBO estimates that about 50 percent of the reservists have 
families and that about 40 percent of those families would use 
the transitional health care. CBO further estimates that 
providing an additional 60 days of health care coverage to 
those families would cost, on average, about $600 per family. 
After accounting for inflation and the assumed decline in the 
level of reservists called to active duty, CBO estimates that 
this provision would cost $7 million in 2003, and $18 million 
over the 2003-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the 
estimated amounts.

National Guard Challenge Program

    Section 513 would allow DoD to reimburse a state program of 
the National Guard Challenge Program for up to 75 percent of 
the cost of operating the state program in a fiscal year. If 
fully implemented, CBO estimates that implementing this 
provision would cost $84 million over the 2003-2007 period. CBO 
estimates that raising the federal contribution to these 
programs to 75 percent would increase the annual federal cost 
for each participant by approximately $2,500. Applying this 
annual cost to the 6,400 participants in the program would 
increase the cost by about $17 million per year over the 2003-
2007 period.

Asbestos differential pay

    Under section 1103, federal wage-grade employees would be 
subject to the same standards as general schedule employees 
when determining eligibility for environmental differential pay 
(EDP), based on exposure to asbestos. Under current law, 
general schedule employees are entitled to 8 percent hazard 
differential pay if they are exposed to asbestos that exceeds 
the permissible exposure limits established by the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The current EDP 
standard for wage-grade employees entitles them to the same 8 
percent of pay, but does not set an objective measure for 
determining the level of asbestos exposure necessary to qualify 
for EDP. In several instances where wage-grade employees have 
sought back pay for EDP, arbitrators found in favor of the 
employees when asbestos levels were below those consistent with 
OSHA standards. Based on information from DoD on prior and 
pending arbitration rulings, CBO expects that implementing 
section 1103 would reduce the amount of back pay federal 
agencies would be required to pay for EDP based on asbestos 
exposure. Assuming these cases would be handled 
administratively, CBO estimates establishing OSHA standards for 
asbestos EDP would save $110 million in 2003 and $550 million 
over the 2003-2007 period, assuming appropriations are reduced 
by the estimated amounts.

Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program

    Section 1104 would extend a provision of law into fiscal 
year 2007 that allows DoD and certain Department of Energy 
employees whose employment is terminated because of a 
reduction-in-force action to continue to participate in the 
FEHB health insurance program and only pay the regular 
employee's share of the insurance premium. The respective 
departments would be responsible for paying the normal 
employer's share of the premium. Under current law, this 
provision expires in fiscal year 2004. Based on information 
from DoD and the Office of Personnel Management, CBO estimates 
that this provision would affect about 500 people a year at an 
average annual cost of $5,500 per person over the 2003-2007 
period. CBO estimates that extending this provision into fiscal 
year 2007 would cost $2 million in 2004, and $11 million over 
the 2004-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated 
amounts.

School impact aid

    Section 366 would allow school districts with a large 
percentage of children from military families to continue to 
receive heavy impact aid when military families are temporarily 
relocated. Heavy impact aid is federal funding earmarked for 
school districtswith large military populations. Many military 
families in those school districts live on federal installations and do 
not contribute to the local property tax base that is used to help 
finance school operations. Heavy impact aid helps to offset this loss 
of local tax revenue. Under current law, schools can only receive heavy 
impact aid if they meet strict criteria for numbers of federal students 
located in their districts, local tax rates, and per pupil 
expenditures. Because of population relocations associated with certain 
military housing initiatives, some school districts would temporarily 
be unable to meet these criteria and would lose their heavy impact aid 
for several years.
    Based on data from the Department of Education and the 
Military Impacted Schools Association, CBO estimates that about 
four school districts would initially be affected by housing 
privatization and that these school districts receive about $18 
million in heavy impact aid annually. Because applications for 
heavy impact aid are based on school district statistics from 
three years prior, CBO estimates that the cost of implementing 
this section would not occur until 2006. After adjusting for 
the changes in student population within the affected 
districts, CBO estimates that restoration of this aid would 
cost about $14 million per year. Since the requirements of the 
School Impact Aid program are not always fully funded, CBO 
expects that the Department of Education would likely fund this 
increase through reductions in aid to other school districts. 
CBO expects this cost would reoccur annually only for the 
duration of the privatization effort within the affected school 
districts, which CBO estimates to be about three years.
            Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI)
    Section 2801 would increase the value of budget authority 
that DoD can use to finance special authorities for the 
construction and renovation of military family housing and 
military unaccompanied housing. Those authorities allow DoD to 
use direct loans, loan guarantees, long-term leases, rental 
guarantees, barter, direct government investment, and other 
financial arrangements to encourage private-sector 
participation in building military housing. Funding for those 
activities comes from the Family Housing Improvement Fund which 
is financed by appropriations made to the fund, transfers from 
other accounts, receipts from property sales and rents, returns 
on any capital, and other income from operations or 
transactions connected with the program. Currently the amounts 
in the fund are available for use by DoD to acquire housing 
using the various techniques mentioned above, but the total 
value of budget authority for all contracts and investments 
undertaken is limited to $1 billion ($850 million for family 
housing and $150 million for unaccompanied housing). Under the 
bill, those limits would be increased to $2 billion ($1.7 
billion for family housing and $300 million for unaccompanied 
housing).
    To date, DoD has signed contracts for 16 family housing 
projects and is proceeding with solicitations for or 
considering plans for close to 60 other projects over the next 
few years. Based on how the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has recorded obligations from DoD's use of this 
authority, DoD has only recorded obligations of about $250 
million--well below the current $1 billion limit. Given DoD's 
plans for future projects, CBO estimates that the department 
will reach the current limit by the end of 2004. As a result, 
CBO estimates that raising the limit effectively authorizes 
additional appropriations beginning in 2005. Based on recent 
trends and DoD's current plans, CBO estimates these 
authorizations would total about $80 million a year over the 
2005-2007 period.
    CBO, however, continues to believe that OMB's current 
accounting for MHPI initiatives is at odds with government-wide 
standards for recording obligations and outlays. Those 
standards call for different treatments depending on the 
character of the transaction. The OMB accounting treats certain 
initiatives primarily as credit and other transactions that 
have relatively little cost in terms of recorded obligations 
and outlays. In contrast, CBO considers many MHPI projects as 
having characteristics of lease-purchases or of public-private 
partnerships, both of which require the Administration to 
record higher levels of obligations and outlays. Currently the 
Administration's approach allows DoD to obligate significantly 
more federal resources than the existing $1 billion limitation 
for such projects. Consequently, if the limitation is increased 
to $2 billion, DoD would be allowed to obligate much more than 
that figure.
    Government-Wide Accounting Principles. Some of the options 
available for use of the Family Housing Improvement Fund 
involve up-front commitments of government resources that would 
be spent over a long period of time. According to standard 
principles of federal accounting, obligations of the fund 
should reflect the full amount of the financial liability 
incurred when the government makes such a commitment. In the 
case of a long-term capital lease or rental guarantee, for 
example, obligations should equal the total amount of lease or 
rental payments over the life of the contract, and 
appropriations to cover the full amount of such obligations 
should be available before entering into the lease or 
guarantee. Some commitments could take the form of lease-
purchases, which would require the recording of both 
obligations and outlays up front. Still others could be public-
private partnerships formed to borrow private funds in order to 
construct housing on a military base; in those instances, 
obligations should equal the borrowing authority--a form of 
budget authority--used for that project. If direct loans are 
used to help finance an on-base project, the value of future 
appropriations that will be passed through to developers--by 
servicemembers who pay rent with their housing allowances--
should be viewed as a subsidy, which would increase 
obligations.
    In effect, the Administration's accounting is allowing DoD 
to record the costs of the projects incrementally over time 
rather than up front. CBO believes this is counter to the 
government-wide principles that require costs from such 
projects to be recorded up front in the budget. In future 
years, CBO's approach would reduce the amount of budget 
authority and outlays the Administration would need to record 
each year in the military personnel accounts--which fund 
housing allowances--since such costs would already be recorded.
    CBO plans to consult with the Committee on the Budget in 
both the House and the Senate on how to score future 
legislation that expands or extends these authorities. 
Depending on the outcome of those consultations, CBO may score 
such future legislation as direct spending.
            Matters relating to other nations
    Section 1204 would expand the list of countries eligible 
for loan financing under the defense export loan guarantee 
program to include countries combating drug trafficking 
organizations or combating foreign terrorist organizations, as 
determined by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
State. CBO estimates that implementing this provision would 
have no significant budgetary effect because CBO believes that 
the authority would not be used. The section would not 
authorize appropriations for the costof any loan guarantees, as 
defined by the Federal Credit Reform Act. Without a subsidy 
appropriation, the borrowing country would be required to pay fees 
sufficient to cover the cost of the contingent liability of the United 
States under the guarantee plus administrative expenses. CBO estimates 
that the required fees would render the total cost of financing no more 
attractive to potential borrowers than financing without a government 
guarantee. CBO also estimates that the other limitations and 
authorizations provided in title 12 would have little effect on the 
spending of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated.

Direct Spending

    The bill contains provisions that would increase direct 
spending, primarily from the phase-in of concurrent payment of 
retirement annuities with veterans' disability compensation to 
retirees from the military and the other uniformed services who 
have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or 
greater. The bill also contains a few provisions with small 
direct spending savings. On balance, CBO estimates that 
enacting H.R. 4546 would result in a net increase in direct 
spending totaling $5.8 billion over the 2003-2007 period (see 
Table 4).
            Concurrent receipt
    Section 641 would phase in over five years total or partial 
concurrent payment of retirement annuities together with 
veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the 
uniformed services who have service-connected disabilities 
rated at 60 percent or greater. The uniformed services include 
all branches of the U.S. military, the Coast Guard, and 
uniformed members of the Public Health Service (PHS) and the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Under current law, disabled veterans who are retired from 
the uniformed services cannot receive both full retirement 
annuities and disability compensation from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA). Because of this prohibition on 
concurrent receipt, such veterans forgo a portion of their 
retirement annuity equal to the nontaxable veterans' benefit. 
This section would permit, beginning in 2007, individuals who 
have significant service-connected disabilities and have a 
retirement annuity based on years of service, to receive both 
benefits in full without the reduction called for under current 
law. Individuals whose retirement pay is based on their degree 
of disability would continue to forgo retirement pay equal to 
the VA compensation payment, but only to the extent that their 
disability had entitled them to a larger retirement annuity 
than they would have received based on years of service.

          TABLE 4.--ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM CONCURRENT RECEIPT AND OTHER PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4546
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2003      2004      2005      2006      2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Section 641--Concurrent Receipt:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................       516       643     1,029     1,608     2,006
    Estimated Outlays.........................................       516       643     1,029     1,608     2,006
Section 362--Armed Forces Retirement Home Fee:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................        -7        -7        -7        -7        -7
    Estimated Outlays.........................................        -7        -7        -7        -7        -7
Section 643--Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Inversion:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................        -3        -3        -4        -4        -4
    Estimated Outlays.........................................        -3        -3        -4        -4        -4
Section 644--Forgotten Widows:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................        -1        -1        -1        -1        -1
    Estimated Outlays.........................................        -1        -1        -1        -1        -1
Section 651--Education Benefits for Selected Reserves:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................         4         4         3         2         2
    Estimated Outlays.........................................         4         4         3         2         2
Section 701--Mental Health Benefits:
    Estimated Budget Authority................................         0         1         1         1         1
    Estimated Outlays.........................................         0         1         1         1         1

                                        TOTAL CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority....................................       509       637     1,021     1,599     1,997
Estimated Outlays.............................................       509       637     1,021     1,599     1,997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section also would repeal a program that partially 
compensates certain severely disabled retirees for this 
reduction in their retirement annuities. This program currently 
pays a fixed benefit of $50 to $300 a month, depending on 
degree of disability. Taken together, CBO estimates that 
implementing section 641 would increase direct spending for 
retirement annuities and veterans' disability compensation by a 
net amount of about $516 million in 2003, $5.8 billion over the 
2003-2007 period, and $17.8 billion over the 2003-2012 period 
(see Table 5).

                         TABLE 5.--ESTIMATED CHANGES IN RETIREE BENEFITS UNDER H.R. 4546
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                Description of Benefits Program                -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2003      2004      2005      2006      2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retirement Annuities:
    Nondisability.............................................       490       591       887     1,370     1,744
    Disability................................................        83        97       135       194       234
Veterans Compensation Payments................................         0        13        67       104        89
Survivor Benefit Plan Payments................................         8         8         8         9         9
Special Compensation for Severely Disabled....................       -65       -66       -68       -69       -70
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total Changes in Retiree Benefits.......................       516       643     1,029     1,608     2,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Retirement Annuities. Since the proposed legislation would 
treat retirees differently based on their type of retirement--
nondisability or disability, the potential costs of the 
legislation depend on the number of beneficiaries, their type 
of retirement, their disability levels, and their benefit 
amounts.
    Nondisability Retirees. A nondisability retirement is 
granted based on length of service--usually 20 or more years. 
Section 641 would allow those longevity retirees whose degree 
of disability has been rated as 60 percent or greater to 
receive full retirement annuities and veterans' disability 
benefits with no offset in 2007, and to receive an increasing 
portion of their retirement annuities over the 2003-2006 
period. Data from the uniformed services indicate that in 2001 
the prohibition on paying both benefits concurrently caused 
about $1.3 billion to be withheld from the annuity payments of 
about 74,000 eligible DoD retirees with nondisability 
retirements, and about 900 eligible Coast Guard, PHS, and NOAA 
retirees. Using current rates of net growth in the population 
of new beneficiaries, CBO estimates this caseload would rise to 
about 78,000 nondisability retirees in 2003, and 96,000 
nondisability retirees by 2012. CBO assumes that future benefit 
payments will increase consistent with current rates of growth 
in average disability levels and also increase from cost-of-
living adjustments. After phasing the benefits in over five 
years as specified in the provision, CBO estimates that 
enacting the legislation would increase direct spending on 
retirement annuities for nondisability retirees of the 
uniformed services by $490 million in 2003, $5.1 billion over 
the 2003-2007 period, and $15.6 billion over the 2003-2012 
period.
    Disability Retirees. Servicemembers who are found to be 
unable to perform their duties because of service-related 
disabilities may be granted a disability retirement. Section 
641 would allow eligible disability retirees to receive 
retirement annuities based on their years of service and 
veterans' disability benefits with no offset in 2007, and 
partial concurrent receipt of these payments in 2003 through 
2006. Disability retirees would be eligible to obtain 
concurrent receipt of their retirement annuity and veterans' 
disability compensation if they served 20 or more years in the 
uniformed services and had a disability rating of 60 percent or 
greater.
    Data from the uniformed services indicate that in 2001, the 
prohibition on paying both benefits concurrently caused about 
$200 million to be withheld from annuity payments of about 
11,400 eligible DoD retirees with disability retirements, and 
about 500 eligible Coast Guard, PHS, and NOAA retirees. An 
analysis of retiree records by DoD indicates that, under the 
criteria set forth in this section, these retirees would be 
eligible to receive about 95 percent of their retirement 
annuity concurrently with their VA disability benefit. Assuming 
continuation of current trends in population and benefit 
growth, and phasing the benefit in over five years as specified 
in this section, CBO estimates that, of the disability retirees 
who would be receiving VA disability benefits in fiscal year 
2003,about 12,100 would be entitled to an additional $83 
million in retirement annuities. CBO estimates their retirement 
annuities would increase by $743 million over the 2003-2007 period and 
$2 billion over the 2003-2012 period.
    Other Effects of Concurrent Receipt. Enacting section 641 
also would affect Veterans' Disability Compensation, receipts 
to the Treasury for Survivor Benefit Payments, Special 
Compensation to Severely Disabled Retirees, and the level of 
contributions to the Military Retirement Trust Fund.
    Veterans' Disability Compensation. Data from DoD indicates 
that an additional 15,100 disability retirees of the uniformed 
services--14,500 from DoD and about 600 from the other 
uniformed services--do not currently receive VA disability 
benefits that they are entitled to receive. Since many 
disability retirees are not taxed on their annuities, there is 
no incentive under current law for these retirees to apply for 
the tax-free VA benefits, as they will be offset, dollar-for-
dollar, against their retirement annuities. Section 641 would 
provide a significant incentive for the more disabled of these 
individuals to apply for VA disability benefits. CBO estimates 
that about 7,000 disability retirees might be eligible for 
concurrent receipt under section 641, but, because many of 
these retirees are both disabled and quite elderly, CBO expects 
that only about half of that number would become aware of this 
improved benefit and successfully complete the application 
process. Based on their DoD-assessed degree of disability, CBO 
estimates that outlays for VA disability benefits would 
increase by $13 million in 2004, about $270 million over the 
2003-2007 period, and $760 million over the 2003-2012 period. 
Because of the time needed for individuals to prepare and 
submit their applications and the current backlog in processing 
applications, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation 
would not increase outlays for veterans' disability 
compensation in 2003.
    Survivor Benefit Plan Offsetting Receipts. Many retirees 
have a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) premium payment deducted 
from their retirement annuity. The SBP was established in 
Public Law 92-425 to create an opportunity for military 
retirees to provide annuities for their survivors. Those 
retirees who are not receiving a paycheck from DoD because 
their retirement annuity is totally offset by their VA 
disability benefit may still participate in the SBP by paying 
the monthly premium to the U.S. Treasury. These payments are 
recorded as offsetting receipts to DoD. According to DoD, 
approximately 34,000 military retirees paid $23 million in SBP 
premiums to the Treasury in 2001. DoD also indicates that about 
$7 million of that amount was paid by about 8,000 retirees who 
would begin to receive annuity checks under section 641. CBO's 
estimate of the increase in retirement outlays presented above 
assumes that the SBP premiums of retirees who benefit from the 
legislation would be deducted from the retirees' annuities, and 
their payments to the Treasury would cease. Assuming 
continuation of current trends in population and benefit 
growth, CBO estimates these offsetting receipts (a credit 
against direct spending) would decrease by about $8 million in 
2003, $40 million over the 2003-2007 period, and $90 million 
over the 2003-2012 period.
    Repeal of Special Compensation for Severely Disabled 
Retirees. Section 641 also would repeal a special compensation 
program that currently pays a fixed benefit of $50 to $300 a 
month to certain uniformed service retirees who were determined 
to be 60 percent to 100 percent disabled within four years of 
their retirement. Based on information from DoD and assuming 
the population growth trends continue, CBO estimates that about 
36,000 DoD retirees and about 600 retirees of the other 
uniformed services will receive an average monthly benefit of 
$150 in 2002. Under current law, this benefit is scheduled to 
increase over the next two years to $172 a month. CBO estimates 
that the savings from repealing this program would be $65 
million in 2003, $338 million over the 2003-2007 period, and 
$706 million over the 2003-2012 period.
    Increased Accrual Payment Financing. The military 
retirement system is financed in part by an annual payment from 
appropriated funds (an outlay in budget function 050) to the 
Military Retirement Fund, based on an estimate of the system's 
accruing liabilities. If this provision is enacted, the yearly 
contribution to the fund would increase to reflect the added 
liability from the expected increase in annuities to future 
retirees. Under section 641, however, this incremental increase 
in the accrual payment would be paid to the Military Retirement 
Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury from the general fund of 
the Treasury. Using information from DoD, CBO estimates that 
the accrual payment from the Treasury would be $569 million in 
2003, and about $3 billion over the 2003-2007 period.
            Armed Forces Retirement Home fee
    Section 362 would increase the fee that certain military 
personnel pay toward the operation of the Armed Forces 
Retirement Home. Currently, these personnel--which include 
active-duty enlisted personnel, warrant officers, and limited-
duty officers--are required to pay a fee of 50 cents per month, 
which is used to offset the costs of operating the retirement 
home. Section 362 would set the fee at $1.00 per month. Based 
on information provided by the Department of Defense, CBO 
estimates this provision would increase offsetting receipts (a 
credit against direct spending) by $7 million per year.
            Cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) inversion
    Under current law, the annual COLA for military retirement 
annuities, which takes effect every December, is calculated 
based on the amount of the increase in the consumer price index 
(CPI) over the course of the previous fiscal year. Members of 
the uniformed services who are newly retired are credited with 
only a partial-year COLA the first December of their 
retirement. The size of this partial-year COLA depends on when 
during the year they retired, and their retirement plan. 
Because the CPI declined during the fourth quarter of 2001, 
retirees whose ``COLA clock'' started counting during that 
period of deflation will receive a larger COLA than those 
retirees whose COLA is calculated from the previous, higher-
growth quarter. Section 643 would prevent this ``COLA 
inversion'' by capping retirees' initial COLAs at the level of 
the full-year COLA received by the rest of the retiree 
population.
    Based on data from DoD, CBO estimates that enacting this 
legislation would reduce the COLA adjustment of about 43,000 
servicemen who retire during fiscal year 2002 by less than half 
a percentage point. CBO estimates that the retirement annuities 
they would otherwise receive in 2003 would be reduced by a 
total of about $3 million. This reduction in annuities would 
increase over time by the amount of future COLA increases that 
would otherwise have applied to the original $3 million. CBO 
estimates section 643 would reduce retiree annuities by about 
$18 million over the 2003-2007 period and by $38 million over 
the 2003-2012 period.
            Forgotten widows
    Section 644 would modify a program to compensate surviving 
spouses of certain active-duty servicemembers and reservists 
who died before they were able to enroll in the Survivor 
Benefit Plan. This program, which began in December 1997, is 
currently providing a monthly annuity of $186 to over 2,500 
beneficiaries. Under current law, benefits are retroactive to 
the inception of the program. CBO estimates that a survivor 
enrolling in the program in 2003 would receive, in addition to 
the monthly annuity, a lump-sum payment of over $11,000 and 
that by 2012, the lump-sum payment would increase to almost 
$32,000. Section 644 would eliminate the retroactive portion of 
the benefit, so that survivors who enroll in the program after 
enactment of this legislation would receive the annuity, but 
not the lump-sum payment. Data from DoD indicates that the 
eligible population is elderly, and the recent growth rate has 
been limited to between 100 and 150 surviving spouses a year. 
Without the lump-sum payment incentive, CBO assumes even fewer 
new enrollees would seek to become eligible each year. CBO 
estimates eliminating the lump-sum payment would save about $9 
million over the 2003-2012 period.
            Education benefits for the selected reserve
    Section 651 would extend the period during which eligible 
reservists may use their education benefits from 10 years to 14 
years. VA reported that, in 2001, over 82,000 reservists 
trained under this program and received an average annual 
benefit of $1,653. This average benefit includes both the basic 
benefit and a supplemental benefit that DoD can offer to 
enhance accessions or re-enlistment in critical skill 
specialties. This benefit increases each year by a COLA and by 
the level of supplemental benefits being offered. Based on 
current usage rates, CBO estimates that enacting this extension 
would result in an extra 2,500 trainees in fiscal year 2003 and 
a somewhat smaller number of additional trainees in subsequent 
years. The number of trainees will be larger in the first 
several years because reservists who are currently excluded 
from using their benefits because they have exceeded the 10-
year limit would be expected to use the newly available benefit 
more intensively. Based on information from DoD and VA, CBO 
estimates that enacting this legislation would increase 
education outlays by $4 million in 2003, $15 million over the 
2003-2007 period and by $29 million over the 2003-2012 period. 
Since DoD makes monthly payments into the DoD Education 
Benefits Fund in the amount of the net present value of the 
benefits granted during the previous month, this increase in 
usage of the education benefit would necessitate an increase in 
payments to the fund. (The discretionary costs associated with 
these payments are discussed earlier in the ``Spending Subject 
to Appropriation'' section under the heading of ``Education and 
Training.'')
            Mental health benefits
    Section 701 would remove a statutory requirement that 
inpatient mental health care be preauthorized for retirees and 
dependents who are eligible for Medicare beginning in 2004. 
Under current law, Tricare for Life (TFL), another medical 
program run by DoD, pays all Medicare copayments and 
deductibles for those benefits that are covered by both 
programs. Beginning in 2003, TFL spending for Medicare-eligible 
retirees and dependents will be considered direct spending. 
Under current law, Medicare does not require a preauthorization 
for inpatient mental health care but Tricare does. Removing 
this requirement would make the mental health benefits 
identical and reduce confusion among beneficiaries and health 
care providers.
    Although most individuals would seek preauthorization 
before receiving inpatient mental health care, CBO expects 
that, under current law, some individuals would fail to obtain 
the necessary preauthorization from Tricare and would have to 
pay the copayments and deductibles on their own. Because DoD 
does not have any available data on the frequency or costs of 
inpatient mental health care for Medicare-eligible retirees and 
dependents, CBO extrapolated this data from the general 
Medicare population. Under section 701, CBO estimates that in 
2004 TFL would cover the copayments and deductibles for about 
600 additional people at an average cost of about $1,800 per 
person. Thus, CBO estimates section 701 would raise direct 
spending by $1 million in 2004, $4 million over the 2004-2007 
period, and $14 million over the 2004-2012 period.
            Land conveyance and other property transactions
    Titles XXVIII and XIV would authorize a variety of property 
transactions involving both large and small parcels of land.
    Section 2841 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
to convey to the city of West Wendover, Nevada, and Tooele 
County, Utah, without consideration, two parcels of federal 
land located in those states and identified in the bill. 
According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), those lands, 
which are withdrawn for military purposes, currently generate 
no offsetting receipts and are not expected to in the 
foreseeable future. Hence, CBO estimates that conveying the 
lands would not affect offsetting receipts. According to the 
U.S. Air Force, portions of the lands that could be conveyed 
have been used as a bombing range by the Air Force. Under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act, the agency would have to remediate any expended 
and unexploded ordnance prior to conveying those lands. Any 
federal spending for remediation, which could be significant, 
would be subject to appropriation. At this time, CBO does not 
have sufficient information to estimate remediation costs.
    CBO estimates that other provisions in title XXVIII would 
not result in significant costs to the federal government 
because they would either authorize DoD to exchange one piece 
of property for another or would authorize DoD to convey land 
that under current law is unlikely to be declared excess and 
sold or is likely to be given away.
    Title XIV of H.R. 4546 would designate as wilderness more 
than 539,000 acres of federal lands throughout the state of 
Utah. Subject to valid existing rights, the bill would withdraw 
most of those lands from programs to develop mineral and 
geothermal resources. Withdrawing those lands from leasing and 
development could result in forgone offsetting receipts if, 
under current law, the lands would generate receipts from those 
activities. According to BLM, however, the lands currently 
generate no significant receipts and are not expected to over 
the next 10 years. Hence, we estimate that any resulting 
changes in offsetting receipts would be negligible.
    Title XIV also would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior 
from issuing permits for rights-of-way through certain federal 
lands in Utah. According to BLM, the agency collects less than 
$100,000 a year from such permits; hence, CBO estimates that 
anyresulting loss of offsetting receipts (a credit against 
direct spending) would not exceed that amount in any year.
            Other provisions
    The following provisions would have an insignificant 
budgetary impact on direct spending:
           Section 364 would extend the arsenal support 
        program initiative (ASPI) through 2004. ASPI allows 
        government owned and operated arsenals to sign 
        contracts with private companies for the use of excess 
        plant space and equipment. The arsenal can then use the 
        rents and fees from these contracts to reduce overhead 
        costs. To date, these contracts have generated less 
        than $500,000 a year in proceeds.
           Section 366 would allow the basic allowance 
        for housing (BAH) for service members who live in 
        privatized housing to be disregarded as income when 
        determining eligibility for free and reduced meals in 
        the school lunch program. Under current law, the BAH is 
        counted as income. The provision would allow more 
        children to be eligible for free and reduced price 
        meals for the one year period after enactment. CBO 
        estimates that this section would increase direct 
        spending in the child nutrition program in 2003, but 
        that the costs would not be significant. (If this bill 
        is enacted before the start of fiscal year 2003, then 
        there would be some insignificant cost in 2002 also.)
           Section 2862 would allow the Navy to provide 
        wastewater treatment services from its facilities at 
        Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, to Onslow County and 
        other public entities near the base. In exchange for 
        those services, the Navy would receive cash or in-kind 
        payment. This provision would have no net impact on 
        direct spending because it would allow the Navy to 
        spend any cash that it collects.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net 
changes in direct spending that are subject to pay-as-you-go 
procedures are shown in Table 6. For the purposes of enforcing 
pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects through fiscal year 
2006 are counted.

                                         TABLE 6.--ESTIMATED IMPACT OF H.R. 4546 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays..............................................       0     509     637   1,021   1,599   1,997   2,123   2,256   2,386   2,524   2,672
Changes in receipts.............................................                                       Not applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

    H.R. 4546 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Defense Outlays: Kent 
Christensen. Military Construction: David Newman. Military and 
Civilian Personnel: Michelle Patterson and Dawn Regan. Armed 
Forces Retirement Home: Geoffrey Gerhardt. Military Retirement: 
Sarah Jennings. Health Programs: Sam Papenfuss. Multiyear 
Procurement: David Newman and Raymond Hall. Conservation and 
Land Management: Megan Carroll. Maritime Administration: 
Deborah Reis. Naval Petroleum Reserves: Lisa Cash Driskill. 
Nutrition Programs: Valerie Womer. Operation and Maintenance: 
Matt Schmit. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 
Elyse Goldman. Impact on the Private Sector: R. William Thomas.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with 
the estimates as contained in the report of the Congressional 
Budget Office.

                           OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from 
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the 
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
    With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not 
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it 
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or 
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations. 
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the 
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
    With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the committee has not received a 
report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 4546.

                GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation would address 
several general and outcome-related performance goals and 
objectives. The general goal and objective of this legislation 
is to improve the quality of life for military personnel and 
their families, military readiness, the modernization and 
eventual transformation of the armed forces, to enhance the 
development of ballistic missile defenses, and to improve the 
condition of military housing and facilities.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the 
quality of life for military personnel and their families, the 
objective of this legislation is to:
          (1) ensure the largest one-year growth in active duty 
        end strength since 1986 by adding 12,650 personnel, 
        enabling all the military services to begin meeting 
        long-standing manpower shortages, as well as new 
        manning requirements.
          (2) provide every military service member a pay raise 
        of between 4.1 and 6.5 percent effective January 1, 
        2003;
          (3) reduce out-of-pocket housing costs for military 
        personnel to less than 8 percent during fiscal year 
        2003;
          (4) eliminate unfair provisions in current law, 
        thereby allowing those rated 60 percent disabled or 
        greater to receive by 2007 their full military retired 
        pay and full veteran's disability compensation.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving 
military readiness, the objective of this legislation is to:
          (1) increase funding for key readiness accounts by 
        $4.6 billion above the fiscal year 2002 level;
          (2) satisfy approximately $200 million of the service 
        chiefs' unfunded readiness requirements;
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the 
modernization and eventual transformation of the armed forces 
and enhancing the development of ballistic missile defenses, 
the objective of this legislation is to:
          (1) increase funding for military procurement 
        accounts by $2.9 billion;
          (2) satisfy more than $2 billion of the unfunded 
        procurement requirements identified by the service 
        chiefs; and
          (3) increase funding for military research and 
        development accounts by $914 million.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving 
military housing and facilities, the objective of this 
legislation is to:
          (1) provide $10 billion for military construction and 
        military family housing programs, including $2 billion 
        for quality of life enhancements;
          (2) provide several enhancements to the authority 
        provided by current law to privatize military housing 
        that will provide the military services more 
        flexibility to procure adequate military family 
        housing.
    With respect to the outcome-related goal of increasing 
homeland and troop defenses against terrorist and ballistic 
missile attacks, the objective of this legislation is to:
          (1) support the President's request for $7.3 billion 
        to combat terrorism; and
          (2) support the approach of the President's ballistic 
        missile defense program and to increase funding for 
        ballistic missile defense programs by $8.4 million 
        above the fiscal year 2002 level.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 3 (d)(1) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States 
Constitution.

                     STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

    Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this 
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, 
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private 
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal 
intergovernmental mandates.

                              RECORD VOTES

    In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken 
with respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 4546. The 
record of these votes is attached to this report.
    The committee ordered H.R. 4546 reported to the House with 
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 57-1, a quorum being 
present.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle A--General Military Law

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Sec.
111.  Executive department.
     * * * * * * *
113a.   Transmission of annual defense authorization request.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 113a. Transmission of annual defense authorization request

  (a) Time for Transmittal.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
transmit to Congress the annual defense authorization request 
for a fiscal year during the first 30 days after the date on 
which the President transmits to Congress the budget for that 
fiscal year pursuant to section 1105 of title 31.
  (b) Defense Authorization Request Defined.--In this section, 
the term ``defense authorization request'', with respect to a 
fiscal year, means a legislative proposal submitted to Congress 
for the enactment of the following:
          (1) Authorizations of appropriations for that fiscal 
        year, as required by section 114 of this title.
          (2) Personnel strengths for that fiscal year, as 
        required by section 115 of this title.
          (3) Any other matter that is proposed by the 
        Secretary of Defense to be enacted as part of the 
        annual defense authorization bill for that fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 115. Personnel strengths: requirement for annual authorization

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Upon determination by the Secretary of a military 
department that such action would enhance manning and readiness 
in essential units or in critical specialties or ratings, the 
Secretary may increase the end strength authorized pursuant to 
subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year for the armed force 
under the jurisdiction of that Secretary or, in the case of the 
Secretary of the Navy, for any of the armed forces under the 
jurisdiction of that Secretary. Any such increase for a fiscal 
year--
          (1) shall be by a number equal to not more than 1 
        percent of such authorized end strength; and
          (2) shall be counted as part of the increase for that 
        armed force for that fiscal year authorized under 
        subsection (c)(1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 118. Quadrennial defense review

  (a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall every 
four years, [during a year] during the second year following a 
year evenly divisible by four, conduct a comprehensive 
examination (to be known as a ``quadrennial defense review'') 
of the national defense strategy, force structure, force 
modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other 
elements of the defense program and policies of the United 
States with a view toward determining and expressing the 
defense strategy of the United States and establishing a 
defense program for the next 20 years. Each such quadrennial 
defense review shall be conducted in consultation with the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Submission of QDR to Congressional Committees.--The 
Secretary shall submit a report on each quadrennial defense 
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives. The report shall be submitted not 
later than September 30 of the year in which the review is 
conducted. The report shall include the following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (14) The national defense mission of the Coast Guard.
          [(14)] (15) Any other matter the Secretary considers 
        appropriate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 5--JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 153. Chairman: functions

  (a) Planning; Advice; Policy Formulation.--Subject to the 
authority, direction, and control of the President and the 
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
shall be responsible for the following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 8--DEFENSE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FIELD ACTIVITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          SUBCHAPTER II--MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE AGENCY MATTERS

Sec.
201.  Certain intelligence officials: consultation and concurrence 
          regarding appointments; evaluation of performance.
[203.  Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.]
203.  Director of Missile Defense Agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 203. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization]

Sec. 203. Director of Missile Defense Agency

  If an officer of the armed forces on active duty is appointed 
to the position of Director of the [Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization] Missile Defense Agency, the position shall be 
treated as having been designated by the President as a 
position of importance and responsibility for purposes of 
section 601 of this title and shall carry the grade of 
lieutenant general or general or, in the case of an officer of 
the Navy, vice admiral or admiral.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   CHAPTER 9--DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS

Sec.
221.  Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency 
          in budgeting.
     * * * * * * *
[230.  Amounts for declassification of records.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements

  (a) Program Elements Specified.--In the budget justification 
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of 
Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the 
budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the 
amount requested for activities of the [Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency shall be set forth 
in accordance with program elements governing functional areas 
as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 224. Ballistic missile defense programs: display of amounts for 
                    research, development, test, and evaluation

  (a) Requirement.--Any amount in the budget submitted to 
Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for any fiscal year for 
research, development, test, and evaluation for a Department of 
Defense missile defense program described in subsection (b) 
shall be set forth under the account of the Department of 
Defense for Defense-wide research, development, test, and 
evaluation and, within that account, under the subaccount (or 
other budget activity level) for the [Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization] Missile Defense Agency.
  (b) Transfer Criteria.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
establish criteria for the transfer of responsibility for a 
ballistic missile defense program from the Director of the 
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency 
to the Secretary of a military department. The criteria 
established for such a transfer shall, at a minimum, address 
the following:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Notification of Transfer.--Before responsibility for a 
ballistic missile defense program is transferred from the 
Director of the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] 
Missile Defense Agency to the Secretary of a military 
department, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
congressional defense committees notice in writing of the 
Secretary's intent to make that transfer. The Secretary shall 
include with such notice a certification that the program has 
met the criteria established under subsection (b) for such a 
transfer. The transfer may then be carried out after the end of 
the 60-day period beginning on the date of such notice.
  (d) Conforming Budget and Planning Transfers.--When a 
ballistic missile defense program is transferred from the 
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency 
to the Secretary of a military department in accordance with 
this section, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that all 
appropriate conforming changes are made to proposed or 
projected funding allocations in the future-years defense 
program under section 221 of this title and other Department of 
Defense program, budget, and planning documents.
  (e) Follow-on Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.--
The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, [before a] for each 
ballistic missile defense program [is] transferred from the 
Director of the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] 
Missile Defense Agency to the Secretary of a military 
department, [roles and responsibilities for research, 
development, test, and evaluation related to system 
improvements for that program are clearly defined.] 
responsibility for research, development, test, and evaluation 
related to system improvements for that program remains with 
the Director.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 228. Monthly reports on allocation of funds within operation and 
                    maintenance budget subactivities

  (a) Monthly Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit 
[to Congress] to the congressional defense committees a monthly 
report on the allocation of appropriations to O&M budget 
activities and to the subactivities of those budget activities. 
Each such report shall be submitted not later than 60 days 
after the end of the month to which the report pertains.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) O&M Budget Activity Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the] (e) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The term ``O&M budget activity'' means a budget 
        activity within an operation and maintenance 
        appropriation of the Department of Defense for a fiscal 
        year.
          (2) The term ``congressional defense committees'' 
        means the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee 
        on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
        Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations of 
        the House of Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 230. Amounts for declassification of records

  [The Secretary of Defense shall include in the budget 
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the 
Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted 
with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 
31) specific identification of the amounts required to carry 
out programmed activities during that fiscal year to declassify 
records pursuant to Executive Order No. 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 
note) or any successor Executive order or to comply with any 
statutory requirement, or any request, to declassify Government 
records. Identification of such amounts in such budget 
justification materials shall be in a single display that shows 
the total amount for the Department of Defense and the amount 
for each military department and Defense Agency.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             CHAPTER 23--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec.
480.  Reports to Congress: submission in electronic form.
     * * * * * * *
488.  Status of female members of the armed forces: annual report.

Sec. 480. Reports to Congress: submission in electronic form

  (a) Requirement.--Whenever the Secretary of Defense or any 
other official of the Department of Defense submits to Congress 
(or any committee of either House of Congress) a report that 
the Secretary (or other official) is required by law to submit, 
the Secretary (or other official) [shall, upon request by any 
committee of Congress to which the report is submitted or 
referred, provide to Congress (or each] shall provide to 
Congress (or such committee) a copy of the report in an 
electronic medium.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 488. Status of female members of the armed forces: annual report

  (a) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress an annual report on the status of female members of 
the armed forces. Information in the report shall be shown for 
the Department of Defense as a whole and separately for each of 
the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
  (b) Matters To Be Included.--Each report under subsection (a) 
shall include, at a minimum, the following information with 
respect to female members:
          (1) Access to health care.
          (2) Positions open.
          (3) Assignment policies.
          (4) Joint spouse assignments.
          (5) Deployment availability rates.
          (6) Promotion and retention rates.
          (7) Assignments in nontraditional fields.
          (8) Assignments to command positions.
          (9) Selection for service schools.
          (10) Sexual harassment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART II--PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 32--OFFICER STRENGTH AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 525. Distribution of commissioned officers on active duty in 
                    general officer and flag officer grades

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *
  (2)(A) * * *
  (B) No appointment may be made in a grade above major general 
in the Marine Corps if that appointment would result in more 
than [16.2] 17.5 percent of the general officers of the Marine 
Corps on active duty being in grades above major general.
  (5)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (C) This paragraph shall cease to be effective at the end of 
[September 30, 2003] December 31, 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (8) An officer while serving in a position designated by the 
Secretary of Defense as Senior Military Assistant to the 
Secretary of Defense, if serving in the grade of lieutenant 
general or vice admiral, is in addition to the number that 
otherwise would be permitted for that officer's armed force for 
that grade under paragraph (1) or (2). Only one officer may be 
designated as Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of 
Defense for purposes of this paragraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 526. Authorized strength: general and flag officers on active duty

  (a) * * *
  (b) Limited Exclusion for Joint Duty Requirements.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) This subsection shall cease to be effective on [October 
1, 2002] December 31, 2004.
  [(c) Notice to Congress Upon Change in Grade for Certain 
Positions.--(1) Not later than 60 days before an action 
specified in paragraph (2) may become effective, the Secretary 
of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
Representatives a report providing notice of the intended 
action and an analytically based justification for the intended 
action.
  [(2) Paragraph (1) applies in the case of the following 
actions:
          [(A) A change in the grade authorized as of July 1, 
        1994, for a general officer position in the National 
        Guard Bureau, a general or flag officer position in the 
        Office of a Chief of a reserve component, or a general 
        or flag officer position in the headquarters of a 
        reserve component command.
          [(B) Assignment of a reserve component officer to a 
        general officer position in the National Guard Bureau, 
        to a general or flag officer position in the Office of 
        a Chief of a reserve component, or to a general or flag 
        officer position in the headquarters of a reserve 
        component command in a grade other than the grade 
        authorized for that position as of July 1, 1994.
          [(C) Assignment of an officer other than a general or 
        flag officer as the military executive to the Reserve 
        Forces Policy Board.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 35--TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS IN OFFICER GRADES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 604. Senior joint officer positions: recommendations to the 
                    Secretary of Defense

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Expiration.--This section shall cease to be effective at 
the end of [September 30, 2003] December 31, 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 38--JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 663. Education

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Duration of Principal Course of Instruction at Joint 
Forces Staff College.--(1) * * *
  (2) In this subsection, the term ``principal course of 
instruction'' means any course of instruction offered at the 
[Armed Forces Staff College] Joint Forces Staff College as 
Phase II joint professional military education.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional 
                    contingencies

  (a) * * *
  (b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members 
of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty 
at the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the 
following:
          (1) For the Army, [480,000] 484,800.
          (2) For the Navy, [376,000] 379,457.
          (3) For the Marine Corps, [172,600] 175,000.
          (4) For the Air Force, [358,800] 360,795.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                           CHAPTER 40--LEAVE

Sec.
701.  Entitlement and accumulation.
     * * * * * * *
709.  Voluntary transfers of leave.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 705. Rest and recuperative absence for qualified enlisted members 
                    extending duty at designated locations overseas

  (a) * * *
  (b) The benefits authorized by subsection (a) are--
          (1) * * *
          (2) a period of rest and [recuperative] recuperation 
        absence for not more than 15 days and round-trip 
        transportation at Government expense from the location 
        of the extended tour of duty to the nearest port in the 
        48 contiguous States and return, or to an alternate 
        location at a cost not to exceed the cost of 
        transportation to the nearest port in the 48 contiguous 
        States, and return.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 709. Voluntary transfers of leave

  (a) Program.--The Secretary concerned shall, by regulation, 
establish a program under which leave accrued by a member of an 
armed force may be transferred to another member of the same 
armed force who requires additional leave because of a 
qualifying emergency. Any such transfer of leave may be made 
only upon the voluntary written application of the member whose 
leave is to be transferred.
  (b) Approval of Commanding Officer Required.--Any transfer of 
leave under a program under this section may only be made with 
the approval of the commanding officer of the leave donor and 
the leave recipient.
  (c) Qualifying Emergency.--In this section, the term 
``qualifying emergency'', with respect to a member of the armed 
forces, means a circumstance that--
          (1) is likely to require the prolonged absence of the 
        member from duty; and
          (2) is due to--
                  (A) a medical condition of a member of the 
                immediate family of the member; or
                  (B) any other hardship that the Secretary 
                concerned determines appropriate for purposes 
                of this section.
  (d) Military Department Regulations.--Regulations prescribed 
under this section by the Secretaries of the military 
department shall be as uniform as practicable and shall be 
subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 41--SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 721. General and flag officers: limitation on appointments, 
                    assignments, details, and duties outside an 
                    officer's own service

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Treatment of Officers Holding Multiple Positions.--[(1)] 
If an officer described in subsection (b) simultaneously holds 
both a position external to that officer's armed force and 
another position not external to that officer's armed force, 
the Secretary of Defense shall determine whether that officer 
shall be counted for the purposes of this section.
  [(2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress an 
annual report on the number of officers to whom paragraph (1) 
was applicable during the year covered by the report. The 
report shall set forth the determination made by the Secretary 
under that paragraph in each such case.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 47--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    SUBCHAPTER VII--TRIAL PROCEDURE

                                 Sec. 

Art. 

                                 836. 

36. 

President may prescribe rules.

          * * * * * * *

                                 852a. 

52a. 

Right of accused to request sentencing by military judge rather than by 
members.

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 852a. Art. 52a. Right of accused to request sentencing by military 
                    judge rather than by members

  (a) In the case of an accused convicted of an offense by a 
court-martial composed of a military judge and members, the 
sentence shall be tried before and adjudged by the military 
judge rather than the members if, after the findings are 
announced and before evidence in the sentencing proceeding is 
introduced, the accused, knowing the identity of the military 
judge and after consultation with defense counsel, requests 
orally on the record or in writing that the sentence be tried 
before and adjudged by the military judge rather than the 
members.
  (b) This section shall not apply with respect to an offense 
for which the death penalty may be adjudged unless the case has 
been previously referred to trial as a noncapital case.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 49--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 986. Security clearances: limitations

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) Annual Report.--Not later than February 1 each year, the 
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 
identifying each waiver issued under subsection (d) during the 
preceding year with an explanation for each case of the 
disqualifying factor in subsection (c) that applied, and the 
reason for the waiver of the disqualification.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              CHAPTER 54--COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE BENEFITS

Sec.
1061.  Survivors of certain Reserve and Guard members.
     * * * * * * *
[1063a.   Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of 
          National Guard serving in federally declared disaster.]
1063a.   Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of 
          National Guard serving in federally declared disaster or 
          national emergency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: 
                    members of National Guard serving in federally 
                    declared disaster]

Sec. 1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members 
                    of National Guard serving in federally declared 
                    disaster or national emergency

  (a) Eligibility of Members.--A member of the National Guard 
who, although not in Federal service, is called or ordered to 
duty in response to a federally declared disaster or national 
emergency shall be permitted to use commissary stores and MWR 
retail facilities during the period of such duty on the same 
basis as members of the armed forces on active duty.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) National emergency.--The term ``national 
        emergency'' means a national emergency declared by the 
        President or Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1076a. TRICARE dental program

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (k) Eligible Dependent Defined.--In this section, the term 
``eligible dependent''--
          (1) * * *
          (2) includes any such dependent of a member who dies 
        while on active duty for a period of more than 30 days 
        or a member of the Ready Reserve if the dependent is 
        enrolled on the date of the death of the member in a 
        dental benefits plan established under subsection (a) 
        (or, if not enrolled, if the member discontinued 
        participation under subsection (f)), except that the 
        term does not include the dependent after the end of 
        the three-year period beginning on the date of the 
        member's death.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children: plans

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) Except in the case of an emergency or in the case of a 
person eligible for health care benefits under section 
1086(d)(2) of this title for whom payment for such services is 
made under subsection 1086(d)(3) of this title, the Secretary 
of Defense shall require preadmission authorization before 
inpatient mental health services may be provided to persons 
covered by this section or section 1086 of this title. In the 
case of the provision of emergency inpatient mental health 
services, approval for the continuation of such services shall 
be required within 72 hours after admission.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (p)(1)(A) Subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of 
Defense considers necessary, coverage for medical care under 
this section for the dependents [referred to in subsection (a) 
of a member of the uniformed services referred to in section 
1074(c)(3) of this title who are residing with the member] 
described in subparagraph (B), and standards with respect to 
timely access to such care, shall be comparable to coverage for 
medical care and standards for timely access to such care under 
the managed care option of the TRICARE program known as TRICARE 
Prime.
  (B) A dependent referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
          (i) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a 
        member of the uniformed services referred to in section 
        1074(c)(3) of this title, who is residing with the 
        member; or
          (ii) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a 
        member of the uniformed services with a permanent duty 
        assignment for which the dependent is not authorized to 
        accompany the member and one of the following 
        circumstances exists:
                  (I) The dependent continues to reside at the 
                location of the former duty assignment of the 
                member (or residence in the case of a member of 
                a reserve component ordered to active duty for 
                a period of more than 30 days), and that 
                location is more than 50 miles, or 
                approximately one hour of driving time, from 
                the nearest military medical treatment facility 
                that can adequately provide needed health care.
                  (II) There is no reasonable expectation the 
                member will return to the location of the 
                former duty assignment, and the dependent moves 
                to a location that is more than 50 miles, or 
                approximately one hour of driving time, from 
                the nearest military medical treatment facility 
                that can adequately provide needed health care.
  (q) For purposes of designating institutional and non-
institutional health care providers authorized to provide care 
under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
regulations (in consultation with the other administering 
Secretaries) that will, to the extent practicable and subject 
to the limitations of subsection (a), so designate any provider 
authorized to provide care under title XVIII of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1095. Health care services incurred on behalf of covered 
                    beneficiaries: collection from third-party payers

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g)[(1)] Amounts collected under this section from a third-
party payer or under any other provision of law from any other 
payer for health care services provided at or through a 
facility of the uniformed services shall be credited to the 
appropriation supporting the maintenance and operation of the 
facility and shall not be taken into consideration in 
establishing the operating budget of the facility.
  [(2) Not later than February 15 of each year, the Secretary 
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report specifying for 
each facility of the uniformed services the amount credited to 
the facility under this subsection during the preceding fiscal 
year.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 56--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE 
FUND

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions; authority to 
                    enter into agreements

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) The Secretary of Defense [may enter into an agreement 
with any other administering Secretary] shall enter into an 
agreement with each other administering Secretary (as defined 
in section 1072(3) of this title) for participation in the Fund 
by a uniformed service under the jurisdiction of that 
Secretary. [Any] Each such agreement shall require that 
Secretary to determine contributions to the Fund on behalf of 
the members of the uniformed service under the jurisdiction of 
that Secretary in a manner comparable to the determination with 
respect to contributions to the Fund made by the Secretary of 
Defense under section 1116 of this title, and such 
administering Secretary may make such contributions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1116. Payments into the Fund

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall be 
paid from funds available for the health care programs of the 
participating uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the 
respective administering Secretaries.]
  (c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall be 
paid from funds available for the pay of members of the 
participating uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the 
respective administering Secretaries.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   CHAPTER 58--BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS BEING SEPARATED OR 
RECENTLY SEPARATED

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1145. Health benefits

  (a) Transitional Health Care.--(1) For the applicable time 
period described in paragraph (3), a member of the armed forces 
who is separated from active duty as described in paragraph (2) 
(and the dependents of the member) shall be entitled to 
receive--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 CHAPTER 71--COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY

Sec.
1401.  Computation of retired pay.
     * * * * * * *
[1413.  Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed 
          services retirees.
[1414.  Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected 
          disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans' disability 
          compensation; contingent authority.]
1414.  Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected 
          disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher: concurrent payment 
          of retired pay and veterans' disability compensation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1401a. Adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay to reflect 
                    changes in Consumer Price Index

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) First COLA Adjustment for Members With Retired Pay 
Computed Using Final Basic Pay.--
          (1) First adjustment with intervening increase in 
        basic pay.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) but subject 
        to subsection (f)(2), if a person described in 
        paragraph (3) becomes entitled to retired pay based on 
        rates of monthly basic pay that became effective after 
        the last day of the calendar quarter of the base index, 
        the retired pay of the member or former member shall be 
        increased on the effective date of the next adjustment 
        of retired pay under subsection (b) only by the percent 
        (adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by 
        which--
                  (A) the price index for the base quarter of 
                that year, exceeds
                  (B) the price index for the calendar quarter 
                immediately before the calendar quarter in 
                which the rates of monthly basic pay on which 
                the retired pay is based became effective.
          (2) First adjustment with no intervening increase in 
        basic pay.--If a person described in paragraph (3) 
        becomes entitled to retired pay on or after the 
        effective date of an adjustment in retired pay under 
        subsection (b) but before the effective date of the 
        next increase in the rates of monthly basic pay, the 
        retired pay of the member or former member shall be 
        increased (subject to subsection (f)(2) as applied to 
        other members whose retired pay is computed on the 
        current rates of basic pay in the most recent 
        adjustment under this section), effective on the date 
        the member becomes entitled to that pay, by the percent 
        (adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by 
        which--
                  (A) the base index, exceeds
                  (B) the price index for the calendar quarter 
                immediately before the calendar quarter in 
                which the rates of monthly basic pay on which 
                the retired pay is based became effective.
  (d) First COLA Adjustment for Members With Retired Pay 
Computed Using High-Three.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) but 
subject to subsection (f)(2), the retired pay of a member or 
former member of an armed force who first became a member of a 
uniformed service before August 1, 1986, or on or after August 
1, 1986, if the member or former member did not elect to 
receive a bonus under section 322 of title 37 and whose retired 
pay base is determined under section 1407 of this title shall 
be increased on the effective date of the first adjustment of 
retired pay under subsection (b) after the member or former 
member becomes entitled to retired pay by the percent (adjusted 
to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) equal to the difference 
between the percent by which--
          (1) the price index for the base quarter of that 
        year, exceeds
          (2) the price index for the calendar quarter 
        immediately before the calendar quarter during which 
        the member became entitled to retired pay.
  (e) Pro Rating of Initial Adjustment.--Notwithstanding 
subsection (b) but subject to subsection (f)(2), the retired 
pay of a member or former member of an armed force who first 
became a member of a uniformed service on or after August 1, 
1986, and elected to receive a bonus under section 322 of title 
37 shall be increased on the effective date of the first 
adjustment of retired pay under subsection (b) after the member 
or former member becomes entitled to retired pay by the percent 
(adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) equal to the 
difference between--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Prevention of Pay Inversions.--
          (1) Prevention of retired pay inversions.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the monthly 
        retired pay of a member or a former member of an armed 
        force who initially became entitled to that pay on or 
        after January 1, 1971, may not be less than the monthly 
        retired pay to which he would be entitled if he had 
        become entitled to retired pay at an earlier date based 
        on the grade in which the member is retired, adjusted 
        to reflect any applicable increases in such pay under 
        this section. In computing the amount of retired pay to 
        which such a member or former member would have been 
        entitled on that earlier date, the computation shall be 
        based on his grade, length of service, and the rate of 
        basic pay applicable to him at that time, except that 
        such computation may not be based on a rate of basic 
        pay for a grade higher than the grade in which the 
        member is retired. This subsection does not authorize 
        any increase in the monthly retired pay to which a 
        member was entitled for any period before October 7, 
        1975.
          (2) Prevention of cola inversions.--The percentage of 
        the first adjustment under this section in the retired 
        pay of any person, as determined under subsection 
        (c)(1), (c)(2), (d), or (e), may not exceed the 
        percentage increase in retired pay determined under 
        subsection (b)(2) that is effective on the same date as 
        the effective date of such first adjustment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled 
                    uniformed services retirees

  [(a) Authority.--The Secretary concerned shall pay to each 
eligible disabled uniformed services retiree a monthly amount 
determined under subsection (b). If the provisions of 
subsection (a) of section 1414 of this title become effective 
in accordance with subsection (f) of that section, payments 
under this section shall be terminated effective as of the 
month beginning on the effective date specified in subsection 
(e) of that section.
  [(b) Amount.--The amount to be paid to an eligible disabled 
uniformed services retiree in accordance with subsection (a) is 
the following:
          [(1) For payments for months beginning with February 
        2002 and ending with December 2002, the following:
                  [(A) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as total, $300.
                  [(B) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 90 percent, $200.
                  [(C) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 80 percent or 70 percent, $100.
                  [(D) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 60 percent, $50.
          [(2) For payments for months beginning with January 
        2003 and ending with September 2004, the following:
                  [(A) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as total, $325.
                  [(B) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 90 percent, $225.
                  [(C) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 80 percent, $125.
                  [(D) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 70 percent, $100.
                  [(E) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 60 percent, $50.
          [(3) For payments for months after September 2004, 
        the following:
                  [(A) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as total, $350.
                  [(B) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 90 percent, $250.
                  [(C) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 80 percent, $150.
                  [(D) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 70 percent, $125.
                  [(E) For any month for which the retiree has 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 60 percent, $50.
  [(c) Eligible Members.--An eligible disabled uniformed 
services retiree referred to in subsection (a) is a member of 
the uniformed services in a retired status who--
          [(1) completed at least 20 years of service in the 
        uniformed services that are creditable for purposes of 
        computing the amount of retired pay to which the member 
        is entitled; and
          [(2) has a qualifying service-connected disability.
  [(d) Qualifying Service-Connected Disability Defined.--In 
this section, the term ``qualifying service-connected 
disability'' means a service-connected disability that--
          [(1) was incurred or aggravated in the performance of 
        duty as a member of a uniformed service, as determined 
        by the Secretary concerned; and
          [(2) is rated as not less than 60 percent disabling--
                  [(A) by the Secretary concerned as of the 
                date on which the member is retired from the 
                uniformed services; or
                  [(B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
                within four years following the date on which 
                the member is retired from the uniformed 
                services.
  [(e) Status of Payments.--Payments under this section are not 
retired pay.
  [(f) Source of Funds.--Payments under this section for any 
fiscal year shall be paid out of funds appropriated for pay and 
allowances payable by the Secretary concerned for that fiscal 
year.
  [(g) Other Definitions.--In this section:
          [(1) The term ``service-connected'' has the meaning 
        given that term in section 101 of title 38.
          [(2) The term ``disability rated as total'' means--
                  [(A) a disability that is rated as total 
                under the standard schedule of rating 
                disabilities in use by the Department of 
                Veterans Affairs; or
                  [(B) a disability for which the scheduled 
                rating is less than total but for which a 
                rating of total is assigned by reason of 
                inability of the disabled person concerned to 
                secure or follow a substantially gainful 
                occupation as a result of service-connected 
                disabilities.
          [(3) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay, 
        emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.

[Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected 
                    disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans' 
                    disability compensation; contingent authority

  [(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Subject 
to subsection (b), a member or former member of the uniformed 
services who is entitled to retired pay (other than as 
specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled to 
veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid both 
without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, subject 
to the enactment of qualifying offsetting legislation as 
specified in subsection (f).
  [(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The 
retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this title 
with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable under 
section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's 
retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 
of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the 
member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title exceeds the 
amount of retired pay to which the member would have been 
entitled under any other provision of law based upon the 
member's service in the uniformed services if the member had 
not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
  [(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member 
retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 years 
of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this 
title at the time of the member's retirement.
  [(d) Definitions.--In this section:
          [(1) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay, 
        emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
          [(2) The term ``veterans' disability compensation'' 
        has the meaning given the term ``compensation'' in 
        section 101(12) of title 38.
  [(e) Effective Date.--If qualifying offsetting legislation 
(as defined in subsection (f)) is enacted, the provisions of 
subsection (a) shall take effect on--
          [(1) the first day of the first month beginning after 
        the date of the enactment of such qualifying offsetting 
        legislation; or
          [(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in 
        the calendar year in which such legislation is enacted, 
        if that date is later than the date specified in 
        paragraph (1).
  [(f) Effectiveness Contingent on Enactment of Offsetting 
Legislation.--(1) The provisions of subsection (a) shall be 
effective only if--
          [(A) the President, in the budget for any fiscal 
        year, proposes the enactment of legislation that, if 
        enacted, would be qualifying offsetting legislation; 
        and
          [(B) after that budget is submitted to Congress, 
        there is enacted qualifying offsetting legislation.
  [(2) In this subsection:
          [(A) The term ``qualifying offsetting legislation'' 
        means legislation (other than an appropriations Act) 
        that includes provisions that--
                  [(i) offset fully the increased outlays to be 
                made by reason of the provisions of subsection 
                (a) for each of the first 10 fiscal years 
                beginning after the date of the enactment of 
                such legislation;
                  [(ii) expressly state that they are enacted 
                for the purpose of the offset described in 
                clause (i); and
                  [(iii) are included in full on the PayGo 
                scorecard.
          [(B) The term ``PayGo scorecard'' means the estimates 
        that are made by the Director of the Congressional 
        Budget Office and the Director of the Office of 
        Management and Budget under section 252(d) of the 
        Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
        1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(d)) with respect to the ten fiscal 
        years following the date of the enactment of the 
        legislation that is qualifying offsetting legislation 
        for purposes of this section.]

Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected 
                    disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher: 
                    concurrent payment of retired pay and veterans' 
                    disability compensation

  (a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Subject to 
subsection (b), a member or former member of the uniformed 
services who is entitled for any month to retired pay and who 
is also entitled for that month to veterans' disability 
compensation for a qualifying service-connected disability 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as a ``qualified 
retiree'') is entitled to be paid both for that month without 
regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38. For fiscal years 
2003 through 2006, payment of retired pay to such a member or 
former member is subject to subsection (c).
  (b) Special Rules for Chapter 61 Disability Retirees.--
          (1) Career retirees.--The retired pay of a member 
        retired under chapter 61 of this title with 20 years or 
        more of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 
        of this title at the time of the member's retirement is 
        subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of 
        title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the 
        member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title 
        exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member 
        would have been entitled under any other provision of 
        law based upon the member's service in the uniformed 
        services if the member had not been retired under 
        chapter 61 of this title.
          (2) Disability retirees with less than 20 years of 
        service.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member 
        retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 
        20 years of service otherwise creditable under section 
        1405 of this title at the time of the member's 
        retirement.
  (c) Phase-in of Full Concurrent Receipt.--For fiscal years 
2003 through 2006, retired pay payable to a qualified retiree 
shall be determined as follows:
          (1) Fiscal year 2003.--For a month during fiscal year 
        2003, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified 
        retiree is the amount (if any) of retired pay in excess 
        of the current baseline offset plus the following:
                  (A) For a month for which the retiree 
                receives veterans' disability compensation for 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as total, $750.
                  (B) For a month for which the retiree 
                receives veterans' disability compensation for 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 90 percent, $500.
                  (C) For a month for which the retiree 
                receives veterans' disability compensation for 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 80 percent, $250.
                  (D) For a month for which the retiree 
                receives veterans' disability compensation for 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 70 percent, $250.
                  (E) For a month for which the retiree 
                receives veterans' disability compensation for 
                a qualifying service-connected disability rated 
                as 60 percent, $125.
          (2) Fiscal year 2004.--For a month during fiscal year 
        2004, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified 
        retiree is the sum of--
                  (A) the amount specified in paragraph (1) for 
                that qualified retiree; and
                  (B) 23 percent of the difference between (i) 
                the current baseline offset, and (ii) the 
                amount specified in paragraph (1) for that 
                member's disability.
          (3) Fiscal year 2005.--For a month during fiscal year 
        2005, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified 
        retiree is the sum of--
                  (A) the amount determined under paragraph (2) 
                for that qualified retiree; and
                  (B) 30 percent of the difference between (i) 
                the current baseline offset, and (ii) the 
                amount determined under paragraph (2) for that 
                qualified retiree.
          (4) Fiscal year 2006.--For a month during fiscal year 
        2006, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified 
        retiree is the sum of--
                  (A) the amount determined under paragraph (3) 
                for that qualified retiree; and
                  (B) 64 percent of the difference between (i) 
                the current baseline offset, and (ii) the 
                amount determined under paragraph (3) for that 
                qualified retiree.
  (d) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Retired pay.--The term ``retired pay'' includes 
        retainer pay, emergency officers' retirement pay, and 
        naval pension.
          (2) Veterans' disability compensation.--The term 
        ``veterans' disability compensation'' has the meaning 
        given the term ``compensation'' in section 101(13) of 
        title 38.
          (3) Service-connected.--The term ``service-
        connected'' has the meaning given that term in section 
        101(16) of title 38.
          (4) Qualifying service-connected disability.--The 
        term ``qualifying service-connected disability'' means 
        a service-connected disability or combination of 
        service-connected disabilities that is rated as not 
        less than 60 percent disabling by the Secretary of 
        Veterans Affairs.
          (5) Disability rated as total.--The term ``disability 
        rated as total'' means--
                  (A) a disability, or combination of 
                disabilities, that is rated as total under the 
                standard schedule of rating disabilities in use 
                by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or
                  (B) a disability, or combination of 
                disabilities, for which the scheduled rating is 
                less than total but for which a rating of total 
                is assigned by reason of inability of the 
                disabled person concerned to secure or follow a 
                substantially gainful occupation as a result of 
                service-connected disabilities.
          (6) Current baseline offset.--
                  (A) In general.--The term ``current baseline 
                offset'' for any qualified retiree means the 
                amount for any month that is the lesser of--
                          (i) the amount of the applicable 
                        monthly retired pay of the qualified 
                        retiree for that month; and
                          (ii) the amount of monthly veterans' 
                        disability compensation to which the 
                        qualified retiree is entitled for that 
                        month.
                  (B) Applicable retired pay.--In subparagraph 
                (A), the term ``applicable retired pay'' for a 
                qualified retiree means the amount of monthly 
                retired pay to which the qualified retiree is 
                entitled, determined without regard to this 
                section or sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38), 
                except that in the case of such a retiree who 
                was retired under chapter 61 of this title, 
                such amount is the amount of retired pay to 
                which the member would have been entitled under 
                any other provision of law based upon the 
                member's service in the uniformed services if 
                the member had not been retired under chapter 
                61 of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 74--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1465. Determination of contributions to the Fund

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) At the same time that the Secretary of Defense makes the 
determination required by paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, 
the Secretary shall determine the amount of the Treasury 
contribution to be made to the Fund for the next fiscal year 
under section 1466(b)(2)(D) of this title. That amount shall be 
determined in the same manner as the determination under 
paragraph (1) of the total amount of Department of Defense 
contributions to be made to the Fund during that fiscal year 
under section 1466(a) of this title, except that for purposes 
of this paragraph the Secretary, in making the calculations 
required by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of that paragraph, shall 
use the single level percentages determined under subsection 
(c)(4), rather than those determined under subsection (c)(1).
  (c)(1) Not less often than every four years, the Secretary of 
Defense shall carry out an actuarial valuation of Department of 
Defense military retirement and survivor benefit programs. Each 
actuarial valuation of such programs shall include--
          (A) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age 
        normal cost method) of a single level percentage of 
        basic pay for members of the armed forces (other than 
        the Coast Guard) on active duty (other than active duty 
        for training) or full-time National Guard duty (other 
        than full-time National Guard duty for training only), 
        to be determined without regard to section 1414 of this 
        title; and
          (B) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age 
        normal cost method) of a single level percentage of 
        basic pay and of compensation (paid pursuant to section 
        206 of title 37) for members of the Ready Reserve of 
        the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard and other 
        than members on full-time National Guard duty other 
        than for training) who are not otherwise described by 
        subparagraph (A), to be determined without regard to 
        section 1414 of this title.
Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of 
subsection (b)(1) and section 1466(a) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) Whenever the Secretary carries out an actuarial valuation 
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include as part of 
such valuation the following:
          (A) A determination of a single level percentage 
        determined in the same manner as applies under 
        subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), but based only upon 
        the provisions of section 1414 of this title.
          (B) A determination of a single level percentage 
        determined in the same manner as applies under 
        subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), but based only upon 
        the provisions of section 1414 of this title.
Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of 
subsection (b)(3).
  [(4)] (5) Contributions to the Fund in accordance with 
amortization schedules under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be 
made as provided in section 1466(b) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1466. Payments into the Fund

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of 
the Treasury shall promptly pay into the Fund from the General 
Fund of the Treasury the amount certified to the Secretary by 
the Secretary of Defense under paragraph (3). Such payment 
shall be the contribution to the Fund for that fiscal year 
required by [sections 1465(a) and 1465(c)] sections 1465(a), 
1465(b)(3), 1465(c)(2), and 1465(c)(3) of this title.
  (2) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of 
Defense shall determine the sum of the following:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (D) The amount for that year determined by the 
        Secretary of Defense under section 1465(b)(3) of this 
        title for the cost to the Fund arising from increased 
        amounts payable from the Fund by reason of section 1414 
        of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 75--DECEASED PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER II--DEATH BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1491. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Support.--[To provide a](1) To support a funeral honors 
detail under this section, the Secretary of a military 
department may provide the following:
          [(1) Transportation, or reimbursement for 
        transportation, and expenses for a person who 
        participates in the funeral honors detail and is not a 
        member of the armed forces or an employee of the United 
        States.]
          (A) For a person who participates in a funeral honors 
        detail (other than a person who is a member of the 
        armed forces not in a retired status or an employee of 
        the United States), either transportation (or 
        reimbursement for transportation) and expenses or the 
        daily stipend prescribed under paragraph (2).
          [(2) Materiel, equipment, and training for] (B) For 
        members of a veterans organization or other 
        organization referred to in subsection (b)(2) and for 
        members of the armed forces in a retired status, 
        materiel, equipment, and training.
          [(3) Articles of clothing for] (C) For members of a 
        veterans organization or other organization referred to 
        in subsection (b)(2), articles of clothing that, as 
        determined by the Secretary concerned, are appropriate 
        as a civilian uniform for persons participating in a 
        funeral honors detail.
  (2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe annually a flat 
rate daily stipend for purposes of paragraph (1)(A). Such 
stipend shall be set at a rate so as to encompass typical costs 
for transportation and other miscellaneous expenses for persons 
participating in funeral honors details who are members of the 
armed forces in a retired status and other persons are not 
members of the armed forces or employees of the United States.
  (3) A stipend paid under this subsection to a member of the 
armed forces in a retired status is in addition to any 
compensation to which the member is entitled under section 
435(a)(2) of title 37 and any other compensation to which the 
member may be entitled.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 76--MISSING PERSONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1501. System for accounting for missing persons

  (a) Office for Missing Personnel.--(1) The Secretary of 
Defense shall establish within the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense an office to have responsibility for Department of 
Defense policy relating to missing persons. Such office shall 
be known as the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel 
Office. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the 
Secretary of Defense, the responsibilities of the office shall 
include--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the office 
is provided sufficient military and civilian personnel levels, 
and sufficient funding, to enable the office to fully perform 
its complete range of missions. The Secretary shall ensure that 
Department of Defense programming, planning, and budgeting 
procedures are structured so as to ensure compliance with the 
preceding sentence for each fiscal year.
  (B) For any fiscal year, the number of military and civilian 
personnel assigned or detailed to the office may not be less 
than the number requested in the President's budget for fiscal 
year 2003, unless a level below such number is expressly 
required by law.
  (C) For any fiscal year, the level of funding allocated to 
the office within the Department of Defense may not be below 
the level requested for such purposes in the President's budget 
for fiscal year 2003, unless such a level of funding is 
expressly required by law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

               CHAPTER 79--CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

Sec.
1551.  Correction of name after separation from service under an assumed 
          name.
     * * * * * * *
1559.  Personnel limitation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1559. Personnel limitation

  (a) Limitation.--During fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, 
the Secretary of a military department may not carry out any 
reduction in the number of military and civilian personnel 
assigned to duty with the service review agency for that 
military department below the baseline number for that agency 
until--
          (1) the Secretary submits to Congress a report that--
                  (A) describes the reduction proposed to be 
                made;
                  (B) provides the Secretary's rationale for 
                that reduction; and
                  (C) specifies the number of such personnel 
                that would be assigned to duty with that agency 
                after the reduction; and
          (2) a period of 90 days has elapsed after the date on 
        which the report is submitted.
  (b) Baseline Number.--The baseline number for a service 
review agency under this section is--
          (1) for purposes of the first report with respect to 
        a service review agency under this section, the number 
        of military and civilian personnel assigned to duty 
        with that agency as of January 1, 2002; and
          (2) for purposes of any subsequent report with 
        respect to a service review agency under this section, 
        the number of such personnel specified in the most 
        recent report with respect to that agency under this 
        section.
  (c) Service Review Agency Defined.--In this section, the term 
``service review agency'' means--
          (1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the 
        Army Review Boards Agency;
          (2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the 
        Board for Correction of Naval Records; and
          (3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, 
        the Air Force Review Boards Agency.

CHAPTER 81--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1588. Authority to accept certain voluntary services

  (a) Authority To Accept Services.--Subject to subsection (b) 
and notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Secretary 
concerned may accept from any person the following services:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) Voluntary services as a proctor for 
        administration to secondary school students of the test 
        known as the ``Armed Services Vocational Aptitude 
        Battery''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 87--DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 SUBCHAPTER IV--EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Sec.
1741.  Policies and programs: establishment and implementation.
     * * * * * * *
[2410h.] 1747.   Acquisition fellowship program.
     * * * * * * *

[Sec. 2410h.] Sec. 1747. Acquisition fellowship program

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 88--MILITARY FAMILY PROGRAMS AND MILITARY CHILD CARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY CHILD CARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1798. Child care services and youth program services for 
                    dependents: financial assistance for providers

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Biennial Report.--(1) Every two years the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the exercise of 
authority under this section. The report shall include an 
evaluation of the effectiveness of that authority for meeting 
the needs of members of the armed forces or employees of the 
Department of Defense for child care services and youth program 
services. The report may include any recommendations for 
legislation that the Secretary considers appropriate to enhance 
the capability of the Department of Defense to meet those 
needs.
  [(2) A biennial report under this subsection may be combined 
with the biennial report under section 1799(d) of this title 
into a single report for submission to Congress.]

Sec. 1799. Child care services and youth program services for 
                    dependents: participation by children and youth 
                    otherwise ineligible

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Biennial Report.--(1) Every two years the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the exercise of 
authority under this section. The report shall include an 
evaluation of the effectiveness of that authority for achieving 
the objectives set out under subsection (c). The report may 
include any recommendations for legislation that the Secretary 
considers appropriate to enhance the capability of the 
Department of Defense to attain those objectives.
  [(2) A biennial report under this subsection may be combined 
with the biennial report under section 1798(d) of this title 
into a single report for submission to Congress.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 101--TRAINING GENERALLY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2010. Participation of developing countries in combined exercises: 
                    payment of incremental expenses

  (a) * * *
  [(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
report each year, not later than March 1, containing--
          [(1) a list of the developing countries for which 
        expenses have been paid by the United States under this 
        section during the preceding year; and
          [(2) the amounts expended on behalf of each 
        government.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 103--SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2107. Financial assistance program for specially selected members

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h)(1) [Not more than 29,500 cadets and midshipmen appointed 
under this section may be in the financial assistance programs 
at any one time.] The Secretary of Defense shall determine the 
number of cadets and midshipmen appointed under this section 
who may be in the financial assistance programs at any one time 
in each military department.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) The Secretary of each military department shall seek to 
achieve an increase in the number of agreements entered into 
under this section so as to achieve an increase, by the 2006-
2007 academic year, of not less than 400 in the number of 
cadets or midshipmen, as the case may be, enrolled under this 
section, compared to such number enrolled for the 2002-2003 
academic year. In the case of the Secretary of the Navy, the 
Secretary shall seek to ensure that not less than one-third of 
such increase in agreements under this section are with 
students enrolled (or seeking to enroll) in programs of study 
leading to a baccalaureate degree in nuclear engineering or 
another appropriate technical, scientific, or engineering field 
of study.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   CHAPTER 105--ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 
PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER II--NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates

  (a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection 
(b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and 
ending on December 31, [2002] 2003, executes a written 
agreement in accordance with subsection (c) to accept an 
appointment as a nurse officer may, upon the acceptance of the 
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession 
bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in 
periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned 
at the time the agreement is accepted, except that the first 
installment may not exceed $2,500.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 109--EDUCATIONAL LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2173. Education loan repayment program: commissioned officers in 
                    specified health professions

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Certain Persons Ineligible.--[Participants of the Armed 
Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance 
program under subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title and 
students] Students of the Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences established under section 2112 of this title 
are not eligible for the repayment of an education loan under 
this section.
  (e) Loan Repayments.--(1) * * *
  (2) For each year of obligated service that a person agrees 
to serve in an agreement described in subsection (b)(3), the 
Secretary of the military department concerned may pay not more 
than $22,000 on behalf of the person. This maximum amount shall 
be increased annually by the Secretary of Defense effective 
October 1 of each year by the percentage equal to the percent 
increase in the average annual cost of educational expenses and 
stipend costs of a single scholarship under the Armed Forces 
Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance 
program. [The total amount that may be repaid on behalf of any 
person may not exceed an amount determined on the basis of a 
four-year active duty service obligation.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION

Sec.
2201.  Apportionment of funds: authority for exemption; excepted 
          expenses.
     * * * * * * *
2214a.   Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement accounts to 
          research and development accounts for major acquisition 
          programs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2214a. Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement accounts to 
                    research and development accounts for major 
                    acquisition programs

  (a) Transfer Authority Within Major Programs.--Subject to 
subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may transfer amounts 
provided in an appropriation Act for procurement for a covered 
acquisition program to amounts provided in the same 
appropriation Act for research, development, test, and 
evaluation for that program.
  (b) Congressional Notice-and-Wait.--A transfer may be made 
under this section only after--
          (1) the Secretary submits to the congressional 
        defense committees notice in writing of the Secretary's 
        intent to make such transfer, together with the 
        Secretary's justification for the transfer; and
          (2) a period of 30 days has elapsed following the 
        date of such notification.
  (c) Limitations.--From amounts appropriated for the 
Department of Defense for any fiscal year for procurement--
          (1) the total amount transferred under this section 
        may not exceed $250,000,000; and
          (2) the total amount so transferred for any 
        acquisition program may not exceed $20,000,000.
  (d) Covered Acquisition Programs.--In this section, the term 
``covered acquisition program'' means an acquisition program of 
the Department of Defense that is--
          (A) a major defense acquisition program for purposes 
        of chapter 144 of this title; or
          (B) any other acquisition program of the Department 
        of Defense--
                  (i) that is designated by the Secretary of 
                Defense as a covered acquisition program for 
                purposes of this section; or
                  (ii) that is estimated by the Secretary of 
                Defense to require an eventual total 
                expenditure for research, development, test, 
                and evaluation of more than $140,000,000 (based 
                on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars) or an 
                eventual total expenditure for procurement of 
                more than $660,000,000 (based on fiscal year 
                2000 constant dollars.)
  (e) Transfer Back of Unused Transferred Funds.--If funds 
transferred under this section are not used for the purposes 
for which transferred, such funds shall be transferred back to 
the account from which transferred and shall be available for 
their original purpose.
  (f) Additional Authority.--The transfer authority provided in 
this section is in addition to any other transfer authority 
available to the Secretary of Defense.

CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2304a. Task and delivery order contracts: general authority

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Contract Modifications.--(1) A task or delivery order may 
not increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the task or 
delivery order contract under which the order is issued. The 
scope, period, or maximum value of the contract may be 
increased only by modification of the contract.
  (2) Unless use of procedures other than competitive 
procedures is authorized by an exception in subsection (c) of 
section 2304 of this title and approved in accordance with 
subsection (f) of such section, competitive procedures shall be 
used for making such a modification.
  (3) Notice regarding the modification shall be provided in 
accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)).
  [(f) Inapplicability to Contracts for Advisory and Assistance 
Services.--Except as otherwise specifically provided in section 
2304b of this title, this section does not apply to a task or 
delivery order contract for the procurement of advisory and 
assistance services (as defined in section 1105(g) of title 
31).]
  (f) Limitation on Contract Period.--The base period of a task 
order contract or delivery order contract entered into under 
this section may not exceed five years unless a longer period 
is specifically authorized in a law that is applicable to such 
contract. The contract may be extended for an additional 5 
years (for a total contract period of not more than 10 years) 
through modifications, options, or otherwise.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2304b. Task order contracts: advisory and assistance services

  [(a) Authority To Award.--(1) Subject to the requirements of 
this section, section 2304c of this title, and other applicable 
law, the head of an agency may enter into a task order contract 
(as defined in section 2304d of this title) for procurement of 
advisory and assistance services.
  [(2) The head of an agency may enter into a task order 
contract for procurement of advisory and assistance services 
only under the authority of this section.
  [(b) Limitation on Contract Period.--The period of a task 
order contract entered into under this section, including all 
periods of extensions of the contract under options, 
modifications, or otherwise, may not exceed five years unless a 
longer period is specifically authorized in a law that is 
applicable to such contract.]
  (a) In General.--A task order contract (as defined in section 
2304d of this title) for procurement of advisory and assistance 
services shall be subject to the requirements of this section, 
sections 2304a and 2304c of this title, and other applicable 
provisions of law.
  [(c)] (b) Content of Notice.--The notice required by section 
18 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
416) and section 8(e) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
637(e)) shall reasonably and fairly describe the general scope, 
magnitude, and duration of the proposed task order contract in 
a manner that would reasonably enable a potential offeror to 
decide whether to request the solicitation and consider 
submitting an offer.
  [(d) Required Content of Solicitation and Contract.--(1) The 
solicitation for the proposed task order contract shall include 
the information (regarding services) described in section 
2304a(b) of this title.
  [(2) A task order contract entered into under this section 
shall contain the same information that is required by 
paragraph (1) to be included in the solicitation of offers for 
that contract.]
  (c) Required Content of Contract.--A task order contract 
described in subsection (a) shall contain the same information 
that is required by section 2304a(b) to be included in the 
solicitation of offers for that contract.
  [(e)] (d) Multiple Awards.--(1) The head of an agency may, on 
the basis of one solicitation, award separate task order 
contracts [under this section] described in subsection (a) for 
the same or similar services to two or more sources if the 
solicitation states that the head of the agency has the option 
to do so.
  (2) If, in the case of a task order contract for advisory and 
assistance services to be entered into [under this section], 
the contract period is to exceed three years and the contract 
amount is estimated to exceed $10,000,000 (including all 
options), the solicitation shall--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(f) Contract Modifications.--(1) A task order may not 
increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the task order 
contract under which the order is issued. The scope, period, or 
maximum value of the contract may be increased only by 
modification of the contract.
  [(2) Unless use of procedures other than competitive 
procedures is authorized by an exception in subsection (c) of 
section 2304 of this title and approved in accordance with 
subsection (f) of such section, competitive procedures shall be 
used for making such a modification.
  [(3) Notice regarding the modification shall be provided in 
accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)).
  [(g) Contract Extensions.--(1) Notwithstanding the limitation 
on the contract period set forth in subsection (b) or in a 
solicitation or contract pursuant to subsection (e), a task 
order contract entered into by the head of an agency under this 
section may be extended on a sole-source basis for a period not 
exceeding six months if the head of such agency determines 
that--
          [(A) the award of a follow-on contract has been 
        delayed by circumstances that were not reasonably 
        foreseeable at the time the initial contract was 
        entered into; and
          [(B) the extension is necessary in order to ensure 
        continuity of the receipt of services pending the award 
        of, and commencement of performance under, the follow-
        on contract.
  [(2) A task order contract may be extended under the 
authority of paragraph (1) only once and only in accordance 
with the limitations and requirements of this subsection.]
  [(h)] (e) Inapplicability to Certain Contracts.--This section 
does not apply to a contract for the acquisition of property or 
services that includes acquisition of advisory and assistance 
services if the head of an agency entering into such contract 
determines that, under the contract, advisory and assistance 
services are necessarily incident to, and not a significant 
component of, the contract.
  [(i)] (f) Advisory and Assistance Services Defined.--In this 
section, the term ``advisory and assistance services'' has the 
meaning given such term in section 1105(g) of title 31.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Defense Acquisitions Specifically Authorized by Law.--(1) 
* * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4)(A) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary of 
Defense may obligate funds for procurement of an end item under 
a multiyear contract for the purchase of property only for 
procurement of a complete and usable end item.
  (B) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary of 
Defense may obligate funds appropriated for any fiscal year for 
advance procurement under a multiyear contract for the purchase 
of property only for the procurement of those long-lead items 
necessary in order to meet a planned delivery schedule for 
complete major end items that are programmed under the contract 
to be acquired with funds appropriated for a subsequent fiscal 
year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2327. Contracts: consideration of national security objectives

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Waiver.--(1)(A) If the Secretary of Defense determines 
under paragraph (2) that entering into a contract with a firm 
or a subsidiary of a firm described in subsection (b) is not 
inconsistent with the national security objectives of the 
United States, the head of an agency may enter into a contract 
with such firm or subsidiary [after the date on which such head 
of an agency submits to Congress a report on the contract] if 
in the best interests of the Government.
  [(B) A report under subparagraph (A) shall include the 
following:
          [(i) The identity of the foreign government 
        concerned.
          [(ii) The nature of the contract.
          [(iii) The extent of ownership or control of the firm 
        or subsidiary concerned (or, if appropriate in the case 
        of a subsidiary, of the firm that owns the subsidiary) 
        by the foreign government concerned or the agency or 
        instrumentality of such foreign government.
          [(iv) The reasons for entering into the contract.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    CHAPTER 138--COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH NATO ALLIES AND OTHER 
COUNTRIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              SUBCHAPTER II--OTHER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

Sec.
2350a.   Cooperative research and development agreements: NATO 
          organizations; allied and friendly foreign countries.
     * * * * * * *
2350m.   Administrative services and support for foreign liaison 
          officers.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2350f. Procurement of communications support and related supplies 
                    and services

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee 
on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed 
Services of the House of Representatives copies of all 
documents evidencing an arrangement entered into under 
subsection (a) not later than 45 days after entering into such 
an arrangement.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2350k. Relocation within host nation of elements of armed forces 
                    overseas

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Annual Report to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to 
Congress a report specifying--
          [(1) the amount of the contributions accepted by the 
        Secretary during the preceding fiscal year under 
        subsection (a) and the purposes for which the 
        contributions were made; and
          [(2) the amount of the contributions expended by the 
        Secretary during the preceding fiscal year and the 
        purposes for which the contributions were expended.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2350m. Administrative services and support for foreign liaison 
                    officers

  (a) Authority To Provide Services and Support.--The Secretary 
of Defense may provide administrative services and support for 
foreign liaison officers performing duties while such officers 
temporarily are assigned to components or commands of the armed 
forces. Such administrative services and support may include 
base or installation operation support services, office space, 
utilities, copying services, fire and police protection, and 
computer support. The Secretary may provide such administrative 
services and support with or without reimbursement, as the 
Secretary considers appropriate.
  (b) Expiration of Authority.--The authority under this 
section shall expire on September 30, 2005.

                 CHAPTER 139--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Sec.
2351.  Availability of appropriations.
     * * * * * * *
2359a.   Technology Transition Initiative.
2359b.   Defense Acquisition Challenge Program.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 2359a. Technology Transition Initiative

  (a) Initiative Required.--The Secretary of Defense, acting 
through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics, shall carry out an initiative, to be 
known as the Technology Transition Initiative (hereinafter in 
this section referred to as the ``Initiative''), to facilitate 
the rapid transition of new technologies from science and 
technology programs of the Department of Defense into 
acquisition programs of the Department for the production of 
such technologies.
  (b) Objectives.--The Initiative shall have the following 
objectives:
          (1) To accelerate the introduction of new 
        technologies into appropriate acquisition programs.
          (2) To successfully demonstrate new technologies in 
        relevant environments.
          (3) To ensure that new technologies are sufficiently 
        mature for production.
  (c) Management of Initiative.--(1) The Initiative shall be 
managed by a senior official in the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense designated by the Secretary (hereinafter in this 
section referred to as the ``Manager''). In managing the 
Initiative, the Manager shall report directly to the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics.
  (2) The Secretary shall establish a board of directors 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Board''), 
composed of the acquisition executive of each military 
department, the members of the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council, and the commander of the Joint Forces Command. The 
Board shall assist the Manager in managing the Initiative.
  (3) The Secretary shall establish, under the auspices of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, a panel of highly qualified scientists and 
engineers. The panel shall advise the Under Secretary on 
matters relating to the Initiative.
  (d) Duties of Manager.--The Manager shall have following 
duties:
          (1) To identify, in consultation with the Board, 
        promising technologies that have been demonstrated in 
        science and technology programs of the Department.
          (2) To identify potential sponsors in the Department 
        to undertake the transition of such technologies into 
        production.
          (3) To work with the science and technology community 
        and the acquisition community to develop memoranda of 
        agreement, joint funding agreements, and other 
        cooperative arrangements to provide for the transition 
        of such technologies into production.
          (4) Provide funding support for projects selected 
        under subsection (e).
  (e) Jointly Funded Projects.--(1) The acquisition executive 
of each military department shall identify technology projects 
of that military department to recommend for funding support 
under the Initiative and shall submit to the Manager a list of 
such recommended projects, ranked in order of priority. Such 
executive shall identify such projects, and establish 
priorities among such projects, using a competitive process, on 
the basis of the greatest potential benefits in areas of 
interest identified by the Secretary of that military 
department.
  (2) The Manager, in consultation with the Board, shall select 
projects for funding support from among the projects on the 
lists submitted under paragraph (1). From the funds made 
available to the Manager for the Initiative, the Manager shall 
provide funds for each selected project in an amount determined 
by mutual agreement between the Manager and the acquisition 
executive of the military department concerned, but not less 
than 50 percent of the total cost of the project.
  (3) The acquisition executive of the military department 
concerned shall manage each project selected under paragraph 
(2) that is undertaken by the military department. Memoranda of 
agreement, joint funding agreements, and other cooperative 
arrangements between the science and technology community and 
the acquisition community shall be used in carrying out the 
project if the acquisition executive determines that it is 
appropriate to do so to achieve the objectives of the project.
  (f) Requirement for Program Element.--In the budget 
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the 
Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted 
with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 
31), the amount requested for activities of the Initiative 
shall be set forth in a separate program element within amounts 
requested for research, development, test, and evaluation for 
Defense-wide activities.
  (g) Definition of Acquisition Executive.--In this section, 
the term ``acquisition executive'', with respect to a military 
department, means the official designated as the senior 
procurement executive for that military department under 
section 16(3) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
(41 U.S.C. 414(3)).

Sec. 2359b. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program

  (a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry 
out a program to provide opportunities for the increased 
introduction of innovative and cost-saving technology in 
acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. The program, 
to be known as the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Challenge 
Program''), shall provide any person or activity within or 
outside the Department of Defense with the opportunity to 
propose alternatives, to be known as challenge proposals, at 
the component, subsystem, or system level of an existing 
Department of Defense acquisition program that would result in 
improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, 
or operational capability of that acquisition program.
  (b) Panel.--(1) In carrying out the Challenge Program, the 
Secretary shall establish a panel of highly qualified 
scientists and engineers (hereinafter in this section referred 
to as the ``Panel'') under the auspices of the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The duty 
of the Panel shall be to carry out evaluations of challenge 
proposals under subsection (c).
  (2) A member of the Panel may not participate in any 
evaluation of a challenge proposal under subsection (c) if at 
any time within the previous five years that member has, in any 
capacity, participated in or been affiliated with the 
acquisition program for which the challenge proposal is 
submitted.
  (c) Evaluation by Panel.--(1) Under procedures prescribed by 
the Secretary, a person or activity within or outside the 
Department of Defense may submit challenge proposals to the 
Panel.
  (2) The Panel shall carry out an evaluation of each challenge 
proposal submitted under paragraph (1) to determine each of the 
following criteria:
          (A) Whether the challenge proposal has merit.
          (B) Whether the challenge proposal is likely to 
        result in improvements in performance, affordability, 
        manufacturability, or operational capability at the 
        component, subsystem, or system level of the applicable 
        acquisition program.
          (C) Whether the challenge proposal could be 
        implemented rapidly in the applicable acquisition 
        program.
  (3) If the Panel determines that a challenge proposal 
satisfies each of the criteria specified in paragraph (2), the 
person or activity submitting that challenge proposal shall be 
provided an opportunity to submit such challenge proposal for a 
full review and evaluation under subsection (d).
  (d) Full Review and Evaluation.--(1) Under procedures 
prescribed by the Secretary, for each challenge proposal 
submitted for a full review and evaluation as provided in 
subsection (c)(3), the office carrying out the applicable 
acquisition program, and the prime system contractor carrying 
out such program, shall jointly conduct a full review and 
evaluation of the challenge proposal.
  (2) The full review and evaluation shall, independent of the 
determination of the Panel under subsection (c)(2), determine 
each of the matters specified in subparagraphs (A), (B), and 
(C) of such subsection.
  (e) Action Upon Favorable Full Review and Evaluation.--(1) 
Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, each challenge 
proposal determined under a full review and evaluation to 
satisfy each of the criteria specified in subsection (c)(2) 
shall be considered by the prime system contractor for 
incorporation into the applicable acquisition program as a new 
technology insertion at the component, subsystem, or system 
level.
  (2) The Secretary shall encourage the adoption of each 
challenge proposal referred to in paragraph (1) by providing 
suitable incentives to the office carrying out the applicable 
acquisition program and the prime system contractor carrying 
out such program.
  (f) Access to Technical Resources.--The Secretary shall 
ensure that the Panel (in carrying out evaluations of challenge 
proposals under subsection (c)) and each office and prime 
system contractor (in conducting a full review and evaluation 
under subsection (d)) have the authority to call upon the 
technical resources of the laboratories, research, development, 
and engineering centers, test and evaluation activities, and 
other elements of the Department.
  (g) Elimination of Conflicts of Interest.--In carrying out 
each evaluation under subsection (c) and full review under 
subsection (d), the Secretary shall ensure the elimination of 
conflicts of interest.
  (h) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress, with the 
submission of the budget request for the Department of Defense 
for each fiscal year during which the Challenge Program is 
carried out, a report on the Challenge Program for that fiscal 
year. The report shall include the number and scope of 
challenge proposals submitted, evaluated, subjected to full 
review, and adopted.
  (i) Sunset.--The authority to carry out this section shall 
terminate on September 30, 2007.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

           CHAPTER 141--MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS

Sec.
2381.  Contracts: regulations for bids.
     * * * * * * *
2397.  Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures.
     * * * * * * *
2403.  Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 2397. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures

  (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish 
tailored rapid acquisition and deployment procedures for items 
urgently needed to react to an enemy threat or to respond to 
significant and urgent safety situations.
  (b) Procedures.--The procedures established under subsection 
(a) shall include the following:
          (1) A process for streamlined communications between 
        the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
        acquisition community, and the testing community.
          (2) A process for expedited technical, programmatic, 
        and financial decisions.
          (3) An expedited procurement and contracting process.
  (c) Specific Steps To Be Included.--The procedures 
established under subsection (a) shall provide for the 
following:
          (1) The commander of a unified combatant command may 
        notify the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the 
        need for an item described in subsection (a) that is 
        currently under development.
          (2) The Chairman may request the Secretary of Defense 
        to use rapid acquisition and deployment procedures with 
        respect to the item.
          (3) The Secretary of Defense shall decide whether to 
        use such procedures with respect to the item and shall 
        notify the Secretary of the appropriate military 
        department of the decision.
          (4) If the Secretary of Defense decides to use such 
        procedures with respect to the item, the Secretary of 
        the military department shall prepare a funding 
        strategy for the rapid acquisition of the item and 
        shall conduct a demonstration of the performance of the 
        item.
          (5) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
        shall immediately evaluate the existing capability of 
        the item (but under such evaluation shall not assess 
        the capability of the item as regards to the function 
        the item was originally intended to perform).
          (6) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall 
        review the evaluation of the Director of Operational 
        Test and Evaluation and report to the Secretary of 
        Defense regarding whether the capabilities of the 
        tested item are able to meet the urgent need for the 
        item.
          (7) The Secretary of Defense shall evaluate the 
        information regarding funding and rapid acquisition 
        prepared pursuant to paragraph (4) and approve or 
        disapprove of the acquisition of the item using the 
        procedures established pursuant to subsection (a).
  (d) Limitation.--The quantity of items of a system procured 
using the procedures established under this section may not 
exceed the number established for low-rate initial production 
for the system, and any such items shall be counted for 
purposes of the number of items of the system that may be 
procured through low-rate initial production.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2399. Operational test and evaluation of defense acquisition 
                    programs

  (a) Condition for Proceeding Beyond Low-Rate Initial 
Production.--(1) * * *
  (2) In this subsection, the term ``major defense acquisition 
program'' [means--] means a conventional weapons system that--
          (A) [a conventional weapons system that] is a major 
        system within the meaning of that term in section 
        2302(5) of this title; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2403. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team

  The Secretary of Defense shall establish a quick-reaction 
special projects acquisition team, the purpose of which shall 
be to advise the Secretary on actions that can be taken to 
expedite the procurement of urgently needed systems. The team 
shall address problems with the intention of creating 
expeditious solutions relating to--
          (1) industrial-base issues such as the limited 
        availability of suppliers;
          (2) compliance with acquisition regulations and 
        lengthy procedures;
          (3) compliance with environmental requirements;
          (4) compliance with requirements regarding small-
        business concerns; and
          (5) compliance with requirements regarding the 
        purchase of products made in the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR 
                       INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS

Sec.
2460.  Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.
     * * * * * * *
[2469a.   Use of competitive procedures in contracting for performance 
          of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads formerly 
          performed at certain military installations.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies 
                    and reports before conversion to contractor 
                    performance

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Notification of Decision.--(1) If, as a result of the 
completion of the examinations under subsection (b)(3), a 
decision is made to change the commercial or industrial type 
function that was the subject of the analysis to performance by 
the private sector, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress a report describing that decision. The report shall 
contain the following:
          [(A) The date when the analysis of that commercial or 
        industrial type function for possible change to 
        performance by the private sector was commenced.
          [(B) An indication that the examinations required 
        under subsection (b)(3) have been completed.
          [(C) The Secretary's certification that the 
        Government calculation of the cost of performance of 
        the function by Department of Defense civilian 
        employees is based on an estimate of the most cost 
        effective manner for performance of the function by 
        Department of Defense civilian employees.
          [(D) The number of Department of Defense civilian 
        employees who were performing the function when the 
        analysis was commenced, the number of such employees 
        whose employment was terminated or otherwise affected 
        in implementing the most efficient organization of the 
        function, and the number of such employees whose 
        employment would be terminated or otherwise affected by 
        changing to performance of the function by the private 
        sector.
          [(E) The Secretary's certification that the factors 
        considered in the examinations performed under 
        subsection (b)(3), and in the making of the decision to 
        change performance, did not include any predetermined 
        personnel constraint or limitation in terms of man 
        years, end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or 
        maximum number of employees.
          [(F) The Secretary's certification that the 
        examination required by subsection (b)(3)(A) as part of 
        the analysis demonstrates that the performance of the 
        function by the private sector will result in savings 
        to the Government over the life of the contract.
          [(G) A statement of the potential economic effect of 
        the change on each affected local community, as 
        determined in the examination under subsection 
        (b)(3)(B)(ii).
          [(H) The Secretary's certification that the entire 
        analysis is available for examination.
          [(I) A schedule for completing the change to 
        performance of the function by the private sector.
  [(2) If the commercial or industrial type function to be 
changed to performance by the private sector is performed at a 
Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under 
section 2474(a) of this title or an Army ammunition plant--
          [(A) the report required by this subsection shall 
        also include a description of the effect that the 
        performance and administration of the resulting 
        contract will have on the overhead costs of the center 
        or ammunition plant, as the case may be; and
          [(B) notwithstanding paragraph (3), the change of the 
        function to contractor performance may not begin until 
        at least 60 days after the submission of the report.
  [(3) The change of the function to contractor performance may 
not begin until after the submission of the report required by 
this subsection.]
  (c) Submission of Analysis Results.--(1) Upon the completion 
of an analysis of a commercial or industrial type function 
described in subsection (a) for possible change to performance 
by the private sector, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress a report containing the results of the analysis, 
including the results of the examinations required by 
subsection (b)(3).
  (2) The report shall also contain the following:
          (A) The date when the analysis of the function was 
        commenced.
          (B) The Secretary's certification that the Government 
        calculation of the cost of performance of the function 
        by Department of Defense civilian employees is based on 
        an estimate of the most cost effective manner for 
        performance of the function by Department of Defense 
        civilian employees.
          (C) The number of Department of Defense civilian 
        employees who were performing the function when the 
        analysis was commenced and the number of such employees 
        whose employment was or will be terminated or otherwise 
        affected by changing to performance of the function by 
        the private sector or by implementation of the most 
        efficient organization of the function.
          (D) The Secretary's certification that the factors 
        considered in the examinations performed under 
        subsection (b)(3), and in the making of the decision 
        regarding changing to performance of the function by 
        the private sector or retaining performance in the most 
        efficient organization of the function, did not include 
        any predetermined personnel constraint or limitation in 
        terms of man years, end strength, full-time equivalent 
        positions, or maximum number of employees.
          (E) A statement of the potential economic effect of 
        implementing the decision regarding changing to 
        performance of the function by the private sector or 
        retaining performance in the most efficient 
        organization of the function on each affected local 
        community, as determined in the examination under 
        subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii).
          (F) A schedule for completing the change to 
        performance of the function by the private sector or 
        implementing the most efficient organization of the 
        function
          (G) In the case of a commercial or industrial type 
        function performed at a Center of Industrial and 
        Technical Excellence designated under section 2474(a) 
        of this title or an Army ammunition plant, a 
        description of the effect that the manner of 
        performance of the function, and administration of the 
        resulting contract if any, will have on the overhead 
        costs of the center or ammunition plant, as the case 
        may be.
          (H) The Secretary's certification that the entire 
        analysis is available for examination.
  (3)(A) If a decision is made to change the commercial or 
industrial type function that was the subject of the analysis 
to performance by the private sector, the change of the 
function to contractor performance may not begin until after 
the submission of the report required by paragraph (1).
  (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of a 
commercial or industrial type function performed at a Center of 
Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under section 
2474(a) of this title or an Army ammunition plant, the change 
of the function to contractor performance may not begin until 
at least 60 days after the submission of the report.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2464. Core logistics capabilities

  (a) Necessity for Core Logistics Capabilities.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) The core logistics capabilities identified under 
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall include [those capabilities that 
are necessary to maintain and repair the weapon systems] those 
logistics capabilities (including acquisition logistics, supply 
management, system engineering, maintenance, and modification 
management) that are necessary to sustain the weapon systems 
and other military equipment (including mission-essential 
weapon systems or materiel not later than four years after 
achieving initial operational capability, but excluding systems 
and equipment under special access programs, nuclear aircraft 
carriers, and commercial items described in paragraph (5)) that 
are identified by the Secretary, in consultation with the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as necessary to enable 
the armed forces to fulfill the strategic and contingency plans 
prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under 
section 153(a) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2465. Prohibition on contracts for performance of firefighting or 
                    security-guard functions

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military 
department may waive the prohibition under subsection (a) 
regarding contracting for the performance of security-guard 
functions at a military installation or facility under the 
jurisdiction of the Secretary if such functions--
          (1) are or will be performed by members of the armed 
        forces in the absence of a waiver; or
          (2) were not performed at the installation or 
        facility before September 11, 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2469a. Use of competitive procedures in contracting for 
                    performance of depot-level maintenance and repair 
                    workloads formerly performed at certain military 
                    installations

  [(a) Definitions.--In this section:
          [(1) The term ``closed or realigned military 
        installation'' means a military installation where a 
        depot-level maintenance and repair facility was 
        approved in 1995 for closure or realignment under the 
        Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part 
        A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 
        note).
          [(2) The term ``military installation'' includes a 
        former military installation that was a military 
        installation when it was approved in 1995 for closure 
        or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and 
        Realignment Act of 1990 and that has been closed or 
        realigned under the Act.
          [(3) The terms ``realignment'' and ``realigned'' mean 
        a decision under the Defense Base Closure and 
        Realignment Act of 1990 that results in both a 
        reduction and relocation of functions and civilian 
        personnel positions.
  [(b) Covered Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads.--
Except as provided in subsection (c), this section applies with 
respect to any depot-level maintenance and repair workload 
that--
          [(1) was performed as of January 1, 1997, at a 
        military installation that was approved in 1995 for 
        closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure 
        and Realignment Act of 1990 and that has been closed or 
        realigned under the Act; and
          [(2) is proposed to be converted from performance by 
        Department of Defense personnel to performance by a 
        private sector source.
  [(c) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply with respect 
to--
          [(1) a depot-level maintenance and repair workload 
        that is to be consolidated to another military 
        installation (other than a closed or realigned military 
        installation) as a result of a base closure or 
        realignment action or a decision made by the Secretary 
        concerned or the Defense Depot Maintenance Council;
          [(2) a workload necessary to maintain a core 
        logistics capability identified under section 2464 of 
        this title; or
          [(3) any contract originally entered into before 
        November 18, 1997.
  [(d) Conditions and Solicitation.--A solicitation of offers 
for the performance of any depot-level maintenance and repair 
workload described in subsection (b) may be issued, and a 
contract may be awarded pursuant to such a solicitation, only 
if the following conditions are met with respect to the 
contract and the solicitation specifically states the 
conditions:
          [(1) The source selection process used in the case of 
        the solicitation and contract permits the consideration 
        of offers submitted by private sector sources and 
        offers submitted by public sector sources.
          [(2) The source selection process used in the case of 
        the solicitation and contract requires that, in the 
        comparison of offers, there be taken into account--
                  [(A) the fair market value (or if fair market 
                value cannot be determined, the estimated book 
                value) of any land, plant, or equipment from a 
                military installation that is proposed by a 
                private offeror to be used to meet a specific 
                workload (whether these assets are provided to 
                the offeror by a local redevelopment authority 
                or by any other source approved by an official 
                of the Department of Defense); and
                  [(B) the total estimated direct and indirect 
                costs that will be incurred by the Department 
                of Defense and the total estimated direct and 
                indirect savings (including overhead) that will 
                be derived by the Department of Defense.
          [(3) The cost standards used to determine the 
        depreciation of facilities and equipment shall, to the 
        maximum extent practicable, provide identical treatment 
        to all public and private sector offerors.
          [(4) Any offeror, whether public or private, may 
        offer to perform the workload at any location or 
        locations selected by the offeror and to team with any 
        other public or private entity to perform that workload 
        at one or more locations, including a Center of 
        Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under 
        section 2474 of this title.
          [(5) No offeror may be given any preferential 
        consideration for, or in any way be limited to, 
        performing the workload in-place or at any other single 
        location.
  [(e) Contracts for Multiple Workloads.--(1) A solicitation 
may be issued for a single contract for the performance of 
multiple depot-level maintenance and repair workloads described 
in subsection (b) only if--
          [(A) the Secretary of Defense determines in writing 
        that the individual workloads cannot as logically and 
        economically be performed without combination by 
        sources that are potentially qualified to submit an 
        offer and to be awarded a contract to perform those 
        individual workloads;
          [(B) the Secretary submits to Congress a report 
        setting forth the determination together with the 
        reasons for the determination; and
          [(C) the solicitation of offers for the contract is 
        issued more than 60 days after the date on which the 
        Secretary submits the report.
  [(2) The Comptroller General shall review each report 
submitted under paragraph (1)(B) and, not later than 30 days 
after the report is submitted to Congress, shall submit to 
Congress the Comptroller General's views regarding the 
determination of the Secretary that is set forth in the report, 
together with any other findings that the Comptroller General 
considers appropriate.
  [(f) Competitive Procedures Required.--Section 2304(c)(7) of 
this title shall not be used as the basis for an exception to 
the requirement to use competitive procedures for any contract 
for a depot-level maintenance and repair workload described in 
subsection (b).
  [(g) Reviews of Competitive Procedures.--If a solicitation of 
offers for a contract for, or award of, any depot-level 
maintenance and repair workload described in subsection (b) is 
issued, the Comptroller General shall--
          [(1) within 45 days after the issuance of the 
        solicitation, review the solicitation and report to 
        Congress on whether the solicitation--
                  [(A) provides substantially equal opportunity 
                for public and private offerors to compete for 
                the contract without regard to the location at 
                which the workload is to be performed; and
                  [(B) is in compliance with the requirements 
                of this section and all applicable provisions 
                of law and regulations; and
          [(2) within 45 days after any contract or award 
        resulting from the solicitation is entered into or 
        made, review the contract or award, including the 
        contracting or award process, and report to Congress on 
        whether--
                  [(A) the procedures used to conduct the 
                competition--
                          [(i) provided substantially equal 
                        opportunity for public and private 
                        offerors to compete for the contract 
                        without regard to the location at which 
                        the workload is to be performed; and
                          [(ii) were in compliance with the 
                        requirements of this section and all 
                        applicable provisions of law and 
                        regulations;
                  [(B) appropriate consideration was given to 
                factors other than cost in the selection of the 
                source for performance of the workload; and
                  [(C) the contract or award resulted in the 
                lowest total cost to the Department of Defense 
                for performance of the workload.
  [(h) Resolution of Workload Award Objections.--Any public or 
private entity may, pursuant to procedures established by the 
Secretary, object to a solicitation of offers under this 
section for the performance of any depot-level maintenance and 
repair workload, or the award or proposed award of any workload 
pursuant to such a solicitation. The Secretary may designate a 
qualified individual or entity to review the objection; 
however, the Secretary shall not designate the Source Selection 
Authority or any individual from the same military department 
as the Source Selection Authority to review the objection. The 
Secretary shall take appropriate action to address any defect 
in the solicitation or award in the event that the objection is 
sustained.
  [(i) Oversight of Contracts Awarded Public Entities.--The 
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned may not impose 
on a public sector entity awarded a contract for the 
performance of any depot-level maintenance and repair workload 
described in subsection (b) any requirements regarding 
management systems, reviews, oversight, or reporting that are 
significantly different from the requirements used in the 
performance and management of other similar or identical depot-
level maintenance and repair workloads by the entity, unless 
the requirements are specifically provided in the solicitation 
for the contract or are necessary to ensure compliance with the 
terms of the contract.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2474. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: designation; 
                    public-private partnerships

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Exclusion of Certain Expenditures From Percentage 
Limitation.--(1) * * *
  (2) The funds referred to in paragraph (1) are funds 
available to the military departments and Defense Agencies for 
depot-level maintenance and repair workloads [for fiscal years 
2002 through 2005].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND 
                         RECREATION ACTIVITIES

Sec.
2482.  Commissary stores: operation.
     * * * * * * *
2494.  Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare, and recreation 
          programs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2492. Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access and purchase 
                    restrictions

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
Congress an annual report describing the host nation laws and 
the treaty obligations of the United States, and the conditions 
within host nations, that necessitate the use of quantity or 
other restrictions on purchases in commissary and exchange 
stores located outside the United States.]

Sec. 2493. Fisher Houses: administration as nonappropriated fund 
                    instrumentality

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(f) Special Authority for Navy.--The Secretary of the Navy 
shall provide base operating support for Fisher Houses 
associated with health care facilities of the Navy. The level 
of the support shall be equivalent to the base operating 
support that the Secretary provides for morale, welfare, and 
recreation category B community activities (as defined in 
regulations, prescribed by the Secretary, that govern morale, 
welfare, and recreation activities associated with Navy 
installations).
  [(g) Annual Report.--Not later than January 15 of each year, 
the Secretary of each military department shall submit to 
Congress a report describing the operation of Fisher Houses and 
Fisher Suites associated with health care facilities of that 
military department. The report shall include, at a minimum, 
the following:
          [(1) The amount in the fund established by that 
        Secretary under subsection (d) as of October 1 of the 
        previous year.
          [(2) The operation of the fund during the preceding 
        fiscal year, including--
                  [(A) all gifts, fees, and interest credited 
                to the fund; and
                  [(B) all disbursements from the fund.
          [(3) The budget for the operation of the Fisher 
        Houses and Fisher Suites for the fiscal year in which 
        the report is submitted.]
  (f) Base Operating Support.--The Secretary of a military 
department may provide base operating support for Fisher Houses 
associated with health care facilities of that military 
department.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2494. Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare, and 
                    recreation programs

  (a) Authority for Uniform Funding and Management.--Under 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, funds 
appropriated to the Department of Defense and available for 
morale, welfare, and recreation programs may be treated as 
nonappropriated funds and expended in accordance with laws 
applicable to the expenditures of nonappropriated funds. When 
made available for morale, welfare, and recreation programs 
under such regulations, appropriated funds shall be considered 
to be nonappropriated funds for all purposes and shall remain 
available until expended.
  (b) Conditions on Availability.--Funds appropriated to the 
Department of Defense may be made available to support a 
morale, welfare, or recreation program only if the program is 
authorized to receive appropriated fund support and only in the 
amounts the program is authorized to receive.
  (c) Conversion of Employment Positions.--(1) The Secretary of 
Defense may identify positions of employees in morale, welfare, 
and recreation programs within the Department of Defense who 
are paid with appropriated funds whose status may be converted 
from the status of an employee paid with appropriated funds to 
the status of an employee of a nonappropriated fund 
instrumentality.
  (2) The status of an employee in a position identified by the 
Secretary under paragraph (1) may, with the consent of the 
employee, be converted to the status of an employee of a 
nonappropriated fund instrumentality. An employee who does not 
consent to the conversion may not be removed from the position 
because of the failure to provide such consent.
  (3) The conversion of an employee from the status of an 
employee paid by appropriated funds to the status of an 
employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality shall be 
without a break in service for the concerned employee. The 
conversion shall not entitle an employee to severance pay, back 
pay or separation pay under subchapter IX of chapter 55 of 
title 5, or be considered an involuntary separation or other 
adverse personnel action entitling an employee to any right or 
benefit under such title or any other provision of law or 
regulation.
  (4) In this subsection, the term ``an employee of a 
nonappropriated fund instrumentality'' means an employee 
described in section 2105(c) of title 5.

 CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE 
REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 SUBCHAPTER III--PROGRAMS FOR DEVELOPMENT, APPLICATION, AND SUPPORT OF 
                         DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGIES

Sec.
2511.  Defense dual-use critical technology program.
     * * * * * * *
2520.  Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of homeland 
          security.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 2520. Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of 
                    homeland security

  The Secretary of Defense shall enter into an agreement with 
an independent, nonprofit, technology-oriented entity that has 
demonstrated the ability to facilitate the transfer of defense 
technologies, developed by both the private and public sectors, 
to aid Federal, State, and local first responders. Under the 
agreement the entity shall develop and deploy technology items 
and equipment, through coordination between Government agencies 
and private sector, commercial developers and suppliers of 
technology, that will enhance public safety and shall--
          (1) work in coordination with the InterAgency Board 
        for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability;
          (2) develop technology items and equipment that meet 
        the standardization requirements established by the 
        Board;
          (3) evaluate technology items and equipment that have 
        been identified using the standards developed by the 
        Board and other state-of-the-art technology items and 
        equipment that may benefit first responders;
          (4) identify and coordinate among the public and 
        private sectors research efforts applicable to national 
        security and homeland security;
          (5) facilitate the timely transfer of technology 
        items and equipment between public and private sources;
          (6) eliminate redundant research efforts with respect 
        to technologies to be deployed to first responders;
          (7) expedite the advancement of high priority 
        projects from research through implementation of 
        initial manufacturing; and
          (8) establish an outreach program, in coordination 
        with the Board, with first responders to facilitate 
        awareness of available technology items and equipment 
        to support crisis response.

SUBCHAPTER IV--MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2521. Manufacturing Technology Program

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Five-Year Plan.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
[prepare a five-year plan for the program which establishes--
          [(A) the overall manufacturing technology goals, 
        milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the 
        program; and
          [(B) for each of the five fiscal years covered by the 
        plan, the objectives of, and funding for the program 
        by, each military department and each Defense Agency 
        participating in the program.
  [(2) The plan shall include the following:
          [(A) An assessment of the effectiveness of the 
        program, including a description of all completed 
        projects and status of implementation.
          [(B) An assessment of the extent to which the costs 
        of projects are being shared by the following:
                  [(i) Commercial enterprises in the private 
                sector.
                  [(ii) Department of Defense program offices, 
                including weapon system program offices.
                  [(iii) Departments and agencies of the 
                Federal Government outside the Department of 
                Defense.
                  [(iv) Institutions of higher education.
                  [(v) Other institutions not operated for 
                profit.
                  [(vi) Other sources.] prepare and maintain a 
                five-year plan for the program.
  (2) The plan shall establish the following:
          (A) The overall manufacturing technology objectives, 
        milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the 
        program.
          (B) The specific objectives of, and funding for the 
        program by, each military department and each Defense 
        Agency participating in the program.
  (3) The plan shall be updated [annually] biennially and shall 
be included in the budget justification documents submitted in 
support of the budget of the Department of Defense [for a 
fiscal year] for each even-numbered fiscal year (as included in 
the budget of the President submitted to Congress under section 
1105 of title 31).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of goods other 
                    than United States goods

  (a) Limitation on Certain Procurements.--The Secretary of 
Defense may procure any of the following items only if the 
manufacturer of the item satisfies the requirements of 
subsection (b):
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Ball bearings and roller bearings.--Ball bearings 
        and roller bearings, in accordance with subpart 
        [225.71] 225.70 of part 225 of the Defense Federal 
        Acquisition Regulation Supplement, as in effect on 
        [October 23, 1992] April 27, 2002. In this section the 
        term ``ball bearings and roller bearings'' includes 
        unconventional or hybrid ball and roller bearings and 
        cam follower bearings, ball screws, and other 
        derivatives of ball and roller bearings.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER VI--DEFENSE EXPORT LOAN GUARANTEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2540. Establishment of loan guarantee program

  (a) * * *
  (b) Covered Countries.--The authority under subsection (a) 
applies with respect to the following countries:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) A country that, as determined by the Secretary of 
        Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
        assists in combatting drug trafficking organizations or 
        foreign terrorist organizations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Report.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
State, whenever the Secretaries consider such action to be 
warranted, shall jointly submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees 
on Armed Services and International Relations of the House of 
Representatives a report enumerating those countries to be 
added or removed under subsection (b).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 152--ISSUE OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2563. Articles and services of industrial facilities: sale to 
                    persons outside the Department of Defense

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Conditions for Sales.--(1) * * *
  (2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the condition in 
paragraph (1)(A) and subsection (a)(1) that an article or 
service must be not available from a United States commercial 
source in the case of a particular sale if the Secretary 
determines that the waiver is necessary for reasons of national 
security [and notifies Congress regarding the reasons for the 
waiver].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 155--ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND SERVICES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2611. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance of 
                    foreign gifts and donations

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) Notice to Congress.--If the total amount of funds 
accepted under subsection (a) in any fiscal year exceeds 
$2,000,000, the Secretary shall notify Congress of the amount 
of those donations for that fiscal year. Any such notice shall 
list each of the contributors of such amounts and the amount of 
each contribution in that fiscal year.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2634. Motor vehicles: transportation or storage for members on 
                    change of permanent station or extended deployment

  (a) * * *
  [(b)(1) In lieu of transportation authorized by this section, 
if a member is ordered to make a change of permanent station to 
a foreign country and the laws, regulations, or other 
restrictions imposed by the foreign country or the United 
States preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in 
subsection (a) into that country, or would require extensive 
modification of the vehicle as a condition to entry, the member 
may elect to have the vehicle stored at the expense of the 
United States at a location approved by the Secretary 
concerned.
  [(2) If a member is transferred or assigned in connection 
with a contingency operation to duty at a location other than 
the permanent station of the member for a period of more than 
30 consecutive days, but the transfer or assignment is not 
considered a change of permanent station, the member may elect 
to have a motor vehicle described in subsection (a) stored at 
the expense of the United States at a location approved by the 
Secretary concerned.]
  (b)(1) When a member receives a vehicle storage qualifying 
order, the member may elect to have a motor vehicle described 
in subsection (a) stored at the expense of the United States at 
a location approved by the Secretary concerned. In the case of 
a vehicle storage qualifying order that is to make a change of 
permanent station, such storage is in lieu of transportation 
authorized by subsection (a).
  (2) In this subsection, the term ``vehicle storage qualifying 
order'' means any of the following:
          (A) An order to make a change of permanent station to 
        a foreign country in a case in which the laws, 
        regulations, or other restrictions imposed by the 
        foreign country or by the United States either--
                  (i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle 
                described in subsection (a) into that country; 
                or
                  (ii) would require extensive modification of 
                the vehicle as a condition to entry.
          (B) An order to make a change of permanent station to 
        a nonforeign area outside the continental United States 
        in a case in which the laws, regulations, or other 
        restrictions imposed by that area or by the United 
        States either--
                  (i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle 
                described in subsection (a) into that area; or
                  (ii) would require extensive modification of 
                the vehicle as a condition to entry.
          (C) An order under which a member is transferred or 
        assigned in connection with a contingency operation to 
        duty at a location other than the permanent station of 
        the member for a period of more than 30 consecutive 
        days but which is not considered a change of permanent 
        station.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) In this section:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) The term ``nonforeign area outside the 
        continental United States'' means any of the following: 
        the States of Alaska and Hawaii, the Commonwealths of 
        Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and any 
        possession of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF 
                           NONEXCESS PROPERTY

Sec.
2661.  Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real 
          property.
     * * * * * * *
2684a.   Agreements to limit encroachments and other constraints on 
          military training, testing, and operations.
     * * * * * * *
2694a.   Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource 
          conservation.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 2677. Options: property required for military construction 
                    projects

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c)(1) Before acquiring an option on real property under 
subsection (a), the Secretary of a military department shall 
review the most recent inventory of real property assets 
published by the Resolution Trust Corporation under section 
21A(b)(11)(F) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 
1441a(b)(11)(F)) and determine whether any real property listed 
in the inventory is suitable for use by the military department 
for the purposes for which the real property is sought.
  [(2) The requirement for the review referred to in paragraph 
(1) shall terminate on September 30, 1996.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2680. Leases: land for special operations activities

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Reports.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the 
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on [the] 
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed 
Services of the House of Representatives a report that--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2684a. Agreements to limit encroachments and other constraints on 
                    military training, testing, and operations

  (a) Agreements Authorized.--The Secretary of a military 
department may enter into an agreement with a private entity 
described in subsection (b) to address the use or development 
of real property in the vicinity of a military installation for 
purposes of--
          (1) limiting any development or use of the property 
        that would otherwise be incompatible with the mission 
        of the installation; or
          (2) preserving habitat on the property in a manner 
        that is compatible with both--
                  (A) current or anticipated environmental 
                restrictions that would or might otherwise 
                restrict, impede, or otherwise interfere, 
                whether directly or indirectly, with current or 
                anticipated military training, testing, or 
                operations on the installation; and
                  (B) current or anticipated military training, 
                testing, or operations on the installation.
  (b) Covered Private Entities.--A private entity referred to 
in subsection (a) is any private entity that has as its stated 
principal organizational purpose or goal the conservation, 
restoration, or preservation of land and natural resources, or 
a similar purpose or goal, as determined by the Secretary 
concerned.
  (c) Inapplicability of Certain Contract Requirements.--
Chapter 63 of title 31 shall not apply to any agreement entered 
into under this section.
  (d) Acquisition and Acceptance of Property and Interests.--
(1) An agreement with a private entity under this section--
          (A) may provide for the private entity to acquire all 
        right, title, and interest in and to any real property, 
        or any lesser interest in the property, as may be 
        appropriate for purposes of this section; and
          (B) shall provide for the private entity to transfer 
        to the United States, upon the request of the United 
        States, any property or interest so acquired.
  (2) Property or interests may not be acquired pursuant to an 
agreement under this section unless the owner of the property 
or interests, as the case may be, consents to the acquisition.
  (3) An agreement under this section providing for the 
acquisition of property or interests under paragraph (1)(A) 
shall provide for the sharing by the United States and the 
private entity concerned of the costs of the acquisition of the 
property or interests.
  (4) The Secretary concerned shall identify any property or 
interests to be acquired pursuant to an agreement under this 
section. The property or interests shall be limited to the 
minimum property or interests necessary to ensure that the 
property concerned is developed and used in a manner 
appropriate for purposes of this section.
  (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
concerned may accept on behalf of the United States any 
property or interest to be transferred to the United States 
under paragraph (1)(B).
  (6) The Secretary concerned may, for purposes of the 
acceptance of property or interests under this subsection, 
accept an appraisal or title documents prepared or adopted by a 
non-Federal entity as satisfying the applicable requirements of 
section 301 of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4651) or 
section 355 of the Revised Statutes (40 U.S.C. 255) if the 
Secretary finds that the appraisal or title documents 
substantially comply with the requirements.
  (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary concerned 
may require such additional terms and conditions in an 
agreement under this section as the Secretary considers 
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
  (f) Funding.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), funds 
authorized to be appropriated for operation and maintenance of 
the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Defense-wide 
activities, including funds authorized to be appropriated for 
the Legacy Resources Management Program, may be used to enter 
into agreements under this section.
  (2) In the case of a military installation operated primarily 
with funds authorized to be appropriated for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, funds authorized to be 
appropriated for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or 
Defense-wide activities for research, development, test, and 
evaluation may be used to enter into agreements under this 
section with respect to the installation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2694a. Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource 
                    conservation

  (a) Authority to Convey.--The Secretary of a military 
department may convey to an eligible recipient described in 
subsection (b) any surplus real property that--
          (1) is under the administrative control of the 
        Secretary;
          (2) is suitable and desirable for conservation 
        purposes;
          (3) has been made available for public benefit 
        transfer for a sufficient period of time to potential 
        claimants; and
          (4) is not subject to a pending request for transfer 
        to another Federal agency or for conveyance to any 
        other qualified recipient for public benefit transfer 
        under the real property disposal processes and 
        authorities established pursuant to the Federal 
        Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
        U.S.C. 471, et seq.).
  (b) Eligible Recipients.--The conveyance of surplus real 
property under subsection (a) may be made to any of the 
following:
                  (A) A State or political subdivision of a 
                State.
                  (B) A nonprofit organization that exists for 
                the primary purpose of conservation of natural 
                resources on real property.
  (c) Revisionary Interest and Other Deed Requirements.--(1) 
The deed of conveyance of any surplus real property conveyed 
under subsection (a) disposed of under this subsection shall 
require the property to be used and maintained for the 
conservation of natural resources in perpetuity. If the 
Secretary of the military department that made the conveyance 
determines at any time that the property is not being used or 
maintained for such purpose, then, at the option of the 
Secretary, all or any portion of the property shall revert to 
the United States.
  (2) The deed of conveyance may permit the recipient of the 
property--
          (A) to convey the property to another eligible entity 
        described in subsection (b), subject to the approval of 
        the Secretary of the military department that made the 
        conveyance and subject to the same covenants and terms 
        and conditions as provided in the deed from the United 
        States; and
          (B) to conduct incidental revenue-producing 
        activities on the property that are compatible with the 
        use of the property for conservation purposes.
  (3) The deed of conveyance may contain such additional terms, 
reservations, restrictions, and conditions as the Secretary of 
the military department considers appropriate to protect the 
interests of the United States.
  (d) Release of Covenants.--The Secretary of the military 
department that conveys real property under subsection (a), 
with the concurrence of the Secretary of Interior, may grant a 
release from a covenant included in the deed of conveyance of 
the property under subsection (c) on the condition that the 
recipient of the property pay the fair market value, as 
determined by the Secretary of the military department, of the 
property at the time of the release of the covenant. The 
Secretary of the military department may reduce the amount 
required to be paid under this subsection to account for the 
value of the natural resource conservation benefit that has 
accrued to the United States during the period the covenant was 
in effect, if the benefit was not taken into account in 
determining the original consideration for the conveyance.
  (e) Limitations.--A conveyance under subsection (a) shall not 
be used in settlement of any litigation, dispute, or claim 
against the United States, or as a condition of allowing any 
defense activity under any Federal, State, or local permitting 
or review process. The Secretary of a military department may 
make a conveyance under subsection (a), with the restrictions 
specified in subsection (c), to establish a mitigation bank, 
but only if the establishment of the mitigation bank does not 
occur in order to satisfy any condition for permitting military 
activity under a Federal, State, or local permitting or review 
process.
  (f) Consideration.--In fixing the consideration for the 
conveyance of real property under subsection (a) or in 
determining the amount of any reduction of the amount to be 
paid for the release of a covenant under subsection (d), the 
Secretary of the military department concerned shall take into 
consideration any benefit that has accrued or may accrue to the 
United States from the use of such property for the 
conservation of natural resources.
  (g) Relation to Other Conveyance Authorities.--(1) The 
Secretary of a military department may not make a conveyance 
under this section of any real property to be disposed of under 
a base closure law in a manner that is inconsistent with the 
requirements and conditions of the base closure law.
  (2) In the case of real property on Guam, the Secretary of a 
military department may not make a conveyance under this 
section unless the Government of Guam has been first afforded 
the opportunity to acquire the real property as authorized by 
section 1 of Public Law 106-504 (114 Stat. 2309).
  (h) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The term ``State'' includes the District of 
        Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and the 
        territories and possessions of the United States.
  (2) The term ``base closure law'' means the following:
                  (A) Section 2687 of this title.
                  (B) Title II of the Defense Authorization 
                Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act 
                of 1988 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
                  (C) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
                Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 
                101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
                  (D) Any other similar authority for the 
                closure or realignment of military 
                installations that is enacted after the date of 
                the enactment of the National Defense 
                Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.

Sec. 2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses 
                    relating to certain real property transactions

  (a) * * *
  (b) Covered Transactions.--Subsection (a) applies to the 
following transactions involving real property under the 
control of the Secretary of a military department:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) The conveyance of real property under section 
        2694a of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 160--ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2701. Environmental restoration program

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Services of Other Agencies.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        Secretary may enter into agreements on a reimbursable 
        or other basis with any other Federal agency, [with any 
        State or local government agency, or with any Indian 
        tribe,] any State or local government agency, any 
        Indian tribe, or any nonprofit conservation 
        organization to obtain the services of the agency to 
        assist the Secretary in carrying out any of the 
        Secretary's responsibilities under this section. 
        Services which may be obtained under this subsection 
        include the identification, investigation, and cleanup 
        of any off-site contamination resulting from the 
        release of a hazardous substance or waste at a facility 
        under the Secretary's jurisdiction.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
        ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given such term in 
        section 101(36) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
        Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 
        U.S.C. 9601(36)).]
          (3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                  (A) The term ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning 
                given such term in section 101(36) of 
                Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
                Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 
                U.S.C. 9601(36)).
                  (B) The term ``nonprofit conservation 
                organization'' means any non-governmental 
                nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is 
                conservation of open space or natural 
                resources.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (k) UXO Program Manager.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
establish a program manager who shall serve as the single point 
of contact in the Department of Defense for policy and 
budgeting issues involving the characterization, remediation, 
and management of explosive and related risks with respect to 
unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and 
munitions constituents at defense sites (as such terms are 
defined in section 2710 of this title) that pose a threat to 
human health or safety.
  (2) The Secretary of Defense may delegate this authority to 
the Secretary of a military department, who may delegate the 
authority to the Under Secretary of that military department. 
The authority may not be further delegated.
  (3) The program manager may establish an independent advisory 
and review panel that may include representatives of the 
National Academy of Sciences, nongovernmental organizations 
with expertise regarding unexploded ordnance, discarded 
military munitions, or munitions constituents, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, States (as defined in section 
2710 of this title), and tribal governments. If established, 
the panel would report annually to Congress on progress made by 
the Department of Defense to address unexploded ordnance, 
discarded military munitions, or munitions constituents at 
defense sites and make such recommendations as the panel 
considered appropriate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             CHAPTER 165--ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

Sec.
2771.  Final settlement of accounts: deceased members.
     * * * * * * *
2773a.   Departmental accountable officials.
     * * * * * * *
[2784.  Management of credit cards.]
2784.  Management of purchase cards.
     * * * * * * *
2787.  Reports of survey.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 2773a. Departmental accountable officials

  (a) Designation.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may designate 
as a ``departmental accountable official'' any civilian 
employee of the Department of Defense or member of the armed 
forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction who is described in 
paragraph (2). Any such designation shall be in writing.
  (2) An employee or member of the armed forces described in 
this paragraph is an employee or member who is responsible in 
the performance of the employee's or member's duties for 
providing to a certifying official of the Department of Defense 
information, data, or services that are directly relied upon by 
the certifying official in the certification of vouchers for 
payment.
  (b) Pecuniary Liability.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may 
impose pecuniary liability on a departmental accountable 
official to the extent that an illegal, improper, or incorrect 
payment results from the information, data, or services that 
that official provides to a certifying official and upon which 
the certifying official directly relies in certifying the 
voucher supporting that payment.
  (2) The pecuniary liability of a departmental accountable 
official under this subsection for such an illegal, improper, 
or incorrect payment is joint and several with that of any 
other officials who are pecuniarily liable for such payment.
  (c) Relief from Liability.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
relieve a departmental accountable official from liability 
under subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that the 
illegal, improper, or incorrect payment was not the result of 
fault or negligence by that official.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2784. Management of credit cards

  [(a) Management of Credit Cards.--The Secretary of Defense, 
acting through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), 
shall prescribe regulations governing the use and control of 
all credit cards and convenience checks that are issued to 
Department of Defense personnel for official use. Those 
regulations shall be consistent with regulations that apply 
Government-wide regarding use of credit cards by Government 
personnel for official purposes.
  [(b) Required Safeguards and Internal Controls.--Regulations 
under subsection (a) shall include safeguards and internal 
controls to ensure the following:
          [(1) That there is a record in the Department of 
        Defense of each holder of a credit card issued by the 
        Department of Defense for official use, annotated with 
        the limitations on amounts that are applicable to the 
        use of each such card by that credit card holder.
          [(2) That the holder of a credit card and each 
        official with authority to authorize expenditures 
        charged to the credit card are responsible for--
                  [(A) reconciling the charges appearing on 
                each statement of account for that credit card 
                with receipts and other supporting 
                documentation; and
                  [(B) forwarding that statement after being so 
                reconciled to the designated disbursing office 
                in a timely manner.
          [(3) That any disputed credit card charge, and any 
        discrepancy between a receipt and other supporting 
        documentation and the credit card statement of account, 
        is resolved in the manner prescribed in the applicable 
        Government-wide credit card contract entered into by 
        the Administrator of General Services.
          [(4) That payments on credit card accounts are made 
        promptly within prescribed deadlines to avoid interest 
        penalties.
          [(5) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment 
        on credit card accounts are properly recorded.
          [(6) That records of each credit card transaction 
        (including records on associated contracts, reports, 
        accounts, and invoices) are retained in accordance with 
        standard Government policies on the disposition of 
        records.]

Sec. 2784. Management of purchase cards

  (a) Management of Purchase Cards.--The Secretary of Defense, 
acting through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), 
shall prescribe regulations governing the use and control of 
all purchase cards and convenience checks that are issued to 
Department of Defense personnel for official use. Those 
regulations shall be consistent with regulations that apply 
Government-wide regarding use of purchase cards by Government 
personnel for official purposes.
  (b) Required Safeguards and Internal Controls.--Regulations 
under subsection (a) shall include safeguards and internal 
controls to ensure the following:
          (1) That there is a record in the Department of 
        Defense of each holder of a purchase card issued by the 
        Department of Defense for official use, annotated with 
        the limitations on amounts that are applicable to the 
        use of each such card by that purchase card holder.
          (2) That the holder of a purchase card and each 
        official with authority to authorize expenditures 
        charged to the purchase card are responsible for--
                  (A) reconciling the charges appearing on each 
                statement of account for that purchase card 
                with receipts and other supporting 
                documentation; and
                  (B) forwarding that statement after being so 
                reconciled to the designated disbursing office 
                in a timely manner.
          (3) That any disputed purchase card charge, and any 
        discrepancy between a receipt and other supporting 
        documentation and the purchase card statement of 
        account, is resolved in the manner prescribed in the 
        applicable Government-wide purchase card contract 
        entered into by the Administrator of General Services.
          (4) That payments on purchase card accounts are made 
        promptly within prescribed deadlines to avoid interest 
        penalties.
          (5) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment 
        on purchase card accounts are properly recorded.
          (6) That records of each purchase card transaction 
        (including records on associated contracts, reports, 
        accounts, and invoices) are retained in accordance with 
        standard Government policies on the disposition of 
        records.
          (7) That an annual review is performed of the use of 
        purchase cards issued by the Department of Defense to 
        determine whether each purchase card holder has a need 
        for the purchase card.
          (8) That the Inspectors General of the Department of 
        Defense and the military services perform periodic 
        audits with respect to the use of purchase cards issued 
        by the Department of Defense to ensure that such use is 
        in compliance with regulations.
          (9) That appropriate annual training is provided to 
        each purchase card holder and each official with 
        responsibility for overseeing the use of purchase cards 
        issued by the Department of Defense.
  (c) Penalties for Violations.--The Secretary shall provide in 
the regulations prescribed under subsection (a)--
          (1) that procedures are implemented providing for 
        appropriate punishment of employees of the Department 
        of Defense for violations of such regulations and for 
        negligence, misuse, abuse, or fraud with respect to a 
        purchase card, including dismissal in appropriate 
        cases; and
          (2) that a violation of such regulations by a person 
        subject to chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code 
        of Military Justice) is punishable as a violation of 
        section 892 of this title (article 92 of the Uniform 
        Code of Military Justice).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2787. Reports of survey

  (a) Regulations.--Under such regulations as the Secretary of 
Defense may prescribe, any officer of the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, or Marine Corps or any civilian employee of the 
Department of Defense designated by the Secretary may act upon 
reports of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the loss, 
spoilage, unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction of, 
or damage to, property of the United States under the control 
of the Department of Defense.
  (b) Finality of Action.--Action taken under subsection (a) is 
final, except that action holding a person pecuniarily liable 
for loss, spoilage, destruction, or damage is not final until 
approved by the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER I--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2810. Construction projects for environmental response actions

  [(a) Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may 
carry out a military construction project not otherwise 
authorized by law (or may authorize the Secretary of a military 
department to carry out such a project) if the Secretary of 
Defense determines that the project is necessary to carry out a 
response action under chapter 160 of this title or under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Reponse, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).]
  (a) Authority to Carry Out Unauthorized Construction 
Projects.--The Secretary concerned may carry out a military 
construction project not otherwise authorized by law if the 
Secretary determines that the project is necessary to carry out 
a response under chapter 160 of this title or the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
  (b)[(1) When a decision is made to carry out a military 
construction project under this section, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit a report in writing to the appropriate 
committees of Congress on that decision.] Congressional 
Notification.--(1) When a decision is made to carry out a 
military construction project under this section that exceeds 
the amount specified in section 2805(b)(1) of this title, the 
Secretary concerned shall submit a report in writing to the 
appropriate committees of Congress on that decision. Each such 
report shall include--
          (A) the justification for the project and the current 
        estimate of the cost of the project; and
          (B) the justification for carrying out the project 
        under this section.
  (2) The project may then be carried out only after the end of 
the 21-day period beginning on the date the notification is 
received by such committees.
  (c) Response Defined.--In this section, the term ``response 
[action]'' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island, Hawaii

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Use of Account.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3)[(A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the Ford Island 
Improvement Account to the following funds:
          [(i) The Department of Defense Family Housing 
        Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(1) of 
        this title.
          [(ii) The Department of Defense Military 
        Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund established by 
        section 2883(a)(2) of this title.] (A) The Secretary 
        may transfer funds from the Ford Island Improvement 
        Account to the Department of Defense Housing 
        Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a) of this 
        title.
  (B) Amounts transferred under subparagraph (A) to [a fund] 
the Fund referred to in that subparagraph shall be available in 
accordance with the provisions of section 2883 of this title 
for activities authorized under subchapter IV of this chapter 
at Ford Island.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2815. Joint use military construction projects: annual evaluation

  (a) * * *
  (b) Annual Evaluation.--In the case of the budget submitted 
under section 1105 of title 31 [for fiscal year 2003 and each 
fiscal year thereafter] for any fiscal year, the Secretary of 
Defense shall include in the budget justification materials 
submitted to Congress in support of the budget a certification 
by each Secretary concerned that, in evaluating military 
construction projects for inclusion in the budget for that 
fiscal year, the Secretary concerned evaluated the feasibility 
of carrying out the projects as joint use military construction 
projects.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2828. Leasing of military family housing

  (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *
  (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), 
expenditures for the rental of housing units under subsection 
(a) (including the cost of utilities, maintenance, and 
operation) may not exceed $12,000 per unit per year, as 
adjusted from time to time under paragraph (5).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(3) In addition to the 450 units of family housing referred 
to in paragraph (1) for which the maximum lease amount is 
$25,000 per unit per year, the Secretary of the Army may lease 
not more than 800 units of family housing in Korea subject to 
that maximum lease amount.]
  (3) In addition to the 450 units of family housing referred 
to in paragraph (1) for which the maximum lease amount is 
$25,000 per unit per year, the Secretary of the Army may lease 
in Korea--
          (A) not more than 1,175 units of family housing 
        subject to that maximum lease amount; and
          (B) not more than 2,400 units of family housing 
        subject to a maximum lease amount of $35,000 per unit 
        per year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER IV--ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF 
                            MILITARY HOUSING

Sec.
2871.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
[2874.  Leasing of housing to be constructed.]
2874.  Leasing of housing.
     * * * * * * *
[2879.  Interim leases.]
     * * * * * * *
[2883.  Department of Defense Housing Funds.]
2883.  Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2871. Definitions

  In this subchapter:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) The term ``Fund'' means the [Department of 
        Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the 
        Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing 
        Improvement Fund] Department of Defense Housing 
        Improvement Fund established under section 2883(a) of 
        this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2872a. Utilities and services

  (a) * * *
  (b) Covered Utilities and Services.--The utilities and 
services that may be furnished under subsection (a) are the 
following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (11) Firefighting and fire protection services.
          (12) Police protection services.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2874. Leasing of housing to be constructed

  [(a) Build and Lease Authorized.--The Secretary concerned may 
enter into contracts for the lease of military family housing 
units or military unaccompanied housing units to be constructed 
under this subchapter.]

Sec. 2874. Leasing of housing

  (a) Lease Authorized.--(1) The Secretary concerned may enter 
into contracts for the lease of housing units that the 
Secretary determines are suitable for use as military family 
housing or military unaccompanied housing.
  (2) The Secretary concerned shall utilize housing units 
leased under paragraph (1) as military family housing or 
military unaccompanied housing, as appropriate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2875. Investments

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Congressional Notification Required.--Amounts in the 
[Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the 
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing 
Improvement Fund] Department of Defense Housing Improvement 
Fund may be used to make a cash investment under this section 
in an eligible entity only after the end of the 30-day period 
beginning on the date the Secretary of Defense submits written 
notice of, and justification for, the investment to the 
appropriate committees of Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2879. Interim leases

  [Pending completion of a project to acquire or construct 
military family housing units or military unaccompanied housing 
units under this subchapter, the Secretary concerned may 
provide for the interim lease of such units of the project as 
are complete. The term of a lease under this section may not 
extend beyond the date of the completion of the project 
concerned.]

Sec. 2880. Unit size and type

  (a) * * *
  (b) Inapplicability of Limitations on Space by Pay Grade.--
(1) * * *
  (2) The regulations prescribed under section 2856 of this 
title shall not apply to any military unaccompanied housing 
unit acquired or constructed under this subchapter [unless the 
unit is located on a military installation].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2883. Department of Defense Housing Funds

  [(a) Establishment.--There are hereby established on the 
books of the Treasury the following accounts:
          [(1) The Department of Defense Family Housing 
        Improvement Fund.
          [(2) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied 
        Housing Improvement Fund.
  [(b) Commingling of Funds Prohibited.--(1) The Secretary of 
Defense shall administer each Fund separately.
  [(2) Amounts in the Department of Defense Family Housing 
Improvement Fund may be used only to carry out activities under 
this subchapter with respect to military family housing.
  [(3) Amounts in the Department of Defense Military 
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund may be used only to 
carry out activities under this subchapter with respect to 
military unaccompanied housing.
  [(c) Credits to Funds.--(1) There shall be credited to the 
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund the 
following:
          [(A) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to that 
        Fund.
          [(B) Subject to subsection (f), any amounts that the 
        Secretary of Defense transfers, in such amounts as 
        provided in appropriation Acts, to that Fund from 
        amounts authorized and appropriated to the Department 
        of Defense for the acquisition or construction of 
        military family housing.
          [(C) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of 
        property or facilities under section 2878 of this title 
        for the purpose of carrying out activities under this 
        subchapter with respect to military family housing.
          [(D) Income derived from any activities under this 
        subchapter with respect to military family housing, 
        including interest on loans made under section 2873 of 
        this title, income and gains realized from investments 
        under section 2875 of this title, and any return of 
        capital invested as part of such investments.
          [(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy 
        transfers to that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) 
        of this title, subject to the restrictions on the use 
        of the transferred amounts specified in that section.
  [(2) There shall be credited to the Department of Defense 
Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund the following:
          [(A) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to that 
        Fund.
          [(B) Subject to subsection (f), any amounts that the 
        Secretary of Defense transfers, in such amounts as 
        provided in appropriation Acts, to that Fund from 
        amounts authorized and appropriated to the Department 
        of Defense for the acquisition or construction of 
        military unaccompanied housing.
          [(C) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of 
        property or facilities under section 2878 of this title 
        for the purpose of carrying out activities under this 
        subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied 
        housing.
          [(D) Income derived from any activities under this 
        subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied 
        housing, including interest on loans made under section 
        2873 of this title, income and gains realized from 
        investments under section 2875 of this title, and any 
        return of capital invested as part of such investments.
          [(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy 
        transfers to that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) 
        of this title, subject to the restrictions on the use 
        of the transferred amounts specified in that section.]

Sec. 2883. Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund

  (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established on the books 
of the Treasury an account to be known as the Department of 
Defense Housing Improvement Fund (in this section referred to 
as the ``Fund'').
  (b) Credits to Fund.--There shall be credited to the Fund the 
following:
          (1) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to the 
        Fund.
          (2) Subject to subsection (e), any amounts that the 
        Secretary of Defense transfers, in such amounts as are 
        provided for in appropriation Acts, to the Fund from 
        amounts authorized and appropriated to the Department 
        of Defense for the acquisition or construction of 
        military family housing or military unaccompanied 
        housing.
          (3) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of property 
        or facilities under section 2878 of this title for the 
        purpose of carrying out activities under this 
        subchapter with respect to military family housing or 
        military unaccompanied housing.
          (4) Income derived from any activities under this 
        subchapter with respect to military family housing or 
        military unaccompanied housing, income and gains 
        realized from investments under section 2875 of this 
        title, and any return of capital invested as part of 
        such investments.
          (5) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy 
        transfers to the Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of 
        this title, subject to the restrictions on the use of 
        the transferred amounts specified in that section.
  [(d)] (c) Use of Amounts in [Funds] Fund.--(1) In such 
amounts as provided in appropriation Acts and except as 
provided in subsection [(e)] (d), the Secretary of Defense may 
use amounts in the [Department of Defense Family Housing 
Improvement] Fund to carry out activities under this subchapter 
with respect to military family housing, including activities 
required in connection with the planning, execution, and 
administration of contracts entered into under the authority of 
this subchapter. The Secretary may also use for expenses of 
activities required in connection with the planning, execution, 
and administration of such contracts funds that are otherwise 
available to the Department of Defense for such types of 
expenses.
  [(2) In such amounts as provided in appropriation Acts and 
except as provided in subsection (e), the Secretary of Defense 
may use amounts in the Department of Defense Military 
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund to carry out activities 
under this subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied 
housing, including activities required in connection with the 
planning, execution, and administration of contracts entered 
into under the authority of this subchapter. The Secretary may 
also use for expenses of activities required in connection with 
the planning, execution, and administration of such contracts 
funds that are otherwise available to the Department of Defense 
for such types of expenses.]
  [(3)] (2) Amounts made available under this subsection shall 
remain available until expended. The Secretary of Defense may 
transfer amounts made available under this subsection to the 
Secretaries of the military departments to permit such 
Secretaries to carry out the activities for which such amounts 
may be used.
  [(e)] (d) Limitation on Obligations.--The Secretary may not 
incur an obligation under a contract or other agreement entered 
into under this subchapter in excess of the unobligated 
balance, at the time the contract is entered into, of the Fund 
[required to be used to satisfy the obligation].
  [(f)] (e) Notification Required for Transfers.--A transfer of 
appropriated amounts to [a Fund under paragraph (1)(B) or 
(2)(B) of subsection (c)] the Fund under subsection (b)(2) may 
be made only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on 
the date the Secretary of Defense submits written notice of, 
and justification for, the transfer to the appropriate 
committees of Congress.
  [(g)] (f) Limitation on Amount of Budget Authority.--The 
total value in budget authority of all contracts and 
investments undertaken using the authorities provided in this 
subchapter shall not exceed--
          (1) [$850,000,000] $1,700,000,000 for the acquisition 
        or construction of military family housing; and
          (2) [$150,000,000] $300,000,000 for the acquisition 
        or construction of military unaccompanied housing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle B--Army

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART I--ORGANIZATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 305--THE ARMY STAFF

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3038. Office of Army Reserve: appointment of Chief

  (a) * * *
  (b) Appointment.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary 
of Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with 
respect to the appointment of an officer as Chief of Army 
Reserve if the Secretary of the Army requests the waiver and, 
in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
          (A) the officer is qualified for service in the 
        position; and
          (B) the waiver is necessary for the good of the 
        service.
Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         CHAPTER 307--THE ARMY

Sec.
3061.  Regulations.
     * * * * * * *
3084.  Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 3084. Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade

  The Chief of the Veterinary Corps of the Army serves in the 
grade of brigadier general. An officer appointed to that 
position who holds a lower grade shall be appointed in the 
grade of brigadier general.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART III--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 403--UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 4342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution

  (a) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets of the 
Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last 
day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may 
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army under subsection 
(j). Subject to that limitation, cadets are selected as 
follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) For purposes of the limitation in subsection (a) 
establishing the aggregate authorized strength of the Corps of 
Cadets, the Secretary of the Army may for any year [(beginning 
with the 2001-2002 academic year)] permit a variance in that 
limitation by not more than one percent. In applying that 
limitation, and any such variance, the last day of an academic 
year shall be considered to be graduation day.
  (j)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the 
Secretary of the Army may prescribe annual increases in the 
cadet strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For any 
academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than 100 
cadets or such lesser number as applies under paragraph (3) for 
that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed until the 
cadet strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase may be 
prescribed for any academic year after the 2007-2008 academic 
year.
  (2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under paragraph 
(1) with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not 
later than the date on which the budget of the President is 
submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for the 
fiscal year beginning in the same year as the year in which 
that academic year begins. Whenever the Secretary prescribes 
such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall state the 
amount of the increase in the cadet strength limit and the new 
cadet strength limit, as so increased, and the amount of the 
increase in Senior Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps 
enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title.
  (3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the 
cadet strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the 
increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the total 
number of cadets enrolled in the Army Senior Reserve Officers' 
Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this title who have 
entered into an agreement under section 2104 or 2107 of this 
title.
  (4) In this subsection, the term ``cadet strength limit'' 
means the authorized maximum strength of the Corps of Cadets of 
the Academy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 4357. Acceptance of guarantees with gifts for major projects

  (a) Acceptance Authority.--[Subject to subsection (c), the 
Secretary] The Secretary of the Army may accept from a donor or 
donors a qualified guarantee for the completion of a major 
project for the benefit of the Academy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Notice of Proposed Acceptance.--The Secretary of the 
Army may not accept a qualified guarantee under this section 
for the completion of a major project until after the 
expiration of 30 days following the date upon which a report of 
the facts concerning the proposed guarantee is submitted to 
Congress.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 407--SCHOOLS AND CAMPS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 4416. Academy of Health Sciences: admission of civilians in 
                    physician assistant training program

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(f) Annual Report.--(1) Each year, the Secretary shall 
submit to Congress a report on the exchange of services under 
this section during the year. The report shall contain the 
following:
          [(A) The number of civilian students who receive 
        instruction at the Academy under this section.
          [(B) An assessment of the benefits derived by the 
        United States.
  [(2) Reports are required under paragraph (1) only for years 
during which an agreement is in effect under this section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             CHAPTER 453--ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

Sec.
4831.  Custody of departmental records and property.
     * * * * * * *
[4835.  Reports of survey.]
     * * * * * * *

[Sec. 4835. Reports of survey

  [(a) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Army may 
prescribe, any officer of the Army or any civilian employee of 
the Department of the Army designated by him may act upon 
reports of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the loss, 
spoilage, unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction of or 
damage to property of the United States under the control of 
the Department of the Army.
  [(b) Action taken under subsection (a) is final, except that 
action holding a person pecuniarily liable for loss, spoilage, 
destruction, or damage is not final until approved by the 
Secretary or the Secretary's designee. The Secretary may 
designate officers of the Army or civilian employees of the 
Department of the Army to approve such action.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART I--ORGANIZATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 506--HEADQUARTERS, MARINE CORPS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5045. Deputy Commandants

  There are in the Headquarters, Marine Corps, not more than 
[five] six Deputy Commandants, detailed by the Secretary of the 
Navy from officers on the active-duty list of the Marine Corps.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

       CHAPTER 513--BUREAUS; OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Sec. 5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief

  (a) * * *
  (b) Appointment.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary 
of Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with 
respect to the appointment of an officer as Chief of Naval 
Reserve if the Secretary of the Navy requests the waiver and, 
in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
          (A) the officer is qualified for service in the 
        position; and
          (B) the waiver is necessary for the good of the 
        service.
Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of Commander

  (a) * * *
  (b) Appointment.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary 
of Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with 
respect to the appointment of an officer as Commander, Marine 
Forces Reserve, if the Secretary of the Navy requests the 
waiver and, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART II--PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 544--TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5721. Temporary promotions of certain Navy lieutenants

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Limitation on Number of Eligible Positions.--[(1)] An 
appointment under this section may only be made for service in 
a position designated by the Secretary of the Navy for purposes 
of this section. The number of positions so designated may not 
exceed 325.
  [(2) Whenever the Secretary makes a change to the positions 
designated under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit 
notice of the change in writing to Congress.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 603--UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 6954. Midshipmen: number

  (a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen 
(determined for any year as of the day before the last day of 
the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy under subsection (h). 
Subject to that limitation, midshipmen are selected as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the 
Secretary of the Navy may prescribe annual increases in the 
midshipmen strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For 
any academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than 
100 midshipmen or such lesser number as applies under paragraph 
(3) for that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed 
until the midshipmen strength limit is 4,400. However, no 
increase may be prescribed for any academic year after the 
2007-2008 academic year.
  (2) Any increase in the midshipmen strength limit under 
paragraph (1) with respect to an academic year shall be 
prescribed not later than the date on which the budget of the 
President is submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 
31 for the fiscal year beginning in the same year as the year 
in which that academic year begins. Whenever the Secretary 
prescribes such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to 
Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall 
state the amount of the increase in the midshipmen strength 
limit and the new midshipmen strength limit, as so increased, 
and the amount of the increase in Senior Navy Reserve Officers' 
Training Corps enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 
of this title.
  (3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the 
midshipmen strength limit for an academic year may not exceed 
the increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the 
total number of midshipmen enrolled in the Navy Senior Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this 
title who have entered into an agreement under section 2104 or 
2107 of this title.
  (4) In this subsection, the term ``midshipmen strength 
limit'' means the authorized maximum strength of the Brigade of 
Midshipmen.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 6975. Acceptance of guarantees with gifts for major projects

  (a) Acceptance Authority.--[Subject to subsection (c), the 
Secretary] The Secretary of the Navy may accept from a donor or 
donors a qualified guarantee for the completion of a major 
project for the benefit of the Naval Academy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Notice of Proposed Acceptance.--The Secretary of the 
Navy may not accept a qualified guarantee under this section 
for the completion of a major project until after the 
expiration of 30 days following the date upon which a report of 
the facts concerning the proposed guarantee is submitted to 
Congress.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle D--Air Force

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART I--ORGANIZATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 805--THE AIR STAFF

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 8038. Office of Air Force Reserve: appointment of Chief

  (a) * * *
  (b) Appointment.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary 
of Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with 
respect to the appointment of an officer as Chief of Air Force 
Reserve if the Secretary of the Air Force requests the waiver 
and, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
          (A) the officer is qualified for service in the 
        position; and
          (B) the waiver is necessary for the good of the 
        service.
Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART III--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 903--UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution

  (a) The authorized strength of Air Force Cadets of the 
Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last 
day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may 
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force under 
subsection (j). Subject to that limitation, Air Force Cadets 
are selected as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (j)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the 
Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe annual increases in 
the cadet strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For 
any academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than 
100 cadets or such lesser number as applies under paragraph (3) 
for that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed until 
the cadet strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase may be 
prescribed for any academic year after the 2007-2008 academic 
year.
  (2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under paragraph 
(1) with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not 
later than the date on which the budget of the President is 
submitted to Congress under sections 1105 of title 31 for the 
fiscal year beginning in the same year as the year in which 
that academic year begins. Whenever the Secretary prescribes 
such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall state the 
amount of the increase in the cadet strength limit and the new 
cadet strength limit, as so increased, and the amount of the 
increase in Senior Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps 
enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title.
  (3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the 
cadet strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the 
increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the total 
number of cadets enrolled in the Air Force Senior Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this 
title who have entered into an agreement under section 2104 or 
2107 of this title.
  (4) In this subsection, the term ``cadet strength limit'' 
means the authorized maximum strength of Air Force Cadets of 
the Academy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 9356. Acceptance of guarantees with gifts for major projects

  (a) Acceptance Authority.--[Subject to subsection (c), the 
Secretary] The Secretary of the Air Force may accept from a 
donor or donors a qualified guarantee for the completion of a 
major project for the benefit of the Academy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Notice of Proposed Acceptance.--The Secretary of the Air 
Force may not accept a qualified guarantee under this section 
for the completion of a major project until after the 
expiration of 30 days following the date upon which a report of 
the facts concerning the proposed guarantee is submitted to 
Congress.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             CHAPTER 953--ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

Sec.
9831.  Custody of departmental records and property.
     * * * * * * *
[9835.  Reports of survey.]
     * * * * * * *

[Sec. 9835. Reports of survey

  [(a) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force 
may prescribe, any officer of the Air Force designated by him 
may act upon reports of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the 
loss, spoilage, unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction 
of or damage to property of the United States under the control 
of the Department of the Air Force.
  [(b) Action taken under subsection (a) is final, except that 
action holding a person pecuniarily liable for loss, spoilage, 
destruction, or damage is not final until approved by the 
Secretary or an officer of the Air Force designated by him.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle E--Reserve Components

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1007--ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE COMPONENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 10217. Non-dual status technicians

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Permanent Limitations on Number.--(1) * * *
  (2) [Effective October 1, 2002, the] The total number of non-
dual status technicians employed by the National Guard may not 
exceed 1,950. If at any time [after the preceding sentence 
takes effect] the number of non-dual status technicians 
employed by the National Guard exceeds the number specified in 
the limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of 
Defense shall require that the Secretary of the Army or the 
Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take immediate steps to 
reduce the number of such technicians in order to comply with 
such limitation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1011--NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 10506. Other senior National Guard Bureau officers

  (a) Additional General Officers.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (D) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary 
of Defense may waive clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) with 
respect to the appointment of an officer as Director, Army 
National Guard, or as Director, Air National Guard, if the 
Secretary of the military department concerned requests the 
waiver and, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
          (i) the officer is qualified for service in the 
        position; and
          (ii) the waiver is necessary for the good of the 
        service.
Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1201--AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 12004. Strength in grade: reserve general and flag officers in an 
                    active status

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f)(1) A general or flag officer who is on active duty but 
who is not counted under section 526(a) of this title by reason 
of section 526(b)(2)(B) of this title shall also be excluded 
from being counted under subsection (a).
  (2) This subsection shall cease to be effective on the date 
specified in section 526(b)(3) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1203--ENLISTED MEMBERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 12103. Reserve components: terms

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of 
Defense, or the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the 
Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, 
a non-prior-service person who is qualified for induction for 
active duty in an armed force and who is not under orders to 
report for induction into an armed force under the Military 
Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), except as 
provided in section 6(c)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of such Act, may 
be enlisted in the Army National Guard or the Air National 
Guard, or as a Reserve for service in the Army Reserve, Naval 
Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, or Coast 
Guard Reserve, for a term of not less than six years nor more 
than eight years. Each person enlisted under this subsection 
shall perform an initial period of active duty for training of 
not less than twelve weeks to commence insofar as practicable 
within [270 days] one year after the date of that enlistment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1209--ACTIVE DUTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 12302. Ready Reserve

  (a) * * *
  (b) To achieve fair treatment as between members in the Ready 
Reserve who are being considered for recall to duty without 
their consent, consideration shall be given to--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such policies and 
procedures as he considers necessary to carry out this 
subsection. [He shall report on those policies and procedures 
at least once a year to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
Representatives.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Whenever one or more units of the Ready Reserve are 
ordered to active duty, the President shall, on the first day 
of the second fiscal year quarter immediately following the 
quarter in which the first unit or units are ordered to active 
duty and on the first day of each succeeding six-month period 
thereafter, so long as such unit is retained on active duty, 
submit a report to the Congress regarding the necessity for 
such unit or units being ordered to and retained on active 
duty. The President shall include in each such report a 
statement of the mission of each such unit ordered to active 
duty, an evaluation of such unit's performance of that mission, 
where each such unit is being deployed at the time of the 
report, and such other information regarding each unit as the 
President deems appropriate.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 12310. Reserves: for organizing, administering, etc., reserve 
                    components

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Duties Relating to Defense Against Weapons of Mass 
Destruction.--(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) A Reserve may perform duties described in paragraph (1) 
[only--
          [(A) while assigned to the Department of Defense 
        Consequence Management Program Integration Office; or
          [(B) while assigned] only while assigned to a reserve 
        component rapid assessment element team and performing 
        those duties within the geographical limits of the 
        United States, its territories and possessions, the 
        District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1223--RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 12731. Age and service requirements

  (a) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person is 
entitled, upon application, to retired pay computed under 
section 12739 of this title, if the person--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) performed the last [eight] six years of 
        qualifying service while a member of any category named 
        in section 12732(a)(1) of this title, but not while a 
        member of a regular component, the Fleet Reserve, or 
        the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-
STATUS LIST

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1405--PROMOTIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 14301. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: general rules

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(g) A reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the 
Air Force who is in an inactive status is eligible 
(notwithstanding subsection (a)) for consideration for 
promotion to major general by a promotion board convened under 
section 14101(a) of this title if the officer--
          [(1) has been in an inactive status for less than one 
        year as of the date of the convening of the promotion 
        board; and
          [(2) had continuously served for at least one year on 
        the reserve active status list or the active duty list 
        (or a combination of both) immediately before the 
        officer's most recent transfer to an inactive status.]
  (g) Brigadier Generals.--(1) An officer who is a reserve 
component brigadier general of the Army or the Air Force who is 
not eligible for consideration for promotion under subsection 
(a) because the officer is not on the reserve active status 
list (as required by paragraph (1) of that subsection for such 
eligibility) is nevertheless eligible for consideration for 
promotion to the grade of major general by a promotion board 
convened under section 14101(a) of this title if--
          (A) as of the date of the convening of the promotion 
        board, the officer has been in an inactive status for 
        less than one year; and
          (B) immediately before the date of the officer's most 
        recent transfer to an inactive status, the officer had 
        continuously served on the reserve active status list 
        or the active-duty list (or a combination of the 
        reserve active status list and the active-duty list) 
        for at least one year.
  (2) An officer who is a reserve component brigadier general 
of the Army or the Air Force who is on the reserve active 
status list but who is not eligible for consideration for 
promotion under subsection (a) because the officer's service 
does not meet the one-year-of-continuous-service requirement 
under paragraph (2) of that subsection is nevertheless eligible 
for consideration for promotion to the grade of major general 
by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this 
title if--
          (A) the officer was transferred from an inactive 
        status to the reserve active status list during the 
        one-year period preceding the date of the convening of 
        the promotion board;
          (B) immediately before the date of the officer's most 
        recent transfer to an active status, the officer had 
        been in an inactive status for less than one year; and
          (C) immediately before the date of the officer's most 
        recent transfer to an inactive status, the officer had 
        continuously served for at least one year on the 
        reserve active status list or the active-duty list (or 
        a combination of the reserve active status list and the 
        active-duty list).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 14317. Officers in transition to and from the active-status list 
                    or active-duty list

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Effect of Transfer of Officers in Pay Grade O-7 to 
Inactive Status.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a reserve 
officer on the active-status list in the grade of brigadier 
general or rear admiral (lower half) is transferred to an 
inactive status after having been recommended for promotion to 
the grade of major general or rear admiral under this chapter, 
or after having been found qualified for Federal recognition in 
the grade of major general under title 32, but before being 
promoted, the officer shall retain promotion eligibility and, 
if otherwise qualified, may be promoted to the higher grade 
after returning to an active status.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   CHAPTER 1407--FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY 
                               SEPARATION

Sec.
14501.  Failure of selection for promotion.
     * * * * * * *
14519.  Deferment of retirement or separation for medical reasons.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical reasons

  (a) If the Secretary of the military department concerned 
determines that the evaluation of the physical condition of a 
Reserve officer and determination of the officer's entitlement 
to retirement or separation for physical disability require 
hospitalization or medical observation and that such 
hospitalization or medical observation cannot be completed with 
confidence in a manner consistent with the officer's well-being 
before the date on which the officer would otherwise be 
required to be separated, retired, or transferred to the 
Retired Reserve under this title, the Secretary may defer the 
separation, retirement, or transfer of the officer under this 
title.
  (b) A deferral under subsection (a) of separation, 
retirement, or transfer to the Retired Reserve may not extend 
for more than 30 days after completion of the evaluation 
requiring hospitalization or medical observation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 
PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   CHAPTER 1606--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED 
RESERVE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 16133. Time limitation for use of entitlement

  (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the period during 
which a person entitled to educational assistance under this 
chapter may use such person's entitlement expires (1) at the 
end of the [10-year] 14-year period beginning on the date on 
which such person becomes entitled to such assistance, or (2) 
on the date the person is separated from the Selected Reserve, 
whichever occurs first.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions 
                    officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime 
                    critical medical skill shortages

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only 
in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned 
officer before January 1, [2003] 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

SECTION 216 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 
                             1992 AND 1993

SEC. 216. MANAGEMENT OF NAVY MINE COUNTERMEASURES PROGRAMS.

  (a) Responsibility.--Subject to the authority, direction, and 
control of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology shall have the primary 
responsibility for developing and testing naval mine 
countermeasures systems during fiscal years 1996 [through 2003] 
through 2008.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle D--Other Matters

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 246. PILOT PROGRAM FOR REVITALIZING THE LABORATORIES AND TEST AND 
                    EVALUATION CENTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

  (a) Pilot Program.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may carry 
out a pilot program to demonstrate improved cooperative 
relationships with universities and other private sector 
entities for the performance of research and development 
functions, and to demonstrate improved efficiency in the 
performance of the research, development, test, and evaluation 
functions of the Department of Defense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) The Secretary may carry out the pilot program at each 
selected laboratory and center [for a period of three years 
beginning not later than March 1, 1999.] until March 1, 2008.
  (b) Reports.--(1)  * * *
  (2) [Promptly after the expiration of the period for 
participation of a laboratory or center in the pilot program, 
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a final 
report on the participation of the laboratory or center in the 
pilot program. The report shall contain] Not later than 
December 31 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
activities of the pilot program during the preceding fiscal 
year. Each such report shall contain, for each laboratory or 
center in the pilot program, the following:
          (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) Not later than March 1, 2007, the Secretary of Defense 
shall submit to the committees referred to in paragraph (2) the 
Secretary's recommendation as to whether, and to what extent, 
the authority to carry out the pilot program should be 
extended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.

  This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND 
                    ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

  (a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated 
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
2404(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property 
and carry out military construction projects for the 
installations and locations inside the United States, and in 
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
      

                                   Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Agency                           Installation or location                   Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization....................  Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland...                 $223,950,000
                                               Newport Army Depot, Indiana.........  [$191,550,000] $293,853,000
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *
                                                                                    ----------------------------
                                                   Total...........................  [$727,616,000] $829,919,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                     

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Limitation of Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation 
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out 
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) [$162,050,000] $264,353,000 (the balance of the 
        amount authorized under section 2401(a) for the 
        construction of the Ammunition Demilitarization 
        Facility at Newport Army Depot, Indiana); and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle D--Land Conveyances

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                       PART II--NAVY CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2851. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON, 
                    CALIFORNIA.

  (a) Easement Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may grant 
an easement, in perpetuity, to the Foothill/Eastern 
Transportation Corridor Agency (in this section referred to as 
the ``Agency'') over a parcel of real property at Marine Corps 
Base, Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of approximately 
340 acres to permit the recipient of the [easement to 
construct, operate, and maintain, notwithstanding any provision 
of State law to the contrary, a restricted access highway.] 
easement to construct, operate, and maintain a restricted 
access highway, notwithstanding any provision of State law that 
would otherwise prevent the Secretary from granting the 
easement or the Agency from constructing, operating, or 
maintaining the restricted access highway. The area covered by 
the easement shall include slopes and all necessary incidents 
thereto.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle D--Other Matters

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 3159. PANEL TO ASSESS THE RELIABILITY, SAFETY, AND SECURITY OF THE 
                    UNITED STATES NUCLEAR STOCKPILE.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Report.--Not later than October 1 of 1999 and 2000, and 
not later than [February 1, 2002,] February 1 of 2002 and 2003, 
the panel shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
Representatives a report setting forth its findings and 
conclusions resulting from the review and assessment carried 
out for the year covered by the report. The report shall be 
submitted in classified and unclassified form.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Termination of Panel.--The panel shall terminate [three 
years after the date of the appointment of the member 
designated as chairman of the panel.] April 1, 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 232. PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 
                    ORGANIZATION.]

SEC. 232. PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Internal DOD Reviews.--(1) The officials and elements of 
the Department of Defense specified in paragraph (2) shall on 
an ongoing basis--
          (A)  * * *
          (B) provide to the Secretary of Defense and the 
        Director of the [Ballistic Missile Defense 
        Organization] Missile Defense Agency any comments on 
        such matters as considered appropriate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Demonstration of Critical Technologies.--(1) The Director 
of the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense 
Agency shall develop a plan for ensuring that each critical 
technology for a missile defense program is successfully 
demonstrated in an appropriate environment before that 
technology enters into operational service as part of a missile 
defense program.
  (2) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of the 
Department of Defense shall monitor the development of the plan 
under paragraph (1) and shall submit to the Director of the 
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency 
any comments regarding that plan that the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation considers appropriate.
  (g) Comptroller General Assessment.--(1) At the conclusion of 
each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Comptroller General of 
the United States shall assess the extent to which the 
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency 
achieved the goals established under subsection (c) for such 
fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Annual OT&E Assessment of Test Program.--(1) The Director 
of Operational Test and Evaluation shall each year assess the 
adequacy and sufficiency of the [Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization] Missile Defense Agency test program during the 
preceding fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 602. BASIC PAY RATE FOR CERTAIN RESERVE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH 
                    PRIOR SERVICE AS AN ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT 
                    OFFICER.

  (a) Service Credit.--Section 203(d) of title 37, United 
States Code, is amended--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) by striking ``active service as a warrant officer 
        or as a warrant officer and [an] enlisted member'' and 
        inserting ``service described in paragraph (2)''; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XIV--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 1410. CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS OF OBSOLETE 
                    PROVISIONS.

  (a) Conforming Amendments.--(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) Section 1520 (24 U.S.C. 420), relating to disposition of 
effects of deceased persons and unclaimed property, is 
amended--
          (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (C) in subsection (e), by striking ``Directors'' both 
        places it appears and inserting ``Director of the 
        facility''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITION.

  (a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the 
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2002''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XXI--ARMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

  (a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated 
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property 
and carry out military construction projects for the 
installations and locations inside the United States, and in 
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

                     Army: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State              Installation or location       Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................  Anniston Army Depot.....       $5,150,000
      *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Colorado.....................  Fort Carson.............    [$66,000,000]
                                                             $67,000,000
      *         *         *         *         *         *         *
South Carolina...............  Fort Jackson............    [$65,650,000]
                                                             $68,650,000
      *         *         *         *         *         *         *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation 
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out 
under section 2101 of this Act may not exceed--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) [$41,000,000] $42,000,000 (the balance of the 
        amount authorized under section 2201(a) for 
        construction of phase 1 of a barracks complex, Nelson 
        Boulevard, at Fort Carson, Colorado);
          (4) [$36,000,000] $39,000,000 (the balance of the 
        amount authorized under section 2201(a) for 
        construction of phase 1 of a basic combat training 
        complex at Fort Jackson, South Carolina); and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XXII--NAVY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

  (a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated 
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
2204(a)(1), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real property 
and carry out military construction projects for the 
installations and locations inside the United States, and in 
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

                                         Navy: Inside the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   State                         Installation or location                   Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona....................................  Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma.                         $22,570,000
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *
                                             Naval Station, Norfolk.........         [$139,270,000] $139,550,000
                          *         *         *         *         *         *         *
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                                               Total:.......................     [$1,058,750,000] $1,059,030,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                              

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853 
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation 
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out 
under section 2201 of this Act may not exceed--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) [$33,240,000] $33,520,000 (the balance of the 
        amount authorized under section 2201(a) for replacement 
        of a pier, increment I, at Naval Station, Norfolk, 
        Virginia); and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 2814. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON REDUCTION IN LONG-TERM FACILITY 
                    MAINTENANCE COSTS.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 31, 
2005, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a 
report on the demonstration program, including the following:
          [(1) A description of all contracts that contain 
        requirements referred to in subsection (a) for the 
        purpose of the demonstration program.
          [(2) An evaluation of the demonstration program and a 
        description of the experience of the Secretary with 
        respect to such contracts.
          [(3) Any recommendations, including recommendations 
        for the termination, continuation, or expansion of the 
        demonstration program, that the Secretary considers 
        appropriate.]
  [(e)] (d) Expiration.--The authority under subsection (a) to 
include requirements referred to in that subsection in 
contracts under the demonstration program shall expire on 
September 30, 2006.
  [(f)] (e) Funding.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
the Army for a fiscal year for military construction shall be 
available for the demonstration program under this section in 
such fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   TITLE XXX--REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND 
PREPARATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 3007. TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Other Clarifying Amendments.--(1) That Act is further 
amended by inserting ``or realignment'' after ``closure'' each 
place it appears in the following provisions:
          (A) Section 2905(b)(3).
          (B) Section 2905(b)(5).
          (C) Section [2905(b)(7)(B)(iv)] 2905(b)(7)(C)(iv).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle D--Department of Defense Industrial Facilities

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 343. ARSENAL SUPPORT PROGRAM INITIATIVE.

  (a) Demonstration Program Required.--To help maintain the 
viability of the Army manufacturing arsenals and the unique 
capabilities of these arsenals to support the national security 
interests of the United States, the Secretary of the Army shall 
carry out a demonstration program under this section during 
fiscal years 2001 [and 2002] through 2004 at each manufacturing 
arsenal of the Department of the Army.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Reporting Requirements.--(1) Not later than July 1 of 
each year in which a guarantee issued under subsection (d) is 
in effect, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a 
report specifying the amounts of loans guaranteed under such 
subsection during the preceding calendar year. No report is 
required after fiscal year [2002] 2004.
  (2) [Not later than July 1, 2001, the Secretary of the Army 
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
on the implementation of the demonstration program.] Not later 
than July 1, 2003, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to 
the congressional defense committees a report on the results of 
the demonstration program since its implementation, including 
the Secretary's views regarding the benefits of the program for 
Army manufacturing arsenals and the Department of the Army and 
the success of the program in achieving the purposes specified 
in subsection (b). The report shall contain a comprehensive 
review of contracting at the Army manufacturing arsenals 
covered by the program and such recommendations as the 
Secretary considers appropriate regarding changes to the 
program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle G--Other Matters

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 577. NATIONAL GUARD CHALLENGE PROGRAM.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Sources of Federal Support.--Subsection (b) of such 
section is amended--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) by striking ``, except that [Federal] Department 
        of Defense expenditures under the program may not 
        exceed $62,500,000 for any fiscal year''; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 612. INCREASE IN MONTHLY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS OF 
                    PRECOMMISSIONING PROGRAMS.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Conforming and Stylistic Amendments.--Section 209 of such 
title is further amended--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) in subsection (d)--
                  (A)  * * *
                  (B) by striking ``the same rate as that 
                prescribed by subsection (a)[,]'' and inserting 
                ``a monthly rate prescribed under subsection 
                (a)''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
MATTERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle B--Information Technology

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 814. NAVY-MARINE CORPS INTRANET.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Phased Implementation.--(1)  * * *
  (2) Not more than 15 percent of the total number of work 
stations to be [provided] ordered under the Navy-Marine Corps 
Intranet program may be [provided] ordered in the first 
increment of implementation of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet 
contract.
  (3) No work stations in excess of the number permitted by 
paragraph (2) may be [provided] ordered under the program 
until--
          (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Duration of Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract.--
Notwithstanding section 2306c of title 10, United States Code, 
the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract may have a term in 
excess of five years, but not more than seven years.
  [(i)] (j) Definitions.--(1) In this section, the term ``Navy-
Marine Corps Intranet contract'' means a contract providing for 
a long-term arrangement of the Department of the Navy with the 
commercial sector that imposes on the contractor a 
responsibility for, and transfers to the contractor the risk 
of, providing and managing the significant majority of desktop, 
server, infrastructure, and communication assets and services 
of the Department of the Navy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER 
SOVIET UNION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 1308. REPORTS ON ACTIVITIES AND ASSISTANCE UNDER COOPERATIVE 
                    THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Matters To Be Included.--The report under subsection (a) 
in a year shall set forth the following:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) To the maximum extent practicable, a description 
        of how revenue generated by activities carried out 
        under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in 
        recipient States is being utilized, monitored, and 
        accounted for.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 3132. ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY 
                    ADMINISTRATION AND BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 
                    ORGANIZATION.]

SEC. 3132. ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY 
                    ADMINISTRATION AND MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Requirements for Projects.--The projects referred to in 
subsection (a) shall--
          (1) be carried out by the National Nuclear Security 
        Administration and the [Ballistic Missile Defense 
        Organization] Missile Defense Agency; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Participation by NNSA in Certain [BMDO] MDA Activities.--
The Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Director of the 
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency 
shall implement mechanisms that increase the cooperative 
relationship between those organizations. Those mechanisms may 
include participation by personnel of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration in the following activities of the 
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense 
Agency:
          (1) Peer reviews of technical efforts.
          (2) Activities of so-called ``red teams''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 233. COOPERATIVE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM.

  (a) Requirement for New Program Element.--The Secretary of 
Defense shall establish a program element for the [Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency, to be 
referred to as the ``Cooperative Ballistic Missile Defense 
Program'', to support technical and analytical cooperative 
efforts between the United States and other nations that 
contribute to United States ballistic missile defense 
capabilities. Except as provided in subsection (b), all 
international cooperative ballistic missile defense programs of 
the Department of Defense shall be budgeted and administered 
through that program element.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Relationship to Other Program Elements.--The program 
element established pursuant to subsection (a) is in addition 
to the program elements for activities of the [Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency required 
under section 251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 233; 10 U.S.C. 
221 note).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 644. ANNUITIES FOR CERTAIN MILITARY SURVIVING SPOUSES.

  (a) Survivor Annuity.--(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay 
an annuity to the qualified surviving spouse of each member of 
the uniformed services who--
          (A) became entitled to retired or retainer pay before 
        September 21, 1972, died before March 21, 1974, and was 
        entitled to retired or retainer pay on the date of 
        death; or
          (B) [was a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
        Forces] died before October 1, 1978, and at the time of 
        his death would have been entitled to retired pay under 
        chapter 67 of title 10, United States Code (as in 
        effect before December 1, 1994), but for the fact that 
        he was under 60 years of age.
  (2) A qualified surviving spouse for purposes of this section 
is a surviving spouse who has not remarried [and who is not 
eligible for an annuity under section 4 of Public Law 92-425 
(10 U.S.C. 1448 note)].
  (b) Amount of Annuity.--(1) An annuity under this section 
shall be paid at the rate of [$165] $185.58 per month, as 
adjusted from time to time under paragraph (3).
  [(2) An annuity paid to a surviving spouse under this section 
shall be reduced by the amount of any dependency and indemnity 
compensation (DIC) to which the surviving spouse is entitled 
under section 1311(a) of title 38, United States Code.]
  (2) The amount of an annuity to which a surviving spouse is 
entitled under this section for any period shall be reduced 
(but not below zero) by any amount paid to that surviving 
spouse for the same period under any of the following 
provisions of law:
          (A) Section 1311(a) of title 38, United States Code 
        (relating to dependency and indemnity compensation 
        payable by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs).
          (B) Chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code.
          (C) Section 4 of Public Law 92-425 (10 U.S.C. 1448 
        note).
  (3) Whenever after [the date of the enactment of this Act] 
May 1, 2002, retired or retainer pay is increased under section 
1401a(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, each annuity that 
is payable under this section shall be increased at the same 
time and by the same total percent. [The amount of the increase 
shall be based on the amount of the monthly annuity payable 
before any reduction under this section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
          (1)  * * *
          (2) The term ``surviving spouse'' has the meaning 
        given [the terms ``widow'' and ``widower'' in 
        paragraphs (7) and (8)] such term in paragraph (9) of 
        section 1447 of title 10, United States Code.
  (e) Prospective Applicability.--(1) Annuities under this 
section shall be paid for months beginning after [the month in 
which this Act is enacted] November 1997.
  (2) No benefit shall accrue to any person by reason of the 
enactment of this section for any period before [the first 
month that begins after the month in which this Act is enacted] 
December 1997.
  (3) In the case of a person entitled to an annuity under this 
section who applies for the annuity after the date of the 
enactment of this paragraph, such annuity shall be paid only 
for months beginning after the date on which such application 
is submitted.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 234. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE ARCHITECTURE.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Program Accountability Report.--(1) As part of the annual 
report of the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile 
Defense Agency required by section 224 of Public Law 101-189 
(10 U.S.C. 2431 note), the Secretary of Defense shall describe 
the technical milestones, the schedule, and the cost of each 
phase of development and acquisition (together with total 
estimated program costs) for each core and follow-on theater 
missile defense program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 3131. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT PROGRAM RELATING TO FISSILE MATERIALS.

  [(a) Authority.--]The Secretary of Energy may conduct 
programs designed to improve the protection, control, and 
accountability of fissile materials in Russia.
  [(b) Semi-Annual Reports on Obligation of Funds.--(1) Not 
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
and thereafter not later than April 1 and October 1 of each 
year, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report 
on each obligation during the preceding six months of funds 
appropriated for a program described in subsection (a).
  [(2) Each such report shall specify--
          [(A) the activities and forms of assistance for which 
        the Secretary of Energy has obligated funds;
          [(B) the amount of the obligation;
          [(C) the activities and forms of assistance for which 
        the Secretary anticipates obligating funds during the 
        six months immediately following the report, and the 
        amount of each such anticipated obligation; and
          [(D) the projected involvement (if any) of any 
        department or agency of the United States (in addition 
        to the Department of Energy) and of the private sector 
        of the United States in the activities and forms of 
        assistance for which the Secretary of Energy has 
        obligated funds referred to in subparagraph (A).]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 235. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE MASTER PLAN.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) TMD Master Plan.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit 
to Congress a report (which shall constitute the TMD master 
plan) containing a thorough and complete analysis of the future 
of theater missile defense programs. The report shall include 
the following:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) An evaluation of the cost and relative 
        effectiveness of each interceptor and sensor under 
        development as part of a Theater Missile Defense system 
        by the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile 
        Defense Agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 243. TRANSFER OF FOLLOW-ON TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive the provisions 
of subsection (a) in the case of a particular program, project, 
or activity if the Secretary certifies to the congressional 
defense committees that it is in the national security interest 
of the United States to provide management and budget 
responsibility for that program, project, or activity through 
the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense 
Agency.
  (c) Report Required.--As a part of the report required by 
section 231(e), the Secretary shall submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report identifying--
          (1) each program, project, and activity with respect 
        to which the Secretary has transferred management and 
        budget responsibility from the [Ballistic Missile 
        Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency in 
        accordance with subsection (a);

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

               SECTION 3 OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

  Sec. 3. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c)(1) Section 2 shall not apply to the incidental taking of 
a migratory bird by a member of the Armed Forces during a 
military readiness activity authorized by the Secretary of 
Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned.
  (2)(A) In this subsection, the term ``military readiness 
activity'' includes--
          (i) all training and operations of the Armed Forces 
        that relate to combat; and
          (ii) the adequate and realistic testing of military 
        equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper 
        operation and suitability for combat use.
  (B) The term does not include--
          (i) the routine operation of installation operating 
        support functions, such as administrative offices, 
        military exchanges, commissaries, water treatment 
        facilities, storage facilities, schools, housing, motor 
        pools, laundries, morale, welfare, and recreation 
        activities, shops, and mess halls;
          (ii) the operation of industrial activities; or
          (iii) the construction or demolition of facilities 
        used for a purpose described in clause (i) or (ii).
                              ----------                              

            SECTION 4 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973

       determination of endangered species and threatened species

  Sec. 4. (a) General.--(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3)(A) The Secretary, by regulation promulgated in accordance 
with subsection (b) and to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable--
          [(A)] (i) shall, concurrently with making a 
        determination under paragraph (1) that a species is an 
        endangered species or a threatened species, designate 
        any habitat of such species which is then considered to 
        be critical habitat; and
          [(B)] (ii) may, from time-to-time thereafter as 
        appropriate, revise such designation.
  (B)(i) The Secretary may not designate as critical habitat 
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by 
the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are 
subject to an integrated natural resources management plan 
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), 
if the Secretary determines that such plan addresses special 
management considerations or protection (as those terms are 
used in section 3(5)(A)(i)).
  (ii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the requirement to 
consult under section 7(a)(2) with respect to an agency action 
(as that term is defined in that section).
  (iii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the obligation of 
the Department of Defense to comply with section 9 of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, including the prohibition 
preventing extinction and taking of endangered species and 
threatened species.
  (b) Basis for Determinations.--(1)  * * *
  (2) The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make 
revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the 
best scientific data available and after taking into 
consideration the economic impact, the impact on national 
security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude 
any area from critical habitat if he determines that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweight the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he 
determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

SECTION 7 OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OVERSEAS TEACHERS PAY AND PERSONNEL 
                             PRACTICES ACT

               quarters, quarters allowances, and storage

  Sec. 7. (a)  * * *
  (b) Each teacher (other than a teacher employed in a 
substitute capacity) shall be entitled, for each school year 
for which he performs services as a teacher, to quarters or a 
quarters allowance equal to those authorized by [the Act of 
June 26, 1930 (5 U.S.C. 118a)] section 5912 of title 5, United 
States Code. If the teacher is unaccompanied by dependents and 
is required to reside on a United States military installation 
in an overseas area, the teacher may receive a quarters 
allowance to reside in excess family housing at the 
installation notwithstanding the availability single room 
housing at the installation.
  (c) Each teacher (other than a teacher employed in a 
substitute capacity) who is performing services as a teacher at 
the close of a school year and agrees in writing to serve as a 
teacher for the next school year may be authorized, for the 
recess period immediately preceding such next school year--
          (1) quarters or a quarters allowance equal to those 
        authorized by [the Act of June 26, 1930 (5 U.S.C. 
        118a)] section 5912 of title 5, United States Code, or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

     SECTION 1402 OF THE DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION ACT OF 1978

         establishment of defense dependents' education system

  Sec. 1402. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1) The Secretary of Defense may provide optional summer 
school programs in the defense dependents' education system.
  [(2) The Secretary shall provide in regulations for fees to 
be charged for the students enrolling in a summer school 
program under this subsection in amounts determined on the 
basis of family income.]
  (2) Individuals eligible to receive a free public education 
under subsection (a) may enroll without charge in a summer 
school program offered under this subsection. Students who are 
required under section 1404 to pay tuition to enroll in a 
school of the defense dependents' education system shall also 
be charged a fee, at a rate established by the Secretary, to 
attend a course offered as part of the summer school program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         CHAPTER 1--DEFINITIONS

Sec. 101. Definitions

  In addition to the definitions in sections 1-5 of title 1, 
the following definitions apply in this title:
          (1) The term ``United States'', in a geographical 
        sense, means the States and the District of Columbia. 
        The term ``continental United States'' means the 48 
        contiguous States and the District of Columbia.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of 
                    active duty

      (a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in 
subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1, 
1989, and ending on December 31, [2002] 2003, executes a 
written agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service 
for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement 
by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as 
provided in this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses

      (a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a 
registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on 
November 29, 1989, and ending on December 31, [2002] 2003, 
executes a written agreement described in subsection (c) to 
accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for 
a period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance 
of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an 
accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary 
concerned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists

      (a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in 
subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November 
29, 1989, and ending on December 31, [2002] 2003, executes a 
written agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one 
year or more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the 
Secretary concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount 
not to exceed $15,000 for any 12-month period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in 
                    critically short wartime specialties

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under 
this section may be entered into after December 31, [2002] 
2003.

Sec. 302h. Special pay: accession bonus for dental officers

  (a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a 
graduate of an accredited dental school and who, during the 
period beginning on September 23, 1996, and ending on December 
31, [2002] 2003, executes a written agreement described in 
subsection (c) to accept a commission as an officer of the 
armed forces and remain on active duty for a period of not less 
than four years may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by 
the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession bonus in an 
amount determined by the Secretary concerned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 302j. Special pay: accession bonus for pharmacy officers

  (a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--A person who is a graduate 
of an accredited pharmacy school and who, during the period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Floyd D. Spence 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 and 
ending on September 30, 2004, executes a written agreement 
described in subsection [(c)] (d) to accept a commission as an 
officer of a uniformed service and remain on active duty for a 
period of not less than 4 years may, upon acceptance of the 
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession 
bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary concerned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 305. Special pay: hardship duty pay

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Duty in Certain Locations.--(1) In the case of duty at a 
location described in paragraph (2) at any time during a month, 
the member of a uniformed service performing that duty is 
entitled to special pay under this section at a monthly rate of 
not less than $240, but not to exceed the monthly rate 
specified in subsection (a). For each day of that duty during 
the month, the member shall receive an amount equal to \1/30\ 
of the monthly rate prescribed under this subsection.
  (2) Paragraph (1) applies with respect to duty performed on 
the ground in Antarctica or on the Arctic icepack.
  [(b)] (c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
prescribe regulations for the provision of hardship duty pay 
under subsection (a), including the specific monthly rates at 
which the special pay will be available.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to 
any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty 
reenlistment, in the armed forces entered into after December 
31, [2002] 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected 
                    Reserve

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under 
this section to any enlisted member who, after December 31, 
[2002] 2003, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in 
a reserve component.

Sec. 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted 
member who, after December 31, [2002] 2003, enlists in the 
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve 
                    assigned to certain high priority units

      (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this 
section for inactive duty performed after December 31, [2002] 
2003.

Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for 
a reserve obligation agreement entered into after December 31, 
[2002] 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or 
                    voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of 
                    the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Termination of Authority.--A bonus may not be paid under 
this section to any person for a reenlistment, enlistment, or 
voluntary extension of an enlistment after December 31, [2002] 
2003.

Sec. 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Bonus Amounts; Payment.--(1) The amount of a bonus under 
this section may not exceed--
          (A) [$5,000] $8,000, in the case of a person who 
        enlists for a period of six years;
          (B) [$2,500] $4,000, in the case of a person who, 
        having never received a bonus under this section, 
        enlists for a period of three years; and
          (C) [$2,000] $3,500, in the case of a person who, 
        having received a bonus under this section for a 
        previous three-year enlistment, reenlists or extends 
        the enlistment for an additional period of three years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under 
this section to any person for an enlistment after December 31, 
[2002] 2003.

Sec. 309. Special pay: enlistment bonus

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Duration of Authority.--No bonus shall be paid under this 
section with respect to any enlistment in the armed forces made 
after December 31, [2002] 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of 
                    active duty

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in 
the case of officers who, on or before December 31, [2002] 
2003, execute the required written agreement to remain in 
active service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in 
the case of officers who, on or before December 31, [2002] 
2003, have been accepted for training for duty in connection 
with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval 
nuclear propulsion plants.

Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service 
year'' is any fiscal year beginning before December 31, [2002] 
2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 314. Special pay or bonus: qualified enlisted members extending 
                    duty at designated locations overseas

  (a) Covered Members.--This section applies with respect to an 
enlisted member of an armed force who--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) has completed a tour of duty (as defined in 
        accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary 
        concerned) at a location outside [the 48 contiguous 
        States and the District of Columbia] the continental 
        United States that is designated by the Secretary 
        concerned for the purposes of this section; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified in a 
                    critical military skill

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Maximum Bonus Amount.--(1) A member may enter into an 
agreement under this section, or reenlist or voluntarily extend 
the member's enlistment, more than once to receive a bonus 
under this section. However, a member may not receive a total 
of more than $200,000 in payments under this section.
  (2) The limitation in paragraph (1) on the total bonus 
payments that a member may receive under this section does not 
apply with respect to an officer who is assigned duties as a 
health care provider.
  (e) Certain Members Ineligible.--(1) A retention bonus may 
not be provided under subsection (a) to a member of the armed 
forces who--
          [(1)] (A) has completed more than 25 years of active 
        duty; or
          [(2)] (B) will complete the member's twenty-fifth 
        year of active duty before the end of the period of 
        active duty for which the bonus is being offered.
  (2) The limitations in paragraph (1) do not apply with 
respect to an officer who is assigned duties as a health care 
provider during the period of active duty for which the bonus 
is being offered.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Termination of Bonus Authority.--No bonus may be paid 
under this section with respect to any reenlistment, or 
voluntary extension of an enlistment, in the armed forces 
entered into after December 31, [2002] 2003, and no agreement 
under this section may be entered into after that date.

Sec. 324. Special pay: accession bonus for new officers in critical 
                    skills

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Designation of Critical Officer Skills.--[(1)] The 
Secretary concerned shall designate the critical officer skills 
for the purposes of this section. A skill may be designated as 
a critical officer skill for an armed force under this 
subsection if--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Termination of Authority.--No agreement under this 
section may be entered into after December 31, [2002] 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 403. Basic allowance for housing

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Basic Allowance for Housing Outside the United States.--
(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) In the case of a member who is assigned to duty outside 
of the United States, the location or the circumstances of 
which make it necessary that the member be reassigned under the 
conditions of low-cost or no-cost permanent change of station 
or permanent change of assignment, the member may be treated as 
if the member were not reassigned if the Secretary concerned 
determines that it would be inequitable to base the member's 
entitlement to, and amount of, a basic allowance for housing on 
the cost of housing in the area to which the member is 
reassigned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 403b. Cost-of-living allowance in the continental United States

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Other Definitions.--In this section:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(6) The term ``continental United States'' means the 
        48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 409. Travel and transportation allowances: house trailers and 
                    mobile homes

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) In this section, the term ``continental United States'' 
means the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 411b. Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in 
                    connection with leave between consecutive overseas 
                    tours

  [(a)(1)] (a) Allowances Authorized.--Under uniform 
regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, a member 
of a uniformed service stationed outside [the 48 contiguous 
States and the District of Columbia] the continental United 
States who is ordered to a consecutive tour of duty at the same 
duty station or who is ordered to make a change of permanent 
station to another duty station outside [the 48 contiguous 
States and the District of Columbia] the continental United 
States may be paid travel and transportation allowances in 
connection with authorized leave from his last duty station to 
a place approved by the Secretary concerned, and from that 
place to his designated post of duty. Such allowances may be 
paid for the member and for the dependents of the member who 
are authorized to, and do, accompany him at his duty stations.
  [(2) Under the regulations referred to in paragraph (1), a 
member may defer the travel for which the member is paid travel 
and transportation allowances under such paragraph until not 
more than one year after the date on which the member begins 
the consecutive tour of duty at the same duty station or 
reports to another duty station under the order involved, as 
the case may be. If the member is unable to undertake the 
travel before the end of such one-year period as a result of 
duty in connection with a contingency operation, the member may 
defer the travel for one additional year beginning on the date 
the duty of the member in connection with the contingency 
operation ends.]
  (b) Authority to Defer Travel; Limitations.--(1) Under the 
regulations referred to subsection (a), a member may defer the 
travel for which the member is paid travel and transportation 
allowances under this section until anytime before the 
completion of the consecutive tour at the same duty station or 
the completion of the tour of duty at the new duty station 
under the order involved, as the case may be.
  (2) If a member is unable to undertake the travel before 
expiration of the deferral period under paragraph (1) because 
of duty in connection with a contingency operation, the member 
may defer the travel until not more than one year after the 
date on which the member's duty in connection with the 
contingency operation ends.
  [(b) The allowances] (c) Limitation on Allowance Rate.-- 
prescribed under this section may not exceed the rate 
authorized under section 404(d) of this title. Authorized 
travel under this section is performed in a duty status.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 411d. Travel and transportation allowances: transportation 
                    incident to personal emergencies for certain 
                    members and dependents

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) In this section, the term ``continental United States'' 
means the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of members 
                    stationed overseas

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      [(f) Definitions.--In this section:
          [(1) The term ``continental United States'' means the 
        48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
          [(2) The term ``formal education'' means the 
        following:
                  [(A) A secondary education.
                  [(B) An undergraduate college education.
                  [(C) A graduate education pursued on a full-
                time basis at an institution of higher 
                education (as defined in section 101 of the 
                Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)).
                  [(D) Vocational education pursued on a full-
                time basis at a post-secondary vocational 
                institution (as defined in section 102(c) of 
                the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
                1002(c))).]
  (f) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) The term ``formal education'' means the 
        following:
                  (A) A secondary education.
                  (B) An undergraduate college education.
                  (C) A graduate education pursued on a full-
                time basis at an institution of higher 
                education.
                  (D) Vocational education pursued on a full-
                time basis at a postsecondary vocational 
                institution.
          (2) The term ``institution of higher education'' has 
        the meaning given that term in section 101 of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
          (3) The term ``postsecondary vocational institution'' 
        has the meaning given that term in section 102(c) of 
        the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(c)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 19--ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1007. Deductions from pay

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) The amount of any damage, or cost of repairs, to arms or 
equipment caused by the abuse or negligence of a member of the 
[Army or the Air Force] Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, 
as the case may be, who had the care of, or was using, the 
property when it was damaged, shall be deducted from his pay.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (i)(1) There shall be deducted each month from the pay of 
each enlisted member, warrant officer, and limited duty officer 
of the armed forces on active duty [an amount (determined under 
paragraph (3)) not to exceed $1.00.] an amount equal to $1.00 
and such additional amount as may be determined under paragraph 
(3).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (3) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the 
Armed Forces Retirement Home Board, shall determine from time 
to time [the amount] the additional amount to be deducted under 
paragraph (1) from the pay of enlisted members, warrant 
officers, and limited duty officers on the basis of the 
financial needs of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. [The 
amount] The additional amount to be deducted may be fixed at 
different amounts on the basis of grade or length of service, 
or both.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

   SECTION 8003 OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

SEC. 8003. PAYMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE FEDERALLY CONNECTED CHILDREN.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Basic Support Payments and Payments With Respect to 
Fiscal Years in Which Insufficient Funds Are Appropriated.--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) Basic Support Payments for Heavily Impacted Local 
        Educational Agencies.--
                  (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (H) Eligibility for heavily impacted local 
                educational agencies affected by privatization 
                of military housing.--
                          (i) Eligibility.--For any fiscal year 
                        beginning with fiscal year 2003, a 
                        heavily impacted local educational 
                        agency that received a basic support 
                        payment under subparagraph (A) for the 
                        prior fiscal year, but is ineligible 
                        for such payment for the current fiscal 
                        year under subparagraph (B) or (C), as 
                        the case may be, by reason of the 
                        conversion of military housing units to 
                        private housing described in clause 
                        (iii), shall be deemed to meet the 
                        eligibility requirements under 
                        subparagraph (B) or (C), as the case 
                        may be, for the period during which the 
                        housing units are undergoing such 
                        conversion.
                          (ii) Amount of payment.--The amount 
                        of a payment to a heavily impacted 
                        local educational agency for a fiscal 
                        year by reason of the application of 
                        clause (i), and calculated in 
                        accordance with subparagraph (D) or (E) 
                        (as the case may be), shall be based on 
                        the number of children in average daily 
                        attendance in the schools of such 
                        agency for the fiscal year.
                          (iii) Conversion of military housing 
                        units to private housing described.--
                        For purposes of clause (i), 
                        ``conversion of military housing units 
                        to private housing'' means the 
                        conversion of military housing units to 
                        private housing units pursuant to 
                        subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 
                        10, United States Code, or pursuant to 
                        any other related provision of law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

     SECTION 9 OF THE RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT

               NUTRITIONAL AND OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

  Sec. 9. (a)  * * *
  (b)(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) Any child who is a member of a household whose income, at 
the time the application is submitted, is at an annual rate 
which does not exceed the applicable family size income level 
of the income eligibility guidelines for free lunches, as 
determined under paragraph (1), shall be served a free lunch. 
Any child who is a member of a household whose income, at the 
time the application is submitted, is at an annual rate greater 
than the applicable family size income level of the income 
eligibility guidelines for free lunches, as determined under 
paragraph (1), but less than or equal to the applicable family 
size income level of the income eligibility guidelines for 
reduced price lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), shall 
be served a reduced price lunch. The price charged for a 
reduced price lunch shall not exceed 40 cents. For the one-year 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this sentence, 
the amount of a basic allowance provided under section 403 of 
title 37, United States Code, on behalf of an individual who is 
a member of the uniformed services for housing that is acquired 
or constructed under the authority of subchapter IV of chapter 
169 of title 10, United States Code, or any other related 
provision of law, shall not be considered to be income for 
purposes of determining the eligibility of a child of the 
individual for free or reduced price lunches under this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          CHAPTER 3--PERSONNEL

Sec.
301.  Federal recognition of enlisted members.
     * * * * * * *
[327.  General courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
[328.  Special courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
[329.  Summary courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
[330.  Confinement instead of fine.
[331.  Dismissal or dishonorable discharge.
[332.  Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses.
[333.  Execution of process and sentence.]
327.  Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: convening 
          authority.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 326. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: 
                    composition, jurisdiction, and procedures

  In the National Guard not in Federal service, there are 
general, special, and summary courts-martial constituted like 
similar courts of the Army and the Air Force. They have the 
jurisdiction and powers, except as to punishments, and shall 
follow the forms and procedures, provided for those courts. 
Punishments shall be as provided by the laws of the respective 
States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of 
Columbia.

[Sec. 327. General courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal 
                    service

  [(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general 
courts-martial may be convened by the President or by the 
governor of a State or Territory, Puerto Rico or by the 
commanding general of the National Guard of the District of 
Columbia.
  [(b) A general court-martial may sentence to--
          [(1) a fine of not more than $200;
          [(2) forfeiture of pay and allowances;
          [(3) a reprimand;
          [(4) dismissal or dishonorable discharge;
          [(5) reduction of a noncommissioned officer to the 
        ranks; or
          [(6) any combination of these punishments.

[Sec. 328. Special courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal 
                    service

  [(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the 
commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post, camp, air base, 
auxiliary air base, or other place where troops are on duty, or 
of a brigade, regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, 
separate squadron, or other detached command, may convene 
special courts-martial. Special courts-martial may also be 
convened by superior authority.
  [(b) A special court-martial may not try a commissioned 
officer.
  [(c) A special court-martial has the same powers of 
punishment as a general court-martial, except that a fine 
imposed by a special court-martial may not be more than $100 
for a single offense.

[Sec. 329. Summary courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal 
                    service

  [(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the 
commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post, camp, air base, 
auxiliary air base, or other place where troops are on duty, or 
of a regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, detached 
squadron, detached company, or other detachment, may convene a 
summary court-martial consisting of one commissioned officer. 
The proceedings shall be informal.
  [(b) A summary court-martial may sentence to a fine of not 
more than $25 for a single offense, to forfeiture of pay and 
allowances, and to reduction of a noncommissioned officer to 
the ranks.

[Sec. 330. Confinement instead of fine

  [In the National Guard not in Federal service, a court-
martial may, instead of imposing a fine, sentence to 
confinement for not more than one day for each dollar of the 
authorized fine.

[Sec. 331. Dismissal or dishonorable discharge

  [In the National Guard not in Federal service, no sentence of 
dismissal or dishonorable discharge may be executed until it is 
approved by the governor of the State or Territory, Puerto 
Rico, or whichever is concerned, or, in the case of the 
National Guard of the District of Columbia, by its commanding 
general.

[Sec. 332. Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses

  [In the National Guard not in Federal service, the president 
of a court-martial or a summary court officer may--
          [(1) issue a warrant for the arrest of any accused 
        person who, having been served with a warrant and a 
        copy of the charges, disobeys a written order by the 
        convening authority to appear before the court;
          [(2) issue subpenas duces tecum and other subpenas;
          [(3) enforce by attachment the attendance or 
        witnesses and the production of books and papers; and
          [(4) sentence for refusal to be sworn or to answer, 
        as provided in actions before civil courts.

[Sec. 333. Execution of process and sentence

  [In the National Guard not in Federal service, the processes 
and sentences of its courts-martial shall be executed by the 
civil officers prescribed by the laws of the States concerned. 
In a State where no provision is made for executing those 
processes and sentences, and in the Territories, Puerto Rico 
and the District of Columbia, the process or sentence shall be 
executed by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, who 
shall make a return to the military officer issuing the process 
or the court imposing the sentence.]

Sec. 327. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: 
                    convening authority

  (a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general, 
special, and summary courts-martial may be convened as provided 
by the laws of the States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the 
District of Columbia.
  (b) In addition to convening authorities as provided under 
subsection (a), in the National Guard not in Federal service--
          (1) general courts-martial may be convened by the 
        President;
          (2) special courts-martial may be convened--
                  (A) by the commanding officer of a garrison, 
                fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base, 
                or other place where troops are on duty; or
                  (B) by the commanding officer of a division, 
                brigade, regiment, wing, group, detached 
                battalion, separate squadron, or other detached 
                command; and
          (3) summary courts-martial may be convened--
                  (A) by the commanding officer of a garrison, 
                fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base, 
                or other place where troops are on duty; or
                  (B) by the commanding officer of a division, 
                brigade, regiment, wing, group, detached 
                battalion, detached squadron, detached company, 
                or other detachment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 5--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities for 
                    civilian youth

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(d) Matching Funds Required.--The amount of assistance 
provided under this section to a State program of the National 
Guard Challenge Program may not exceed--
          [(1) for fiscal year 1998, 75 percent of the costs of 
        operating the State program during that year;
          [(2) for fiscal year 1999, 70 percent of the costs of 
        operating the State program during that year;
          [(3) for fiscal year 2000, 65 percent of the costs of 
        operating the State program during that year; and
          [(4) for fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal 
        year, 60 percent of the costs of operating the State 
        program during that year.]
  (d) Matching Funds Required.--The amount of assistance 
provided under this section to a State program of the National 
Guard Challenge Program for a fiscal year may not exceed 75 
percent of the costs of operating the State program during that 
fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                SECTION 1896 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

    MEDICARE SUBVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR MILITARY RETIREES

  Sec. 1896. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (k) Evaluation and Reports.--
          (1)  * * *
          [(2) Report on extension and expansion of 
        demonstration project.--Not later than 6 months after 
        the date of the submission of the final report by the 
        Comptroller General of the United States under 
        paragraph (1), the administering Secretaries shall 
        submit to Congress a report containing their 
        recommendation as to--
                  [(A) whether there is a cost to the health 
                care program under this title in conducting the 
                demonstration project, and whether the 
                demonstration project could be expanded without 
                there being a cost to such health care program 
                or to the Federal Government;
                  [(B) whether to extend the demonstration 
                project or make the project permanent; and
                  [(C) whether the terms and conditions of the 
                project should be continued (or modified) if 
                the project is extended or expanded.]
                              ----------                              

             SECTION 4202 OF THE CLINGER-COHEN ACT OF 1996

SEC. 4202. APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO CERTAIN COMMERCIAL 
                    ITEMS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Effective Date.--The authority to issue solicitations for 
purchases of commercial items in excess of the simplified 
acquisition threshold pursuant to the special simplified 
procedures authorized by section 2304(g)(1) of title 10, United 
States Code, section 303(g)(1) of the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949, and section 31(a) of the 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended by this 
section, shall expire January 1, [2003] 2004. Contracts may be 
awarded pursuant to solicitations that have been issued before 
such authority expires, notwithstanding the expiration of such 
authority.
                              ----------                              

       SECTION 4 OF THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY ACT

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

  As used in this Act:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (11) The term ``simplified acquisition threshold'' 
        means $100,000, except that such amount may be adjusted 
        by the Administrator every five years to the amount 
        equal to $100,000 in constant fiscal year 2002 dollars 
        (rounded to the nearest $10,000).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

 SECTION 553 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  1995

SEC. 553. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL CHARGES OR FEES FOR 
                    ATTENDANCE AT CERTAIN ACADEMIES.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Exception.--The prohibition specified in subsection (a) 
shall not apply with respect to any item or service provided to 
cadets or midshipmen at an academy named in subsection (c) for 
which a charge or fee is imposed as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act. [The Secretary of Defense or the 
Secretary of Transportation, as the case shall be, shall notify 
Congress of any change made by an academy in the amount of a 
charge or fee authorized under this subsection.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle H--Matters Relating to Recruiting

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 573. ARMY COLLEGE FIRST PILOT PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Delayed Entry With Allowance for Higher Education.--Under 
the pilot program, the Secretary may--
          (1) * * *
          (2) subject to paragraph (2) of subsection (d) and 
        except as provided in paragraph (3) of that subsection, 
        pay an allowance to a person accepted for enlistment 
        under paragraph (1)(A) for each month of the period 
        during which that person is enrolled in and pursuing a 
        program described in paragraph (1)(B).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER 
SOVIET UNION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 1305. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION.

  No fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, and 
no funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated 
or expended for planning, design, or construction of a chemical 
weapons destruction facility in Russia until the Secretary of 
Defense submits to Congress a certification that there has 
been--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) a demonstrated commitment from the international 
        community to fund and build infrastructure needed to 
        support and operate the facility[.].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND 
                    ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

  (a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated 
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
2403(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property 
and carry out military construction projects for the 
installations and locations inside the United States, and in 
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

               Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Installation or
             Agency                    location             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization.......  Blue Grass Army         [$254,030,000]
                                   Depot, Kentucky..        $290,325,000
      *         *         *         *         *         *         *
                                                     -------------------
                                    Total...........      [$711,950,000]
                                                            $748,245,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                      

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2405. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR 
                    2000 PROJECTS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Limitation of Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations 
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out 
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) [$231,230,000] $267,525,000 (the balance of the 
        amount authorized under section 2401(a) for the 
        construction of a chemical demilitarization facility at 
        Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

              SECTION 516 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 516. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag under 
[his section] this section shall be at no cost to the 
recipient.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XI--FEDERAL SHIP MORTGAGE INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 1104A. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) The Secretary may obtain independent analysis of an 
application for a guarantee or commitment to guarantee under 
this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) The Secretary shall charge and collect from the obligor 
such amounts as he may deem reasonable for the investigation of 
applications for a guarantee (including for obtaining 
independent analysis under subsection (d)(4)), for the 
appraisal of properties offered as security for a guarantee, 
for the issuance of commitments, for services in connection 
with the escrow fund authorized by section 1108 and for the 
inspection of such properties during construction, 
reconstruction, or reconditioning: Provided, That such charges 
shall not aggregate more than one-half of 1 per centum of the 
original principal amount of the obligations to be guaranteed.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XII--WAR RISK INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 1205. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Insurance of Vessels in Support of NATO-Approved 
Operations.--(1) Upon request made under subsection (b), the 
Secretary may provide insurance for a vessel, regardless of the 
country in which the vessel is registered and the citizenship 
of its owners, that is supporting a military operation approved 
by the North Atlantic Council, including a vessel that is not 
operating under contract with a department or agency of the 
United States.
  (2) If a vessel is insured under paragraph (1) in response to 
a request made pursuant to an international agreement providing 
for the sharing among nations of the risks involved in mutual 
or joint operations, the Secretary of Transportation, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of State, may seek from another 
nation that is a party to such agreement a commitment to 
indemnify the United States for any amounts paid by the United 
States for claims against such insurance.
  (3) Amounts received by the United States as indemnity from a 
nation pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be deposited into the 
insurance fund created under section 1208.
  (4) Any obligation of a department or agency of the United 
States to indemnify the Secretary or the insurance fund for any 
claim against insurance provided under this subsection is 
extinguished to the extent of any indemnification received from 
a nation pursuant to paragraph (2) with respect to the claim.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART III--EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subpart D--Pay and Allowances

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER IV--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5343. Prevailing rate determinations; wage schedules; night 
                    differentials

  (a) * * *
  (b) The Office of Personnel Management shall schedule full-
scale wage surveys every [2 years] 3 years and shall schedule 
interim surveys to be conducted between each 2 consecutive 
full-scale wage surveys. The Office may schedule more frequent 
surveys when conditions so suggest[.], based on criteria 
developed by the Office.
  (c) The Office of Personnel Management, by regulation, shall 
prescribe practices and procedures for conducting wage surveys, 
analyzing wage survey data, developing and establishing wage 
schedules and rates, and administering the prevailing rate 
system. The regulations shall provide--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) for proper differentials, as determined by the 
        Office, for duty involving unusually severe working 
        conditions or unusually severe hazards, and for any 
        hardship or hazard related to asbestos, such 
        differentials shall be determined by applying 
        occupational safety and health standards consistent 
        with the permissible exposure limit promulgated by the 
        Secretary of Labor under the Occupational Safety and 
        Health Act of 1970;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 55--PAY ADMINISTRATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER V--PREMIUM PAY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5545. Night, standby, irregular, and hazardous duty differential

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) The Office shall establish a schedule or schedules of pay 
differentials for duty involving unusual physical hardship or 
hazard, and for any hardship or hazard related to asbestos, 
such differentials shall be determined by applying occupational 
safety and health standards consistent with the permissible 
exposure limit promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Under such 
regulations as the Office may prescribe, and for such minimum 
periods as it determines appropriate, an employee to whom 
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of this title 
applies is entitled to be paid the appropriate differential for 
any period in which he is subjected to physical hardship or 
hazard not usually involved in carrying out the duties of his 
position. However, the pay differential--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER IX--SEVERANCE PAY AND BACK PAY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5595. Severance pay

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) This subsection applies with respect to severance pay 
payable under this section for separations taking effect on or 
after February 10, 1996, and before October 1, [2003] 2006.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 89--HEALTH INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 8905a. Continued coverage

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4)(A) * * *
  (B) This paragraph shall apply with respect to any individual 
whose continued coverage is based on a separation occurring on 
or after the date of enactment of this paragraph and before--
          (i) October 1, [2003] 2006; or
          (ii) February 1, [2004] 2007, if specific notice of 
        such separation was given to such individual before 
        October 1, [2003] 2006.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 90--LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 9001. Definitions

  For purposes of this chapter:
          (1) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) an individual described in section 
                2105(e); [and]
                  (C) an individual employed by the Tennessee 
                Valley Authority[,]; and
                  (D) an employee of a nonappropriated fund 
                instrumentality of the Department of Defense 
                described in section 2105(c),
        but does not include an individual employed by the 
        government of the District of Columbia.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 9002. Availability of insurance

  (a) * * *
  (b) Discretionary Authority Regarding Nonappropriated Fund 
Instrumentalities.--The Secretary of Defense may determine that 
a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of 
Defense is covered under this chapter or is covered under an 
alternative long-term care insurance program.
  [(b)] (c) General Requirements.--Long-term care insurance may 
not be offered under this chapter unless--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c)] (d) Documentation Requirement.--As a condition for 
obtaining long-term care insurance coverage under this chapter 
based on one's status as a qualified relative, an applicant 
shall provide documentation to demonstrate the relationship, as 
prescribed by the Office.
  [(d)] (e) Underwriting Standards.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e)] (f) Guaranteed Renewability.--The benefits and coverage 
made available to eligible individuals under any insurance 
contract under this chapter shall be guaranteed renewable (as 
defined by section 7A(2) of the model regulations described in 
section 7702B(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), 
including the right to have insurance remain in effect so long 
as premiums continue to be timely made. However, the authority 
to revise premiums under this chapter shall be available only 
on a class basis and only to the extent otherwise allowable 
under section 9003(b).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

  SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992

SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary 
of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates 
at the close of fiscal year [2002] 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND 
                    ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

  (a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated 
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
2406(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in 
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2406(b), other amounts 
appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act 
for the projects, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real 
property and carry out military construction projects for the 
installations and locations inside the United States, and in 
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

               Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Installation or
             Agency                    location             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization         Pueblo Chemical         [$203,500,000]
 Program........................   Activity,                $261,000,000
                                   Colorado.........
Defense Finance & Accounting      Charleston, South           $6,200,000
 Service........................   Carolina.........

                 *      *      *      *      *      *      *
                                                     -------------------
                                    Total:..........      [$549,954,000]
                                                            $607,454,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                      

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations 
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out 
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) [$203,500,000] $261,000,000 (the balance of the 
        amount authorized under section 2401(a) of this Act for 
        the construction of a chemical demilitarization 
        facility at Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado); and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

       SECTION 501 OF THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT

SEC. 501. USE OF UNUTILIZED AND UNDERUTILIZED PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND REAL 
                    PROPERTY TO ASSIST THE HOMELESS.

      (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Applicability to Certain Property During Emergencies.--
The screening requirements and other provisions of this section 
shall not apply to any property that is excess property or 
surplus property or that is described as unutilized or 
underutilized property if the property is subject to a request 
for conveyance or use for the purpose of directly supporting 
activities in response to--
          (1) a war or national emergency declared in 
        accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 
        1601 et seq.); or
          (2) an emergency or major disaster declared in 
        accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
        and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
      [(i)] (j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

 SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE 
                          AND REALIGNMENT ACT

SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Transfer Authority in Connection With Construction or 
Provision of Military Family Housing.--(1) Subject to paragraph 
(2), the Secretary may enter into an agreement to transfer by 
deed real property or facilities located at or near an 
installation closed or to be closed under this title with any 
person who agrees, in exchange for the real property or 
facilities, to transfer to the Secretary housing units that are 
constructed or provided by the person and located at or near a 
military installation at which there is a shortage of suitable 
housing to meet the requirements of members of the Armed Forces 
and their dependents. [The Secretary may not select real 
property for transfer under this paragraph if the property is 
identified in the redevelopment plan for the installation as 
items essential to the reuse or redevelopment of the 
installation.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

  SECTION 2914 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990

SEC. 2914. SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 
                    REALIGNMENTS AND CLOSURES FOR 2005 ROUND; 
                    COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Commission Review and Recommendations.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Limitation on authority to recommend additional 
        installation for closure.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
        (3), the decision of the Commission to add a military 
        installation to the Secretary's list of installations 
        recommended for closure must be unanimous, and at least 
        two members of the Commission must have visited the 
        installation during the period of the Commission's 
        review of the list.
          [(4)] (5) Testimony by secretary.--The Commission 
        shall invite the Secretary to testify at a public 
        hearing, or a closed hearing if classified information 
        is involved, on any proposed change by the Commission 
        to the Secretary's recommendations.
          [(5)] (6) Comptroller general report.--The 
        Comptroller General report required by section 
        2903(d)(5)(B) analyzing the recommendations of the 
        Secretary and the selection process in 2005 shall be 
        transmitted to the congressional defense committees not 
        later than July 1, 2005.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                         ACT OF AUGUST 22, 1972

                          (Public Law 92-402)

AN ACT To authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 1973 for certain 
   maritime programs of the Department of Commerce, and for related 
purposes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 4. If, after consideration of such comments and views as 
are received pursuant to section 3(c), the Secretary finds that 
the use of Liberty ships proposed by a State will not violate 
any Federal law, contribute to degradation of the marine 
environment, create undue interference with commercial fishing 
or navigation, and is not frivolous, he may transfer without 
consideration to the State all right, title, and interest of 
the United States in and to any Liberty ships which are 
available for transfer under this Act if--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) the transfer would be at no cost to the 
        Government (except for any financial assistance 
        provided under section 7) with the State taking 
        delivery of such obsolete ships at fleetside of the 
        National Defense Reserve Fleet in an ``as is-where is'' 
        condition.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 7. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE TO PREPARE TRANSFERRED SHIP.

  (a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary, subject to the 
availability of appropriations, may provide, to any State to 
which an obsolete ship is transferred under this Act, financial 
assistance to prepare the ship for use as an artificial reef, 
including for--
          (1) environmental remediation;
          (2) towing; and
          (3) sinking.
  (b) Amount of Assistance.--The Secretary shall determine the 
amount of assistance under this section with respect to an 
obsolete ship based on--
          (1) the total amount available for providing 
        assistance under this section;
          (2) the benefit achieved by providing assistance for 
        that ship; and
          (3) the cost effectiveness of disposing of the ship 
        by transfer under this Act and provision of assistance 
        under this section, compared to other disposal options 
        for the vessel.
  (c) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary--
          (1) shall require a State seeking assistance under 
        this section to provide cost data and other information 
        determined by the Secretary to be necessary to justify 
        and document the assistance; and
          (2) may require a State receiving such assistance to 
        comply with terms and conditions necessary to protect 
        the environment and the interests of the United States.
  Sec. [7] 8. For purposes of sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, the term 
``obsolete ship'' means any vessel owned by the Department of 
Transportation that has been determined to be of insufficient 
value for commercial or national defense purposes to warrant 
its maintenance and preservation in the national defense 
reserve fleet and has been designated as an artificial reef 
candidate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    While we strongly support the overall defense authorization 
bill, we would like to express our views on the wisdom of the 
nuclear policy that was adopted and some of the amendments on 
this subject that were not. We agree with the bill's provision 
requiring that the Department of Defense provide the detailed 
force structure plan that should have been part of the 
administration's Nuclear Posture Review. We also are pleased 
that two amendments offered by Mr. Allen were accepted by the 
committee. The National Academy of Sciences' studies called for 
by those amendments will help Congress and the Department of 
Defense understand the short- and long-term effects of the 
possible use of nuclear earth-penetrators and nuclear-tipped 
ballistic missile interceptors. Previous effect studies may not 
reflect all current information and any future decision about 
the utility of these weapons must take their effects into 
account.
    We are disappointed, however, that the sense of congress 
contained in Section 1021 was not modified as proposed in the 
amendment by Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Allen. Further, we believe 
the amendments offered by Mr. Spratt and Mr. Allen prohibiting 
the development or deployment of nuclear-tipped ballistic 
missile interceptors and by Mr. Spratt requiring Congressional 
notification in advance of any future underground nuclear test 
would have improved the quality of our nuclear policy and the 
strength of the U.S. negotiating position with Russia and 
others on security issues. We all agree that nuclear deterrence 
remains a critical component of U.S. national security and that 
the United States should maintain sufficient nuclear forces to 
execute its Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). The 
amendments offered, however, would have improved the chairman's 
mark in three critical ways.
    First, the Tauscher-Allen sense of Congress amendment would 
have retained the President's flexibility in his current 
negotiations with Russia by removing a minimum requirement of 
operationally-deployed weapons at 1,700. The amendment would 
have allowed him to go lower than that figure if he negotiated 
a bilateral agreement to that effect. U.S. security is enhanced 
by encouraging Russia to eliminate as many nuclear weapons as 
possible. For our own purposes, retaining a large ``responsive 
force'' of non-operationally deployed nuclear weapons well 
above the levels required by the SIOP is counter-productive and 
costly. It encourages Russia to retain larger stockpiles than 
it otherwise would and supports the rationale for nuclear 
build-up of other states like China which are assessing the 
appropriate size of their nuclear force.
    Second, both the Tauscher-Allen amendment and the Spratt-
Allen amendment speak to the need for caution in expanding 
applications of nuclear use. The Tauscher-Allen sense of 
Congress would have focused our policy for countering the very 
real threat of hard and deeply-buried targets on advanced 
conventional weapons and enhanced intelligence. The amendment 
would not have ruled out the use of existing nuclear 
capabilities, but highlighted that the focus of scientific 
research and development should be on non-nuclear capabilities 
first, given the collateral damage involved and the 
destabilizing potential of using tactical nuclear options. 
Similarly, the Spratt prohibition of nuclear-tipped ballistic 
missile interceptors would have put Congress on record against 
an option dismissed twenty years ago when the Reagan 
administration launched the Strategic Defense Initiative. We 
don't believe the public would support such nuclear use and 
this is not an option we should be advocating in any missile 
defense program.
    Finally, the Spratt amendment on Congressional notification 
before the conduct of any future underground nuclear test would 
have provided critical oversight of any potential change in 
administration policy. If the administration chooses to resume 
testing, Congress should have an opportunity to investigate why 
the test is necessary and the implications of conducting it. 
The twelve-month notification was designed to accommodate the 
authorization bill cycle and does not tie the administration's 
hands in any way, as the current test readiness posture is 24-
36 months. DOE officials, in fact, indicate that it will cost 
tens of millions of dollars and take at least two years to 
reduce this to 18 months. Congress has a duty to oversee our 
deterrence and defense capability; this amendment would have 
strengthened our ability to do so.
    We all agree on the need to maintain U.S. national security 
and the deterrent capability of our nuclear forces. These 
amendments would have enhanced both. We look forward to 
opportunities on the House floor and in the future to continue 
to advance these goals.

                                   Ike Skelton.
                                   John Spratt.
                                   Lane Evans.
                                   Neil Abercrombie.
                                   Marty Meehan.
                                   Tom Allen.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   Ellen O. Tauscher.
                                   Robert A. Brady.
                                   Robert E. Andrews.
                                   Baron P. Hill.
                                   Jim Langevin.
                                   Rick Larsen.
                                   Adam Smith.
                                   Robert A. Underwood.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    As the Committee marked up the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the matters put before 
the members were appropriate for our consideration with one 
glaring exception, Title XIV concerning the Utah Test and 
Training Range.
    We believe that every Member of the House has a stake in 
the committee process. If any issue under the jurisdiction of 
the Armed Services Committee were to be added to the Chairman's 
mark in another committee, the Armed Services Committee members 
would be right to object in the most strenuous terms.
    That's why we feel that the inclusion of title XIV in the 
chairman's mark was a procedural foul.
    First, when this language was previously introduced as 
legislation (H.R. 3035-106th Congress and H.R. 2488-107th 
Congress), it was referred solely to the Resources Committee. 
Its lack of success there is not because it did not have a 
strong champion or lacked exposure. It had both but has not 
passed the House.
    Second, language this important and comprehensive deserves 
one or more hearings in this committee. It has had none.
    Third, the language was inserted into the Chairman's mark 
and not exposed to the regular amendment process. We all know 
bill language is more easily adopted when it is included in the 
mark, rather than when it is added by amendment.
    As to the substance of this legislation, it is important to 
note that the proponents of Title XIV and the language of the 
title have created confusion as to just what is the Utah Test 
and Training Range (UTTR). The UTTR and the adjacent Dugway 
Proving Grounds encompass approximately 1.7 million acres 
withdrawn from public use and under the administration of the 
Department of Defense. Title XIV speaks to not only these 1.7 
million acres but to an additional six million acres of public 
lands and national forests administered by the Departments of 
the Interior and Agriculture that underlie military airspace 
for the UTTR.
    We believe the following point must be made perfectly 
clear. There is no designated or proposed wilderness within the 
boundaries of the UTTR and the Dugway Proving Grounds. There 
are however, 25,000 acres of designated wilderness and several 
hundred thousand acres of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) on 
national forests and public lands beneath military airspace in 
Utah, and it is these lands as well as the millions of acres of 
adjacent public lands that would be adversely affected by Title 
XIV.
    Even more troubling than that inconsistency and the 
procedure used to include Title XIV are the provisions 
themselves. The military use language of Title XIV is 
unprecedented and not found in any other law. Ironically, these 
provisions set a standard for wilderness management that would 
provide less protection to the wilderness areas designated by 
Title XIV than the protections available to non-designated 
public lands. Millions of acres of designated wilderness and 
millions more acres of public land underlie military airspace 
across the United States. None of these lands have or need the 
restrictive language that Title XIV would apply to wilderness 
and public lands in Utah.
    Language in Title XIV would strip the authority of the 
Secretary of the Interior to determine where and whether 
facilities and equipment are placed on public lands within 
wilderness areas. Another provision allows the Secretary of the 
Air Force to unilaterally close or restrict access to 
wilderness and WSAs outside the boundaries of the UTTR and the 
Dugway Proving Grounds. These provisions are unprecedented, and 
no clear rationale has been given to warrant this change from 
existing law. Moreover, Title XIV creates a different standard 
for access and military use for land in Utah than is applicable 
to all other public land areas of the United States.
    Furthermore, Title XIV requires the Secretary of the 
Interior to gain the prior concurrence of the Secretary of the 
Air Force and the commander-in-chief of the military forces of 
the State of Utah before developing, maintaining, or revising 
land use plans required by Federal law for millions of acres of 
public lands in Utah. Is it unwise policy, to say the least, 
for a Cabinet secretary's role to be subordinate to a service 
secretary and a state military commander.
    The bottom line is two fold. All House members have a stake 
in preserving the committee process. House rules on committee 
jurisdiction exist for a reason, and we should abide by them 
absent some compelling exceptional justification. None has been 
provided here.
    Second, it is wrong to ram through any committee 
contentious provisions of sweeping scope and substantive 
import. This wrong has been exacerbated in this case by the 
absence of committee hearings and the legislative legerdemain 
of embedding a previously unseen title of the bill in the 
chairman's mark.
    We cannot sanction procedural and substantive 
transgressions of this magnitude.

                                   Ike Skelton.
                                   Robert E. Andrews.
                                   Lane Evans.
                                   Ellen O. Tauscher.
                                   Marty Meehan.
                                   Vic Snyder.
                                   John Spratt.
                                   Susan A. Davis.
                                   Rick Larsen.
                                   Silvestre Reyes.
                                   James H. Maloney.
                                   John B. Larson.
                                   Loretta Sanchez.
                                   Baron P. Hill.
                                   Tom Allen.
                                   Robert A. Brady.
                                   Cynthia McKinney.
                                   Adam Smith.
                                   Jim Langevin.
                                   Ciro D. Rodriguez.

            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE W. TODD AKIN

    The Committee's recently drafted Fiscal Year 2003 National 
Defense Authorization bill contains a number of provisions and 
initiatives that will greatly benefit our service men and 
women. These include initial funding for a joint replacement 
aircraft for the EA-6B ``Prowler'' and funding to initiate a T-
45 multi-year procurement contract.
    We cannot move quickly enough to replace the EA-6B. Though 
the Prowler has served us well for nearly 30 years, all 
indications are that 2008 is the target date by which a 
replacement aircraft must enter the fleet. If a decision is 
made this summer, an EA-18 could readily meet that timeline and 
at a developmental cost of approximately $1.6 billion. On the 
other hand, the years of development necessary to develop the 
already-accelerated JSF and then develop a follow-on EA-JSF 
design indicate that a JSF variant would not be available until 
at least 2013, and only at much higher cost. Knowing this, and 
given the critical importance of our electronic warfare 
capabilities, we should not delay further a decision on 
replacing the Prowler.
    Knowing this, the committee authorized $10 million to 
support preliminary risk reduction engineering for an EA-6B 
replacement. Given the sustained high operational tempo, and 
ongoing deterioration, of the Prowler fleet, we cannot move 
quickly enough toward a joint follow-on aircraft.
    In addition, the committee included $10 million to support 
a possible multi-year procurement of the Navy's T-45 
``Goshawk'' jet trainer. This is an excellent idea. Given the 
need to complete modernization of the Navy's training fleet and 
the anticipated future-years funding shortfall in the Navy 
aviation budget, which becomes particular difficult beginning 
in fiscal year 2007, it makes excellent sense to initiate a 
three-year procurement contract for T-45s for fiscal years 
2004-06. This would allow us to complete the Navy's requirement 
for 234 T-45s before 2007 and in the process purchase these 
aircraft at approximately 25 percent less per unit than if we 
did so through the annual budgeting process at eight aircraft 
per year.
                                                      W. Todd Akin.

           DISSENTING VIEW OF CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA McKINNEY

    The National Defense Authorization Act of 2002, H.R. 4546, 
represents the largest real increase to defense spending since 
1966. This bill contains over $40 billion more spending than 
last year's defense authorization, which too was egregiously 
large. H.R. 4546 provides for over $383 billion in spending for 
the Department of Defense and the weapons programs of the 
Department of Energy. Unfortunately this new spending comes at 
the expense of many valuable and effective government programs. 
As the Bush Administration's tax cut enacted last year has 
reduced the ability of the federal government to fully fund 
many important programs, the massive increase in defense 
spending is accompanied by cuts to programs for job training, 
drug elimination in public housing, prescription drug benefits, 
conservation spending, and much more. Such one-sided spending 
indicates a misdirected view of our nation's true national 
security reflecting a belief that relies on warfighting 
capabilities and which neglects the domestic issues and quality 
of life that are also essential to a secure nation.
    In addition to the singular focus of our national security 
attention, there are problems within the Pentagon that raise 
questions about such immense spending. On September 10, 2001, 
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that ``[a]ccording to some 
estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.'' 
Such a lack of financial accountability not only undermines the 
integrity of the Pentagon, it causes severe inefficiencies that 
cause further financial loss, and undoubtedly leads to wasteful 
spending. If there were ever to be activities obscured from the 
public's eye, projects pursued without authorization, or other 
questionable action or spending, how could it ever be 
discovered when the level of unaccounted transactions is so 
high? In any other arena, either private sector or public, 
financial accountability would be insured prior to increasing 
expenditures, not the opposite.
    Yet the basis for such a large increase in spending is 
wholly unjustified. The events of September 11, 2001 were a 
tragedy to the entire nation. However, the attacks in New York, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia were not prompted by any failure of 
the United States military, but instead were the result of a 
breakdown in our intelligence community. In fact, just this 
week Yahoo News reported that CIA Deputy Director of Operation 
James Pavitt ``dismissed charges the CIA was caught unaware by 
September 11 suicide attacks in the United States'' and that 
``[t]he CIA knew the network led by Saudi-born militant Osama 
bin Laden was planning a major strike.''
    Similarly, a Washington Post article dated May 3, 2002 
stated ``[t]wo months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI 
agent in Arizona alerted Washington headquarters that several 
Middle Easterners were training at a U.S. aviation school and 
recommended contacting other schools nationwide,'' and further 
that ``[l]aw enforcement officials said in retrospect the FBI 
believes it should have accelerated the suggested check of U.S. 
flight schools.'' The intelligence community has received 
substantial increases in resources in order to address these 
shortcomings. As there was no apparent defense shortcoming, it 
appears that the increases contained in the defense 
authorization serve to increase the armed forces' ability to 
wage war in foreign nations, replace regimes such as Iraq, and 
accelerate the expansion of war on a worldwide scale.
    The increased defense authorization also permits prodigal, 
unneeded, and archaic projects and weapons systems to proceed. 
One such weapons system is the Crusader, an artillery system 
originally intended to defeat Soviet tanks on a large 
battlefield. Though it is widely assumed that the U.S. will not 
confront such a battle environment, the Army has continued its 
drive to develop and procure this weapon. Logistically, this 
artillery system has been found to be difficult to transport, 
and at 40 tons for each the artillery system and the adjoining 
resupply vehicle, the Crusader would be difficult to adhere to 
the Army's evolving mobility goals. In considering the 
continued pursuit of the Crusader, it is important to note that 
the prime contractor for this weapon system, United Defense, is 
owned by the Carlyle Group, which in turn is chaired by Frank 
Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense under President Ronald 
Reagan, and which also employs former President George H.W. 
Bush.
    Nonetheless, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has 
been reported to be planning to cut this expensive and 
unnecessary weapon, thus saving the $475 million earmarked for 
the Crusader to be used for other expenditures. I would welcome 
such an announcement. However, contrary to reports, this 
defense authorization leads me to believe that the Crusader 
program will survive. Included in H.R. 4546 is language that 
``directs that there be no change to the Crusader development 
schedule, funding or procurement requirements, to include 
termination.'' It is unfortunate that, even when the Pentagon 
seeks to shelve needless and wasteful programs, this defense 
authorization and the defense industry are capable of keeping 
the Crusader and other questionable projects alive.
    Furthermore, this defense authorization charts the course 
toward dangerous waters in terms of our nation's nuclear 
weapons policy, the development of missile defense, and 
environmental stewardship.
    Section 1021 of the defense authorization bill details the 
proposed nuclear policy of the United States, which aptly calls 
for sharp reductions in the nation's nuclear weapons stock. 
However, the value of those reductions is lost on the fact that 
the policy also calls for the U.S. to ``maintain a responsive 
force of non-deployed nuclear weapons for potential 
contingencies.'' It is difficult to conceive a contingency 
where the 1,700 nuclear weapons to which our stock would be 
reduced would be insufficient. The maintenance of such a ready 
reserve also provokes international concern and would incur 
significant future costs to the U.S. in terms of maintenance, 
stockpile stewardship and security. Sec. 1021 also encourages 
the development of new nuclear weapons for the purpose of 
defeating hardened and deeply buried targets. This language is 
an affront to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that the U.S. has 
ratified. This provocative section also neglects the physical 
science that nuclear weapons would not serve to defeat such 
buried targets, would have significant radioactive fallouts, 
and would hinder U.S. personnel from conducting damage 
assessments. It was unfortunate that the Committee did not pass 
an amendment offered by Representatives Ellen Tauscher and Tom 
Allen that would have improved and removed this dangerous 
language.
    Additionally, Section 1021 urges the Administration to 
develop a plan to be able to resume underground nuclear testing 
within one year of a decision to conduct such tests. 
Underground nuclear tests have not been conducted in the U.S. 
since September 1992, and when they have been conducted in 
other nations, the U.S. has responded with strong rebukes and 
sanctions. The development of such a resumption plan is 
unnecessary, is internationally inflammatory, and is likely not 
the desire of a majority of Americans. In sum, Section 1021 
sets forth a nuclear weapons policy that is unlikely to insure 
greater safety for Americans and could result in encouraging 
other nations to further their own nuclear weapons programs.
    With regard to missile defense, H.R. 4546 continues the 
road to development of this dangerous and unreliable system. 
This authorization provides $7.8 billion for missile defense, 
following on the nearly $8 billion that was authorized for 
missile defense last year. Not only is this an unusually high 
amount of money to be devoting to a weapon system of 
questionable reliability, the need for the missile shield being 
sought is not apparent. The CIA's own National Intelligence 
Estimate states that North Korea has the greatest and soonest 
likelihood of attacking the U.S. with a missile, but that they 
will be unable to do so before 2015; the same NIE states that 
attacks are much more likely using weapons of mass destruction 
(WMD) via other untraditional routes such as trucks, ships, or 
airplanes.
    Rather than relying on a missile defense system, which may 
well lead America to a false sense of security, missile defense 
should be re-shelved, as it was in 1976. Cooperative 
international arms control and disarmament agreements will be 
far more effective in advancing peace and security in the years 
ahead and will cost far less than a Star Wars type missile 
shield.
    Evidently, the current prevailing concept for missile 
defense, known as hit-to-kill, which had garnered the support 
of many in this Committee, is not as reliable as had been 
thought. It was reported a few weeks ago that the Secretary of 
Defense had given approval to proceed with the study of 
nuclear-tipped missile defense. Despite the fact that this 
concept had already been pursued in the 1960s and 1970s and 
correctly cancelled, nuclear-tipped missile defense has 
apparently risen from the dead. An amendment offered by 
Representative John Spratt would have prohibited the 
development of such a missile defense concept. However, the 
Committee unfortunately defeated this amendment. While debate 
in opposition to the amendment noted the need to provide the 
Pentagon as much latitude in pursuing missile defense options, 
the fact that the atmospheric nuclear explosion would cause 
enormously destructive electro-magnetic pulses to wreak havoc 
on both domestic and space-based electronics, not to mention 
the horrible human health impacts from the ensuing radiological 
fallout, were evidently ignored by a majority of the Committee. 
Nuclear tipped missile defense was pursued once, and was then 
cast aside when financial and other costs were observed to be 
greater than the benefits. The Committee should have considered 
this history when voting on the amendment, and I find it 
inevitable that nuclear-tipped missile defense will again find 
a similar fate.
    For a multitude of reasons, the environmental provisions of 
this bill are inappropriate and disappointing. The Readiness 
Subcommittee included in their mark, language that will carve 
out special exemptions so that the Department of Defense will 
not have to adhere to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). First, when the Subcommittee 
conducted hearings on these issues, only Administration 
officials were permitted to testify, and local and state 
officials and environmental organizations were not provided 
similar opportunities to share their viewpoints. With such 
contentious, wide-ranging, and important issues under 
consideration, these stakeholders should have been given an 
opportunity to be heard. Second, with regard to the Endangered 
Species Act, a provision already exists within the law that 
would permit the Secretary of Defense to request a waiver from 
compliance with the ESA for purposes of national security. The 
Defense Department has never made use of this provision, and 
with such an avenue for relief currently available, there is no 
reason that the law should be amended.
    Finally, parliamentary rules of Congress provide for 
sequential referral to multiple committees for issues that span 
the jurisdiction of more than one committee for good reason. In 
this case, the Resources Committee has jurisdiction over these 
important environmental laws, and the opportunity for this 
committee to conduct hearings on these law changes should not 
have been circumvented.
    In addition to the exemptions of these two important 
wildlife protection laws, Title XIV of the Chairman's mark is a 
very disappointing foray of the Armed Services Committee into 
the arena of public lands management. The Committee never 
conducted hearings on this specific provision. This section 
releases hundreds of thousands of acres from Wilderness Study 
Areas designation, permits unprecedented entry and activity in 
wilderness areas, cedes management authority of public lands to 
the Secretary of the Air Force and again denies the appropriate 
jurisdictional oversight of the Resources Committee. If the 
intent of Title XIV was to protect public land and insure 
emergency access for the military, there is undoubtedly a more 
democratic and comprehensive approach that could have been 
taken.
    In an issue that was addressed by an amendment offered, and 
then withdrawn, by Representative Lindsey Graham, the 
Department of Energy has dangerously discarded the idea of 
immobilizing plutonium obtained through the dismantling of 
Russian and American nuclear weapons. The pursuit of the mixed-
oxide (MOX) alternative, whereby the excess plutonium is not 
encased in a non-reactive, immobile matrix, but instead is 
processed into a fuel that energy companies can use in nuclear 
power generation is unwise. The safer and more sensible 
approach to this issue would have been for the DOE and the 
Savannah River Site to pursue the immobilization alternative, 
maintain a set of alternatives in case any proposed solution 
proves technically unfeasible, and not to provide a subsidy to 
the nuclear industry in the form of this MOX fuel.
    As was the case with last year's authorization 
consideration, Representative Loretta Sanchez offered an 
amendment to permit service women and female military 
dependents to obtain privately funded abortions in overseas 
military hospitals. In this amendment medical practitioners in 
these hospitals who choose not to conduct such procedures would 
not have been required to conduct them. Though the Supreme 
Court has affirmed a woman's right to obtain an abortion, the 
Committee sees fit to maintain its own discretion of this 
constitutional right, and did not approve of this amendment. It 
is unfortunate that service women and female dependents must 
now choose between seeking abortions that can be unsafe or 
illegal in foreign nations, or otherwise forfeit their rights 
to privacy by the necessity of informing superior officers when 
seeking military transport to a location suitable for abortion 
procedures.
    Though it deeply troubles me that one of the first acts of 
our President after declaring this War On Terrorism was to sign 
an Executive Order denying promised high deployment overtime 
pay to our service men and women, the overall mark that was 
reported from the Personnel Subcommittee is commendable. The 
bill provides for a 4.1 percent across-the-board pay raise that 
aptly recognizes the hard work and dedication of our nation's 
service personnel. This pay raise will also serve to aid in the 
recruitment and retention of personnel, as the increase is 
consistently above private sector pay increases. Additionally, 
the Personnel mark provides for higher raises for certain 
specialties and for non-commissioned officers, thereby 
improving force strength in essential fields and compensating 
many of tomorrow's leaders. Though I have dissented in this 
Act, I greatly respect the individual members of our armed 
services for their service and sacrifice in the name of our 
nation.
    Additionally, the Personnel Subcommittee included language 
that will permit the payment of concurrent receipt for some 
retired military personnel who are also disabled veterans. For 
too long disabled veterans have been forced to choose between 
their retirement pay and their well-deserved disability 
benefits. Though H.R. 4546 provides only for immediate 
concurrent receipt to veterans who are rated 60 percent 
disabled or greater, I believe that the Committee has made an 
improvement from the previous ban on concurrent receipt and I 
hope that the program will continue to be expanded to provide 
concurrent receipt to all retired military personnel who are 
also disabled veterans. I doubt anyone would question that they 
have earned it.
                                                  Cynthia McKinney.

                                

```