" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106TH CONGRESS

2nd Session

REPORT

106–616

FLOYD D. SPENCE

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 4205

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

MAY 12, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed

E NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR

2001

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

64–304

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106TH CONGRESS

2nd Session

REPORT

2000

106–616

FLOYD D. SPENCE

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 4205

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

MAY 12, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman

BOB STUMP, Arizona

DUNCAN HUNTER, California

JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio

HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JAMES TALENT, Missouri

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

HOWARD ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California

J.C. WATTS, JR., Oklahoma

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina

JIM RYUN, Kansas

BOB RILEY, Alabama

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARY BONO, California

JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

STEVEN KUYKENDALL, California

DONALD SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

IKE SKELTON, Missouri

NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN PICKETT, Virginia

LANE EVANS, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

TOM ALLEN, Maine

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

JIM TURNER, Texas

ADAM SMITH, Washington

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

MIKE THOMPSON, California

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

ROBERT S. RANGEL, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 17

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION .................... 19

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 19

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 19

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 22

Overview ........................................................................................................ 22

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 26

AH–64 modifications ................................................................................. 26

Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL) ......................................................... 26

Airborne communications ......................................................................... 26

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) ................................................... 27

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications ........................... 27

CH–47 Chinook/UH–60 Blackhawk crashworthy fuel tanks ................. 28

Helicopter crashworthy seats ................................................................... 28

TH–67 Creek .............................................................................................. 28

UH–60 Blackhawk .................................................................................... 29

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 29

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

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

Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) system summary .................. 32

Multipurpose individual munition (MPIM) advance procurement ........ 32

Patriot advanced capability-2 (PAC–2) .................................................... 32

Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM) .......................................................... 32

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ............................................. 33

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

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

Armored vehicle launch bridge (AVLB) service life extension program

(SLEP) ................................................................................................. 37

Bradley base sustainment ........................................................................ 37

Bradley fighting vehicle system (BFVS) series (modifications) ............. 37

Heavy assault bridge (HAB) system ........................................................ 38

Improved recovery vehicle (IRV) .............................................................. 38

Industrial preparedness ............................................................................ 38

M1 Abrams tank modifications ................................................................ 39

M113 carrier modifications ....................................................................... 39

M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW) .................................................... 39

MK19–3 grenade launcher ....................................................................... 40

Small arms production industrial base ................................................... 40

Ammunition Procurement, Army .................................................................... 40

Overview ........................................................................................................ 40

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

Army ammunition procurement ............................................................... 44

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 44

Overview ........................................................................................................ 44

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

Army data distribution system (ADDS) .................................................. 54

Automated data processing equipment (ADPE) ..................................... 54

Page

IV

Army training modernization ................................................................... 54

Combat support medical ........................................................................... 55

Combat training centers instrumentation support ................................. 55

Communications equipment system upgrades ........................................ 56

Construction equipment service life extension program (SLEP) ........... 56

Cranes ........................................................................................................ 57

Deployable universal combat earthmovers (DEUCE) ............................ 57

Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV) ............................................... 57

Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV) ........................................... 58

High mobility multipurpose-wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) ...................... 58

Hydraulic excavator (HYEX) .................................................................... 58

Information system security program (ISSP) ......................................... 59

Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE) ............................................ 59

Laundries, showers, and latrines ............................................................. 59

Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME) ............................................ 60

M56 smoke generator system ................................................................... 60

M915/M916 line haul truck tractor ......................................................... 60

Night vision devices .................................................................................. 60

Nonsystem training devices ...................................................................... 61

Reserve component automation system (RCAS) ..................................... 61

Ribbon bridge ............................................................................................. 62

Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS)

family ...................................................................................................... 62

Small tug .................................................................................................... 63

Standard integrated command post system (SICPS) ............................. 63

Standard teleoperating kit ....................................................................... 63

Vibratory self-propelled roller .................................................................. 64

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army ..................................... 64

Overview ........................................................................................................ 64

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

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 66

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 66

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

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

Advanced helicopter emergency egress lighting system (ADHEELS) ... 71

AN/AVR–2A laser detecting set ............................................................... 71

AV–8B ........................................................................................................ 71

C–40A ......................................................................................................... 72

CH–60S ...................................................................................................... 72

E–2 modifications ...................................................................................... 72

EA–6B modifications ................................................................................. 73

F–18 series modifications ......................................................................... 73

F/A–18C/D tactical aircraft moving map capability (TAMMAC) ........... 74

F/A–18E/F .................................................................................................. 75

HH/UH–1N reclamation and conversion program .................................. 75

H–46 modifications .................................................................................... 76

H–53 modifications .................................................................................... 76

KC–130J ..................................................................................................... 76

T–45 training system (TS) ........................................................................ 77

Tactical air reconnaissance pod system (TARPS)-completely digital

(CD) ......................................................................................................... 77

UC–35 ......................................................................................................... 78

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 78

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 82

Hellfire II missile ...................................................................................... 82

Improved tactical air-launched decoy (ITALD) ....................................... 82

Joint standoff weapon (JSOW) ................................................................. 82

Standoff land attack missile-expanded response (SLAM–ER) .............. 82

Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps ............................................ 83

Overview ........................................................................................................ 83

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

Navy ammunition procurement ............................................................... 84

Marine Corps ammunition procurement ................................................. 84

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 84

Overview ........................................................................................................ 84

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 89

Page

V

LHD–8 amphibious assault ship .............................................................. 89

Auxiliary dry cargo ship ........................................................................... 89

Submarine force level ................................................................................ 89

Submarine refueling overhauls ................................................................ 90

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 91

Overview ........................................................................................................ 91

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 101

AN/SPS–73 (V) surface search radar ....................................................... 101

Aviation life support ................................................................................. 101

Education support equipment .................................................................. 101

High-pressure cleaner ............................................................................... 101

Joint tactical terminal ............................................................................... 102

Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES) ............................................... 102

Nuclear attack submarine (SSN) acoustics ............................................. 102

Operating forces industrial plant equipment .......................................... 103

Other training equipment ......................................................................... 103

Sonobuoys .................................................................................................. 103

Undersea warfare support equipment ..................................................... 103

WSN–7B ring laser gyro (RLG) ................................................................ 104

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 104

Overview ........................................................................................................ 104

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

Command post systems ............................................................................ 109

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) ...................... 109

Improved recovery vehicle (IRV) .............................................................. 109

Material handling equipment ................................................................... 110

Modification kits (intelligence) ................................................................. 110

Radio systems ............................................................................................ 111

Small unit riverine craft (SURC) ............................................................. 111

Training devices ........................................................................................ 111

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 112

Overview ........................................................................................................ 112

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 119

A–10 modifications .................................................................................... 119

Aircraft navigational and passenger safety equipment ......................... 119

C–130 modifications .................................................................................. 120

Compass call block 30/35 mission crew simulator (MCS) ...................... 120

C–135 modifications .................................................................................. 121

C–17 ............................................................................................................ 121

C–17 reverse-affiliate units ...................................................................... 122

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 56 .................. 122

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 80 .................. 124

F–15 modifications .................................................................................... 124

F–15E ......................................................................................................... 125

F–16 modifications .................................................................................... 125

F–16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS) ................................. 126

F–16C ......................................................................................................... 127

E–8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS) ....... 128

Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA) ..... 128

Predator ..................................................................................................... 128

T–3A modifications .................................................................................... 129

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force .............................................................. 129

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

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 132

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 136

AGM–65 modifications .............................................................................. 136

Medium launch vehicle (MLV) ................................................................. 136

Titan ........................................................................................................... 136

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 136

Overview ........................................................................................................ 136

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 142

Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE) ....................................... 142

AN/FPS–117 radar beacon replacement .................................................. 142

Eagle vision ................................................................................................ 142

Rivet joint mission trainer (RJMT) .......................................................... 142

Senior scout ............................................................................................... 143

Page

VI

Situation awareness data link (SADL) gateway for the theater air

control system (TACS) ....................................................................... 143

Supply asset tracking system (SATS) ...................................................... 143

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 144

Overview ........................................................................................................ 144

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 149

Automated document conversion system (ADCS) ................................... 149

Counternarcotics discreet operations radio (CONDOR) ......................... 149

Patriot advanced capability 3 (PAC–3) .................................................... 149

Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC) ............... 149

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense ................................. 150

Overview ........................................................................................................ 150

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 152

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 152

Chemical stockpile disposal project ...................................................... 152

Chemical stockpile emergency preparedness project (CSEPP) .......... 153

Alternative technologies and approaches project ................................ 153

Non-stockpile chemical materiel project .............................................. 153

Chemical agent identification sets ....................................................... 154

Assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA) ............................ 154

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 155

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 155

Sections 101–107—Authorization of Appropriations ................................. 155

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 155

Section 111—Multiyear Procurement Authority ........................................ 155

Section 112—Increase in Limitation on Number of Bunker Defeat Munitions that May be Acquired ............................................................... 155

Section 113—Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support

Initiative ................................................................................................. 156

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 156

Section 121—Submarine Force Structure ................................................... 156

Section 122—Virginia Class Submarine Program ...................................... 156

Section 123—Retention of Configuration of Certain Naval Reserve

Frigates ................................................................................................... 156

Section 124—Extension of Multiyear Procurement Authority for Arleigh

Burke Class Destroyers ......................................................................... 156

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 157

Section 131—Annual Report on Operational Status of B–2 Bomber ....... 157

Subtitle E—Joint Programs ............................................................................. 157

Section 141—Study of Production Alternatives for the Joint Strike

Fighter Program .................................................................................... 157

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 158

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 158

Army RDT&E ................................................................................................... 161

Overview ........................................................................................................ 161

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 170

Advanced artillery systems ...................................................................... 170

Advanced battery technology .................................................................... 170

Aircrew coordination training .................................................................. 171

Apache Longbow focused modernization program .................................. 171

Army tactical unmanned aerial vehicles ................................................. 171

Breacher system ........................................................................................ 171

Chinook helicopter modification and improvement ................................ 172

Comanche ................................................................................................... 172

Combat identification dismounted soldier (CIDDS) ............................... 173

Combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser ...................................... 173

Common ground station ............................................................................ 173

Communications and networking technologies ....................................... 174

Defense manufacturing technology .......................................................... 174

Emergency preparedness training ........................................................... 175

Future combat system ............................................................................... 175

Future rotorcraft technologies .................................................................. 176

Guardrail common sensor ......................................................................... 177

Helmet mounted infrared sensor development ....................................... 177

High-energy laser test facility .................................................................. 177

Hypersonic wind tunnels .......................................................................... 177

Integrated inertial measurement unit-geo-positioning system .............. 178

Page

VII

Land information warfare activity ........................................................... 178

Medical errors reduction research ........................................................... 178

Mobile tactical high energy laser ............................................................. 179

National automotive center-university innovative research .................. 179

Passive millimeter wave camera .............................................................. 179

Real-time heart rate variability ............................................................... 179

Semi-automated imagery processor ......................................................... 180

Starstreak .................................................................................................. 180

Surveillance control data link (SCDL) ..................................................... 180

Thermal fluid based combat feeding system ........................................... 181

Trajectory correctable munitions ............................................................. 181

Volumetrically controlled manufacturing technology ............................. 181

Navy RDT&E .................................................................................................... 182

Overview ........................................................................................................ 182

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 193

Advanced amphibious assault vehicle ..................................................... 193

Advanced anti-radiation guided missile .................................................. 193

Advanced deployable system .................................................................... 194

Advanced technology demonstrations and fleet battle experiments ..... 194

Advanced waterjet propulsor .................................................................... 195

Aircraft survivability study ...................................................................... 195

Aviation depot maintenance technology .................................................. 196

Aviation modernization plan .................................................................... 196

Battle force tactical trainer (BFTT) ......................................................... 197

Beartrap ..................................................................................................... 197

C–2 eight-blade composite propeller system ........................................... 198

Common command and decision system ................................................. 198

Common towed array ................................................................................ 199

Composite advanced sail development .................................................... 199

CVNX aircraft carrier design product modeling ..................................... 200

Distributed engineering plant .................................................................. 200

Distributed marine environment forecast system .................................. 201

DP–2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration ............. 201

Dry chemical fire suppressant .................................................................. 202

E2–C2 rotordome and control surface improvements ............................ 202

Extended range guided munition ............................................................. 202

F–18 ............................................................................................................ 203

Fielded system obsolescence, technology insertion and technology refreshment ............................................................................................ 204

Fleet health technology and occupational lung disease ......................... 205

Flight worthy transparent armor system ................................................ 205

High mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS) ................................... 206

High performance sigma-delta waveform generator .............................. 206

Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communication technology ........................... 206

Hybrid light detection and ranging (LIDAR)/radar technology ............. 207

Hyperspectral research ............................................................................. 207

Insensitive munitions ................................................................................ 207

Integrated aviation life support systems ................................................. 208

Integrated semiconductor bridge based fuze ........................................... 208

Intermediate modulus carbon fiber and ultra-high thermal conductivity graphite fibers .......................................................................... 208

Joint forces command operational testbed .............................................. 209

Joint helmet mounted cueing system ...................................................... 209

Joint tactical combat training system ..................................................... 210

Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA) ..... 210

Littoral support fast patrol craft .............................................................. 210

Location of global positioning systems (GPS) jammers .......................... 211

Malaria deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) vaccine ......................................... 211

Manned reconnaissance systems .............................................................. 211

Marine Corps dragon warrior UAV ......................................................... 211

Marine mammal research ......................................................................... 212

Maritime technology (MARITECH) program .......................................... 212

Mobile electronic warfare support system ............................................... 213

Mobile integrated diagnostic and data analysis system (MIDDAS) ..... 213

Multi-function radar/volume search radar and the Navy’s radar roadmap ...................................................................................................... 213

Multipurpose processor ............................................................................. 214

Page

VIII

Naval space surveillance .......................................................................... 215

Navy mine countermeasures program ..................................................... 215

Advanced sensors for mine countermeasures and oceanography ...... 215

AN/AQS–20/X mine hunting sonar ...................................................... 216

Synthetic aperture sonar development for long-term mine reconnaissance system ............................................................................ 216

Naval modeling and simulation ............................................................... 217

New composite materials for aircraft canopies ....................................... 217

Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition ........... 218

Optically multiplexed wideband radar beam-forming array ................. 218

P–3 modernization program ..................................................................... 218

P–3 special mission squadron sensor upgrade ........................................ 219

Parametric airborne dipping sonar .......................................................... 219

Power node control centers ....................................................................... 220

Project M .................................................................................................... 220

Radio frequency integration and testing environment ........................... 221

Remote precision gun ................................................................................ 221

S–3B surveillance system upgrade program ........................................... 222

Ship service fuel cell program .................................................................. 222

Silicon carbide and gallium nitride semiconductor substrates .............. 222

Single flux quantum electronics ............................................................... 223

SSGN Conversion ...................................................................................... 223

Submarine sonar dome window ............................................................... 225

Supply chain management and development best practices ................. 225

Surface ship torpedo defense .................................................................... 226

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles ........................................................... 226

Vacuum electronics ................................................................................... 226

Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter demonstration 227

Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems ............................ 228

Air Force RDT&E ............................................................................................. 228

Overview ........................................................................................................ 228

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 239

21st century affordable aircraft thrust demonstration project .............. 239

Aging landing gear life extension ............................................................ 239

Airborne laser ............................................................................................ 239

Airborne reconnaissance systems ............................................................ 240

Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) partnership .............. 241

Air Force science and technology ............................................................. 241

Aerospace propulsion ............................................................................. 242

Aircrew laser eye protection ................................................................. 242

Ballistic missile technology ................................................................... 243

Combat identification ............................................................................ 243

Composite affordability initiative ......................................................... 243

Low cost launch technology .................................................................. 244

Miniature satellite threat reporting system ........................................ 244

Specialty aerospace metals ................................................................... 244

Upper atmospheric and astronomical research ................................... 245

Advanced message-oriented data security module (AMODSM) ............ 245

B–1B link 16 data link .............................................................................. 246

B–2 upgrades ............................................................................................. 246

B–52 modified miniature receive terminals configuration ..................... 247

Defense reconnaissance support program ............................................... 247

Discoverer II .............................................................................................. 247

Eagle vision ................................................................................................ 248

Electronic warfare development ............................................................... 248

Extended range cruise missile (ERCM) ................................................... 249

Global hawk unmanned aerial vehicle .................................................... 249

Hyperspectral imagery system ................................................................. 250

Integrated broadcast service .................................................................... 250

Joint ejection seat program ...................................................................... 251

Joint strike fighter .................................................................................... 252

Military strategic and tactical relay (MILSTAR) ................................... 253

Mobile approach control system ............................................................... 254

Multi-link antenna system ....................................................................... 254

Satellite control network .......................................................................... 255

Small smart munitions ............................................................................. 255

Space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS-High) ................................... 256

Page

IX

Space-based infrared system-low (SBIRS-Low) ...................................... 256

Spacelift range system .............................................................................. 257

U–2 senior year electro-optic system polarimetry .................................. 258

Defense Wide RDT&E ...................................................................................... 259

Overview ........................................................................................................ 259

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 268

Advanced sensor applications program ................................................... 268

Ballistic missile defense (BMD) ............................................................... 268

Advanced technology development ....................................................... 269

Liquid surrogate target ......................................................................... 269

National missile defense (NMD) ........................................................... 270

Navy theater wide ................................................................................. 271

Russian-American cooperative national missile defense .................... 272

Support technology ................................................................................ 272

Wide bandwidth information infrastructure ....................................... 272

Chemical-biological defense program ....................................................... 273

Chemical and biological defense program initiatives ......................... 273

Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors .................. 274

Commercial off-the-shelf-receiver development ...................................... 274

Competitive sustainment demonstration ................................................ 275

Complex systems design ........................................................................... 275

Computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis .................. 275

Computer network security ...................................................................... 276

CV–22 Osprey radar improvements ........................................................ 276

Defense agency science and technology funding ..................................... 276

Biological warfare defense .................................................................... 277

Computing systems and communications technology ......................... 277

Extensible information systems ............................................................ 278

Nuclear sustainment and counter-proliferation technologies ............ 278

Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research ....... 278

Facial recognition technology ................................................................... 278

High definition displays for military applications .................................. 278

High energy laser research and development ......................................... 279

Defense-wide high energy laser development ..................................... 279

Free electron laser ................................................................................. 280

Solid state laser ..................................................................................... 280

Information technology, superiority and assurance ............................... 281

Interference with global positioning system ........................................... 282

MC–130 autonomous landing guidance system ...................................... 282

Medical free electron laser ........................................................................ 283

Microelectromechanical systems sensor development ............................ 283

National imagery and mapping agency ................................................... 283

Requirement for ‘‘designated laboratory’’ ................................................ 284

Science and technology affordability initiative ....................................... 284

Special operations tactical video system ................................................. 285

Tactical and support aircraft noise reduction ......................................... 285

Texas regional institute for environmental studies ................................ 286

Thermionics for space power systems ...................................................... 286

TRICARE encounter data system ............................................................ 286

Ultra-wideband radar ............................................................................... 286

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 287

Overview ........................................................................................................ 287

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 289

Central test and evaluation investment program .................................. 289

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 290

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 290

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 290

Section 202—Amount for Basic and Applied Research ............................. 290

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 290

Section 211—High Energy Laser Programs ............................................... 290

Section 212—Management of Space-Based Infrared System-Low ............ 291

Section 213—Joint Strike Fighter ............................................................... 291

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense ............................................................. 291

Section 231—Funding for Fiscal Year 2001 ............................................... 291

Section 232—Sense of Congress Concerning Commitment to Deploy

National Missile Defense ...................................................................... 291

Page

X

Section 233—Reports on Ballistic Missile Threat Posed By North

Korea ....................................................................................................... 292

Section 234—Plan to Modify Ballistic Missile Defense Architecture to

Cover Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile Threats .......................... 292

Section 235—Designation of Airborne Laser Program as a Program

Element of Ballistic Missile Defense Program .................................... 293

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 293

Section 241—Recognition of Those Individuals Instrumental to Naval

Research Efforts During the Period from Before World War II

Through the End of the Cold War ........................................................ 293

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 294

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 294

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 324

Budget Request Increases ................................................................................ 324

Critical Readiness Accounts ......................................................................... 324

Depot maintenance .................................................................................... 324

Real property maintenance ...................................................................... 324

Miscellaneous unfunded requirements .................................................... 324

Mobility enhancement funding ................................................................. 325

Training accounts ...................................................................................... 325

Army Cold Weather Clothing ....................................................................... 325

Budget Request Reductions ............................................................................. 326

Civilian Personnel Reductions ..................................................................... 326

Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions ....................................................... 326

Headquarters Reductions ............................................................................. 326

Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises ..................................................... 327

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

Accountability of Operation and Maintenance Funding ............................ 327

Environmental Issues ...................................................................................... 327

Fines and Penalties ...................................................................................... 327

Navy Environmental Leadership Program ................................................. 328

Intelligence Issues ............................................................................................ 328

Cryptologic Skills Training .......................................................................... 328

Defense Foreign Language Program ........................................................... 328

Distributed Common Ground System ......................................................... 329

Eagle Vision Commercial Imagery .............................................................. 329

Integrated Broadcast Service ....................................................................... 330

RC–135 and U–2 Operations and Maintenance ......................................... 330

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues ......................................................... 330

Armed Forces Recreation Centers ............................................................... 330

Lodging Programs ......................................................................................... 331

Nonappropriated Fund Support of Official Activities ................................ 331

Other Issues ...................................................................................................... 332

Army Apprenticeship Program .................................................................... 332

Army Workload and Performance System .................................................. 332

Automatic Identification Technology ........................................................... 333

Civilian Air Traffic Controllers .................................................................... 333

Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities ............................... 334

Container Freight Station Operations ........................................................ 334

Core Logistics Capabilities ........................................................................... 334

Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................................... 335

Defense Personnel Records Imaging System-Electronics Military Personnel Records System .......................................................................... 336

Department of Defense Civilian Personnel ................................................. 336

Personnel safety ........................................................................................ 336

Recruiting and retention ........................................................................... 337

Financial Policy ............................................................................................. 337

Local School Renovation and Repair ........................................................... 338

Logistics Support Planning .......................................................................... 338

Military Affiliate Radio System ................................................................... 339

National Maintenance Program ................................................................... 340

Naval Audit Service ...................................................................................... 341

Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS) ...................................... 341

Spare and Repair Parts ................................................................................ 341

Urban Warfare Training .............................................................................. 342

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 342

Subtitle A—Authorization Of Appropriations ................................................ 342

Page

XI

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 342

Section 302—Working Capital Funds ......................................................... 342

Section 303—Armed Forces Retirement Home .......................................... 343

Section 304—Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction

Fund ........................................................................................................ 343

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 343

Section 311—Payment of Fines and Penalties Imposed for Environmental Violations ................................................................................... 343

Section 312—Necessity of Military Low-Level Flight Training to Protect

National Security and Enhance Military Readiness ........................... 343

Section 313—Use of Environmental Restoration Accounts to Relocate

Activities from Defense Environmental Restoration Sites ................. 343

Subtitle C—Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities . 343

Section 321—Use of Appropriated Funds to Cover Operating Expenses

of Commissary Stores ............................................................................ 343

Section 322—Adjustment of Sales Prices of Commissary Store Goods

and Services to Cover Certain Expenses ............................................. 344

Section 323—Use of Surcharges for Construction and Improvement

of Commissary Stores ............................................................................ 344

Section 324—Inclusion of Magazines and Other Periodicals as an Authorized Commissary Merchandise Category ...................................... 344

Section 325—Use of Most Economical Distribution Method for Distilled

Spirits ..................................................................................................... 345

Section 326—Report on Effects of Availability of Slot Machines on

United States Military Installations Overseas .................................... 345

Subtitle D—Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources ............... 345

Section 331—Inclusion of Additional Information in Reports to Congress Required before Conversion of Commercial or Industrial Type

Functions to Contractor Performance .................................................. 345

Section 332—Limitation Regarding Navy Marine Corps Intranet

Contract .................................................................................................. 345

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents Education .................................................. 346

Section 341—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit

Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department

of Defense Civilian Employees ............................................................. 346

Section 342—Eligibility Requirements for Attendance at Department

of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary

Schools .................................................................................................... 346

Subtitle F—Military Readiness Issues ........................................................... 347

Section 351—Additional Capabilities of, and Reporting Requirements

for, the Readiness Reporting System ................................................... 347

Section 352—Reporting Requirements Regarding Transfers from HighPriority Readiness Appropriations ....................................................... 347

Section 353—Department of Defense Strategic Plan to Reduce Backlog

in Maintance and Repair of Defense Facilities ................................... 347

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 348

Section 361—Authority to Ensure Demilitarization of Significant Military Equipment Formerly Owned by the Department of Defense ..... 348

Section 362—Annual Report on Public Sale of Certain Military Equipment Identified on United States Munitions List ............................... 348

Section 363—Registration of Certain Information Technology Systems

with Chief Information Officer ............................................................. 349

Section 364—Studies and Reports Required as Precondition to Certain

Manpower Reductions ........................................................................... 349

Section 365—National Guard Assistance for Certain Youth and

Chartable Organizations ....................................................................... 349

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 352

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 352

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 352

Section 402—Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels ..... 352

Section 403—Adjustment to End Strength Flexibility Authority ............. 353

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 353

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 353

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

of the Reserves ....................................................................................... 353

Section 413—End Strength for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ........ 354

Page

XII

Section 414—Increase in Number of Members in Certain Grades Authorized to Be on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves ................. 354

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 355

Section 421—Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel ..... 355

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 358

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 358

Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office ......................................... 358

Department of Defense International Student Program at the Military

Colleges ...................................................................................................... 358

Funding for Recruiting and Retention ............................................................ 359

Homosexual Conduct Briefings ....................................................................... 360

Incentives for Overseas Assignments ............................................................. 360

National Guard Military Technician Overtime Pay ...................................... 361

Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act ....................................... 361

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 361

Subtitle A—General Personnel Management Authorities ............................ 361

Section 501—Authority for Secretary of Defense to Suspend Certain

Personnel Strength Limitations During War or National

Emergency .............................................................................................. 361

Section 502—Authority to Issue Posthumous Commissions in the Case

of Members Dying Before Official Recommendation for Appointment or Promotion is Approved by Secretary Concerned ................... 362

Section 503—Technical Correction to Retired Grade Rule for Army

and Air Force Officers ........................................................................... 362

Section 504—Extension to End of Calendar Year of Expiration Date

for Certain Force Drawdown Transition Authorities .......................... 362

Section 505—Clarification of Requirements for Composition of ActiveDuty List Selection Boards When Reserve Officers are Under Consideration ................................................................................................ 363

Section 506—Voluntary Separation Incentive ............................................ 363

Section 507—Congressional Review Period for Assignment of Women

to Duty on Submarines and for Any Proposed Reconfiguration or

Design of Submarines to Accommodate Female Crew Members ....... 363

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Policy ........................................ 363

Section 511—Exemption from Active-Duty List for Reserve Officers

on Active Duty for a Period of Three Years or Less ........................... 363

Section 512—Exemption of Reserve Component Medical and Dental

Officers from Counting in Grade Strengths ........................................ 363

Section 513—Continuation of Officers on the Reserve Active Status

List Without Requirement for Application .......................................... 364

Section 514—Authority to Retain Reserve Component Chaplains and

Officers in Medical Specialties Until Specified Age ............................ 364

Section 515—Authority for Temporary Increase in Number of Reserve

Component Personnel Serving on Active Duty or Full-Time National Guard Duty in Certain Grades .................................................. 364

Section 516—Authority for Provision of Legal Services to Reserve Component Members Following Release from Active Duty ....................... 364

Section 517—Entitlement to Separation Pay for Reserve Officers Released from Active Duty Upon Declining Selective Continuation

on Active Duty After Second Failure of Selection for Promotion ...... 364

Section 518—Extension of Involuntary Civil Service Retirement Date

for Certain Reserve Technicians ........................................................... 365

Subtitle C—Education and Training .............................................................. 365

Section 521—College Tuition Assistance Program for Pursuit of Degrees by Members of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class

Program .................................................................................................. 365

Section 522—Review of Allocation of Junior Reserve Officers Training

Corps Units Among the Services .......................................................... 365

Section 523—Authority for Naval Postgraduate School to Enroll Certain Defense Industry Civilians in Specified Programs Relating

to Defense Product Development .......................................................... 366

Subtitle D—Decorations, Awards, and Commendations ............................... 366

Section 531—Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to Andrew

J. Smith for Valor during the Civil War .............................................. 366

Section 532—Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to Ed W.

Freeman for Valor during the Vietnam Conflict ................................. 366

Page

XIII

Section 533—Consideration of Proposals for Posthumous or Honorary

Promotions or Appointments of Members or Former Members of

the Armed Forces and Other Qualified Persons ................................. 366

Section 534—Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Navy Distinguished Flying Cross to Certain Persons ............................................. 367

Section 535—Addition of Certain Information to Markers on Graves

Containing Remains of Certain Unknowns from the U.S.S. ARIZONA Who Died in the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 ....................................................................................... 367

Section 536—Sense of Congress Regarding Final Crew of U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS ............................................................................................. 367

Section 537—Posthumous Advancement of Rear Admiral (Retired) Husband E. Kimmel and Major General (Retired) Walter C. Short

on Retired Lists ...................................................................................... 367

Section 538—Commendation of Citizens of Remy, France, for World

War II Actions ........................................................................................ 367

Subtitle E—Military Justice Matters ............................................................. 368

Section 541—Recognition by States of Military Testamentary Instruments ...................................................................................................... 368

Section 542—Probable Cause Required for Entry of Names of Subjects

into Official Criminal Investigative Reports ....................................... 368

Section 543—Collection and Use of DNA Identification Information

from Violent and Sexual Offenders in the Armed Forces .................. 368

Section 544—Limitation on Secretarial Authority to Grant Clemency

for Military Prisoners Serving Sentence of Confinement for Life

Without Eligibility for Parole ............................................................... 368

Section 545—Authority for Civilian Special Agents of Military Department Criminal Investigative Organizations to Execute Warrants

and Make Arrests .................................................................................. 369

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 369

Section 551—Funeral Honors Duty Compensation .................................... 369

Section 552—Test of Ability of Reserve Component Intelligence Units

and Personnel to Meet Current and Emerging Defense Intelligence

Needs ...................................................................................................... 369

Section 553—National Guard Challenge Program ..................................... 369

Section 554—Study of Use of Civilian Contractor Pilots for Operational

Support Missions ................................................................................... 370

Section 555—Pilot Program to Enhance Military Recruiting by Improving Military Awareness of School Counselors and Educators ............ 370

Section 556—Reimbursement for Expenses Incurred by Members in

Connection with Cancellation of Leave on Short Notice .................... 370

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 371

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 371

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 372

Briefings on Benefits of Military Service ........................................................ 372

Extension of Time Limitation on Use of Reserve Education Benefits ......... 373

Improved Basic Allowance for Housing .......................................................... 373

Military Pay Day Every 14 Days .................................................................... 373

Pay Table Reform for Mid-Grade Enlisted Members .................................... 374

Reimbursement for Reservists’ Travel Expenses ........................................... 374

Reimbursement of Permanent Change of Station Expenses ........................ 374

Retired Pay Following Reduction in Grade .................................................... 375

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

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 375

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2001 ......................... 375

Section 602—Revised Method for Calculation of Basic Allowance for

Subsistence ............................................................................................. 375

Section 603—Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance for Low-Income Members of the Armed Forces .................................................... 375

Section 604—Calculation of Basic Allowance for Housing for Inside

the United States ................................................................................... 376

Section 605—Equitable Treatment of Junior Enlisted Members in Computation of Basic Allowance for Housing ............................................. 376

Section 606—Basic Allowance for Housing Authorized for Additional

Members Without Dependents Who Are on Sea Duty ....................... 376

Section 607—Personal Money Allowance for Senior Enlisted Members

of the Armed Forces .............................................................................. 376

Page

XIV

Section 608—Allowance for Officers for Purchase of Required Uniforms

and Equipment ...................................................................................... 377

Section 609—Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for Members

of Precommissioning Programs ............................................................. 377

Section 610—Additional Amount Available for Fiscal Year 2001 Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States ...... 377

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 377

Section 611—Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities

for Reserve Forces .................................................................................. 377

Section 612—Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities

for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses and Nurse Anesthetists .................................................................................................... 378

Section 613—Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Other

Bonuses and Special Pays ..................................................................... 378

Section 614—Consistency of Authorities for Special Pay for Reserve

Medical and Dental Officers ................................................................. 378

Section 615—Special Pay for Coast Guard Physician Assistants ............. 378

Section 616—Special Duty Assignment Pay for Enlisted Members ......... 378

Section 617—Revision of Career Sea Pay ................................................... 378

Section 618—Revision of Enlistment Bonus Authority ............................. 379

Section 619—Authorization of Retention Bonus for Members of the

Armed Forces Qualified in a Critical Military Skill ........................... 379

Section 620—Elimination of Required Congressional Notification before

Implementation of Certain Special Pay Authority .............................. 379

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 379

Section 631—Advance Payments for Temporary Lodging of Members

and Dependents ..................................................................................... 379

Section 632—Additional Transportation Allowance Regarding Baggage

and Household Effects ........................................................................... 379

Section 633—Equitable Dislocation Allowances for Junior Enlisted

Members ................................................................................................. 379

Section 634—Authority to Reimburse Military Recruiters, Senior ROTC

Cadre, and Military Entrance Processing Personnel for Certain

Parking Expenses .................................................................................. 379

Section 635—Expansion of Funded Student Travel for Dependents ........ 380

Subtitle D—Retirement and Survivor Benefit Matters ................................. 380

Section 641—Increase in Maximum Number of Reserve Retirement

Points That May be Credited in Any Year .......................................... 380

Section 642—Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan Spousal Consent Requirement ................................................................................... 380

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 380

Section 651—Participation in Thrift Savings Plan .................................... 380

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 381

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 381

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 382

Funding for the Defense Health Program ...................................................... 382

Preventive Health Care Services .................................................................... 383

Report on Computer-Based Patient Record and Medical Records Tracking

System ........................................................................................................ 383

Report on Mandatory Enrollment Program for TRICARE Beneficaries ...... 384

Subtitle A—Health Care Services ................................................................... 384

Section 701—Two-Year Extension of Authority for Use of Contract

Physicians at Military Entrance Processing Stations and Elsewhere

Outside Medical Treatment Facilities .................................................. 384

Section 702—Medical and Dental Care for Medal of Honor Recipients ... 384

Section 703—Provision of Domiciliary and Custodial Care for

CHAMPUS Beneficiaries and Certain Former CHAMPUS Beneficiaries ................................................................................................... 385

Section 704—Demonstration Project for Expanded Access to Mental

Health Counselors ................................................................................. 385

Section 705—Teleradiology Demonstration Project ................................... 385

Subtitle B—TRICARE Program ...................................................................... 386

Section 711—Additional Beneficiaries Under TRICARE Prime Remote

Program in the Continental United States ......................................... 386

Section 712—Elimination of Copayments for Immediate Family ............. 386

Section 713—Modernization of TRICARE Business Practices and Increased Use of Military Treatment Facilities ...................................... 386

Page

XV

Section 714—Claims Processing Improvements ......................................... 387

Section 715—Prohibition Against Requirement for Prior Authorization

for Certain Referrals; Report on Nonavailability-of-Health-Care

Statements ............................................................................................. 388

Section 716—Authority to Establish Special Locality-Based Reimbursement Rates; Reports .............................................................................. 388

Section 717—Reimbursement for Certain Travel Expenses ...................... 388

Section 718—Reduction of Catastrophic Cap ............................................. 388

Section 719—Report on Protections Against Health Care Providers

Seeking Direct Reimbursement from Members of the Uniformed

Services ................................................................................................... 389

Section 720—Disenrollment Process for TRICARE Retiree Dental Program ........................................................................................................ 389

Subtitle C—Health Care Programs for Medicare-Eligible Department of

Defense Beneficiaries ................................................................................ 389

Section 721—Implementation of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program .. 389

Section 722—Study on Health Care Options for Medicare-Eligible Military Retirees ........................................................................................... 390

Section 723—Extended Coverage Under Federal Employees Health

Benefits Program ................................................................................... 390

Section 724—Extension of TRICARE Senior Supplement Program ......... 391

Section 725—Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration

Project ..................................................................................................... 391

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 391

Section 731—Training in Health Care Management and Administration .......................................................................................................... 391

Section 732—Study of Accrual Financing for Health Care for Military

Retirees ................................................................................................... 391

Section 733—Tracking Patient Safety in Military Medical Treatment

Facilities ................................................................................................. 391

Section 734—Pharmaceutical Identification Technology ........................... 392

Section 735—Management of Vaccine Immunization Program ................ 392

Section 736—Study on Feasibility of Sharing Biomedical Research

Facility .................................................................................................... 392

Section 738—VA/DOD Sharing Agreements for Health Services ............. 393

TITLE VIII—ACQUISTION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 394

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 394

Procurement of Military Clothing and Clothing-Related Items by Military

Installations in the United States ........................................................... 394

Compliance with Applicable Labor Laws in Procurement of Military

Clothing ...................................................................................................... 394

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 394

Section 801—Extension of Authority for Department of Defense Acquisition Pilot Programs; Reports Required ............................................. 394

Section 802—Technical Data Rights for Items Developed Exclusively

at Private Expense ................................................................................ 395

Section 803—Management of Acquisition of Mission-Essential Software

for Major Defense Acquisition Programs ............................................. 395

Section 804—Extension of Waiver Period for Live-Fire Survivability

Testing for MH–47E and MH–60K Helicopter Modification

Programs ................................................................................................ 395

Section 805—Three-Year Extension of Authority of Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects . 395

Section 806—Certification of Major Automated Information Systems

as to Compliance with Clinger-Cohen Act ........................................... 396

Section 807—Limitations on Procurement of Certain Items ..................... 396

Section 808—Multiyear Services Contracts ................................................ 396

Section 809—Study on Impact of Foreign Sourcing of Systems on LongTerm Military Readiness and Related Industrial Infrastructure ...... 396

Section 810—Prohibition Against Use of Department of Defense Funds

to Give or Withhold a Preference to a Marketer or Vendor of

Firearms or Ammunition ...................................................................... 397

Section 811—Study and Report on Practice of Contract Bundling in

Military Construction Contracts ........................................................... 397

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND

MANGEMENT .................................................................................................. 398

Page

XVI

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 398

Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs .......................................... 398

Management Headquarters ............................................................................. 399

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 399

Section 901—Change of Title of Certain Positions in the Headquarters,

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 399

Section 902—Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and Support

Workforce ............................................................................................... 399

Section 903—Clarification of Scope of Inspector General Authorities

under Military Whistleblower Law ...................................................... 400

Section 904—Report on Number of Personnel Assigned to Legislative

Liaison Functions .................................................................................. 400

Section 905—Joint Report on Establishment of National Collaborative

Information Analysis Capability .......................................................... 400

Section 906—Organization and Management of Civil Air Patrol ............. 401

Section 907—Report on Network Centric Warfare .................................... 401

Section 908—Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation ... 402

Section 909—Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security

Studies .................................................................................................... 403

Section 910—Change in Name of Armed Forces Staff College to Joint

Forces Staff College ............................................................................... 403

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 404

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 404

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 404

Overview ........................................................................................................ 404

Funding .......................................................................................................... 405

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 405

Air National Guard fighter operations .................................................... 405

Coastal Patrol equipment procurement ................................................... 406

Operation Caper Focus ............................................................................. 406

Puerto Rico ROTHR security .................................................................... 406

Southwest border fence ............................................................................. 406

OTHER MATTERS .............................................................................................. 406

Quadrennial Defense Review ........................................................................... 406

Department of Defense Personnel Security Investigation Requirements

Priorities .................................................................................................... 407

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 408

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 408

Section 1001—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 408

Section 1002—Incorporation of Classified Annex ...................................... 408

Section 1003—Authorization of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 ..................................................................... 408

Department of Defense ............................................................................. 408

Department of Energy .............................................................................. 409

Section 1004—Contingent Repeal of Certain Provisions Shifting Certain

Outlays from One Fiscal Year to Another ........................................... 409

Section 1005—Limitation on Funds for Bosnia and Kosovo Peacekeeping Operations for Fiscal Year 2001 ............................................. 409

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 410

Section 1011—National Defense Features Program .................................. 410

Subtitle C—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 410

Section 1021—Report on Department of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign Counter-Drug Activities .................................................. 410

Section 1022—Report on Tethered Aerostat Radar System ...................... 410

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 411

Section 1031—Funds for Administrative Expenses Under Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program ............................................................. 411

Section 1032—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 411

Section 1033—Transfer of Vietnam Era TA–4 Aircraft to Nonprofit

Foundation ............................................................................................. 411

Section 1034—Transfer of 19th Century Cannon to Museum .................. 411

Section 1035—Expenditures for Declassification Activities ...................... 411

Section 1036—Authority to Provide Loan Guarantees to Improve Domestic Preparedness to Combat Cyberterrorism ................................ 412

Section 1037—V–22 Cockpit Aircraft Voice and Flight Data Recorders .. 413

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ............... 414

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 414

Page

XVII

Section 1101—Employment and Compensation Provisions for Employees of Temporary Organizations Established by Law or Executive

Order ....................................................................................................... 414

Section 1102—Restructuring the Restriction on Degree Training ........... 414

Section 1103—Continuation of Tuition Reimbursement and Training

for Certain Acquisition Personnel ........................................................ 414

Section 1104—Extension of Authority for Civilian Employees of the

Department of Defense to Participate Voluntarily in Reductions

in Force ................................................................................................... 414

Section 1105—Expansion of Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel

System Positions .................................................................................... 415

Section 1106—Pilot Program for Reengineering the Equal Employment

Opportunity Complaint Process ............................................................ 415

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS .............................. 416

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 416

Arms Control Implementation ......................................................................... 416

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 416

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

and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities ................................................. 416

Section 1202—Annual Report Assessing Effect of Continued Operations

in the Balkans Region on Readiness to Execute the National Military Strategy .......................................................................................... 417

Section 1203—Situation in the Balkans ..................................................... 417

Section 1204—Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in

Colombia ................................................................................................. 419

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF

THE FORMER SOVIET UNION .................................................................... 420

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 420

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 421

Arms Elimination Projects in Russia .............................................................. 421

Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine ........................................................... 422

Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia ................................ 422

Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia ...................................................... 424

Defense and Military Contacts ........................................................................ 426

Elimination of Plutonium Production in Russia ............................................ 426

Fissile Material Processing and Packaging .................................................... 427

Fissile Material Storage Facility ..................................................................... 427

Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia ................................................ 428

Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security .................................................... 428

Other Assessments and Administrative Support ........................................... 429

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 429

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

and Funds ............................................................................................... 429

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 430

Section 1303—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Elimination of Conventional Weapons ....................................................................................... 430

Section 1304—Limitations on Use of Funds for Fissile Material Storage

Facility .................................................................................................... 430

Section 1305—Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of

Multiyear Plan ....................................................................................... 430

Section 1306—Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Arms .................................. 430

Section 1307—Limitation on Use of Funds to Support Warhead Dismantlement Processing ......................................................................... 430

Section 1308—Agreement on Nuclear Weapons Storage Sites ................. 430

Section 1309—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Construction of Fossil

Fuel Energy Plants ................................................................................ 430

Section 1310—Audits of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs ........... 430

Section 1311—Limitation on Use of Funds for Prevention of Biological

Weapons Proliferation in Russia .......................................................... 431

TITLE XIV—COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE UNITED

STATES FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK .............. 432

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 432

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 433

Section 1401—Establishment of Commission ............................................. 433

Section 1402—Duties of Commission .......................................................... 433

Section 1403—Report ................................................................................... 433

Page

XVIII

Section 1404—Powers ................................................................................... 433

Section 1405—Commission Procedures ....................................................... 433

Section 1406—Personnel Members .............................................................. 433

Section 1407—Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions .......................... 433

Section 1408—Funding ................................................................................. 433

Section 1409—Termination of the Commission .......................................... 433

TITLE XV—PROVISIONS REGARDING VIEQUES ISLAND, PUERTO

RICO .................................................................................................................. 434

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 434

Section 1501—Conditions on Disposal of Naval Ammunition Support

Detachment, Vieques Island ................................................................. 435

Section 1502—Retention of Eastern Portion of Vieques Island ................ 436

Section 1503—Limitations on Military Use of Vieques Island ................. 436

Section 1504—Economic Assistance for Residents of Vieques Island ...... 436

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 437

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 437

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW ...................................................... 437

TITLE XXI—ARMY ................................................................................................. 455

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 455

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 455

Condition of Barracks to Support Basic Training .......................................... 455

Improvements to Military Family Housing .................................................... 455

Planning and Design ........................................................................................ 456

Unspecified Minor Construction ...................................................................... 456

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 456

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ................................................................................................... 456

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 456

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 456

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 456

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal

Year 1999 Project ................................................................................... 456

TITLE XXII—NAVY ................................................................................................ 457

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 457

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 457

Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities, Blount

Island, Jacksonville, Florida ..................................................................... 457

Improvements to Military Family Housing .................................................... 457

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 457

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ................................................................................................... 457

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 458

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 458

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 458

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal Year 1997

Project at Marine Corps Combat Development Command,

Quantico, Virginia ................................................................................. 458

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE .................................................................................... 459

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 459

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 459

Rome Research Site, New York ....................................................................... 459

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 459

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ................................................................................................... 459

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 459

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 460

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 460

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES .................................................................. 461

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 461

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 461

Forward Operating Locations in Support of Counter-Drug and Drug

Interdiction Activities ............................................................................... 461

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 461

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 461

Page

XIX

Section 2402—Authorization Of Appropriations, Defense Agencies ......... 461

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 462

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 462

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 462

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ................................................................................................... 462

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ............................ 462

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 463

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 463

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 463

Planning and Design, Army National Guard ................................................. 463

Planning and Design, Army Reserve .............................................................. 463

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army Reserve ............................................ 463

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 463

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects ............................................................................... 463

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS ..... 464

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 464

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to

be Specified by Law ............................................................................... 464

Section 2702—Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1998

Projects ................................................................................................... 464

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1997

Projects ................................................................................................... 464

Section 2704—Effective Date ....................................................................... 464

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................... 465

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 465

Military Housing Privatization Initiative ....................................................... 465

Water Quality Issues Affecting Military Installations in the Area of ..........

Kaiserslautern, Germany ................................................................................. 465

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 465

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing

Changes ...................................................................................................... 465

Section 2801—Revision of Limitations on Space by Pay Grade ................ 465

Section 2802—Leasing of Military Family Housing, United States

Southern Command, Miami, Florida ................................................... 466

Section 2803—Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement

of Military Housing ................................................................................ 466

Section 2804—Expansion of Definition of Armory to Include Readiness

Centers ................................................................................................... 466

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 466

Section 2811—Increase in Threshold for Notice and Wait Requirements

for Real Property Transactions ............................................................. 466

Section 2812—Enhancement of Authority of Military Departments to

Lease Non-Excess Property ................................................................... 466

Section 2813—Conveyance Authority Regarding Utility Systems of Military Departments .................................................................................. 466

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances Generally ...................................................... 467

Part I—Army Conveyances .............................................................................. 467

Section 2831—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois ..... 467

Section 2832—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Galesburg,

Illinois ..................................................................................................... 467

Section 2833—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Winona,

Minnesota ............................................................................................... 467

Section 2834—Land Conveyance, Fort Polk, Louisiana ............................ 467

Section 2835—Land Conveyance, Fort Pickett, Virginia ........................... 467

Section 2836—Land Conveyance, Fort Dix, New Jersey ........................... 467

Section 2837—Land Conveyance, Nike Site 43, Elrama, Pennsylvania .. 468

Section 2838—Land Exchange, Fort Hood, Texas ..................................... 468

Section 2839—Land Conveyance, Charles Melvin Price Support Center,

Illinois ..................................................................................................... 468

Section 2840—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Local Training Center,

Chattanooga, Tennessee ........................................................................ 468

Part II—Navy Conveyances ............................................................................. 468

Page

XX

Section 2851—Modification of Authority for Oxnard Harbor District,

Port Hueneme, California, to Use Certain Navy Property ................. 468

Section 2852—Modification of Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, California ........................................................................ 469

Section 2853—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Marine Corps Air Station,

Miramar, California ............................................................................... 469

Section 2854—Lease of Property, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar,

California ................................................................................................ 469

Section 2855—Lease of Property, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida 469

Section 2856—Land Exchange, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego,

California ................................................................................................ 470

Section 2857—Land Exchange, Naval Air Reserve Center, Columbus,

Ohio ......................................................................................................... 470

Section 2858—Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Center, Tampa, Florida ........................................................................................................... 470

Part III—Air Force Conveyances .................................................................... 470

Section 2861—Land Conveyance, Wright Patterson Air Force Base,

Ohio ......................................................................................................... 470

Section 2862—Land Conveyance, Point Arena Air Force Station, California ....................................................................................................... 471

Section 2863—Land Conveyance, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California ....................................................................................................... 471

Part IV—Other Conveyances ........................................................................... 471

Section 2871—Conveyance of Army and Air Force Exchange Service

Property, Farmers Branch, Texas ........................................................ 471

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 471

Section 2881—Retention of Easement Authority to Leased Parkland,

Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California ............................... 471

Section 2882—Extension of Demonstration Project for Purchase of Fire,

Security, Police, Public Works, and Utility Services from Local

Government Agencies ............................................................................ 472

Section 2883—Establishment of World War II Memorial on Guam ......... 472

Section 2884—Naming of the Army Missile Testing Range at Kwajalein

Atoll as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Defense Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll ................................................................................................. 472

Section 2885—Designation of Building at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, in

Honor of Andrew T. McNamara ........................................................... 472

Section 2886—Redesignation of the Balboa Naval Hospital, San Diego,

California, in Honor of Bob Wilson, a Former Member of the House

of Representatives ................................................................................. 472

Section 2887—Sense of Congress Regarding Importance of Expansion

of National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California ........................... 472

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ..................................... 473

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 473

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 473

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................................ 492

Overview ........................................................................................................ 492

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 492

Acceleration of the 94–1 program and restoration of infrastructure

at the Savannah River Site ............................................................... 492

Energy Employees Compensation Initiative ........................................... 492

Hanford tank waste remediation system privatization, phase I ........... 494

Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility ........................................................ 494

Nonproliferation and national security ................................................... 495

Worker and community transition ........................................................... 495

National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................... 496

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 496

Budget Structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA) Campaigns ............................................................................ 496

Advanced Design and Production Technology (ADAPT) .................... 497

Advanced radiography ........................................................................... 497

Defense computing and modeling ......................................................... 498

Laser development ................................................................................. 500

Pit manufacturing readiness ................................................................ 501

Page

XXI

Tritium readiness .................................................................................. 502

Construction projects ................................................................................ 502

Defense programs requirements process ................................................. 502

Department of Energy Reorganization Issues ........................................ 503

Directed stockpile work ............................................................................. 505

Stockpile evaluation .............................................................................. 505

Stockpile maintenance .......................................................................... 505

Program direction for defense programs ................................................. 506

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) ............................... 506

Operations of facilities ........................................................................... 507

Special projects ...................................................................................... 507

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 508

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 508

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 508

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management ........................................................................................................ 508

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 508

Section 3104—Defense Facilities Closure Projects .................................... 508

Section 3105—Defense Environmental Management Privatization ......... 508

Section 3106—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................................ 508

Subtitle B—Recurring General Provisions ..................................................... 508

Section 3121—Reprogramming .................................................................... 508

Section 3122—Limits on General Plant Projects ....................................... 508

Section 3123—Limits on Construction Projects ......................................... 508

Section 3124—Fund Transfer Authority ..................................................... 509

Section 3125—Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design .......... 509

Section 3126—Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction Activities ................................................................................. 509

Section 3127—Availability of Funds ........................................................... 509

Section 3128—Authority Relating to Transfer of Defense Environmental Management Funds .................................................................. 509

Section 3131—Funding for Termination Costs for Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Project, Richland, Washington ............ 509

Section 3132—Enhanced Cooperation Between National Nuclear Security Administration and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization ....... 510

Section 3133—Required Contents of Future-Years Nuclear Security

Program to be Submitted with Fiscal Year 2002 Budget and Limitation on Obligation of Certain Funds Pending Submission of that

Program .................................................................................................. 510

Section 3134—Limitation on Obligation of Certain Funds ....................... 510

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 511

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 511

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................................ 511

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 511

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 511

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE ........................................ 512

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 512

Section 3301—Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds ................................... 512

Section 3302—Use of Excess Titanium Sponge in the National Defense

Stockpile to Manufacture Department of Defense Equipment .......... 512

TITLE XXXIV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................ 513

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 513

Merchant Marine Academy ............................................................................. 513

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 513

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001 ...... 513

Section 3402—Extension of Period For Disposal of Obsolete Vessels

From the National Reserve Fleet ......................................................... 513

Section 3403—Authority to Convey National Defense Reserve Fleet

Vessel, GLACIER ................................................................................... 513

Departmental Data .................................................................................................. 514

Department of Defense Authorization Request ................................................. 514

Military Construction Authorization Request ................................................... 515

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 515

Communications From Other Committees ............................................................ 515

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 521

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................................................... 521

Page

XXII

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ...................................................... 521

Committee Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 542

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 542

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 542

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 542

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 542

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 551

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 690

Additional views of John M. Spratt, Jr .............................................................. 690

Additional views of Steven T. Kuykendall ......................................................... 694

Additional views of Baron P. Hill ....................................................................... 695

Additional views of Joseph R. Pitts, John M. Spratt, Jr .................................. 697

Additional views of Robert A. Underwood, Neil Abercrombie, Solomon P.

Ortiz, Thomas H. Allen, Silvestre Reyes ........................................................ 698

Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie, Patrick J. Kennedy, Thomas H. Allen, Adam Smith, Ellen O. Tauscher,

Robert E. Andrews, Mike Thompson .............................................................. 700

Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Neil Abercrombie, Ike Skelton, Robert

A. Underwood, Patrick J. Kennedy, Robert A. Brady ................................... 701

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–616

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

MAY 12, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SPENCE, from the Committee on Armed Services,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 4205]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for

military activities of the Department of Defense and for military

construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal

year 2001, 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 out all after the enacting clause of the

bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported bill.

The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the

text of the bill.

EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 4205. The title of the bill

is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The

remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended.

2

PURPOSE

The bill would—(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001

for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation

(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3)

Authorize for fiscal year 2001: (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 2001 for military construction and family

housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the

Department of Energy national security programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (8) Authorize

appropriations for fiscal year 2001 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 $305.3 billion for

the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2001. Of this

amount, the President requested $291.0 billion for the Department

of Defense (including $8.0 billion for military construction and family housing) and $13.1 billion for Department of Energy national

security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

The committee recommends an overall level of $309.9 billion in

budget authority. This amount is consistent with the discretionary

defense spending limitations imposed by the Balanced Budget Act

of 1997 and it represents an increase of approximately $21.1 billion

from the amount authorized for appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65).

Overall, the committee’s recommendation is consistent with the

amounts established in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget

for Fiscal Year 2001 for the national defense budget function.

3

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

The following table provides a summary of the amounts requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the bill

(in the column labeled ‘‘Budget Authority Implication of Committee

Recommendation’’) and the committee’s estimate of how the committee’s recommendations relate to the budget totals for the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the budget authority implications of committee action, the table reflects the numbers contained in the President’s budget for proposals not in the

committee’s legislative jurisdiction.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is

the first defense authorization bill prepared for the new millennium. It reflects the committee’s view of, and commitment to, the

policies, programs, and priorities required to maintain U.S. military preeminence in the 21st century.

The committee bill authorizes $309.9 billion for defense during

fiscal year 2001—an addition of $4.5 billion to the Administration’s

defense budget request. Although this bill continues the trend of

adding to the Administration’s defense budget request, the committee remains troubled by the mismatch between requirements,

forces, and resources that continues to exist and will remain, even

with the increases contained in this bill.

In the committee’s view, the public debate over the adequacy of

U.S. defense funding has turned an important corner. In recent

years, efforts to increase defense have encountered skepticism and

outright opposition by an Administration that came into office believing that defense could be reduced substantially without risk to

the national security. The end of the Cold War was accompanied

by annual real decreases in defense spending, as the ‘‘peace dividend’’ was applied to other priorities. There now appears to be a

general consensus that U.S. defense spending has fallen too far too

fast. These real decreases have resulted in significant problems in

readiness, equipment modernization, and quality of life for U.S.

service personnel, and a significant overall decline in U.S. military

capability. This year, the committee has again sought to address

the most critical shortfalls in these areas by increasing funding

above the Administration’s budget request.

U.S. Strategy for the New Millennium

U.S. military strategy continues to be guided by the tenets outlined in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR,

building upon its predecessor, the 1993 Bottom-Up Review, postulated that the sizing and composition of U.S. military forces should

be based on the requirement to fight two nearly simultaneous

major theater wars. While the committee believes that the two

major theater war standard has been a realistic and useful planning tool, the QDR was a budget-driven exercise, rather than a

strategy-driven one. Even so, the defense resources historically requested by the Administration have never been adequate to execute the strategy without accepting a greater than prudent level of

risk.

Testifying before the committee on October 21, 1999, the Air

Force, Navy, and Marine Corps service chiefs each stated that they

lacked the capabilities required of a true ‘‘two major theater war’’

military force. Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki declared

that the Army could execute the two major theater war strategy

only with ‘‘high risk.’’ In subsequent testimony on February 10,

2000, General Shinseki stated, ‘‘You measure that risk in national

treasure, lives, and expended dollars.’’ Former Secretary of Defense

James Schlesinger told the committee on February 8, 2000, ‘‘The

simple reality today is that we cannot fight two MRCs [major regional contingencies] more or less simultaneously.’’ Even former

11

Secretary of Defense William Perry, who oversaw the Clinton Administration’s early defense efforts, testified before the committee,

‘‘We do not have a capability of fighting two [major theater wars]

at the same time. For one thing, we do not have enough airlift and

sealift to go to two places at once.’’

The next Administration will have an ability, through the QDR

process, to place its imprint on the strategy that will guide the

level and composition of U.S. military forces in the new millennium. The committee expects that the next QDR, due out in September 2001, will be strategy-based and not budget constrained.

The committee has long believed that the level of resources necessary for defense must flow from an assessment of U.S. strategy,

existing and emerging threats, and the force levels required to deal

with those threats. Under this Administration, the reverse has

been true. Anticipated budget levels have driven the sizing and

composition of U.S. forces and the strategy that can be implemented with those force levels. This approach stands sound national security planning on its head.

The committee’s approach again this year has been guided by an

effort to develop a defense budget that is more responsive to the

post-Cold War threats faced by the United States and commensurate with America’s global responsibilities—and, in so doing, to ensure that U.S. forces can successfully execute their missions at the

lowest possible level of risk.

Maintaining America’s Military Preeminence

In its Phase I report last fall on the emerging global security environment, the United States Commission on National Security/

21st Century reported that the United States can expect to confront a variety of new and asymmetric threats in the next several

decades that will pose significant challenges to U.S. security. These

threats include the spread of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass

destruction, information warfare, terrorism, and the use by other

states of space for military purposes. According to the commission,

‘‘threats to American security will be more diffuse, harder to anticipate, and more difficult to neutralize than ever before. Deterrence

will not work as it once did; in many cases it may not work at all.’’

In its Phase II report, issued in April 2000, the commission concluded, ‘‘The maintenance of America’s strength is a long-term commitment and cannot be assured without conscious, dedicated effort.’’ This places a premium on ensuring that America’s armed

forces are sufficiently resourced, manned, and equipped, to successfully confront emerging threats. This fundamental principle has

guided the committee’s approach to the defense budget for the past

six years. The committee agrees with the commission’s conclusion

that without a sustained defense effort, the United States ‘‘will find

its power reduced, its interests challenged even more than they are

today, and its influence eroded.’’ Secretary Schlesinger echoed this

point in testimony before the committee on February 8, 2000, when

he stated, ‘‘The United States simply cannot continue to play the

global leadership role envisioned by the current national security

strategy without a substantial increase in defense spending. . . .

We are resting on our laurels as the sole superpower,’’ he stated,

12

and warned that without sustained increases in defense, ‘‘we are

likely to see a train wreck.’’

Unfortunately, in the past year, additional strains have been imposed on the U.S. military, as the armed forces continue to be

asked to do more with less. This reality has again called into question the armed forces’ ability to carry out the national military

strategy postulated in the QDR. One year ago, U.S. forces led

NATO’s Operation Allied Force campaign against Yugoslavia. For

the Air Force, this operation was the equivalent of a major theater

war. The 78-day military campaign exposed serious strains within

the U.S. military, illuminating problems that have resulted from

underfunding and over-extending the military. It also led to the

second major peacekeeping operation involving U.S. forces in the

Balkans in five years. Like the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, the

NATO-led Kosovo peacekeeping operation is of indefinite duration

and threatens to involve the United States in an ever-deepening

quagmire. The requirements of peacekeeping pose significant burdens on U.S. forces that detract from their primary warfighting

mission. As a result, readiness has declined, equipment has been

severely strained, and quality of life has suffered.

The committee recognizes that the United States has global interests and responsibilities. However, the increasing use of the

armed forces for humanitarian and civil support missions abroad

diminishes the military’s capacity to respond to a significant conflict or crisis. The U.S. armed forces were employed overseas more

times in the past decade than in the previous 45 years. Since 1989,

the Army has participated in 35 major deployments, including a

significant number of peacekeeping missions. During the same period, the Army, including its Reserve Components, reduced its force

structure by more than 34 percent. Continued high operating tempos risk bending the force to the breaking point. The employment

of U.S. military forces should be selective and based on a pragmatic

calculation of the risks and benefits to U.S. national security. In establishing the funding priorities in this year’s bill, the committee

is again guided by this fundamental principle.

The Administration’s Defense Budget Request

The President’s defense budget request for fiscal year 2001 reflects the first significant real increase in defense funding in a decade and, unlike in previous years, does not appear to be premised

on questionable economic assumptions, assumed savings, and outlay gimmicks. In submitting its proposed budget, the Administration appears to recognize that quality of life, readiness, and modernization shortfalls are real, that they have real-world implications, and that increased defense spending is necessary. However,

as Secretary of Defense William Cohen testified before the committee on February 9, 2000, ‘‘One budgetary year, one submission

or two submissions of real growth increase does not a military

make. It’s going to take sustained commitment over the years.’’

Unfortunately, despite the increases proposed by the President

this year, serious mismatches between strategy, forces, and resources continue to exist. Over the past eight years, the Administration’s cumulative defense budget requests have fallen more than

$300 billion short of even covering the costs of inflation relative to

13

the fiscal year 1993 defense spending levels it inherited—spending

levels that already reflected significant cutbacks resulting from

President Bush’s post-Cold War downsizing of the U.S. military.

Although U.S. military strategy remains essentially unchanged

from that articulated in the QDR, the committee believes that the

Administration’s current and planned levels of defense funding are

insufficient to carry out that strategy. The committee believes that

the United States will need to invest significantly more resources

in order to maintain even current military capabilities. As Secretary Schlesinger testified before the committee on February 8,

2000, ‘‘We cannot maintain the present force structure and reequip

the forces on the present budget levels or the prospective budget

levels. . . . The simple reality is that we cannot sustain those

forces. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of simple

arithmetic. . . .’’ The committee has sought repeatedly to provide

additional resources for defense that would address the most serious deficiencies that exist.

Despite significant congressional increases to the defense budget

last year, the service chiefs testified before the committee in October 1999 to having at least $9 billion in critical unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2000, excluding the unbudgeted costs of

Kosovo operations. Few, if any, of these shortfalls were addressed

in the fiscal year 2000 supplemental submitted with the budget request. This led the House to support a significant increase to the

Administration’s supplemental request. In testimony before the

committee earlier this year, the service chiefs identified nearly $16

billion in unfunded military requirements. Since last year, their

five-year estimate of shortfalls has increased from $38 billion to

$84 billion. As General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, testified,

‘‘there is still a mismatch between the resources we have and the

requirements we may face.’’

In a recent report, the Center for Strategic and International

Studies (CSIS) concluded, ‘‘A substantial defense strategy-resources

mismatch . . . already exists. It is profound. It has been ongoing

for some time and will take years to overcome. It is reaching crisis

proportions and requires immediate attention.’’ With this in mind,

the committee has sought to address in this year’s budget the most

serious aspects of this mismatch as they relate to readiness, modernization, and quality of life.

Restoring Readiness

Restoring military readiness is a key priority for the committee,

as U.S. military readiness is essential to securing America’s future

as the world’s sole superpower. In recent years, readiness has suffered as a result of high operations tempo resulting from the high

pace of unscheduled contingency deployments around the world.

Historically, the Administration has sought to pay for these deployments by raiding critical readiness accounts. In addition, nearterm readiness has been purchased at the expense of future modernization. Admiral Jay Johnson, Chief of Navy Operations, told

the committee in October 1999 that ‘‘fiscal constraints force us too

often to choose between near-term readiness and future modernization and recapitalization.’’ General James Jones, Commandant of

the Marine Corps, stated, ‘‘We have sacrificed our procurement acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.012 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
14

counts to assist in meeting the growing costs of keeping our aging

equipment and weapons ‘ready.’ ’’

Unfortunately, the Administration’s fiscal year 2001 defense

budget request contains few if any increases to readiness accounts

and falls well short of addressing the serious readiness problems

that exist. Moreover, current budget projections indicate that funding for critical readiness needs will decline next year. Existing

readiness problems include a shortage of spare parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure, growing equipment and facilities’

backlogs, insufficient training, and personnel shortages. According

to Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan, the overall combat readiness of the Air Force has declined by 26 percent since

1996.

The committee finds this situation troubling, particularly in light

of the fact that the Administration has at long last acknowledged

that serious readiness shortfalls exist. In testifying on the fiscal

year 2001 budget request on February 9, 2000, General Henry

Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that

even recent funding increases ‘‘will not guarantee the levels of

readiness needed to significantly reduce risk in executing the National Military Strategy.’’ Over the past five years, the Congress has added more than $7

billion to the Administration’s budget requests to fund day-to-day

operations, training, equipment and facility maintenance, and

spare parts. The committee bill continues this trend by adding significant additional resources for critical readiness priorities.

Equipping the Force

For the United States to remain the world’s preeminent military

power, additional investment in the development and procurement

of modern technology and equipment is essential. Our men and

women in uniform cannot be expected to fight and win the nation’s

wars in the 21st century solely with equipment developed and acquired in the 20th century.

Although this year’s budget request increases funding for research, development, testing, and evaluation for the first time in

five years, important shortfalls remain in these critical accounts. In

particular, additional efforts are required in the area of national

and theater missile defenses. The committee budget reflects the

committee’s historically strong support for the development of technologies that could be deployed to protect the American homeland

from the real and growing threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles and the weapons of mass destruction they carry.

The Administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2001 meets,

for the first time, the Administration’s own target of providing $60

billion for the procurement of equipment essential to a modern

military. However, this goal was attained through the use of innovative accounting, such as including submarine overhaul funds in

the procurement accounts for the first time.

Despite meeting this milestone, the committee is troubled by the fact that the $60.3 billion request is $1.5 billion below what the Administration projected the request would be one year ago. This is

difficult to comprehend in an overall defense budget characterized

by real spending growth.

15

The committee notes that the military of 2000 is continuing to

live off the equipment investment decisions made almost two decades earlier. The defense build-up that occurred under President

Reagan has served the nation well. However, the force that resulted from this build-up is precisely the one being worn out as a

result of extensive operational deployments and inadequate

resourcing. As Secretary Schlesinger told the committee, the U.S.

military continues to live off and wear out the ‘‘capital’’ of the late

Cold War.

During its examination of the Administration’s budget request,

the committee heard testimony from a variety of witnesses, including former Department of Defense officials, who testified that the

Administration’s procurement budget was insufficient to modernize

and equip the current QDR force well into the 21st century. The

CSIS report estimated that ‘‘DOD procurement budgets will need

to average $164 billion annually’’ over the next 10 years ‘‘to provide

for steady and continued modernization and replacement of the

QDR force. . . .’’ Other estimates have suggested that the current

procurement budget is underfunded by $25 billion to $50 billion.

Former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, in Senate testimony, stated, ‘‘Even though we got to $60 billion in our modernization budget, we’re still not really making up for the hole that we

dug for ourselves during . . . the second half of the ’80s and the

’90s.’’ Even Secretary Perry testified before the committee that procurement is underfunded. ‘‘My own judgment is it probably needs

to be perhaps $70 to $80 billion,’’ he declared. Over the past five years, the committee has added nearly $18 billion to the Administration’s procurement budget requests and this

bill adds another $2.0 billion to the procurement accounts largely

to meet the most critical unfunded modernization requirements

identified by the service chiefs.

Keeping Faith With Our Military Personnel

Ensuring a decent quality of life for military personnel and their

families remains central to the committee’s efforts to revitalize the

all-volunteer U.S. armed forces. America’s military is only as good

as the people who serve in it. Recruiting and retaining top-notch

personnel remains a key committee priority in this year’s bill.

In recent years, each of the military services has encountered difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel. With this in

mind, the committee bill makes a series of improvements to the

pay, allowances, benefits, and living conditions of American military personnel that significantly enhance the quality of life for

them and their families. The committee’s actions follow up on last

year’s initiatives taken by the Congress with respect to pay raises,

pay table reform, military retirement benefits, basic allowance for

housing, special pay and retention bonuses, and the military Thrift

Savings Plan.

In particular, the committee bill removes the barriers to an effective military healthcare system by restoring access to prescription

drug benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees, reduces out-of-pocket

costs for service personnel participating in the TRICARE Prime

and TRICARE Prime Remote programs, and expands the coverage

provided under this program to family members. Moreover, the bill

16

allows TRICARE reimbursements to be tailored to local area costs

and allows reimbursement for travel expenses incurred resulting

from long-distance referrals for medical care. The committee bill

also makes a number of management initiatives that are expected

to save the Defense Health Program over $500 million, which can

be reinvested in benefits, instead of being squandered on administration. The committee’s actions will result in improved access,

portability of benefit, and increased savings to U.S. service personnel for medical care.

In short, the committee bill fulfills the promise to make continued improvements in compensation and health care programs

begun in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, the committee bill includes a provision to eliminate the statutory requirement that service members pay for 15 percent of housing costs from their own pockets, and to authorize the Secretary of

Defense to increase the basic allowance for housing rates while reducing out-of-pocket housing expenses for military members to zero

by fiscal year 2005.

Military healthcare, morale, welfare, and recreation programs, as

well as the quality of facilities in which military personnel live and

work, also have a tangible effect on service members, their families, and career decisions. Unfortunately, the Administration’s

budget request significantly underfunds military construction and

healthcare improvements. The committee bill goes a long way toward improving the quality of life for U.S. military personnel and

their families.

The Committee Bill: Investing for the 21st Century

Over the past five years, the Congress has added nearly $50 billion to the Administration’s proposed defense budgets. These increases were necessary, but not sufficient. They have helped stop

the hemorrhaging of America’s defenses, but restoring U.S. military capability to that required by U.S. commitments and national

interests requires more. While the committee recognizes that additional defense investments are required, there is no question that

U.S. national security would be worse off had the committee and

the Congress not acted in a responsible manner to address the military’s most pressing problems.

Modernizing and maintaining today’s military forces, following

on the heels of a decade of real decline in defense budgets, will require the kind of sustained commitment and investment in the

years ahead that took place in the early 1980s. Some may argue

that the nation cannot afford such an investment. In the committee’s view, what the nation cannot afford is another decade, like the

last, of declining defense budgets and shrinking military forces if

the United States is to remain a superpower able to promote and

protect its global interests.

It is with this reality in mind that the committee has crafted a

defense budget designed to provide our service personnel with the

best tools our country can produce to enable them to defend our nation’s people, interests, and values. The committee bill represents

the minimum funding necessary to accomplish that goal. Although

a greater level of investment in America’s security will be necessary over the coming years if the nation is to be secure from the

17

range of threats it will likely confront, this bill is a necessary first

step toward ensuring that America’s military can meet the challenges that lie ahead, and ensure the safety and security of all

Americans, well into the new millennium.

HEARINGS

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 results from extensive hearings that began

on February 9, 2000 and that were completed on March 23, 2000.

The full committee conducted 6 sessions. In addition, a total of 27

sessions were conducted by five different subcommittees and two

panels of the committee on various titles of the bill.

(19)

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

OVERVIEW

In October 1995, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff first

advised the Secretary of Defense that in order to recapitalize the

U.S. armed forces after a decade of ever-decreasing defense procurement budgets, $60 billion would be required annually and

should be achieved by fiscal year 1998. Over four years after this

pronouncement and three years after its subsequent endorsement

by the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the fiscal year

2001 budget request finally reached that level, although it is $1.5

billion below what was forecast at the time the fiscal year 2000

budget was submitted to the Congress one year ago—the sixth consecutive year in which this situation has occurred. Consequently,

it is not surprising that the service chiefs continue to lament that

many of their modernization needs are going unmet. What is surprising is the fact that, notwithstanding these unmet needs, the future years defense program similarly forecasts reductions to the

procurement budgets in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 from those

made a year ago while, at the same time, prominent former Department of Defense (DOD) leaders in the current Administration

advocate large increases to these budgets.

For example, former Secretary of Defense, William Perry, testified before the committee earlier this year that, ‘‘Procurement proposed to you in this budget is $60 billion in round figures. My own

judgment is it probably needs to be perhaps $70 to $80 billion . . .’’

Also, in testimony before the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate

Appropriations Committee just prior to his resignation in March,

former Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, noted, ‘‘Even

though we got to $60 billion in our modernization budget, we’re

still not really making up for the hole that we dug for ourselves

during the ’90s. . . . actually the second half of the ’80s and the

’90s. And we’re going to have to do a better job later on. This is

where people said, ‘Well what will it cost to do that?’ I don’t believe

it’s $100 billion a year to do that, but I think it’s in the $10 billion

to $15 billion more a year for procurement in order to start getting

out of that hole.’’

Having added nearly $18 billion to the procurement budget requests of the past five years, the committee obviously shares the

views of the two former senior DOD officials. However, during most

of this period the committee has found itself to be seriously hampered in advocating a dramatically larger modernization budget by

a lack of support from the DOD civilian leadership—including

20

those individuals who now have testified that, indeed, increased

procurement funding is required. Consequently, it has been unable

to sustain the healthy $5 to $6 billion adds to the procurement accounts that it made in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Nevertheless,

fiscal year 2001 marks the sixth consecutive year the committee

has increased the President’s procurement budget, and the $2.6 billion added has again been largely devoted to funding equipment for

which, according to the service chiefs, requirements have not been

met.

The committee continues to strongly believe that the resources

provided to the Department to carry out its national security strategy of preparing to win two nearly simultaneous major theater

wars is inadequate. If this strategy remains intact following the fiscal year 2001 QDR, then it is imperative that the next Administration provide adequate resources to modernize our armed forces

from the outset and sustain these resources for as long as required.

As stated by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger in his

testimony to the committee this year, ‘‘The United States simply

cannot continue to play the global leadership role envisioned by the

current national security strategy without a substantial increase in

defense spending. . . . We cannot maintain the present force structure and reequip the forces on the present budget levels or the prospective budget levels.’’

21

22

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,323.3 million for Aircraft Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,542.8 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

23

24

25

26

Items of Special Interest

AH–64 modifications

The budget request contained $18.5 million for AH–64 modifications but included no funds to continue procurement of the oil debris detection system (ODDS) or the vibration management enhancement program (VMEP).

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 VMEP is an Army National Guard (ARNG) effort currently

directed toward resolving vibration management problems on the

ARNG’s AH–64 Apache fleet, but the committee understands the

technology is also applicable to the UH–60 Blackhawk. The committee continues to support the VMEP because of its belief that

such on-board diagnostic capabilities contribute significantly to

both aircrew safety and improved aircraft reliability.

Since the ODDS, which has been successfully integrated into

other Department of Defense aircraft, both reduces aircraft maintenance costs and enhances aircrew safety, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to incorporate the ODDS on

AH–64 Apaches. The committee also recommends an increase of

$7.0 million to continue procurement of VMEP systems for the

ARNG Apache fleet and to transition this technology to the

Blackhawk.

In total, the committee recommends $30.5 million for AH–64

modifications, an increase of $12.0 million.

Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)

The budget request contained no funds to procure ARL aircraft.

The ARL supports intelligence collection requirements for forwarddeployed force projection, operations other-than-war, and mid-intensity conflicts.

The committee understands that the final ARL aircraft validated

by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council remains unfunded

and is required to replace the less capable ARL-imagery intelligence (I) aircraft lost in South America in 1999. The ARL–M possesses integrated imagery intelligence, communications intelligence, a moving target indicator and synthetic aperture radar;

consequently, it offers a broader intelligence collection capability

than the ARL–I aircraft.

The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified

a $31.0 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for this

replacement aircraft. In support of this requirement, the committee

recommends $31.0 million for one ARL–M replacement aircraft.

Airborne communications

The budget request contained no funds to continue procurement

of the AN/ARC–220 aviation high frequency radios, which provide

secure voice and data communications capability between Army

27

helicopters flying nap-of-the-earth missions and beyond-line-ofsight aviation 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. The committee understands that the budget request will

result in a break in the production line. The committee further

notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $31.8 million

unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for AH–64 Apache and

OH–58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter radios. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $31.8

million to ensure the fielding of radios for both AH–64 Apache attack helicopters and OH–58D Kiowa Warriors and to prevent a production line break.

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of

ASE.

The Aircraft Survivability Equipment Trainer (ASET) IV is a

ground-based, mobile aviation threat emitter simulation and training system which enables both fixed and rotary wing aviators to

recognize surface-to-air-missile (SAM) and anti-aircraft artillery

threats in order to employ the correct aircraft evasive maneuvers.

ASET IV systems are currently fielded at major training centers

throughout the United States and Germany and require that an

aircraft have a fully operational ASE suite of sensors on board for

training. Congress added $7.4 million in fiscal year 1998, $6.4 million in fiscal year 1999, and $12.5 million in fiscal year 2000 for ASET IV

upgrades and notes that the necessity of this training device was

a subject of discussion in the Task Force Hawk After Action Report. However, additional validated requirements exist and several

systems in their present configuration still lack the capability to

simulate the most current infrared (IR) and SAM threats, thereby

limiting aircrew training. The committee believes this situation is

inconsistent with the Army’s ‘‘train as you fight’’ concept.

Consistent with its past actions, and based on the Army’s requirement for forces to train in realistic threat environments, the

committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for upgrading

ASET IV systems with current IR SAM threat simulators.

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications

The budget request contained $4.5 million to procure ASE modifications but included no funds for AN/AVR–2A laser detecting sets

(LDS). The 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 aboveand-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 also notes

the identification by the Army Chief of Staff of an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 to complete LDS ‘‘A’’ kit installation

28

on AH–64A Apaches, AH–64D Apache Longbows, and MH–47D/E

and MH–60K/L Special Operations Aircraft as well as to prevent

a production line break.

Based on a growing laser threat to Army attack and special operations aircraft and its desire to extend fielding of this system beyond force package one units, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for procurement of AN/AVR–2A LDS A kits.

CH–47 Chinook/UH–60 Blackhawk crashworthy fuel tanks

The budget request contained $117.1 million for modifications to CH–47 Chinooks and $3.0 million for modifications to UH–60

Blackhawks but included no funds for the procurement of CH–47

internal crashworthy fuel tanks or UH–60 external crashworthy

fuel tanks for Army National Guard (ARNG) units.

The committee understands that both the UH–60’s external fuel

tanks and the CH–47’s internal fuel tanks are subject to rupture

in the event of a crash, posing a safety risk to flight crews and passengers. Since current battlefield flight scenarios require these helicopters to fly long-range missions into hostile environments, the

committee believes that extended range, crashworthy fuel tanks

are critical to the safety and survivability of these aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

to continue upgrading ARNG CH–47s with internal crashworthy

fuel tanks and $9.0 million to begin procurement of external crashworthy fuel tanks for ARNG UH–60s.

Helicopter crashworthy seats

The committee is concerned about improving the safety performance of Army helicopter seats. While existing pilot and the co-pilot

seats offer some protection in the event of a hard impact in a crash,

passenger and troop seats offer minimal or no protection from the

acceleration forces created by such a crash, resulting in fatalities

and serious injury of soldiers.

Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Department

of the Army to include funds in its fiscal year 2002 budget request

for the UH–60 Blackhawk and CH–47 Chinook helicopters to begin

procurement of passenger and troop compartment crashworthy

seats, which can provide protection for a majority of expected survivable crashes.

TH–67 Creek

The budget request contained no funds to procure TH–67 Creek

training helicopters.

The committee notes that a shortfall in visual flight, instrument

flight, and basic combat skills training helicopters will occur with

the anticipated retirement of Vietnam-era UH–1 and OH–58 A/C

aircraft as outlined in the draft fiscal year 2000 Army Aviation

Modernization Plan. The committee understands that the Army

does not intend to replace these retiring aircraft due to affordability concerns. However, the committee also notes that the Army

Chief of Staff has identified a $35.0 million unfunded requirement

in fiscal year 2001 for 27 TH–67s.

Based on the need to replace the aging Huey and OH–58 A/C

fleet as soon as possible and the need to provide quality training

29

for Army aviators, the committee recommends an increase of $24.0

million for 19 TH–67 helicopters.

UH–60 Blackhawk

The budget request contained $64.7 million for the procurement

of six UH–60L Blackhawk utility helicopters for the Army National

Guard (ARNG) but included no funds for UH–60Q enhanced medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) helicopters or Firehawk conversion

kits for the ARNG. The Blackhawk is the Army’s primary utility

helicopter for air assault, general support and aero medical evacuation missions.

The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $196.0 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for the

procurement of 20 additional Blackhawks for the ARNG in recognition of a shortfall that has persisted for a number of years in

ARNG units. The committee also notes that the UH–60Q

MEDEVAC helicopter is the number one near-term medical modernization program for the Army and provides enhanced medical

evacuation and treatment of six litter or seven ambulatory patients

in a state-of-the-art medical treatment cabin interior. Finally, the

committee notes that the Firehawk conversion kit, which enables

a UH–60 to carry up to 1000 gallons of water in the under fuselage

tank and fully refill via a snorkel system in approximately one

minute after dropping its payload on a fire, greatly enhances the

ARNG’s ability to support forest firefighting requirements.

Consistent with its actions in prior fiscal years, the committee recommends an increase of $27.9 million to procure three additional UH–60L Blackhawks and $40.2 million to procure three

UH–60Q MEDEVAC variants. The committee also recommends

$3.0 million to procure two Firehawk conversion kits for the

ARNG.

In total, the committee recommends $135.8 million for the UH–

60 helicopter, an increase of $71.1 million.

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,295.7 million for Missile Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,367.7 million for fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

30

31

32

Items of Special Interest

Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) system summary

The budget request contained $15.0 million for ATAMCS Block

IA missile production support costs, but included no funds to procure ATACMS Block IV missiles. 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 Block IV upgrade that

will incorporate Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response

warheads into 51 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 believes that the Army should have the capability

to provide joint force commanders with a surface-to-surface deep

strike option, which produces limited collateral damage in urban

environments. Therefore, the committee recommends $10.0 million

to upgrade 51 ATACMS Block IA missiles to Block IV configuration.

Multipurpose individual munition (MPIM) advance procurement

The budget request contained $3.5 million for advance procurement of the MPIM. Subsequent to the submission of the budget request to Congress, Army program officials identified additional alternate warhead research, development, test and evaluation work

required to develop further the lethality of the MPIM and reduce

its weight. Accordingly, the committee recommends a transfer of

the $3.5 million requested for MPIM advance procurement to PE

64802A for this purpose.

Patriot advanced capability-2 (PAC–2)

The budget request contained $22.9 million for Patriot missile

modifications.

The committee is aware that certain variants of the PAC–2 missile have recently experienced unexpectedly high rates of failure in

certain components. Although reductions in unit readiness have not

yet occured, the committee believes that repair and upgrade of

these missiles is needed to assure that PAC–2 inventories remain

sufficiently robust to meet validated requirements. The committee

understands that acceleration of this process by one year will help

meet this objective, provide for earlier fielding of a guidance-enhanced missile with improved ballistic and cruise missile defense

capabilities, and generate significant cost savings.

Therefore, the committee recommends $88.4 million for Patriot

modifications, and increase of $65.5 million.

Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM)

The budget request contained no funds for PACM procurement.

33

The PACM program has developed a new seeker that would provide older Patriot missiles with anti-cruise missile capabilities. The

statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R.

1401 (H. Rept.106-162) required the Secretary of Defense to use the

Defense Science Board (DSB) to assess PACM capabilities and the

opportunity costs of PACM acquisition. The committee notes that

the final DSB report indicates that between $100 and $125 million

of research and development funding are needed to complete PACM

design, resolve parts obsolescence, prepare facilities for production,

integrate PACM with Patriot ground elements, and complete

ground and flight testing. The DSB also indicated that the cost to

upgrade PAC–2 airframes to the PACM configuration is about $1.0

million per missile. The committee believes that, even if groundand flight-testing needed to make an informed judgment on the

technical merits of the missile were complete, the costs identified

by the DSB would still be prohibitive. For these reasons, the committee recommends no funds for PACM procurement, as requested.

WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,874.6 million for procurement of

Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends authorization of $2,167.9 million for

fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

34

35

36

37

Items of Special Interest

Armored vehicle launch bridge (AVLB) service life extension program (SLEP)

The budget request contained $15.3 million to conduct a SLEP

of AVLB vehicles. As a result of the cancellation of the Wolverine

Heavy Assault Bridge (HAB), a SLEP for the 36-year old, 60-ton

military load class (MLC) AVLB is now a priority for the Army.

The SLEP will upgrade the AVLB to a 70-ton MLC bridge, which

will enable both the Abrams tank and Hercules Improved Recovery

Vehicles to safely cross expanses at full span.

The committee notes the importance of this system and recognizes that a number of these vehicles will remain in the Army inventory after the fielding of the Wolverine HAB. The committee

further notes its continued support for the Wolverine HAB, which

is discussed elsewhere in this report. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.3 million for the AVLB SLEP.

Bradley base sustainment

The budget request contained $359.4 million for the procurement

of Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, of which $6.1 million was

included for fielding Army National Guard (ARNG) A2 Operation

Desert Storm (ODS) variants.

The Bradley A2ODS is derived from upgrading the first-generation Bradley A0’s 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 majority of

the ARNG’s Bradley fleet, however, will remain unmodified and

comprised mainly of first-generation A0 vehicles, which were not

mobilized during the Persian Gulf War because of major survivability deficiencies. 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 as a result of active

force reductions, the committee recommends $440.7 million, an increase of $81.3 million, for upgrading an additional 65 Bradley A0

vehicles to the A2ODS variant for the ARNG.

Bradley fighting vehicle system (BFVS) series (modifications)

The budget request contained $37.1 million to procure modification kits for the BFVS but included no funds to procure AN/VVR–

1 laser warning receivers (LWR). The AN/VVR–1 LWR provides

warning to armored vehicle crews when a threat laser used to direct a laser-guided weapon to its target has illuminated them.

Because the committee is aware of the proliferation of laser-guided weapons and the increasing threat they pose to armored vehicles, it recommends an increase of $20.0 million to procure addiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.017 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
38

tional AN/VVR-1 LWRs for the protection of high value warfighting

assets.

Heavy assault bridge (HAB) system

The budget request contained no funds to continue procurement

of the HAB.

The HAB is a 70-ton military load-class bridge transported on a

modified M1A2 Abrams system enhancement program (SEP) tank

chassis. The system is capable of spanning gaps up to 79 feet, can

be deployed in 5 minutes, and can be retrieved from either end in

less than 10 minutes.

The committee is concerned by the Secretary of the Army’s termination of this program, especially after having provided a $14.0

million increase for HAB advance procurement in fiscal year 2000,

as well as having authorized a combined M1A2 SEP/HAB

multiyear procurement contract. The committee notes that the

Army Chief of Staff has identified the HAB as the Army’s top unfunded modernization requirement in fiscal year 2001.

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $59.2 million for 12 vehicles and $13.1 million in advance procurement for

fiscal year 2002 to maintain HAB production.

Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)

The budget request contained $68.4 million to procure IRVs but

included no funds for the procurement of IRVs for the Army Reserve.

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 is rendered immobile due to combat damage or mechanical failure. The M88A2 IRV upgrade 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 Reserve has a shortfall of three companies of IRVs in force package one reserve units.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $76.7 million, an increase

of $8.3 million, for additional M88A2 IRV upgrades for the Army

Reserve.

Industrial preparedness

The budget request contained $3.6 million for storage and maintenance of laid away equipment and facilities at Hawthorne Army

Depot and Rock Island and Watervliet Arsenals, but included no

funds for expanding the Armament Retooling and Support (ARMS)

Initiative to include the manufacturing arsenals.

The committee recommends a provision (sec. 113) that would expand the ARMS Initiative to attract commercial tenants to these

arsenals. The committee believes that collocating such tenants with

existing ammunition plants has helped maintain both facilities and

perishable industrial skills of the ammunition production workforce

with minimal expenditure of public funds and that a similar effort

to offset the underutilization of the manufacturing arsenals would

be equally beneficial.

39

Therefore, the committee recommends $15.6 million, an increase

of $12.0 million to expand the ARMS initiative to include the manufacturing arsenals.

M1 Abrams tank modifications

The budget request contained $36.1 million for M1 Abrams tank

modifications but included no funds for the procurement of M1A2

Abrams System Enhancement Program (SEP) tank under armor

auxiliary power units (UAAPU).

The UAAPU is designed to power tank weapon systems in lieu

of an idling M1A2 Abrams SEP tank’s gas turbine engine, which

will reduce engine wear, fuel consumption, fuel storage and transportation requirements while increasing the operating life of the

tank’s batteries. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff

has identified an $18.9 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year

2001 for 80 UAAPUs for M1A2 SEP tanks.

The committee believes that the savings realized by using an

UAAPU will be considerable and, therefore, recommends $55.0 million, an increase of $18.9 million, for 80 UAAPUs.

M113 carrier modifications

The budget request contained $45.1 million for M113 carrier

modifications, of which $43.2 million was for M113 ‘‘A3’’ upgrades.

The M113A3 upgrade program, which is expected 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 that M113A3 upgrades are among the highest unfunded requirements identified by the Army Chief of Staff in

fiscal year 2001. The committee further notes that additional funds

would accelerate the fielding of A3 upgrades for force package two

from fiscal year 2004 into fiscal year 2002.

Therefore, consistent with its actions taken in prior fiscal years,

the committee recommends $95.1 million, an increase of $50.0 million for additional M113A3 upgrade kits.

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 fielded throughout the Army

in airborne, light and mechanized infantry, and air cavalry units.

The committee is concerned that the Army has eliminated funds for

this weapon in the future years defense program but notes that the

Army Chief of Staff has identified an $18.3 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for the 4,280 remaining SAWs to

complete the Army’s procurement objective of these weapons. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $18.3 million

for this purpose to complete the procurement objective of M249

SAWs.

40

MK19-3 grenade launcher

The budget request contained $11.8 million to procure MK19–3

grenade launchers. The MK19–3 40 millimeter automatic grenade

launcher can engage point targets up to 1,500 meters in range and

provide suppressive fire up to 2,200 meters. The MK19–3 can also

be used as a crew-served weapon mounted on armored vehicles and

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles.

The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified

an $8.1 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for

MK19–3s for Army National Guard (ARNG) units. The committee

also notes this weapon’s increased importance in military operations in urban terrain and the increasing deployment of ARNG

units into contingency operations of this type.

Based on these factors, and consistent with prior year actions to

add funds for MK19s, the committee recommends $14.3 million, an

increase of $2.5 million to procure additional MK19–3 grenade

launchers.

Small arms production industrial base

The committee understands that there is reluctance within the

Department of the Army to forward requests for waivers to expand

the competition on particular small arms critical repair parts contracts to the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to the authority provided in section 2473 of title 10, United States Code. The committee is concerned that such waivers requested by the Army from

the Secretary of Defense have been denied. To ensure that competition is available, when necessary, the committee reiterates that

waivers on small arms critical repair parts contracts should be forwarded to, and granted by, the Secretary of Defense when he believes it is not necessary to preserve the small arms production industrial base.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,131.3 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $1,199.3 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

41

42

43

44

Items of Special Interest

Army ammunition procurement

The budget request contained $1,131.3 million for procurement of

ammunition and production base support. The committee recommends $1,199.3 million, an increase of $68.0 million for the following types of ammunition programs, which include top unfunded

requirements identified by the Chief of Staff of the Army in fiscal

year 2001:

[Dollars in millions]

Small/Medium Cal Ammunition:

CTG .50 cal, SLAPT M 903 (M 962) ............................................................. $6.0

CTG .50 cal, Mk 211 ....................................................................................... 2.0

Mortar Ammunition:

CTG mortar 60mm Illum M721/M767 .......................................................... 8.0

CTG 120mm HE M934 w/MO Fuze .............................................................. 5.4

CTG 120mm Illum XM930 w/MTSQ Fuze .................................................... 6.6

Artillery Ammunition:

Modular Artillery Charge System ................................................................. 20.0

Rockets:

Bunker Defeating Munition ........................................................................... 10.0

Demolition Munitions:

APOBS ............................................................................................................. 2.0

Production Base Support:

ARMS Initiative .............................................................................................. 8.0

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $3,795.9 million for Other Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $4,095.3 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

Items of Special Interest

Army data distribution system (ADDS)

The budget request contained $32.7 million to procure Enhanced

Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) radios but included

no funds to procure EPLRS for the Army National Guard (ARNG).

The EPLRS radio is the Army’s primary position location reporting system, providing combat commanders information on the position of their forces, in addition to supporting the majority of the

data communications requirements for brigade and below command

and control. The system provides secure, jam-resistant, near-realtime communications and is essential to battlefield operations.

The committee notes that procurement and fielding of additional

EPLRS is a high priority for the ARNG since many of its units are

in deployment rotations to the Balkans and, as a result, must have

the necessary data communications capabilities to operate alongside active Army units. Accordingly, the committee recommends $51.2 million for ADDS, an increase of $18.5 million to procure EPLRS for an ARNG enhanced brigade.

Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)

The budget request contained $172.1 million for procurement of ADPE, of which $485,000 was included for automatic identification

technology (AIT).

AIT 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. These devices

are also used to automate manufacturing process controls for aircraft repair parts and to track ground support equipment at various military depots.

The committee believes that substantial savings can continue to

be achieved from further implementation of these devices in automated inventory and repair processes. Therefore, the committee

recommends $178.1 million, an increase of $6.0 million, for maintenance AIT implementation.

Army training modernization

The budget request contained $36.0 million to procure digital

training facilities and supporting infrastructure for The Army Distance Learning Program (TADLP), of which $10.9 million was included for Army National Guard (ARNG) distributed training technology.

TADLP provides automation and supporting infrastructure to improve the training of service members and civilian workers in both

the active and reserve components to a single standard, particularly in military occupational skill qualifications. Additionally, it

provides a highly effective means of delivering training and education to deployed troops while reducing training delivery time and

support costs.

The committee is aware of prior year increases in ARNG funding

for online courseware and training to enhance its role in support

of ‘‘first responders’’ to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) inciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.019 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
55

dents. The committee understands that the ARNG has identified

over 120 training courses as essential for online WMD-related

training and believes it is important to support the ARNG’s WMD

first-response training requirement. Therefore, the committee recommends $44.0 million for TADLP,

an increase of $8.0 million, for ARNG distributive training technology to continue online courseware development and procure

commercial-off-the-shelf management system hardware and software for WMD first-response training requirements.

Combat support medical

The budget request contained $31.6 million to procure deployable

medical systems and field medical equipment but included no funds

for rapid intravenous (IV) infusion pumps or for Life Support for

Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) units. The budget request also

contained $6.3 million in PE 64807A, but included funds for

LSTAT.

The Rapid IV infusion pump is a miniature, portable, lightweight

pump specifically designed for life-saving intravenous fluid resuscitation by a medic in the field to restore blood pressure and prevent shock and death of victims with severe blood loss or dehydration. This system was developed in conjunction with the Walter

Reed Army Medical Institute of Research and has received Food

and Drug Administration approval. 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, Food and

Drug Administration-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 committee is impressed with the potential life saving capability that these devices offer, and, therefore, recommends $45.6

million, an increase of $8.0 million to procure rapid IV infusion

pumps and $6.0 million to begin procurement of LSTAT units. The

committee also recommends $10.3 million in PE64807A, an increase of $4.0 million for development of expanded LSTAT capabilities.

Combat training centers instrumentation support

The budget request contained $81.8 million for combat training

centers support but included no funds for either the Army National

Guard (ARNG) deployable force-on-force instrumented range system (DFIRST) or the multi-purpose range complex-heavy (MPRC–

H).

Encouraged by the fact that the DFIRST system was chosen over

all current force-on-force instrumentation systems by the All ServVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.020 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
56

ice Combat Identification Evaluation Team (ASCIET) as the instrumentation system for the fiscal year 1999 Joint Exercise, in the

committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162), the committee

recommended a pilot program at two ARNG training sites to explore the capabilities and benefits of DFIRST systems to increase

readiness of ARNG units through more effective training and at a

lower cost with greater safety. To continue this concept of force-onforce, simulation-based training at regional training centers, the

committee recommends an increase of $10.5 million for the three

additional DFIRSTs.

The committee understands that targeting electronic upgrades

are needed for the MPRC–H authorized by the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public

Law 106–65). The committee believes that such upgrades are absolutely paramount for effectively training ARNG units for their

growing worldwide deployments. Therefore, the committee recommends $3.2 million for MPRC–H

targetry electronic upgrades. In total, the committee recommends

$95.5 million for combat training centers, an increase of $13.7 million.

Communications equipment system upgrades

The committee believes that currently fielded military radios and

communication systems still require upgrades to improve operational capability and dependability, as well as reduce operations

and support costs and is aware that Military Standard 188–141A

includes an approved miniaturized, multi-function, digital communications technology, based on compressor and expander techniques, that dramatically improves quality of voice and data communications over both wired and wireless networks. Accordingly,

the committee expects the Department of Defense to continue to

use this technology, when cost effective, to upgrade and improve

current communications systems such as, but not limited to, the

Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System, the Joint Tactical Radio System, and the ARC–190 and PRC–104 radios.

Construction equipment service life extension program (SLEP)

The budget request contained $2.0 million for service life extensions to various types of construction equipment but included no

funds to conduct an Army National Guard (ARNG) D–7 dozer and

Army Reserve heavy grader and scraper SLEP.

The committee understands that the majority of the currently

fielded ARNG D–7 dozers have an average age of 27 years, well beyond their intended 15 year service lives and that there are no

plans to replace them. Additionally, the committee notes that the

average age of Army Reserve graders and scrapers is 15 years.

Both of these types of equipment continue to have greater demands

placed on them by the increased ‘‘operations-other-than-war’’ deployments being fulfilled by the reserve component have been

called upon to fulfill.

Therefore, the committee recommends $12.0 million for construction equipment SLEPs, an increase of $5.0 million for an ARNG D–

7 dozer SLEP and $5.0 million for an Army Reserve heavy scraper

and grader SLEP.

57

Cranes

The budget request contained $6.1 million to procure cranes, of which $3.0 million was included for the procurement of three replacement wheel-mounted, 25-ton all-terrain cranes (ATECs). However, no ATECs were requested for the Army Reserve (AR).

The ATEC is a multi-use, state-of-the-art, commercial all-terrain

crane used for engineer construction excavation, lifting and loading

general supplies and materiel, and bridging movement. The ATEC

replaces three existing types of cranes, which range in age from 19

to 30 years old and suffer from low operational readiness rates and

high operations and support costs, with a single, state-of-the-art

unit that exceeds all three of the obsolete cranes’ capabilities.

The committee notes the importance of ATECs in fulfilling Army

Reserve combat support and combat service support mission requirements and recommends $16.1 million, an increase of $10.0

million, to procure ATECs for the Army Reserve.

Deployable universal combat earthmovers (DEUCE)

The budget request contained $14.1 million to procure DEUCEs.

The DEUCE is a military-unique, high speed, earthmoving tractor

capable of clearing, leveling, and excavating operations for light

and airborne divisions.

The committee understands that the DUECE will be a critical

piece of equipment for the Army’s interim medium brigades. The

committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $14.0

million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 to procure 36

DEUCEs for the Army’s initial and interim brigades as part of the

service’s transformation.

Therefore, the committee recommends $24.3 million, an increase

of $10.2 million, to begin fielding DEUCEs to the interim brigades.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)

The budget request contained $166.1 million for the procurement of the FHTV. Although the budget request included $121.8 million

for Army National Guard (ARNG) FHTV and $6.2 million for Army

Reserve FHTV, no funds were included for the procurement of

Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTT) or Heavy Expanded Mobility Trailers (HEMAT) for ARNG Multiple Launch

Rocket System (MLRS) battalion conversions. The HEMTT is a diesel powered, 10-ton, 8-wheel drive, tactical vehicle that transports

ammunition, and petroleum. The vehicle is also produced in wrecker, tanker, and tractor variants and is the prime mover in support

of certain missile systems, including the MLRS.

The committee notes the Army Chief of Staff has identified an

unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for additional HEMMTs

and HEMATs for ARNG MLRS battalion conversion. The committee is also aware of a HEMTT fire truck shortfall in two Army

Reserve combat service support companies that are designated as

force package one units. These vehicles would replace obsolete fire

trucks that were commercially adapted for military purposes.

The committee recommends $171.1 million for the FHTV, an increase of $3.8 million to procure both HEMTTs and HEMATs for

ARNG MLRS battalion conversion and $1.2 million to procure

three HEMTT fire trucks for the Army Reserve.

58

Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)

The budget request contained $438.3 million for procurement of,

and identified improvements to the FMTV, of which $84.0 million

was included for two and one-half-ton variants for the Army National Guard (ARNG) and $33.8 million was included for these

variants for the Army Reserve. The FMTV comprise the Army’s

two and one-half-ton and five-ton, common chassis cargo and utility

trucks. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $118.9 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for

reserve component FMTV due to the increasing reliance upon the

reserves for combat support and combat service support missions.

The committee strongly supports upgrading the reserve component’s aging fleet of trucks and, therefore, recommends $473.3 million, an increase of $35.0 million for additional Army Reserve two

and one-half-ton and five-ton FMTVs.

High mobility multipurpose-wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)

The budget request contained $110.7 million for 1,002

HMMWVA2s, which incorporate upgraded electrical, braking, engine and transmission improvements as well as a 15-year corrosion

prevention program, but included no funds for HMMWVs to fill

critical shortages in Army Reserve combat support and combat

service support units.

The HMMWV is a multi-service, four-wheel drive utility and logistics vehicle. The Army fleet is used for personnel and weapons

transport, medical evacuation, and as an air defense weapon-mount

platform. While recognizing that the HMMWVs requested in the

budget will replace older vehicles in high priority active component

units, the committee is concerned that certain Army Reserve units

do not have enough HMMWVs to meet their growing mission and

deployment requirements.

Therefore, the committee recommends $115.7 million, an increase of $5.0 million, for 100 Army Reserve HMMWVA2s.

Hydraulic excavator (HYEX)

The budget request contained $8.3 million for procurement of

HYEXs, of which $2.6 million was included for 11 Army Reserve

HYEXs. The HYEX is a diesel driven, self-propelled, tracked vehicle with a wide variety of excavation attachments used for general

excavation; digging; trenching and lifting for lines of communication; logistics-over-the-shore, and other construction activities primarily in support of Corps and Echelons Above Corps levels.

The committee understands that a HYEX shortfall exists in high

priority Army Reserve construction units and that these units will

continue to operate existing obsolete equipment for the foreseeable

future until it is replaced.

Based upon increased reliance on the reserve component to provide engineer equipment for operations-other-than-war, and disaster/humanitarian relief operations, the committee recommends

$10.6 million, an increase of $2.3 million, for 13 additional Type I

HYEXs for the Army Reserve.

59

Information system security program (ISSP)

The budget request contained $54.4 million, $46.6 million, and

$15.7 million to procure secure voice and data equipment for the

Army, Navy, and Air Force respectively.

The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162) recommended an increase of $9.0 million in fiscal year 2000 to support

the services’ efforts to replace older secure voice and data systems

with modern multi-media secure digital communications equipment. The committee continues to strongly support upgrading critical telecommunications equipment to safeguard classified or sensitive information in the face of growing information security

threats.

Therefore, in order to accelerate the replacement of obsolete secure voice and data terminals, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to procure additional secure terminal equipment: $4.0 million for the Army ISSP, $4.0 million for the Navy

and Marine Corps ISSP, and $4.0 million for the Air Force ISSP.

Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)

The budget request contained $65.4 million to procure IFTE, of

which $37.1 million was included for Contact Test Sets (CTS) Soldier Portable On-System Repair Tool (SPORT).

The CTS SPORT is the Army’s standard lightweight, ruggedized,

portable tester used at all levels of maintenance to automatically

diagnose faulty electronic components for immediate replacement.

The committee has strongly supported the IFTE program over

the years and continues to believe in the productivity improvements resulting from automatic test equipment usage. Therefore,

the committee recommends $70.4 million for IFTE, an increase of

$5.0 million, to procure additional CTS SPORTs.

However, the committee is aware that the current CTS SPORT

indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract will expire

in June 2001. Based on the importance of the CTS SPORT to numerous weapons systems and to avoid possible fielding interruptions for this equipment, the committee expects the Secretary of

the Army to extend the current ID/IQ contract for CTS SPORT and

understands that this extension would require no government

costs.

Laundries, showers, and latrines

The budget request contained $12.6 million to procure the Laundry Advanced System (LADS). The LADS is a mobile field laundry

designed to launder clothing at four times the capacity of the current, but obsolete M–85 field laundry system and recycle 99 percent of the water used by the M–85 system.

The committee believes the logistical benefit to field combat service support units from reduced water usage combined with the enhancement to deployed soldiers’ quality of life provided by LADS

are impressive. Consequently, the committee strongly supports the

Army’s efforts to replace the obsolete and unserviceable M–85 system and recommends $21.6 million, an increase of 9.0 million, to

accelerate procurement of LADS.

60

Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)

The budget request contained $2.0 million to procure LMEs. 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 and that they must therefore be

capable of rapidly repairing and maintaining equipment while deployed. The committee also notes that the Army Chief of Staff has

identified a $4.6 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001

for LMEs to maintain production at minimum sustaining rate. Therefore, the committee recommends $6.6 million, an increase

of $4.6 million, for the procurement of additional LMEs and to

maintain a minimum production rate.

M56 smoke generator system

The budget request contained $11.4 million for the procurement

of M56 smoke generator systems.

The M56 smoke generator system, the primary battlefield obscurant for Army light forces, is a High Mobility Multipurpose

Wheeled Vehicle-mounted system capable of disseminating smoke

in both a stationary mode and on the move. The M56 can defeat

enemy sensors such as tank thermal sights as well as smart and

guided munitions, which operate in the visual through far infrared

regimes of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The committee understands that the M56 has been designated as

an essential item of equipment for early entry forces yet is not

being produced at an economic production rate. Therefore, to address this problem, the committee recommends $22.8 million, an

increase of $11.4 million, to reach an economic production rate of

this system.

M915/M916 line haul truck tractor

The budget request contained $43.0 million for 915A3 line haul tractors, of which $3.4 million was included for M915A3s for the

Army Reserve. The M915A3 line haul tractor is a six-by-four wheel

drive vehicle fielded primarily in medium transportation companies

and used to haul containers and petroleum over both primary and

secondary roads.

The committee notes that currently fielded M915 tractors are experiencing reduced mission capable rates and are both difficult and

expensive to operate due to old age. To correct this deficiency and

to fill critical shortages in Army Reserve line haul companies, the

committee recommends $44.6 million for M915/M916 line haul

truck tractors, an increase of $1.6 million to procure 12 additional

upgraded M915A3 tractors.

Night vision devices

The budget request contained $34.1 million to procure night vision devices, of which $29.5 million was included for AN/PVS–7

night vision goggles. However, no funds were included for third

generation, 25 millimeter (mm) image intensification tube upgrades.

61

The AN/PVS–7 night vision goggle is a state-of-the-art image-intensifying system, which can be head- or helmet-mounted to enhance the dismounted soldier’s nighttime operations. The 25mm

image intensification tube upgrade program, which replaces less

capable tubes with the third generation variant in fielded AN/PVS–

4 night vision goggles and AN/TVS–5 night vision sights, provides

a minimum 25 percent resolution increase in these systems.

The committee has consistently supported additional funds for

night vision devices the past five years, and notes that the Army

Chief of Staff has identified $14.8 million unfunded requirements

in fiscal year 2001 to procure AN/PVS–7 night vision goggles and

$8.4 million for third generation, 25mm image intensification tube

upgrades.

Consistent with prior year actions, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for AN/PVS–7 night vision goggles and

$8.4 million for third generation, 25mm image intensification tube

upgrades. The committee expects $400,000 of the AN/PVS–7 increase to be used to procure these goggles for Army Reserve combat

support units.

Nonsystem training devices

The budget request contained $91.9 million for procurement of

various training devices and range modernization but no funds

were included for continued procurement of engagement skills

trainer (EST) 2000 or Abrams Full-crew Interactive Skills Trainers

(A–FIST) XXI upgrades for the Army National Guard (ARNG).

The EST 2000 simulates three-dimensional targets in several realistic terrain environments, providing marksmanship, squad-tactical, and close-range shoot-no-shoot training. This system also provides both shooter and instructor with real-time and post-exercise

weapon handling technique feedback. The committee understands

that the ARNG has a requirement for 100 EST 2000 systems.

The ARNG A–FISTs do not meet current Army tank gunnery

training standards and require software upgrades to enhance training on the tank commander’s weapon station and to provide identical gunnery matrices to the Conduct Of Fire Trainer, the Army’s

standard for stand-alone precision gunnery training devices. The

committee understands that these upgrades will offer significant

training advantages for tank crews as well as reduced maintenance

costs. The committee also understands that the ARNG has developed a three-year, A–FIST XXI conversion program to incorporate

these upgrades.

The committee believes that these training systems are critical

for ARNG forces’ marksmanship and gunnery simulation training

in light of their increased worldwide deployments. Therefore, the

committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for procurement

of 30 EST 2000 systems and an increase of $9.0 million for the first

increment of a three-year A–FIST XXI conversion program, both

for the ARNG. In total, the committee recommends $108.9 million

for nonsystem training devices, an increase of $17.0 million.

Reserve component automation system (RCAS)

The budget request contained $91.5 million to procure and field

RCAS equipment and software.

62

The RCAS is critical to the day-to-day operation and mobilization

capability of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. If continued support for, and improvements to, this program are not

made, the reserve components will experience a significant deterioration in their ability to mobilize in support of national security

missions in a timely manner.

The committee understands that there is a limitation of Army

funds allocated for the RCAS beyond fiscal year 2002.

The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to budget sufficient funds in the future years defense program to ensure that the

RCAS will be able to effectively fulfill the administrative support

and mobilization requirements of the reserve components. The committee also expects the Secretary to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the yearly allocation of funds required annually maintain and improve the RCAS program by

March 1, 2001.

Ribbon bridge

The budget request contained $15.7 million for ribbon bridge

equipment but included no funds to procure this equipment for

Army National Guard (ARNG) multi-role bridge companies

(MRBC). Ribbon bridge equipment consists of 10-ton, 8-wheel drive

M1977 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Common Bridge

Transporters, M15 Bridge Adaptor Pallets, and M14 Improved Boat

Cradles.

The committee understands that seven ARNG MRBC will be established in fiscal year 2001 using existing engineer bridging

equipment and older, lower-capacity, five-ton trucks. The committee also understands that without additional funds, these new

MRBC units will not begin conversion to the new equipment required for their mission until fiscal year 2004. Therefore, the committee recommends $42.7 million for ribbon

bridging equipment, an increase of $27.0 million to accelerate the

fielding of two ARNG MRBC.

Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS)

family

The budget request contained $18.3 million for the procurement

and the fielding of airborne SINCGARS, but included no funds to

procure SINCGARS advanced system improvement program (ASIP)

radios for the Army National Guard (ARNG).

The SINCGARS ASIP radio upgrades early version voice-only radios and includes a tactical Internet controller and integrated communications security enhancements, which provide commanders a

highly reliable, easily maintained, secure voice and data handling

command and control capability.

The committee understands that two ARNG divisions still require improved SINCGARS; and, without these upgraded radios,

these forces will be unable to transmit and receive data from their

active Army components when participating together in joint and

combined operations.

Therefore, the committee recommends $49.0 million for

SINCGARS, an increase of $30.7 million, to procure SINCGARS

ASIP radios for one ARNG division.

63

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 of floating cranes and machine shops, and performing line-handling duties.

The committee is aware of the Army’s intent to replace its unreliable 40-year old small tugs that were used in Operations Desert

Shield and Desert Storm and understands that it has increased its

requirement to fifteen tugs to replace these older vessels. The committee included an increase of $4.7 million in fiscal year 1999 to

procure two additional tugs and $9.0 million in fiscal year 2000 to

complete the earlier requirement of eight tugs. However, the committee notes that the Army has not budgeted for the additional

seven new tugs in its future years defense program.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million

to accelerate procurement of 3 additional vessels towards completion of the requirement for 15 small tugs.

Standard integrated command post system (SICPS)

The budget request contained $36.0 million to procure SICPS

components, of which $1.3 million was included for modular command post system (MCPS) tents.

The MCPS tent consists of a lightweight aluminum frame, interchangeable fabric wall sections, fabric roof, floors and liners, worktables, map boards, and light sets. Multiple MCPS tents can be

interconnected to create a large complex. The committee notes the

Army Chief of Staff has identified a $40.1 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 to accelerate the procurement of

SICPS components for force packages one and two.

The committee is aware of the vital role MCPS tents play in

growing worldwide deployments and, therefore, recommends $41.0

million, an increase of $2.0 million and $3.0 million respectively, to

procure MCPS for active and Army National Guard units.

Standard teleoperating kit

The budget request contained $700,000 to procure Standardized

Robotic System (SRS) vehicle teleoperating kits.

The SRS kit can be installed on existing tracked or wheeled vehicles to enable them to be operated by remote control, if circumstances dictate, to clear mines. The committee understands

that SRS contingency sets have been responsible for detonating

hundreds of mines while deployed in Bosnia. The committee also

notes that redesigned combat engineer force structure requires SRS

equipment at all force levels, including the new interim medium

brigades.

Based on the successful employment of this technology and the

critical life saving mission that it performs, the committee recommends $10.7 million for standard teleoperating equipment, an

increase of $10.0 million for additional SRS kits.

64

Vibratory self-propelled roller

The budget request contained $4.7 million to procure vibratory

self-propelled rollers. The vibratory self-propelled roller is a commercial compacting vehicle used to support construction of airfields, logistic areas, and roads required to deploy and sustain

Army forces.

The committee notes that the last major procurement of this

equipment occurred in the early 1980s and that its 22-year average

age, combined with the effects of increased deployments, has reduced its readiness ratings to unsatisfactory levels. The committee

also notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $10.0 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 to replace vibratory

self-propelled rollers for both the active and reserve components as

a fiscal year 2001 unfunded requirement.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $11.7 million, an increase of $7.0 million to procure 96 additional vibratory self-propelled rollers, including $3.0 million for active Army units and $4.0

million for Army Reserve units.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,003.5 million for Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, for fiscal year 2001. The

committee recommends no funds for fiscal year 2001.

65

66

Items of Special Interest

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION

The budget request contained $1,003.5 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 military department. The committee notes that for the second year in

a row, the Department’s budget request contained funds for the

chemical demilitarization program in a budget account of the Department of the Army in direct violation of the law.

The committee believes that the original 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 sound in 1986, when the estimated cost of the chemical stockpile demilitarization program was

approximately $1.5 billion, and is even more valid today, when the

estimated cost of the program has grown almost ten-fold.

Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of $1,003.5

million. The committee recommends an increase of $877.1 million

for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $7,963.9 million for Aircraft Procurement, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends

authorization of $8,205.8 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

67

68

69

70

71

Items of Special Interest

Advanced helicopter emergency egress lighting system (ADHEELS)

The budget request contained $21.1 million for SH–60 series

modifications but included no funds for the ADHEELS. The

ADHEELS provides crew escape lighting for H–60 series helicopters in the event of water impact.

The committee understands that the Department of the Navy

has selected ADHEELS as its future helicopter escape lighting system due to its superior performance, significantly increased operational reliability, and lower life-cycle costs.

The committee strongly supports this choice and recommends

$29.1 million, an increase of $8.0 million for accelerated ADHEELS

procurement and installation in both new production and existing

H–60 series helicopters.

AN/AVR–2A laser detecting set

The budget request contained $41.9 million for common electronic countermeasures modifications, of which $13.5 million was

included for an AN/AAR–47 sensor upgrade.

The AN/AVR–2A laser detecting set alerts pilots to the presence

of impending laser beamriding missile attack in sufficient time to

take evasive action. The committee notes that the Department of

the Navy plans a laser warning capability upgrade to the AN/AAR–

47 missile approach warning system, which would eliminate the

need for a stand-alone AN/AVR–2A, but is concerned that the AN/

AAR–47 upgrade might not be as capable as the existing AN/AVR–

2A.

Therefore, the committee expects that procurement and installation of the AN/AAR–47 sensor upgrade should not occur until the

Commander of Navy Operational Test and Evaluation Forces ensures that adequate testing is undertaken, including side-by-side,

on-aircraft testing comparing it with the AN/AVR–2A.

AV–8B

The budget request contained $226.6 million to procure 10 remanufactured AV–8B aircraft. The AV–8B remanufacture program

combines a new fuselage, a power plant, and radar with other mission systems upgrades to produce a significantly more capable aircraft at 70 percent of the cost of a new aircraft. The committee

notes that the Department of the Navy plans for fiscal year 2001

to be the last year for procurement of remanufactured AV–8Bs.

The committee recognizes that the AV–8B performs the close air

support (CAS) mission, which is critical to the successful employment of Marine forces. Additionally, the committee believes that

the short take-off, vertical land (STOVL), radar-equipped AV–8B

will remain an important component of CAS capability until its replacement by the Marine Corps’ joint strike fighter (JSF) STOVL

variant, currently in the demonstration and validation phase of its

development.

Since the committee understands that the Marine Corps’ JSF

variant is currently planned for its initial operational capability in

fiscal year 2008, it expects the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that

72

the Marine Corps has procured sufficient STOVL, radar-equipped

AV–8Bs prior to discontinuing the AV–8B remanufacture program.

C–40A

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of C–40A

aircraft.

The C–40A, a long-range commercial-derivative airlift aircraft

used to transport high priority passengers and cargo, will replace

the Navy’s 27-year-old C–9 fleet which is reaching the end of its

service life.

The committee understands that the Navy’s aging C–9 fleet is

not compliant with either future global navigation requirements or

noise abatement standards, that will restrict future flights into European airfields. The committee also notes that the Chief of Naval

Operations has identified additional C–40A aircraft for the Naval

Reserve among his top unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $54.0

million to procure an additional C–40A aircraft for the Naval Reserve.

CH–60S

The budget request contained $165.1 million for 15 CH–60S heli- copters and $80.4 million for advance procurement of 16 CH–60Ss

in fiscal year 2002.

The CH–60S replaces 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 is increasingly

expensive to operate and that its replacement with a fleet of H–60

series helicopters will avoid an estimated $22.0 billion of support

costs over the next 20 years. The committee also notes that the

Chief of Naval Operations has identified additional CH–60S helicopters among his top unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.

The committee believes that the aging H–46D fleet should be retired as soon as practical and, therefore, recommends $207.0 million, an increase of $41.9 million for two additional CH–60S helicopters.

E–2 modifications

The budget request contained $18.5 million for E–2 modifications

but included no funds to upgrade ready-storage Group I-configured

E–2C aircraft to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

Group I-configured E–2C aircraft are no longer usable for the

Navy’s fleet operations due to their outdated computer and communications capabilities but could be modified to the Hawkeye 2000

configuration which would upgrade this aircraft with satellite communications; a commercial-off-the-shelf, high-capacity mission computer and associated workstations; and the cooperative engagement

capability. The committee understands that this modification will

provide the E–2C fleet with a quantum leap in situational awareness and fleet-wide connectivity.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $57.5 million, an increase of $39.0 million, to upgrade one ready-storage Group I E–

2Cs to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

73

EA–6B modifications

The budget request contained $203.1 million for EA–6B modifications but included no funds for the AN/ASW–41 automatic flight

control system (AFCS), which provides the EA–6B pilot with automatic speed, attitude and altitude control capabilities. The budget

request also contained no funds for HAVE QUICK ARC–164 radios

which employ a rapid frequency-hopping technique to provide an

anti-jam radio capability.

The committee understands that replacement of the current

flight control system with the AN/ASW–41 AFCS will significantly

increase this aircraft’s mission capable rates through improved reliability and reduced maintenance man-hours. The committee notes

that the Chief of Naval Operations has identified the AN/ASW–41

AFCS among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001 and,

therefore, recommends an increase of $21.0 million for this purpose.

The committee understands that only 41 of the Department of

the Navy’s 123 EA–6Bs are equipped with either an ARC–164,

ARC–182, or ARC–210 HAVE QUICK anti-jam radio and that during the recent Operation Allied Force engagement many EA–6Bs

were not capable of jam-free ultra-high frequency (UHF) communications with other Allied aircraft in composite-force strike packages. As a result of the EA–6B’s HAVE QUICK radio deficiency,

the committee also understands that entire Operation Allied Force

strike packages were forced to use single UHF frequencies which

were vulnerable to communications jamming and could be easily

monitored by our adversaries with a potential to compromise operational mission execution plans.

While the committee is aware of the Department’s plans to equip

the EA–6B fleet with ARC-210 radios as part of the block 89A upgrade, it believes that an interim anti-jam radio capability is critical for any future EA–6B combat operations until the block 89A

upgrade is complete in fiscal year 2005. Accordingly, the committee

recommends an increase of $2.0 million to equip 40 additional EA–

6B aircraft with ARC–164 anti-jam radios. In total, the committee recommends $226.1 million for EA–6B

modifications, an increase of $23.0 million.

F–18 series modifications

The budget request contained $212.6 million for F–18 series modifications, of which $22.7 million was included for engineering

change proposal (ECP)–583 kits to modify six Marine Corps F/A–

18A aircraft, $3.0 million was included for installation of ECP–560

modification kits for seven Naval Reserve F/A–18A aircraft, $5.3

million was included for two advanced targeting forward-looking

infrared (ATFLIR) pods for both Navy and Marine Corps F/A–18C/

D aircraft, and $23.8 million was included for the advanced tactical

airborne reconnaissance system (ATARS).

The ECP–583 modification kit upgrades the radar, avionics and

weapons delivery capability of the Marine Corps’ F/A–18A model

aircraft to the same capability as later-model F/A–18Cs. Without

this capability, the F/A–18A cannot autonomously deliver precisionguided munitions (PGMs) or employ the Air Intercept Missile

(AIM)–120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

74

The committee notes that the Navy’s long-range attack aircraft

plans include the employment of the F/A–18A until at least 2015.

Despite the fact that the Marine Corps has a requirement to upgrade 76 of its F/A–18As with this modification, the Department of

the Navy has thus far only planned to upgrade 34 aircraft. However, the committee notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations

(CNO) and the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) have

identified ECP–583 among their top unfunded aviation requirements in fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of $86.9

million to procure twenty additional ECP–583 upgrade kits for the

Marine Corps’ F/A–18A aircraft fleet—10 for the active component

and 10 for the Marine Corps Reserve.

The ECP–560 modification kit upgrades only the avionics and

weapons delivery capability of the Naval Reserve’s F/A–18A aircraft to employ PGMs and the AIM–120 AMRAAM, improving both

the Naval Reserve’s F/A–18A capability and its commonality with

the Navy’s F/A–18C aircraft fleet. The committee notes that only

13 of the Naval Reserve’s 52 F/A–18As have undergone ECP–560

modification upgrades, but understands that the Navy plans to retain its Naval Reserve F/A–18As in the inventory until at least

2012. The committee further notes that the CNO has identified the

ECP–560 among his unfunded requirements for the Naval Reserve

in fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of $31.0 million for

this purpose.

The ATFLIR pod detects, classifies and tracks ground targets for

engagement with precision-guided munitions. The ATFLIR pod replaces the existing tactical forward-looking infrared pod that, the

committee understands, has inadequate resolution, loses target

track during high-G maneuvering, and does not maintain automatic track at required ranges. The committee notes that both the

CNO and CMC have also included the ATFLIR among their unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of $9.6 million for an additional three ATFLIR pods for the

Marine Corps Reserve F/A–18 aircraft.

The ATARS is an image acquisition, data storage, and data link

sensor suite planned for use on the Marine Corps’ F/A–18D aircraft. The committee notes that the recently completed ATARS

operational evaluation concluded that the system was not operationally suitable due to reliability and availability problems with

its ground station component. As a result, the committee believes

that the Department of the Navy’s $23.8 million ATARS procurement request exceeds requirements and, consequently, recommends

a decrease of that amount.

In total, the committee recommends $316.3 million, an increase

of $103.7 million, for F–18 series modifications.

F/A–18C/D tactical aircraft moving map capability (TAMMAC)

The budget request contained $71.6 million for common avionics

changes but included no funds for procurement of TAMMAC units

for F/A–18C/D aircraft.

The TAMMAC, which replaces obsolete data storage and digital

video units, is a modular hardware and software system with significant memory, information processing, and video output capabilities. It provides aircrews with a graphic presentation of the airVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.024 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
75

craft’s present position as well as relative positions of targets,

threats, terrain features, no-fly zones, and safe bases. The committee understands that the TAMMAC also includes a ground proximity warning system to improve flight safety and will be less expensive to operate and support than the existing units.

The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has included procurement of the TAMMAC for the F/A–18C/D aircraft

among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001. Accordingly,

the committee recommends $80.9 million, an increase of $9.3 million to procure 80 TAMMAC units for F/A–18C/D aircraft.

F/A–18E/F

The budget request contained $2,818.6 million for 42 F/A–18E/F

aircraft, and $101.1 million for advance procurement of 45 aircraft

in fiscal year 2002.

In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162), the committee

supported the Navy’s requirement to replace its aging fighter/attack aircraft fleet by authorizing a multiyear procurement of 222

aircraft. However, the committee notes that the Department of the

Navy now plans to procure three less aircraft in fiscal year 2002

than projected in fiscal year 2000, which results in 219 F/A–18E/

F aircraft planned for the multiyear procurement period between

fiscal years 2000 through 2004.

Consistent with the planned program of the Department of the

Navy for fiscal year 2002, the committee recommends $2,612.8 million, a decrease of $205.8 million and three aircraft. The committee

understands that this reduction will maintain the F/A–18E/F fiscal

year 2001 procurement quantity within a range that will not affect

the multiyear procurement contract.

HH/UH–1N reclamation and conversion program

The budget request contained no funds for the HH/UH–1N reclamation and conversion program.

The HH/UH–1N reclamation and conversion program would restore old HH/UH–1N helicopters, currently in long-term storage facilities, for entry into a remanufacture production line that rebuilds

the aircraft’s avionics, propulsion, and other systems.

The committee understands that current H–1 remanufacture

plans would remove UH–1N helicopters from the Marine Corps’ operating fleet for entry into the H–1 remanufacture production line,

decreasing the number of UH–1Ns in some of the Marine Corps’

UH–1N helicopter squadrons below their authorized strength. In

order to avoid this situation, the committee notes that both the

Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine

Corps have identified the HH/UH–1N reclamation and conversion

program among their unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.

The committee believes that UH–1N fleet readiness will suffer if

operational aircraft are removed from the fleet to be upgraded.

Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $17.5 million for the HH–UH–1N reclamation and conversion program and

believes that this increase will provide for induction of fourteen

helicopters into the remanufacture production line.

76

H–46 modifications

The budget request contained $16.6 million for H–46 modifications but included no funds for the CH–46E engine reliability improvement program (ERIP) to rebuild the CH–46E’s key engine

components, providing improved performance, safety, and reliability.

Subsequent to the submission of the budget request, the committee learned that the mean time between engine removals

(MTBR) of the CH–46E’s engine has rapidly declined to 363 hours,

and that the CH–46E’s engine performance has degraded 10 percent from original specifications. To address this problem, the committee understands that an ERIP would restore the engine’s MTBR

to the planned interval of 900 hours, greatly reducing operation

and support costs in the process.

The committee notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations

and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have identified the

ERIP as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001. Since the

CH–46E is scheduled to remain in service until 2012, the committee recommends $21.6 million, an increase of $5.0 million to

begin an ERIP for the CH–46E engine and encourages the Department of the Navy to budget to complete the ERIP within the fiscal

year 2002 future years defense program.

H–53 modifications

The budget request contained $19.9 million for H–53 helicopter

modifications but included no funds for AN/AAQ–29 forward looking infrared (FLIR) system kits that would provide an improved capability for the Marine Corps’ CH–53E helicopters to operate at

night and in poor weather conditions.

The AN/AAQ–29 FLIR, which replaces the out-of-production AN/

AAQ–16 FLIR, provides aircrews and embarked ground force commanders with infrared video displays, flight information, and navigational data. The committee understands that only 42 of the Marine Corps’ 165 CH–53E helicopters are equipped with a FLIR system and notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations and the

Commandant of the Marine Corps have included 23 AN/AAQ–29

FLIR system kits among their unfunded requirements in fiscal

year 2001. Accordingly, the committee recommends $34.9 million, an in- crease of $15.0 million, for 23 AN/AAQ–29 FLIR system kits: $12.4

million for 19 system kits for active component CH–53Es, and $2.6

million for 4 system kits for the Marine Corps Reserve CH–53Es.

KC–130J

The budget request contained $154.8 million for two KC–130J

aircraft.

The KC–130J is a tactical airlift aircraft that also serves as a

tanker for both helicopters and tactical fighters. The KC–130J replaces existing KC–130F, R, and T models, providing increased

speed and range, a higher cruise ceiling, and a shorter take-off distance compared to the older models.

The Marine Corps currently has an inventory of 35 KC–130Fs,

14 KC–130Rs, and 28 KC–130Ts. The KC–130F, which was procured between 1960 and 1962, is the oldest aircraft in the invenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.024 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
77

tory and is approaching the end of its service life. The committee

understands that a recent service life assessment of the KC–130F

fleet revealed that unless procurement of KC–130Js is accelerated

or a comprehensive and costly service life extension program is undertaken, an inventory shortfall of 15 aircraft may occur as early

as 2001.

In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162), the committee recommended an increase of four KC–130Js and notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified additional KC–130J

aircraft among his highest unfunded aviation procurement requirements in fiscal year 2001.

Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the committee rec- ommends $231.1 million, an increase of $76.3 million for one additional KC–130J aircraft.

T–45 training system (TS)

The budget request contained $268.6 million to procure 12 T–45C aircraft and associated ground-based training equipment and $5.1

million for advance procurement of 4 T–45C aircraft in fiscal year

2002. 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 the T–45 aircraft procurement objective has decreased from 234 in the Department of the Navy’s budget request for fiscal year 2000 to 169 in its request for fiscal year

2001. The committee further notes that the Navy plans to close its

T–45 production line in fiscal year 2002 although the requirement

for the T–45 remains at 234. Since the Navy has experienced a recent shortage of pilots and the Chief of Naval Operations has identified additional T–45 aircraft among his unfunded requirements in

fiscal year 2001, the committee is puzzled by both the decrease in

its T–45 procurement objective and its proposed shutdown of the

T–45 production line in fiscal year 2002. Consequently, the committee recommends $301.4 million, an increase of $32.8 million for two additional aircraft. Further, the

committee encourages the Department of the Navy to restore funding in its future years defense program to continue T–45 production.

Tactical air reconnaissance pod system (TARPS)-completely digital

(CD)

The budget request contained $37.1 million for other production

charges but included no funds for the TARPS–CD system, an

electro-optic sensor upgrade designed to validate clear-weather digital imaging technologies and to mitigate development risks for the

shared reconnaissance pod (SHARP) system.

The committee notes the recent, successful at-sea deployment of

the TARPS–CD system and believes that the progress of the Navy’s

digital imaging technology risk-mitigation efforts thus far provides

sufficient confidence to build on these efforts through the integration of a non-developmental, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sensor which will provide day/night imagery in all-weather conditions. Since the committee understands

that an all-weather reconnaissance capability is a requirement for

78

the SHARP system, it fully supports further risk-mitigation activities integrating a SAR sensor on the TARPS–CD system. Accordingly, the committee recommends $44.1 million, an in- crease of $7.0 million, to integrate a COTS SAR sensor into the

TARPS CD.

UC–35

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of UC–

35 aircraft for the Army, Navy or the Marine Corps.

The UC–35 is a medium-range, medium-lift operational support

aircraft. The committee understands that the Army, Navy, and the

Marine Corps conduct 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 that the Army Chief of Staff, the Chief

of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps

have each identified the procurement of UC–35s among their unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $22.8 million for three UC–35 aircraft: $7.6 million for one Army aircraft

and $15.2 million for one aircraft each for the Navy and Marine

Corps.

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,434.3 million for Weapons Procurement, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,562.3 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

79

80

81

82

Items of Special Interest

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. The committee notes that,

despite increased funding provided by Congress in fiscal years 1998

and 2000, the Department of the Navy has not met its inventory

requirement for these missiles. The committee further notes that,

as a result of this situation, the Chief of Naval Operations has

identified procurement of Hellfire II missiles among his top unfunded readiness requirements in fiscal year 2001.

Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million to procure additional Hellfire

II missiles.

Improved tactical air-launched decoy (ITALD)

The budget request contained $58.9 million for aerial targets but

included no funds for the ITALD.

The ITALD, launched from Navy strike aircraft, is used to deceive and saturate hostile air defense systems, thereby enhancing

strike aircraft survivability. The committee understands that only

260 ITALDs have been funded to date against a Navy requirement

for 1500 to 1750 systems. Because the committee believes that the

use of tactical decoys significantly improves both aircrew survival

and mission success, the committee recommends $68.9 million, an

increase of $10.0 million, to procure additional ITALDs.

Joint standoff weapon (JSOW)

The budget request contained $171.6 million for the JSOW, a

standoff air-to-ground glide weapon that uses global positioning

system satellites and an inertial navigation system for precision

guidance.

The committee understands that the JSOW has performed flawlessly in over 60 combat deliveries and notes that the Chief of

Naval Operations has identified the procurement of additional

JSOWs among his top two unfunded weapons requirements in fiscal year 2001.

Consequently, the committee recommends $206.6 million, an increase of $35.0 million, to accelerate procurement of additional

JSOWs.

Standoff land attack missile-expanded response (SLAM–ER)

The budget request contained $27.9 million to convert 30 standoff land attack missiles (SLAMs) to the SLAM–ER configuration.

The SLAM–ER is a long-range, air-to-ground, precision-guided missile that improves the SLAM’s range, accuracy and lethality.

The committee notes that the SLAM–ER has recently completed

its operational test and evaluation with both operationally effective

and suitable ratings. The committee also notes that the Chief of

Naval Operations has included the conversion of 60 SLAMs to the

SLAM–ER configuration among his unfunded requirements in fisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.025 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
83

cal year 2001 in order to reduce the risk of future missile shortages

for a major theater war or contingency operation. Therefore, the committee recommends $57.9 million, an increase

of $30.0 million, for the conversion of an additional 60 SLAMs to

the SLAM–ER configuration.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, NAVY/MARINE CORPS

Overview

The budget request contained $429.6 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $481.3 million for fiscal year

2001.

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.

84

85

86

Items of Special Interest

Navy ammunition procurement

The budget request contained $295.9 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends $317.4 million, an increase of $21.5 million for the following types of ammunition, which

are among the top unfunded requirements identified by the Chief

of Naval Operations in fiscal year 2001:

[Dollars in millions]

GBU–10/12/16 laser guided bombs/kits ............................................................... $15.0

MJU–52/B IR expendables .................................................................................... 6.5

Marine corps ammunition procurement

The budget request contained $133.7 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends $163.9 million, an increase of $30.2 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 2001:

[Dollars in millions]

5.56mm, all types ................................................................................................... $3.0

7.62mm, all types ................................................................................................... 1.0

APOBS .................................................................................................................... 2.0

.50 caliber ............................................................................................................... 1.0

Rocket, 83mm HEDP ............................................................................................. 10.7

Rocket, 83mm HE Common Practice ................................................................... 4.6

155mm Projectile Extended Range M795 ............................................................ 7.9

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $12,296.9 million for Shipbuilding

and Conversion, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $11,982.0 million for fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

87

88

89

Items of Special Interest

LHD–8 amphibious assault ship

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of a

WASP-class (LHD) amphibious assault ship.

The committee understands that the Navy intends to procure the

LHD–8 amphibious assault ship in fiscal year 2005 due to funding

constraints, but notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations and

the Commandant of the Marine Corps have identified the LHD–8

as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001. The committee

further notes that procurement of the LHD–8 before fiscal year

2005 could result in significant savings and result in more stable

funding for the Navy’s shipbuilding plan. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for advance procurement and long lead materials for the construction of LHD–8.

Auxiliary dry cargo ship

The budget request contained $339.0 million for the procurement

of an auxiliary dry cargo ship (ADC(X)).

The committee is satisfied that the Navy has programmed sufficient resources to provide for engineering and other one-time costs

of the lead shipyard in the ADC(X) program. However, since the

program calls for the ADC(X) class ships to be built by two shipyards, the committee is concerned that the Navy has not also provided sufficient resources to fund engineering and other non-recurring activities unique to the second shipyard. The committee understands that if these activities are not adequately funded, the award

of the prime contract for the ADC(X) may be delayed.

The committee is concerned that procurement of ADC(X) ships in

the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account does not

adequately reflect the unique logistics and sealift mission of these

vessels. The committee understands that the ADC(X) will be used

to move cargo and other supplies to forward-deployed fleet units

and believes that a vessel performing this mission would be more

appropriately funded in the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF).

The committee has therefore transferred the funds requested for

the ADC(X) in the SCN account to the NDSF and directs the Secretary of the Navy to fund ADC(X) procurement in the NDSF in

future budget requests.

Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $339.0

million to the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy request and an

increase of $349.0 million to the National Defense Sealift Fund, including $339.0 million to procure an ADC(X) and $10.0 million to

fund engineering and other non-recurring activities necessary to

support construction of this ship class at two shipyards.

Submarine force level

The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) established a force

of 50 nuclear powered attack submarines (SSNs) as adequate to

support the national military strategy and subsequent budget requests have supported this force level. However, the 1999 Attack

Submarine Study conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff found that

the QDR force level is insufficient to meet near- and long-term

90

operational requirements. Due to the low rate of attack submarine

procurement during the 1990s any force structure increase above

the QFR level over the long-term would require a sustained increase in VIRGINIA class SSN procurement.

Although sustained procurement of sufficient numbers of new

submarines is the only long-term solution to the SSN force structure shortfall, the committee is aware of near-term cost-effective

opportunities to increase the number of submarines in the fleet.

The committee understands that the budget request contains sufficient funds through fiscal year 2005 to refuel four LOS ANGELES

class SSNs that would otherwise be retired well before the end of

their useful service lives and strongly supports this effort as well

as a longer-term opportunity to refuel, in lieu of retirement, an additional three LOS ANGELES class SSNs.

The committee is also aware of the opportunity to refuel and convert four OHIO class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines

(SSBNs) to nuclear powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) in

lieu of retirement. Although its final configuration would be dictated by arms control considerations, the SSGN would provide a

stealthy conventional strike platform to support theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINC) requirements for precision cruise missiles.

The committee supports the use of all reasonable means to increase the submarine force level through increased procurement of

new submarines as well as refueling and conversion, in lieu of

early retirement, of existing submarines. The committee believes

that this combination of efforts would provide the most cost-effective way of maintaining an adequate submarine force that is capable of meeting current and future challenges to U.S. national security interests.

Submarine refueling overhauls

The budget request contained $72.3 million for advance procurement for submarine refueling overhauls but included no funds for

advance procurement for refueling overhauls associated with the

conversion of ballistic missile submarines to cruise missile submarines.

The committee is aware of the Navy’s proposal to convert four

OHIO class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)

to nuclear powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) as a means

of providing theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) with increased

numbers of cruise missiles for conventional precision strike missions. The committee notes that a requirement of any conversion

program would be the refueling of the nuclear reactors of the candidate SSBNs. The committee understands that the Navy has no

experience with refueling OHIO class SSBNs and that the submarines converted to SSGNs would also be the first of the class to

require refueling.

Therefore, in order to reduce risk in any potential SSGN conversion program, the committee recommends $86.3 million for submarine refueling overhauls, an increase of $14.0 million, for advance planning and procurement for OHIO class submarine refueling overhauls.

91

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $3,334.6 million for Other Procurement, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $3,432.0 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

Items of Special Interest

AN/SPS–73 (V) surface search radar

The budget request contained $4.9 million for items less than $5.0 million but contained no funds for the AN/SPS–73 (V) surface

search radar.

The Navy currently operates several different surface search radars on its ships but has begun the replacement of these various

systems with the AN/SPS–73 (V) radar. The AN/SPS–73 (V) is a

commercial-off-the-shelf system that has improved performance

over current radars and reduced support costs through standardized logistics and maintenance requirements. The committee continues to support the accelerated standardization of surface search

radars and recommends an increase of $14.0 million for the procurement of additional AN/SPS–73 (V) radars for this purpose.

Aviation life support

The budget request contained $20.4 million for aviation life support equipment for Navy and Marine Corps aircrews.

The Marine Corps currently uses a mix of aircrew night vision

systems procured during the 1980s and 1990s, some of which are

incompatible with the latest glass cockpit displays in new fleet aircraft. The Marine Corps is moving toward a standardized configuration for aircrew night vision equipment, but currently has an inadequate supply of modern systems. The committee notes that this

shortfall was identified by both the Chief of Naval Operations and

the Commandant of the Marine Corps as an unfunded requirement

in fiscal year 2001.

The committee notes that Congress has previously added funds

to this program to facilitate the upgrading of fixed and rotary wing

aircrews with state-of-the-art night vision systems. The committee

supports the continuation of this effort and recommends an increase of $9.9 million to procure additional AN/AVS–9 night vision

goggles for Marine Corps aircrews.

Education support equipment

The budget request contained $2.1 million for the virtual recruiting program, which utilizes computer-based recruiting kiosks.

The committee understands that the Navy is facing serious challenges in meeting recruiting goals and has established a pilot program to use computer-based kiosks to provide potential recruits

with access to information about the Navy in an interactive format.

The committee further understands that the preliminary results of

the pilot project have been very successful but that the budget request fails to fully fund this promising program.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $4.1 million for education support equipment, an increase of $2.0 million, to procure an

additional 150 armed forces recruiting kiosks in order to fully fund

the virtual recruiting program.

High-pressure cleaner

The budget request contained $58.9 million for ship support

equipment items less than $5.0 million but included no funds for

high-pressure non-hazardous dry steam solvent-based cleaners.

102

The committee is aware that the Navy and the Marine Corps are

each using high-pressure dry steam solvent-based cleaners facilities

to clean turbine engine parts, avionics, printed circuit boards, and

a wide variety of other military equipment in an environmentally

responsible manner. The committee also understands that the

Navy has estimated substantial maintenance cost savings associated with the use of these cleaners and recognizes the value of

their widespread use.

The committee agrees with the Navy’s findings and, therefore,

recommends $60.9 million for ship support equipment items less

than $5.0 million, an increase of $2.0 million, for the procurement

of high-pressure dry steam solvent-based cleaners.

Joint tactical terminal

The budget request contained $32,000 for the Joint Tactical Terminal (JTT).

The committee is fully supportive of the Navy’s efforts to field

the JTT but is aware that the Navy has a shortfall in purchasing

the required number of terminals.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $6.0 million, and increase of $6.0 million, to correct this deficiency.

Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)

The budget request contained $15.1 million for weapons range

support but included no funds to procure MRES systems.

The MRES is a high power electronic warfare threat simulator

that is capable of illuminating aircraft, ships and other signal collection platforms.

The committee notes that Congress provided additional funding

to procure an MRES system each year since fiscal year 1998 in

order to upgrade the Navy’s electronic warfare testing and training

facilities. The committee supports the continuation of this modernization effort and recommends an increase of $7.5 million for

the procurement and installation of one MRES system.

Nuclear attack submarine (SSN) acoustics

The budget request contained $106.6 million for SSN acoustics

but included no funds for the refurbishment and upgrade of TB–

23 submarine towed arrays.

The committee understands that the Navy intends to upgrade all

submarine towed acoustic arrays with the TB–29A array beginning

in 2002 but at a rate that will require the TB–23 array to remain

in service for at least the next decade. The committee further understands that the TB–23 array must be refurbished and upgraded

periodically to maintain the reliability and effectiveness of this critical acoustic sensor. Therefore, in order to ensure that the submarine force retains modern and reliable acoustic sensors until

completely outfitted with the TB–29A array, the committee recommends $114.6 million for SSN acoustics, an increase of $8.0 million, to sustain the TB–23 array refurbishment and upgrade program.

103

Operating forces industrial plant equipment

The budget request contained $2.7 million for operating forces industrial plant equipment but included no funds for expeditionary

maintenance facilities (EMF).

The committee is aware that the Navy is decommissioning 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, surface

and air transportable, self-contained repair and maintenance facilities that can be operational within 72 hours of deployment, can

meet the Navy’s needs for a rapidly deployable repair and maintenance capability.

The committee fully supports the EMF concept and, therefore, recommends $7.7 million for industrial plant equipment, an increase of $5.0 million, to procure seven of the facilities.

Other training equipment

The budget request included $21.4 million for other training equipment, of which $16.4 million for the procurement of equipment 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. In

fiscal year 2000, Congress provided funds for upgrades to the BFTT

system in order to provide an Air Traffic Control (ATC) training capability for aircraft carrier crews. In order to complete this upgrade, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million.

Sonobuoys

The budget request contained $49.5 million for the procurement

of sonobuoys, including AN/SSQ–36, AN/SSQ–53E, AN/SSQ–57,

AN/SSQ–62E, AN/SSQ–77, AN/SSQ–101, and Signal Underwater

Sound (SUS) buoys.

The committee notes that the Navy’s peacetime annual requirement for sonobuoys is approximately 100,000 units of all types, but

the budget request would fund about 63,000. The Navy’s low sonobuoy procurement rate continues to fall far short of annual peacetime anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training requirements.

The committee is concerned that the supply of sonobuoys could

be quickly exhausted in the event of a major theater contingency

involving airborne ASW operations. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million to address the sonobuoy

shortfall, distributed as follows: $3.0 million for AN/SSQ–53E, $5.0

million for AN/SSQ–62E, and $10.0 million for AN/SSQ–77.

Undersea warfare support equipment

The budget request contained $847,000 for undersea warfare

support equipment but included no funds for surface sonar windows and domes.

The committee understands that the Navy has developed a new

material and production process for surface ship sonar dome windows because reliable sources for the material previously used are

no longer available. The committee also understands that it is critVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.028 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
104

ical that the Navy validate the new sonar dome material fabrication process to support orders for spare sonar dome windows. Therefore the committee recommends $5.8 million for undersea

warfare support equipment, an increase of $5.0 million, to complete

development of production tooling and fabrication of the first production sonar dome with the new material system.

WSN–7B ring laser gyro (RLG)

The budget request contained $33.4 million for other navigation equipment, including $7.4 million for the procurement of 11 WSN–

7 RLGs.

The WSN–7 RLG is the common RLG ship navigation system for

surface ships and submarines. The committee has recommended a total increase of $52.0 million

for the procurement and installation of WSN–7 RLGs over the four

preceding fiscal years. Consistent with its actions in prior fiscal

years, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for

the procurement and installation of additional WSN–7B RLGs, associated system field change kits, and simulators. This increase

will allow the Navy to accelerate significantly the replacement of

maintenance-intensive WSN–2 conventional gyro navigation systems in surface ships with the WSN–7B RLG.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview

The budget request contained $1,171.9 million for Procurement,

Marine Corps for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $1,254.7 million for fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.

105

106

107

108

109

Items of Special Interest

Command post systems

The budget request contained $9.5 million to procure equipment

for command post systems but included no funds for additional

common end user computer equipment for the Marine Forces Reserve (MARFORRES).

The MARFORRES is currently implementing state-of-the-art information system networks to enable greater management of and

communications with remote units. These information systems

have enabled the migration from paper and manual-based business

processes to the network-based flow of information in support of

growing personnel management requirements for pay, medical entitlements, retention and separation. The committee understands

that additional computer hardware and software, high speed printers, scanners, and multi-functional phones are required to expand

the employment of these networks and notes that the Commandant

of the Marine Corps has identified a $2.0 million unfunded requirement for this equipment in fiscal year 2001. Therefore, the committee recommends $11.5 million, and increase of $2.0 million, for additional common end user computer

equipment for the MARFORRES.

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)

The budget request contained $124.4 million for HMMWVA2s,

which incorporate upgraded electrical, braking, engine, and transmission improvements as well as a 15-year corrosion prevention

program.

The HMMWV is a multi-service, four-wheel drive utility and logistics vehicle. The Marine Corps fleet is used for personnel and

weapons transport, medical evacuation, and as an air defense

weapon-mount platform.

The committee understands that a 1997 corrosion study concluded that of the more than 17,800 HMMWVs procured by the

Marine Corps from 1985 to 1995, 27 percent of the fleet was unserviceable due to severely corroded frames that no longer complied

with manufacturer specifications. The committee notes that the

Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified the accelerated

procurement of additional HMMWVA2s to replace these unserviceable vehicles as his number one ground unfunded requirement in

fiscal year 2001.

The committee strongly supports this effort and, therefore, recommends $147.4 million, an increase of $23.0 million, for additional HMMWVA2s.

Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)

The budget request contained $42.6 million to procure IRVs.

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 is rendered immobile due to combat damage or mechanical failure. The M88A2 IRV upgrade 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.

110

The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps

has identified a $14.5 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year

2001 for 5 additional IRVs, which would accelerate the buyout of

the program by one year. Accordingly, the committee recommends

$57.1 million, an increase of $14.5 million, for 5 additional M88A2

IRV upgrades to support future expeditionary operations.

Material handling equipment

The budget request contained $36.3 million for the procurement

of various types of material handling equipment but included no

funds for the remanufacture or product improvement of D–7G bulldozers and scrapers.

The D–7G bulldozer/scraper fleet is used throughout Marine

Corps combat engineer and support units for airfield construction,

as well as for combat clearing and debris excavation.

The committee notes that the service’s bulldozer and scraper

fleet is over 15 years old and rapidly deteriorating. The committee

also notes that the D–7G remanufacturing/product improve program will extend the life of these bulldozers and scrapers for an additional 10 years.

Consistent with its actions in prior years, the committee recommends $48.4 million, an increase of $7.0 million, to remanufacture/product improve 62 D–7G bulldozers and $5.1 million to remanufacture/product improve 45 scrapers.

Modification kits (intelligence)

The budget request contained $5.0 million for modifications to

various tactical intelligence systems, but no funds were included to

procure Joint Surveillance Target and Attack Radar System (Joint

STARS) Common Ground Stations (CGS) or Joint Service

Workstations (JSWS).

The Joint STARS CGS will provide the Marine Air-Ground Task

Force (MAGTF) commander with near-real-time battle space surveillance and command and control capability by integrating into

a single station the processing of signals, imagery, and other intelligence received through a data link from the Air Force’s E–8 Joint

STARS aircraft radar. The system detects, locates, tracks, and classifies both moving and stationary targets beyond the forward line

of troops. The JSWS, a principal component of the Joint STARS

CGS, was developed for fixed-site locations that do not require all

of the communications assets and deployability provided by a CGS.

The committee notes the Commandant of the Marine Corps has

identified an $8.5 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001

to procure 1 CGS and 3 JSWS, which would accelerate the approved acquisition objective by one year to fiscal year 2001.

The committee is aware of the proven success of the CGS and

understands the additional CGS and three JSWSs will provide the

necessary assets for MAGTFs throughout the Fleet Marine Force,

while greatly enhancing the MAGTF commanders’ situational

awareness. Therefore, the committee recommends $13.5 million, an

increase of $8.5 million, for 1 Joint STARS CGS and 3 JSWSs.

111

Radio systems

The budget request contained $3.1 million for procurement of

radio systems but no funds were included to procure Tactical Hand

Held Radios (THHR).

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 committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps

has identified THHRs as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year

2001, which would meet the entire acquisition objective for replacing existing obsolete radios. Because the committee believes that

the services must have interoperable communications in support of

the growing number of joint operation deployments and supports

the need for greater communications capability within small units,

the committee recommends $15.1 million for radio systems, an increase $12.0 million to procure THHRs.

Small unit riverine craft (SURC)

The budget request contained no funds to procure a SURC.

The committee understands that there is a requirement for a

SURC to support Marine Corps operations for a fast, shallow draft,

high capacity craft that is C–130 deployable and that such a craft

would provide Marine units with the capability to insert combat

troops into a riverside environment.

The committee is supportive of this requirement and, therefore,

recommends an increase of $2.0 million to procure a SURC for the

Marine Corps.

Training devices

The budget request contained $30.8 million to procure of numerous training and simulation systems, but no funds were included

for upgrades to fielded indoor simulated marksmanship trainers

(ISMT).

The ISMT-enhanced (E) will be a deployable, interactive, threedimensional simulation-based indoor training system for individual

and small tactical unit marksmanship training. System enhancements will allow Marines to receive marksmanship training on all

infantry weapons and replicate known-distance range qualification

courses, offensive and defensive combat situations, and shoot-noshoot decision-making exercises, all of which would normally be

performed on an outdoor range using live ammunition. The committee notes that 97 of the Marine Corps’ 603 ISMTs will receive

the enhanced upgrade in fiscal year 2000 and that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified an $8.7 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 to upgrade the remaining

506 ISMTs.

The committee believes that it is critical for Marines to maintain

high marksmanship standards and that the ISMT–E will provide

the training designed to compliment live-fire requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends $39.5 million, an increase of $8.7

million, to complete ISMT–E upgrades.

112

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $9,539.6 million for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $10,267.2 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

Items of Special Interest

A–10 modifications

The budget request contained $33.9 million for A–10 aircraft

modifications but included no funds for the integrated flight and

fire control computer (IFFCC) or for the situation awareness data

link (SADL) for the Air National Guard’s (ANG) A–10 fleet.

The IFFCC is a replacement for the A–10’s existing weapons delivery computer, which has no additional processing power for future growth. The committee understands that the Air Force plans

to conduct a multi-stage improvement program for the A–10 that

will significantly enhance its communications, threat warning and

precision-guided munitions capabilities but will be unable to proceed with this program without the IFFCC. The committee notes

that the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified the IFFCC among

his top 20 unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001 in recognition

of its importance to future A–10 modernization and recommends an

increase of $6.8 million for this purpose.

The SADL provides the ANG A–10 fleet with an all-weather, secure, jam-resistant, low-cost data link using commercial-off-theshelf enhanced position location reporting system radios. The committee understands that the A–10 SADL would prevent battlefield

fratricide, integrate with the Army and Marine Corps digitized battlefield, and has growth capability for future data link upgrades.

The committee notes that the Chief of the Air National Guard has

identified the A–10 SADL among his unfunded requirements for

fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of $8.6 million for

this cost effective modification.

In total, the committee recommends $49.3 million, an increase of

$15.4 million, for A–10 aircraft modifications.

Aircraft navigational and passenger safety equipment

The budget request contained various amounts in several aircraft

modification budget lines for the procurement and installation of

aircraft navigational and passenger safety equipment.

The committee has recommended increases for passenger and

navigational safety for several years, supporting the Secretary of

Defense’s directive to improve aircraft flight and passenger safety

subsequent to the crash of a cabinet secretary’s CT–43 aircraft in

1996. These increases have funded both terrain avoidance warning

systems (TAWS), which project an aircraft’s position relative to the

ground and improves pilot situational awareness by warning of potential ground impact, and traffic collision and avoidance systems

(TCAS), which provide predictive collision avoidance information

regarding an aircraft’s position relative to another aircraft. The

committee notes that other safety upgrades are also planned in the

future years defense program (FYDP) such as cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, and predictive windshear radars.

While the Department of Defense continues to fund these upgrades in both the fiscal year 2001 budget and the FYDP, the committee believes that such navigational and passenger safety improvements should be expedited. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to accelerate upgrades of the

TAWS, TCAS, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, and

120

predictive windshear radars on passenger-carrying aircraft. Additionally, the committee expects the secretaries of the military departments to report to the congressional defense committees by

February 1, 2001, on the passenger and navigation safety upgrade

status and plans for each of its passenger-carrying aircraft. This report should identify which aircraft need to be equipped with TAWS,

TCAS, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, and predictive

wind shear radars.

C–130 modifications

The budget request contained $91.5 million for C–130 modifications but included no funds for the carry-on situation awareness

data link (SADL) or the AN/APN–242 for the Air National Guard’s

(ANG) C–130 fleet.

The carry-on SADL provides the ANG’s C–130 aircraft fleet with

an all-weather, secure, jam-resistant, and low-cost data link using

commercial-off-the-shelf enhanced position location reporting system radios. The committee understands that, without the carry-on

SADL, the ANG’s C–130 transport and rescue aircraft will be incompatible with the Air Force’s Air Expeditionary Force packages,

and notes that the Chief of the ANG has identified the C–130

carry-on SADL among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year

2001. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0

million to procure carry-on SADLs for the ANG’s C–, EC–, HC–,

and MC–130 aircraft fleets.

The AN/APN–242 is a weather and navigation radar that replaces the 1950’s-era AN/APN–59 radar currently installed on the

ANG’s C–130 aircraft fleet. The committee understands that the

AN/APN–59, in addition to being obsolete, has a mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) rate of 40 to 100 hours and is costly to maintain. The committee also understands that the AN/APN–242 radar

has significantly improved performance capabilities, a projected

MTBF rate of 1800 hours, and that maintenance cost savings associated with the AN/APN–59’s replacement will pay for the AN/

APN–242’s acquisition within five years. To improve C–130 mission

capability and reduce maintenance costs, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for AN/APN–242 radars for

the ANG’s C–130 fleet.

In total, the committee recommends $107.5 million, an increase

of $16.0 million, for C–130 modifications.

Compass call block 30/35 mission crew simulator (MCS)

The budget request contained $1.4 million for C–130 post-production support, but included no funds for a Compass Call block 30/

35 MCS. The EC–130H Compass Call is used to disrupt enemy

command and control communications, and the block 30/35 MCS

would provide aircrew training for the current block 30 and

planned block 35 aircraft configurations.

The committee understands that the current EC–130H mission

simulator is an obsolete, block 20 configuration which limits training effectiveness for block 30- and 35-configured Compass Call aircraft due to its inability to generate sensitive mission scenarios

typical of actual flying missions. The committee notes that training

in actual block 30-configured EC–130H aircraft is expensive and for

121

this reason the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified the Compass

Call block 30/35 MCS among his top unfunded readiness requirements in fiscal year 2001.

Because the committee believes that a state-of-the-art simulator

is required for this high-demand, low-density aircraft, it recommends $25.1 million, an increase of $23.7 million, to procure a

Compass Call block 30/35 MCS.

C–135 modifications

The budget request contained $328.2 million for C–135 modifications but included no funds for reengining KC–135E aerial refueling aircraft or for the KC–135 carry-on situation awareness data

link (SADL) for the Air National Guard (ANG).

The committee remains a strong supporter of the KC–135

reengining program and understands that reengined KC–135s are

capable of shorter take-offs, operating with higher gross weights,

meeting or exceeding all noise and pollution standards, and offloading more fuel. The committee notes that the Chief of the Air

National Guard has identified reengining of the KC–135E among

his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends an increase of $52.0 million for two KC–135E reengining

kits.

The KC–135 carry-on SADL provides the ANG’s KC–135 tanker

aircraft fleet with an all-weather, secure, jam-resistant, and lowcost data link using commercial-off-the-shelf enhanced position location reporting system radios. The committee understands that

without the KC–135 carry-on SADL, ANG tanker aircraft will be

incompatible with the Air Force’s Air Expeditionary Force packages. The committee notes that the Chief of the Air National Guard

has identified the KC–135 carry-on SADL among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to procure additional SADLs for the ANG’s

tanker fleet.

In total, the committee recommends $386.2 million, an increase

of $58.0 million, for C–135 modifications.

C–17

The budget request contained $2,211.9 million to procure 12 C–

17 aircraft and $266.8 million for advance procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2002 but included no funds for an additional

weapon system trainer (WST) at the C–17 training base or for a

maintenance training system (MTS) for the Air National Guard

(ANG).

The committee understands that the C–17 training base currently has three WSTs, but it needs a fourth system to accommodate the increased pilot production anticipated in fiscal year 2004

when additional aircraft and pilots are projected to arrive. The

committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified an

additional C–17 WST among his top unfunded readiness requirements in fiscal year 2001. In order to ensure that the C–17 training base will have sufficient capacity to meet required pilot production levels, the committee recommends an increase of $14.9 million

for procurement of an additional WST.

122

The C–17 MTS is designed to qualify personnel to maintain the

C–17 aircraft. In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162), the

committee recommended an increase of $3.5 million for advance

procurement of long-lead items for the MTS. The committee understands that the ANG unit that will receive C–17 aircraft in fiscal

year 2003 requires an MTS for initial qualification of its maintenance personnel prior to the arrival of the aircraft but notes that

the Department of the Air Force has still not budgeted for this system. Therefore, consistent with its prior actions and to deliver a

maintenance training capability on schedule, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million for the MTS.

In total, the committee recommends $2,237.8 million for the C–

17, an increase of $25.9 million.

C–17 reverse-affiliate units

The committee notes that the Air Force is retiring its aging C–

141 aircraft fleet and replacing it with the C–17, which was recently combat proven in Operation Allied Force, to meet the Department of Defense’s airlift mobility requirements. The committee

also notes the Air Force’s increasing reliance on, and importance of,

Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) units to accomplish the airlift

mission and that several reserve units are scheduled to begin retiring their C–141 aircraft in fiscal year 2003 without a designated

follow-on mission identified. In light of the current AFRC pilot and

technician recruiting and retention shortfalls, the committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Air Force has yet to make a timesensitive determination of a follow-on mission for those AFRC units

with retiring C–141 aircraft.

Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force

to designate a mission for the AFRC units affected by the retirement of the C–141, especially those units with a joint-service requirement, and requests the Secretary to strongly consider the designation of a reverse-affiliate C–17 unit at bases where one of these

units is located. A C–17 reverse-affiliate unit would permit the

AFRC to continue to utilize existing aircrew and maintenance personnel expertise in its operations and maintenance responsibilities

for AFRC-assigned C–17 aircraft, while also providing missionready aircraft that could be flown by active duty Air Force aircrews.

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 56

The budget request contained $165.5 million for various RC–135

and U–2 aircraft modifications but included no funds for RC–135

training aircraft, an updated C–135 operational flight trainer (OFT

II), RC–135 global air traffic management (GATM) upgrades, or the

theater airborne warning system (TAWS) for the RC–135 Rivet

Joint (RJ).

The committee notes that the theater and functional commanders-in-chief (CINCs) have repeatedly testified that their intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements, particularly those supported by ISR aircraft such as the RC–135 and

U–2, are not currently satisfied due to the limited number of these

platforms. The committee understands that the Air Force does not

have a dedicated RC–135 aircrew training aircraft and that this deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.030 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
123

ficiency contributes to the limited number of aircraft available to

meet CINC requirements. To increase the availability of RC–135

mission aircraft to the CINCs, the committee recommends an increase of $44.0 million to modify two C–135 aircraft into an RC–

135 training aircraft configuration.

The C–135 operational flight trainer (OFT I) is the aircraft simulation training device for the RC–, OC–, WC–, and TC–135 pilots.

The committee understands that OFT I is obsolete due to its outdated engine and aircraft avionics configurations and that OFT II

would train aircrews to operate the re-engined and updated-avionics-configured C–135 model aircraft. The committee notes that

the Air Force Chief of Staff has included the procurement of OFT

II among his top five unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001

and recommends an increase of $9.0 million, of which $6.5 million

is for an OFT II and $2.5 million is to equip this OFT II with motion simulation.

RC–135 GATM upgrades include: interference resistant navigational receivers, global positioning system upgrades, a traffic collision and avoidance system, radios to permit reduced vertical separation between aircraft during Atlantic Ocean transit, cockpit voice

recorders, and flight management system upgrades. The committee

understands that, without these upgrades, RC–135 aircraft will be

restricted from flying the most direct and fuel-efficient ocean routes

and altitudes, will be subject to critical landing-phase navigational

radio interference, and will not be equipped with the Secretary of

Defense-directed safety modifications until after fiscal year 2005.

To meet these vital needs, the committee notes that the Air Force

Chief of Staff has included RC–135 GATM upgrades among his unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001, and consequently, recommends an increase of $28.4 million for this purpose.

The TAWS significantly improves the accuracy of ballistic missile

warning on RC–135 RJ, a tactical reconnaissance aircraft. In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162), the committee recommended

an increase of $17.3 million for the RC–135 RJ TAWS and believes

that continued integration of these suites is critical to tactical missile defense warning. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for continued procurement and installation

of TAWS suites on the RC–135 RJ aircraft.

To consolidate RC–135 modifications in DARP, line 56, and U–

2 modifications in DARP, line 80, the committee recommends a

transfer of the $5.1 million budgeted for RC–135 aircraft modifications in DARP, line 80 into this budget line; and a transfer of the

$18.3 million budgeted for U–2 aircraft modifications in this line

into DARP, line 80. This transfer results in a $13.2 million decrease to this line and an increase of $13.2 million in DARP, line

80.

In total, the committee recommends $243.7 million for DARP,

line 56, an increase of $78.2 million for RC–135 modifications.

Finally, the committee is concerned about the Department of the

Air Force’s budget plan for the RC–135’s joint signals intelligence

avionics family (JSAF) upgrades and notes that the request would

budget for a single JSAF suite for the RC–135 but additional suites

are not planned until fiscal year 2005. Without full and continuous

funding for this upgrade, the committee understands the first sysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.031 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
124

tem, if installed onto the RC–135, would result in a unique RC–

135 aircraft configuration which would increase unit support costs

for that aircraft. Accordingly, the committee believes the new JSAF

system should continue development and testing in the RC–135

systems integration laboratory and on the U–2 aircraft until the

Department of the Air Force budgets to upgrade all 16 RC–135 aircraft.

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 80

The budget request contained $98.4 million in DARP, line 80, for various U–2 and RC–135 aircraft modifications, of which $1.8 million was included for senior year electro-optic reconnaissance system (SYERS) sensor spares and $17.0 million was included for a

joint signals intelligence avionics family (JSAF) suite for the U–2.

However, the budget request did not include any funds for additional U–2ST aircraft, a two-seat trainer version of the single-seat

U–2S reconnaissance aircraft.

SYERS is an electro-optic camera system that provides real-time

imagery to national decision makers and tactical forces. The committee understands that the budget request underfunds initial deployment spares for the SYERS upgrade by $3.0 million and, accordingly, recommends an increase of this amount.

The JSAF provides an upgraded information collection capability

for the U–2S. The committee understands that the budget request

is insufficient to procure an entire JSAF suite and required spares

and cabling. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of

$4.0 million for this purpose.

The committee understands that there are only four U–2STs and

that without an additional U–2ST, the U–2S pilot production rate

does not meet requirements to resolve an existing pilot shortage.

The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included

an additional U–2ST among his top five unfunded requirements in

fiscal year 2001 and, accordingly, recommends an increase of $10.0

million to convert a U–2S into a U–2ST aircraft.

Including transfers between DARP lines 56 and 80 discussed

elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends $128.6 million, an increase of $30.2 million, for U–2 modifications.

F–15 modifications

The budget request contained $258.2 million for F–15 modifications, of which $37.3 million was included for modification kits that

convert the F100 engine to the F100–220E configuration. However,

the budget request included no funds for F–15 Bofers launchers

(BOL) countermeasure dispenser systems for the Air National

Guard’s (ANG) F–15A and B aircraft, which would significantly improve its survivability.

Conversion kits for the F–15’s F100 engine, also known as ‘‘Ekits,’’ provide increased thrust, greater reliability, better fuel efficiency, and reduced operations and maintenance costs. The committee understands that, without the E-kit modification, ANG’s F–

15A/B fleet will be increasingly costly to operate and maintain, less

safe, and have diminished availability to respond to the Air Force’s

Air Expeditionary Force contingency operations. Accordingly, the

committee recommends an increase of $70.0 million for E-kits to

125

accelerate the conversion of the ANG’s F–15A/B aircraft engines to

the F100–220E configuration.

The committee understands that the Air Force’s test of a BOL

countermeasures dispenser system on the F–15 aircraft revealed

that this system provided a dramatic increase in the aircraft’s chaff

and flare capacity and a new preemptive expendable capability.

The committee also understands that the Air Combat Command

has identified an urgent requirement for a preemptive chaff and

flare capability on the F–15, and notes that the Chief of the Air

National Guard has included integration of such capability on F–

15A and B aircraft among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year

2001.

Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0

million to integrate the BOL countermeasure dispenser system on

the ANG’s F–15A and B aircraft. The committee also recommends

$68.9 million, an increase of $7.6 million, in PE 27134F for F–15

operational systems development to complete foreign comparative

test activities for integration of this system on all F–15 aircraft, as

reflected in Title II of this report. In total, the committee recommends $358.2 million, an increase

of $100.0 million for F–15 modifications.

Additionally, the committee notes that the Air Force modifies its

F–15 fleet with a series of individual modifications rather than

through a comprehensive block upgrade approach, such as the B–

2 block modification upgrade program, in which several modifications are accomplished at one time. Since the committee believes

that an F–15 block upgrade program would be more efficient, reduce cost, increase aircraft availability, and increase readiness

through a reduction in the number of different F–15 configurations,

it strongly encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to implement

an F–15 block upgrade program beginning with the Air Force’s fiscal year 2002 budget request, and expects the Secretary to report

to the congressional defense committees his plan to implement

such a block upgrade program.

F–15E

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of F–15E

aircraft. The F–15E is a two-seat, missionized-cockpit, dual-role

fighter that retains an air-to-air capability and adds the systems

necessary to meet the requirement for an all-weather, deep penetration, day/night air-to-surface attack aircraft.

The committee notes that the Air Force plans to operate its inventory of 218 F–15Es until 2030, and further notes that the F–

15E fleet has recently experienced very high operational tempos.

The committee believes, therefore, that additional attrition reserve

aircraft should be procured.

Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $149.8

million for two F–15E aircraft.

F–16 modifications

The budget request contained $248.8 million for various F–16

modifications, of which $6.0 million was included to procure 29

ALE–50 towed decoy launcher pylons. However, the request included no funds for the LITENING II precision attack targeting

126

system (PATS) or for airborne video solid-state recorder systems

(AVSRs).

The committee understands that Air National Guard (ANG) F–

16 units equipped with the F–16C block 25 and 30 aircraft have

an immediate shortfall in precision strike capability. The committee notes that the Chief of the Air National Guard has identified procurement of additional LITENING II PATS as his number

one unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001. This system, which

consists of a third-generation forward-looking infrared and a laser

spot tracker, will allow ANG block 25 and 30 F–16s to participate

in future Air Expeditionary Force contingency operations. The committee notes that the ANG has a requirement for 160 LITENING

II PATSs, but only 56 have been funded.

The committee believes the integration of ANG F–16s into precision strike operations is essential to the Total Force concept and,

therefore, recommends an increase of $25.0 million to procure 17

additional systems.

The ALE–50 towed decoy pylon enables F–16C aircraft to carry

the ALE–50, a radio-frequency repeater which is used to decoy an

incoming threat missile away from the aircraft. The committee understands that the ALE–50 was one of the most effective countermeasure devices used during Operation Allied Force and that it is

credited with saving several aircraft. Also, the committee notes

that the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified procurement of the

ALE–50 towed decoy pylon among his unfunded modernization requirements in fiscal year 2001. Consequently, the committee recommends $18.3 million, an in- crease of $12.3 million, to accelerate the production of 111 additional ALE–50 towed decoy pylons.

The AVSR is a commercial off-the-shelf replacement for the F–

16’s existing mechanical airborne video tape recorders which, the

committee understands, are difficult to maintain and have low reliability. The committee also understands that the AVSR will provide a dramatic improvement in mean time between failure, has no

moving parts which can break or wear out, requires no scheduled

maintenance and will save an estimated $80 million in life-cycle

costs compared to the F–16’s current system.

Therefore, to improve reliability and reduce F–16 airborne video

tape recorder ownership costs, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the AVSR.

In total, the committee recommends $298.1 million for F–16

modifications, an increase of $49.3 million.

F–16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS)

The budget request contained $25.5 million for F–16 post production support, of which $5.0 million was included for one IAIS system.

The F–16 IAIS system is a mobile test station used to diagnose

and repair F–16 avionics problems at deployed locations. Because

the F–16 IAIS uses fewer people and requires less cargo space for

transit than the existing avionics intermediate shop, deployments

of F–16 units which have the IAIS require less airlift support.

The committee understands that 63 F–16 IAISs are required but

notes that only 48 have been—or are planned to be—procured in

127

the future years defense program. The committee notes that the

Air Force Chief of Staff has identified additional IAISs among his

unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.

Therefore, the committee recommends $49.5 million, an increase

of $24.0 million for five additional F–16 IAIS systems, including

two for active, two for Air National Guard, and one for Air Force

Reserve units.

F–16C

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of F–

16C aircraft, the primary multi-mission fighter aircraft of the Air

Force.

The committee notes its continuing strong support for the F–16C

program and that Congress provided an increase of $24.0 million

in fiscal year 2000 for advance procurement of additional aircraft

in fiscal year 2001. Finally, the committee notes that the Department of the Air Force planned to procure 20 additional aircraft (10

each in fiscal years 2002 and 2003) but has subsequently revised

its plan and now intends to procure six aircraft in fiscal year 2003

and seven in each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

Therefore, consistent with its previous actions, and noting that

both the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Chief of the Air National

Guard have identified additional F–16C aircraft among their top

unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001, the committee recommends an increase of $51.7 million and expects that the Department will combine these funds with the $24.0 million appropriated

for advance procurement in fiscal year 2000 for to procure three F–

16C block 50/52 aircraft.

The committee observes that the Senate Committee on Appropriations report on H.R. 2521 (S. Rept. 102–154) stated, ‘‘the Committee directs that F–16 aircraft scheduled to be delivered to the

Air Force during fiscal year 1992 be turned over to those Air National Guard F–16’s units which served in Operation Desert

Storm.’’ The committee further observes that the statement of the

managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 2521 (H.

Rept. 102–328) stated, ‘‘The Committee of Conference directs the

Air Force to initiate, immediately in the first quarter of fiscal year

1992, the modernization process for those Air National Guard F–

16 units that deployed to Operation Desert Storm, in priority over

any nondeploying unit, leading to equipping these deploying units

with updated F–16 aircraft. Units with the Close Air Support

(CAS) mission will be equipped with Block 30 aircraft.’’ The committee notes that the Air Force complied with the aforementioned

directives but subsequently reversed that action when it removed

the block 30 aircraft of the 174th Fighter Wing and replaced them

with less capable block 25 aircraft.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force

to assign F–16 block 40, or later model F–16 aircraft, to Air National Guard units whose capabilities have been downgraded as a

result of the substitution of older block aircraft when F–16C block

50/52 aircraft procured in fiscal year 2001 are delivered to the Air

Force.

128

E–8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS)

The budget request contained no funds for advance procurement

to continue E–8C Joint STARS aircraft production.

The E–8C Joint STARS aircraft provides near real-time surveillance and targeting information on moving and stationary ground

targets, enabling battlefield commanders to quickly make and execute engagement decisions. Although its situational awareness

value to commanders has prompted the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) to validate a requirement for 19 aircraft, the

Department of the Air Force has budgeted only for 15.

While the committee is encouraged that the Department has

funded the 15th Joint STARS aircraft in its budget request, it remains concerned that, despite the JROC-validated requirement for

19 aircraft, the Department plans to shut down the E–8C production line after this aircraft is produced. These ‘‘low-density, high

demand’’ aircraft are among the most sought-after assets by the regional commanders-in-chief for a range of reconnaissance and surveillance operations and have been combat proven in the recent

Operation Allied Force. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for advance procurement of a 16th E–8C Joint STARS aircraft.

Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)

The budget request contained $28.2 million for other aircraft

modifications but included no funds for the LESPA.

Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life, the committee continues to believe that the Department of the Air Force

will realize substantial life cycle cost savings with LESPA, compared to existing parachutes, and has previously recommended procurement of LESPAs for the Navy’s P–3 and E–2 aircraft.

Consistent with its previous actions to reduce ownership costs, the committee recommends $35.2 million for other aircraft modifications, an increase of $7.0 million for LESPAs to replace existing

parachutes in C–130, C–141, C–5 and KC–135 aircraft.

Predator

The budget request contained $22.1 million for procurement of

the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system.

The committee understands that the Air Force is experiencing

vanishing vendor problems with some of the current hardware in

the Predator ground station and that there is a requirement to control multiple Predator aircraft simultaneously from a single ground

station. The committee is also aware that there are required air vehicle reliability and maintainability upgrades that have not been

funded.

Consequently, the committee recommends $34.1 million for the Predator, an increase of $12.0 million for upgrading the current

ground stations with commercial hardware, for integrating the capability to control multiple UAVs simultaneously and for improving

air vehicle reliability and maintainability.

Finally, the committee is aware that a jointly funded effort between the contractor and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has developed a turbo-prop variant of the Predator to

be followed by a jet-powered variant. Both of these Predator-B

129

variants use the current Predator ground station, avionics,

datalink, and control software but provide major performance improvements over the current aircraft, including a maximum speed

in excess of 200 knots and a service ceiling to 45,000 feet. While

the current Predator has clearly proven its military worth, given

these performance improvements, a Predator-B would appear to

satisfy many niche missions for which the current vehicle is not

well-suited. The committee believes that a Predator-B would be a

valuable addition to the Predator fleet and that a mix of PredatorA and -B aircraft would cost effectively satisfy all Predator mission

requirements.

Therefore, the committee requests the Secretary of the Air Force

to conduct an assessment of the utility of a Predator-B aircraft, including the benefits or problems operating a mixed Predator fleet.

The committee further requests the Secretary report his findings to

the congressional defense and intelligence committees concurrent

with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

T–3A modifications

The budget request contained $1.9 million for T–3A aircraft

modifications.

The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force has

removed the T–3A from service for screening prospective pilot candidates prior to entry into undergraduate pilot training. Consequently, the committee recommends no funding for T–3A modifications, a decrease of $1.9 million.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $638.8 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $638.8 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

130

131

132

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $3,061.7 million for Missile Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $3,046.7 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

133

134

135

136

Items of Special Interest

AGM–65 modifications

The budget request contained $2.0 million to convert 200 AGM–

65G missiles to the AGM–65K configuration.

The AGM–65 is a precision guided tactical missile employed on

the F–16 and A–10 aircraft. The ‘‘G’’ configuration has an infrared

target seeker that can be upgraded to the ‘‘K’’ configuration, which

uses an updated electro-optical (EO) seeker. The ‘‘B’’ configuration

has an obsolete EO target seeker that can be upgraded to the ‘‘H’’

configuration, which also uses an updated EO seeker. Since the

committee understands that over 5300 AGM–65s were fired in Operation Desert Storm and over 800 in Operation Allied Force, it believes that the current upgrade rate can neither meet future operational requirements nor provide sufficient missiles for training.

Consistent with its prior year actions in adding funds for these

upgrades, the committee recommends $7.0 million, an increase of

$5.0 million, for conversion to both the AGM–65H and K configurations, of which some missiles should be procured for Air National

Guard pilot training.

Medium launch vehicle (MLV)

The budget request contained $55.9 million for MLV launch operations.

The committee notes that the MLV is used for Global Positioning

System (GPS) satellite launch operations and that, due to the restructuring of the GPS program, GPS launches have been delayed.

Consequently, the committee believes that the budget request contains funds in excess of MLV program requirements. Therefore, the

committee recommends $45.9 million for MLV, a reduction of $10.0

million.

Titan

The budget request contained $469.7 million for the Titan launch

vehicle and launch operations.

The committee notes that the management contingency funding

request for the Titan program is substantially larger than that of

other programs of comparable maturity and believes that the budget request contains funds in excess of requirements. Therefore, the

committee recommends $459.7 million, a reduction of $10.0 million.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $7,699.1 million for Other Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends

authorization of $7,869.9 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

137

138

139

140

141

142

Items of Special Interest

Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)

The budget request contained $74.8 million for ADPE but included no funds for the spare parts production and re-procurement

system (SPARES), a web-based, industry-standard electronic storage and management system.

The committee understands that SPARES has enabled parts procurement times to be reduced from 90 to 15 days and field maintenance response times to be reduced from 14 days to only a few

hours. The committee continues to consider these figures impressive as it did when recommending increased funding for SPARES

in its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162) for fiscal year 2000.

Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the committee rec- ommends $84.8 million, an increase of $10.0 million, to continue

procurement of the SPARES.

AN/FPS–117 radar beacon replacement

The budget request contained $54.4 million for communications

electronics modifications but included no funds for replacement of

beacons on AN/FPS–117 radars. The AN/FPS–117 is a minimally

attended, long-range radar system used to provide air defense and

air traffic control in the Arctic regions of Canada and Alaska.

The committee understands that the AN/FPS–117’s beacons,

which provide identification friend or foe information to military

air defense controllers as well as altitude and aircraft identification

to civilian air traffic controllers, are increasingly unsupportable

due to out-of-production parts and do not meet Federal Aviation

Administration regulations for air traffic control.

The committee believes these radars should not be allowed to deteriorate and, therefore recommends $69.4 million, an increase of

$15.0 million, to begin a program for integration, testing and replacement of AN/FPS–117 radar beacons.

Eagle vision

The budget request included no funds for procuring the processing hardware necessary to complete the Eagle Vision 4 imagery

system.

Eagle Vision is a ground station that receives and processes imagery from commercial remote sensing satellites. The committee

fully supports the Eagle Vision commercial imagery initiative,

which has provided unique, unclassified imagery support to meet

theater and service requirements that, due to higher priorities,

cannot be met by other technical means. The committee believes

that this initiative needs to be fully funded to continue such support.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

for completing the Eagle Vision 4 processor installation.

Rivet joint mission trainer (RJMT)

The budget request contained $12.8 million for RC–135 Defense

Aerial Reconnaissance Program procurement but included no funds

to provide a forward-deployed training capability for the RJMT, the

primary RC–135 Rivet Joint (RJ) ground training simulator.

143

The RC–135 RJ is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft that provides

real-time intelligence to combat forces. The committee understands

that the procurement of an enhanced field exportable training system (EFETS) would improve training and readiness by allowing deployed RC–135 RJ crewmembers to use existing post-mission

ground data processing equipment to function as an RJMT. Since

procurement of an additional RJMT for deployed locations would

not be required, the committee further understands that the

EFETS would save the Air Force $27.4 million and notes that the

Air Force Chief of Staff has included $15.5 million for the EFETS

among his top five unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001. Consequently, the committee recommends $28.3 million, an in- crease of $15.5 million for this purpose.

Senior scout

The budget request contained $5.5 million for procurement of in- telligence communications equipment, including $2.0 million for

procurement of spares and replacement equipment for the Senior

Scout tactical reconnaissance aircraft.

The committee is pleased that the Air Force has decided to retain

the Senior Scout reconnaissance capability to augment the high demand/low density airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) fleets in the reserve component. However, the committee is disturbed that the Air Force has not added funding to upgrade the Senior Scout to more effectively interoperate with other

ISR aircraft and, more importantly, the combat aircraft it supports. Therefore, the committee recommends $13.7 million for intelligence communications equipment, an increase of $8.2 million for

Senior Scout collection and dissemination upgrades and for the addition of a deployable ground data reduction system.

Situation awareness data link (SADL) gateway for the theater air

control system (TACS)

The budget request contained $15.4 million for TACS improvement but included no funds to initiate a program for the SADL

gateway for the Air National Guard’s (ANG) TACS.

The SADL gateway for the ANG’s TACS would use commercialoff-the-shelf enhanced position location reporting system radios, a

laptop-sized computer, and an integrated software package to provide datalink-equipped ground assets with friend or foe track identification when an aircraft’s transponder is not operating. This capability would enable ANG TACS participants on the ground to

view the entire air battle picture. The committee understands that

this system would help prevent battlefield fratricide and notes that

the Chief of the Air National Guard has identified the SADL gateway for the ANG’s TACS among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.

Consequently, the committee recommends $19.8 million, an increase of $4.4 million, to initiate a SADL gateway program for the

ANG’s TACS.

Supply asset tracking system (SATS)

The budget request contained $15.1 million for mechanized material handling equipment but included no funds for SATS.

144

SATS provides the capability to quickly and accurately identify

and locate personnel, equipment and supplies through the use of

commercial automated information technology. The committee understands that this system enhances productivity, shortens inventory cycles, and allows real-time inventory updates.

The committee notes that Congress has provided additional

funds for SATS installation over the past two years and accordingly, recommends $27.1 million, an increase of $12.0 million, to

continue the installation of this system at Air Force bases worldwide.

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview

The budget request contained $2,275.3 million for Procurement,

Defense-Wide for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of $2,309.1 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

145

146

147

148

149

Items of Special Interest

Automated document conversion system (ADCS)

The budget request contained no funds for ADCS.

The committee recognizes that the ADCS program continues to

perform a critical role in the attainment of the Department’s goal

for achieving a digitally integrated, paperless environment by 2002.

Although the ADCS is the Department’s single most productive

program in converting the vast remaining inventories of legacy engineering drawings into more useful computerized formats, the

committee understands that, a significant conversion backlog remains in each service.

Therefore, in order to reduce this backlog, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million to continue the ADCS program.

Counternarcotics discreet operations radio (CONDOR)

The budget request contained no funds for the CONDOR, a mobile communications system that allows encrypted as well as nonencrypted transmissions in a single device and includes a net

broadcast capability for one-to-many communications similar to

handheld radios. CONDOR addresses the Department of Defense’s

requirement to have secure and net-mode mobile communications

in a device that resembles a normal cellular telephone while reducing the Department’s need to maintain unique expensive wireless

networks.

The committee understands that NSA has procured a small number of these devices; however, additional devices are required.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million

for additional CONDOR procurement.

Patriot advanced capability 3 (PAC–3)

The budget request contained $365.5 million for acquisition of

the PAC–3 system and 40 PAC–3 missiles. The PAC–3 system is

the only theater missile defense (TMD) system nearing operational

deployment that is capable of defeating current sophisticated ballistic missile threats.

The committee notes that the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has identified facilitization of the PAC–3 production line and additional procurement of PAC–3 missiles as unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001. The committee believes

that additional funds would provide both manufacturing efficiencies prior to full rate production of the PAC–3 as well as inventory growth to meet emerging threats.

Because of the near-term importance of the PAC–3 for TMD, the

committee recommends $430.7 million, an increase of $35.2 million

for procurement of eight additional PAC–3 missiles and $30.0 million for additional facilitization of the PAC–3 production line.

Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC)

The budget request contained $32.3 million for special operations

forces (SOF) intelligence systems but included no funds for the

PICRC.

150

The PICRC integrates commercial-off-the-shelf mapping and display software, desktop computers, hand-held computing devices,

and wireless communications to enable SOF operators to employ

high-resolution imagery for precision navigation, annotate realtime visual observations, and 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. Consequently, the

committee recommends $38.3 million, an increase of $6.0 million,

for procurement of PICRC systems.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE

Overview

The budget request contained no funds for Chemical Agents and

Munitions Destruction, Defense for fiscal year 2001. The committee

recommends authorization of $877.1 million for fiscal year 2001.

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.

151

152

Items of Special Interest

Chemical agents and munitions destruction

As described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends transferring the budget request of $1,003.5 million for Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army (CAMD, A) to Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD, D), and recommends a total of $877.1 million for the program.

The committee notes the progress during the last fiscal year in

the continuing effort to dispose of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions and of chemical warfare related materiel, while ensuring maximum protection of the public, personnel

involved in the destruction and the environment. Nearly 20 percent

of the original stockpile of 31,495 tons of chemical agents has been

destroyed and 90 percent of the stockpile is under contract for destruction.

The committee continues to be concerned about total cost of the

chemical agents and munitions destruction program (currently estimated at $14.9 billion). Section 141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) included

several measures to increase the flexibility of the program with respect to the disposition of chemical stockpile destruction facilities

and the destruction of non-stockpile chemical agents, munitions or

related materials in these facilities. The provision required the Secretary of Defense to assess the program and report to the Congress

by March 1, 2000, the measures taken, or planned to be taken,

under existing law and recommendations for additional legislation

to reduce significantly program costs and to meet U.S. obligations

under the CWC. The section further provided for a review and assessment by the Comptroller General of the United States of program execution and financial management for each element of the

program. The committee intends to use these reports as the basis

for further review of the program later this year.

The committee continues to believe that, in order to ensure the

maximum protection of the public, personnel involved in the destruction of the stockpile, and the environment, the Department

should proceed with destruction of the stockpile as rapidly as is

technically and programmatically feasible. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense carry out the

chemical agents and munitions destruction program in accordance

with the following priorities:

Execution of the baseline chemical stockpile disposal project and

the alternative technologies project at those sites selected and approved for use of those technologies; and

Preparation for pilot testing of those ACWA technologies which

have the greatest likelihood of implementation and, if implemented, of meeting the destruction goals established by the CWC.

Chemical stockpile disposal project

The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program included $105.1 million in procurement and

$483.6 million in operations and maintenance funding for the

chemical stockpile disposal project. The committee recommends the

budget request for the chemical stockpile disposal project.

153

Chemical stockpile emergency preparedness project (CSEPP)

The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions de- struction program included $600,000 in procurement funds for

minor replacement equipment and $66.7 million for CSEPP operations and maintenance.

The committee notes that funds provided for CSEPP in fiscal

years 1999 and 2000 were subject to reductions of approximately

9 percent and 8 percent, respectively, as a pro-rata share of reductions to the CAMD, A account. Because of the potential impact of

such reductions on the safety of those living and working near or

on the chemical stockpile storage and destruction sites, the committee directs that funding for CSEPP shall be at the requested

level unless otherwise specifically noted. Accordingly, the committee recommends a total of $600,000 in CAMD, D–Procurement, and $66.7 million in CAMD, D–Operations

and Maintenance, for CSEPP, as a Congressional special interest

item.

Alternative technologies and approaches project

The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions de- struction program included $135.2 million for development of alternative technologies and approaches for the disposal of bulk chemical agents stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and

Newport, Indiana. The committee recommends the budget request

for the alternative technologies and approaches project.

Non-stockpile chemical materiel project

The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions de- struction program included $60.2 million in research and development, $16.2 million in procurement, and $47.5 million in operations

and maintenance funds for the non-stockpile chemical materiel

project.

The committee notes that the Army has destroyed a large portion

of its existing non-stockpile chemical warfare materiel and that approximately 1,400 non-stockpile chemical munitions are currently

in storage awaiting destruction. However, because of technical

issues, cost increases, and delays in obtaining state permits, program officials are considering alternate disposal methods, including

the use of chemical stockpile disposal facilities.

The committee is aware that an independent assessment of the

non-stockpile project recommends seeking appropriate environmental permit language to allow destruction of non-stockpile materiel at the chemical stockpile disposal facilities. The assessment

also recommends examination of the schedule and cost risks of the

non-stockpile project to quantify the potential program risks, ultimate costs, and time to complete the project. The committee believes that these issues must be addressed and serious consideration given to destruction of non-stockpile chemical materiel in

stockpile disposal facilities before proceeding further with development and acquisition of integrated transportable treatment systems for non-stockpile chemical materiel.

Accordingly, the committee recommends a total of $47.5 million

for the non-stockpile chemical materiel project, a decrease of $60.2

million for non-stockpile chemical materiel project research and deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.036 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
154

velopment and a decrease of $16.2 million for non-stockpile chemical materiel project procurement.

Chemical agent identification sets

The committee notes that approximately 10,000 chemical agent

identification sets (CAIS) and components, which were used to

train soldiers in defensive responses to a chemical attack, are in

storage awaiting destruction, and that the Army’s baseline approach for treating and disposing of CAIS has been to develop a

mobile treatment system in the non-stockpile chemical materiel

project. The committee has reviewed the National Research Council

(NRC)’s report ‘‘Disposal of Chemical Agent Identification Sets,’’

which evaluates the Army’s 1998 report to Congress on alternative

approaches for the treatment and disposal of CAIS. The NRC recommends that the Army reconsider its interpretation of CAIS as

chemical warfare materiel under section 1512 of Title 50, United

States Code, evaluate the technical feasibility of non-incineration

technologies for CAIS disposal, insure the active involvement of

public and other stakeholder groups CAIS project decision, and consider the potential use of chemical stockpile destruction facilities

for CAIS disposal.

The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to address the

Council’s recommendations in the next annual status report on the

disposal of chemical weapons and materiel.

Assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA)

The budget request for chemical agents and munitions destruc- tion contains $79.0 million for ACWA research and development,

including $50.0 million for engineering design studies for three additional alternative technologies to be demonstrated in accordance

with the statement of managers that accompanied the conference

report on H.R. 2561 (H. Rept. 106–371).

The committee has reviewed the progress in the ACWA program

to identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the

baseline incineration process in accordance with Title VIII, section

8065 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public

Law 104–208) and to conduct evaluations of three additional alternative technologies.

The committee notes the NRC’s ‘‘Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical

Weapons’’ dated August 1999, which concluded that the primary alternative technologies can decompose the chemical agents of concern with the required destruction efficiencies; however, testing,

verification, and integration beyond the 1999 demonstration phase

would be necessary. The NRC also concluded that an extraordinary

commitment of resources would be required to complete destruction

of the assembled chemical weapons stockpile (using any of the

ACWA technology packages) in time to meet the current deadline

established by the CWC.

The committee notes that the NRC’s ‘‘Supplemental Review,’’

dated March 2000, of the three technologies from the 1999 demonstration concluded that, while the two hydrolysis-based technologies showed promise, none of the technology packages was

ready for integrated pilot programming, and the tests were not conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.037 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
155

ducted for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate reliability and

long-term operations. The committee notes that the two hydrolysisbased technologies are currently in the engineering design studies

phase and that a site-specific Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS), which includes both the baseline incineration and hydrolysis

options, is being submitted for the Pueblo, Colorado, chemical

stockpile destruction facility in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A NEPA record of decision is expected in May 2001, approximately 15 months from the date the

EIS was filed.

The committee notes that contract awards for demonstration of

the three additional alternative technologies were made in February 2000 and a report to Congress of the results of the demonstration is planned for March 2001. Based on this schedule and

noting the concerns raised by the NRC regarding the need for testing, verification, and integration beyond the demonstration phase,

the committee believes there is no requirement to begin preliminary engineering design studies for the three additional alternatives during fiscal year 2001.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $29.0 million for ACWA

program research and development, a decrease of $50.0 million.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sections 101–107—Authorization of Appropriations

These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year

2001 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Multiyear Procurement Authority

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter

into multiyear procurement (MYP) contracts for the M2A3 Bradley

Fighting Vehicle in fiscal year 2001 and the UH–60 Blackhawk and

Navy CH–60 Knighthawk utility helicopters, as the Department of

the Navy’s executive agent, in fiscal year 2002. This section would

also prohibit the Secretary of the Army from executing a M2A3

Bradley MYP contract until a successful completion of the vehicle’s

initial operational test and evaluation and certification by the Secretary to the congressional defense committees that the vehicle met

all of its required test parameters.

Section 112—Increase in Limitation on Number of Bunker Defeat

Munitions that May be Acquired

This section would amend section 116 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103–337) to increase the number of bunker defeat munitions that may be acquired by the Army from 6,000 contingency rounds to 8,500 contingency rounds.

156

Section 113—Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support

Initiative

This section would modify section 193 of the Armament Retooling

and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–

484) by extending the initiative through fiscal year 2002. The provision would also expand the purposes of the ARMS Act beyond the

current facilities identified in Section 193 to include the Army

manufacturing arsenals. Finally, the provision would modify Section 194 of the ARMS Act to allow the Secretary of the Army to

enter into long term facilities use contracts and accept non-monetary consideration in lieu of rental payments for use of facilities.

The provision would require that the Secretary of the Army provide

a report to the Congressional defense committees by July 1, 2001,

on the implementation of the arsenal contracts provided by the

ARMS Act authority.

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

Section 121—Submarine Force Structure

This section would prohibit the retirement of any Los Angeles

class nuclear powered attack submarine with less than 30 years of

active commissioned service. This section would also require the

President to report to Congress on the submarine force structure

required to support the national military strategy and the acquisition and overhaul requirements necessary to achieve and maintain

such a force.

Section 122—Virginia Class Submarine Program

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter

into a contract for the procurement of five Virginia class submarines during fiscal years 2003 through 2006.

Section 123—Retention of Configuration of Certain Naval Reserve

Frigates

This provision would require the Secretary of the Navy to configure and equip the Naval Reserve FFG–7 Flight I and II frigates

remaining in active service with the complete organic weapon system for these vessels as specified in the Navy’s Operational Requirements Document and retain these frigates in their current locations.

Section 124—Extension of Multiyear Procurement Authority for

Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers

This section would authorize an extension of the existing

multiyear procurement contract for the DDG–51 destroyer program

through fiscal year 2005. The section would authorize the procurement of three ships per year through fiscal year 2001 and the procurement of up to three ships per year from fiscal year 2002

through 2005.

157

SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Section 131—Annual Report on Operational Status of B–2 Bomber

This section would repeal section 112 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101–

89). This section would further require the Secretary of Defense to

submit an annual report on the B–2 bomber that would include assessments related to B–2 capabilities; technologies needed to enhance B–2 capabilities and the adequacy of technology investments

to enhance these capabilities; and the consistency of such technology investments with the Air Force bomber roadmap and the report of the 1998 Long Range Airpower panel submitted pursuant

to the requirements of the Department of Defense Appropriations

Act, 1998 (Public Law 105–56).

SUBTITLE E—JOINT PROGRAMS

Section 141—Study of Production Alternatives for the Joint Strike

Fighter Program

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress providing the results of a study of production alternatives for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program and the effects on the tactical fighter aircraft industrial base of each alternative considered.

(158)

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND

EVALUATION

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $37,862.4 million for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), representing a decrease

of $426.7 million to the amount provided for fiscal year 2000. The

committee recommends $39,309.2 million, an increase of $1,446.8

million from the budget request.

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2001 request for

RDT&E funding represents the first increase in the budget request

for RDT&E funding by the Administration in five years. Although

this request approaches the level of funding provided by Congress

in recent years, a number of important priorities are identified by

the services as unfunded or underfunded. The committee has

placed its emphasis on recommending increases to the request,

where appropriate, to address the highest unfunded priorities identified by each of the military service chiefs, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Special Operations Command, and other

defense agencies prevented by funding constraints from investing

in needed advanced technology.

The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense continues to place higher priority on the allocation of budgetary resources to research and development activities of some defense agencies than on those of the military services. The committee believes that the Department has not provided sufficient

justification to support imbalances in funding levels between the

defense agencies and the military services, and, therefore, recommends correcting these imbalances by maintaining funding of

several defense agencies at the levels originally projected by the

Department for fiscal year 2001 in the budget estimates provided

to Congress one year ago.

The budget request contained $7,543.2 million for defense science

and technology, including all defense-wide and military service

funding for basic research, applied research, and advanced development. The committee notes that this amount represents a decrease

of $853.3 million from the amount provided in fiscal year 2000. As

outlined elsewhere in this report, the committee continues to be

disturbed by the growing number of military service research and

development programs that have been reduced or eliminated as a

result of insufficient research and development funding, and is particularly concerned with the low level of science and technology

funding. The committee views defense science and technology investment as critical to maintaining U.S. military technological superiority in the face of growing and changing threats to national

security interests around the world.

159

While the budget request for RDT&E activities represents a significant reversal in the five-year trend of decline experienced by

the services, the committee believes that many important programs

have already experienced unnecessary cost and schedule growth as

a direct result of unjustified funding constraints. The committee

strongly recommends that the Secretary of Defense thoroughly review the Department’s modernization investment strategy to ensure proper balance between the services and defense-wide agencies, and between legacy systems and the technological advances

critical to the future superiority of the nation’s military forces.

160

161

ARMY RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $5,260.3 million for Army RDT&E.

The committee recommends authorization of $5,500.2 million, an

increase of $239.9 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Army

RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes

to the Army request are discussed following the table.

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

Items of Special Interest

Advanced artillery systems

The budget request contained $355.3 million in PE 63854A for artillery systems, and $23.2 million in PE 63635M for ground combat support systems, including $12.1 million for the lightweight

155mm towed howitzer.

The committee notes that the Army and Marine Corps have identified a need for lighter, more lethal, more mobile, and strategically

more deployable artillery systems to support their complementary

forces. The committee further notes the joint Army-Marine Corps

program with the United Kingdom to develop a new lightweight

155mm towed howitzer as a replacement for the aging and operationally deficient M198 towed howitzer for both the Marine Corps

and the Army. The committee is aware that the lightweight 155mm

towed howitzer has already been successfully transported by the

MV–22 Osprey to demonstrate its ability to be rapidly transported

on the battlefield. The committee notes that the lightweight

155mm howitzer will incorporate a modern fire-control system, not

available in the M198, which will allow the howitzer to be emplaced within two minutes, and immediately fired with greatly increased accuracy.

The committee also notes the Army’s highest priority effort, the

procurement of a medium weight brigade force and supports this

effort to develop a capability to rapidly and appropriately respond

to global threats. The Army has confirmed a requirement for a

highly capable fire support for this new force but must rely initially

on the towed M198 howitzer until the lightweight 155mm development is complete.

The committee supports the rapid fielding of the lightweight

155mm towed howitzer for both the new Army medium weight brigades and for the Marine Corps, and is aware that the Marine

Corps has stated a need to conduct additional testing with the

United Kingdom and the Army to address at-sea environment concerns. The committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million in PE

63635M for the lightweight 155mm howitzer.

The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Army expedite development of the fire control system for the lightweight

155mm towed howitzer, within available funds, so that it will be

incorporated from the beginning of lightweight 155mm production.

Advanced battery technology

The budget request contained $23.9 million in PE 62705A for

electronics and electronic devices.

The committee notes that the Army and other services have identified a steady growth in requirements for affordable higher performance energy storage devices. The committee also notes that industrial development efforts are maturing a wide array of new battery technologies, including bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride

technology. This emerging power supply technology offers significant improvements in storage/weight and discharge characteristics

that are needed to meet emerging defense needs.

The committee notes that the Army is the designated executive

agent for development of power supply technologies and recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.039 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
171

ommends $23.9 million in PE 62705A for electronics and electronic

devices, of which $1.0 million shall be available for development of

bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride technology.

Aircrew coordination training

The budget request contained $3.1 million in PE 63007A for

manpower, personnel, and training, but included no funding for

aircrew coordination training (ACT).

The committee notes with concern the adverse trend in the Army

aviation safety record and strongly supports efforts such as the

ACT program to enhance flight safety. The committee recommends

$6.1 million in PE 63007A, an increase of $3.0 million for aircrew

coordination training.

Apache Longbow focused modernization program

The budget request contained $95.8 million in PE 23744A for aircraft modification and product improvement, but included no funds

for a focused Apache Longbow modernization program.

The committee is aware that despite the significant capability of

the Apache Longbow, some component systems within the Apache

fleet have not been modernized as part of the Longbow program.

Several of these systems, based on older technology, are responsible

for escalating operation and maintenance costs, and reduced overall

aircraft performance. The committee recommends an increase of $18.4 million in PE

23744A for a focused Apache Longbow modernization effort as part

of the Army’s aviation modernization program.

Army tactical unmanned aerial vehicles

The budget request contained $29.4 million in PE 35204A for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV).

The committee notes that the Army just completed a successful

competitive selection for an off-the-shelf TUAV. The committee

notes that the Army will place increasing reliance on its TUAV and

needs to field the best possible system including sensors.

The committee recommends $33.4 million in PE 35204A, an increase of $4.0 million for preplanned product improvements and

sensor development.

Breacher system

The budget request contained no funds in PE 64649A or for the

procurement of the Breacher system.

The Breacher, an M–1 Abrams tank chassis-based vehicle, will

be used by combat engineers to clear minefields and complex obstacles on the forward edge of the battlefield. This vehicle is designed

to replace several other existing breaching systems and provides increased capability to maneuver with the armor forces it supports.

Although the committee understands that the Breacher was terminated to fund Army transformation priorities, the committee

notes that this system is the second highest unfunded modernization requirement identified by the Army Chief of Staff in fiscal year

2001.

The committee believes that termination of the Breacher was

shortsighted, and therefore recommends an increase of $59.6 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.039 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
172

lion in PE 64649A to complete engineering and manufacturing development and $20.0 million in procurement to begin production

line facilitization.

Chinook helicopter modification and improvement

The budget request contained $95.8 million in PE 23744A for aircraft modification and product improvement programs, including

$37.2 million for other CH–47F Chinook improved cargo helicopter

(ICH), but included no funds for the CH–47D Chinook helicopter

product improvements.

The committee notes that the CH–47F Chinook improved cargo

helicopter program will upgrade engines, airframe and avionics of

approximately 300 CH–47D Chinook helicopters. The committee is

aware that the Army plans to protect helicopters, including the

ICH, from the serious threat posed by infrared guided missiles by

acquiring the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common

Missile Warning System (ATIRCM/CMWS) that includes portions

of the existing joint service ALE–47 programmable countermeasure

dispenser. However, the committee is aware that the ATIRCM/

CMWS development is delayed and the system may not be available for several years. The committee believes it is unsatisfactory

for the Army to delay procurement of the proven ALE–47 countermeasure system while awaiting ATIRCM/CMWS.

Therefore, the committee directs the Army to include the ALE–

47 programmable countermeasure dispensers as part of the ICH

program. The committee supports the ICH program; however, the

committee also notes that many CH–47D models require additional

product improvement to address aging and part obsolescence issues

that threaten near-term flight worthiness. The committee directs

the Secretary of the Army to assess the need to establish a funded

Chinook product improvement program and report the results of

the assessment including levels of funding required to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year

2002 budget request.

Comanche

The budget request contained $614.0 million in PE 64223A for

Comanche.

The committee notes that the Comanche remains the Army’s

highest aviation modernization priority, and that the Secretary of

the Army has requested an additional $48.2 million over last year’s

forecast in order to accelerate Comanche development. The committee notes that the Department of Defense has recently reviewed

the Comanche program and determined that the program has successfully achieved all program exit criteria required before entry

into engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). The committee is aware, however, that final approval for EMD is pending

while the Army assesses out-year acquisition funding for Comanche.

The committee supports Comanche and strongly endorses the

commitment made by the Army to accelerate this program. While

total out-year procurement for major programs is an important

issue, the committee believes the Army has made every effort to accelerate this program within the inadequate modernization funding

173

allowed by the Department of Defense, and strongly recommends

that the Secretary of Defense grant immediate approval for Comanche’s entry into EMD. This program represents the only viable solution to meet the requirement for a stealthy, rapidly deployable,

and highly capable armed reconnaissance aircraft to support the

Army’s recently approved aviation modernization plan. The committee believes the requirement and the urgency for the Comanche

has been more than adequately justified and entry into the EMD

phase of the program should not be delayed pending discussions of

the total planned procurement or annual rate.

The committee recommends the budget request, and supports

earliest possible entry into EMD.

Combat identification dismounted soldier (CIDDS)

The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 64817A for

CIDDS.

The committee is aware that CIDDS will allow an individual soldier to identify quickly friendly forces and thus reduce the incidence of fratricide.

The committee continues to support strongly all efforts to reduce

fratricide and, therefore, to enhance the capability of the dismounted soldier to positively identify a target as friend or foe, recommends $10.4 million in PE 64817A, an increase of $5.0 million.

Combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser

The budget request contained $20.5 million in PE 62709A for

night vision technology, but included no funds for the combustiondriven eye-safe self-powered laser.

The committee notes that the combustion-driven eye-safe selfpowered laser offers the potential to field a three-dimensional identification friend or foe system capable of identifying aircraft and vehicle threat systems in real-time.

The committee recommends $25.5 million in PE 62709A, an increase of $5.0 million for the combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser.

Common ground station

The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 64770A for

continued development of the Army’s Joint Surveillance and Target

Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) Common Ground Station, including $2.0 million to develop the Army’s Distributed Common

Ground Station (DCGS-A). The budget request also contained $5.9

million for development of a wide-band data link to provide

connectivity to the Joint STARS next generation capability.

The committee notes that the DCGS–A effort duplicates that

being conducted within the Army’s Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities program. Further, the committee notes that the

Air Force has not determined the next generation Joint STARS

data link and will not do so until at least fiscal year 2002. Therefore, the committee believes it premature for the Army to begin design or development work for such communications connectivity.

For these reasons, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.9

million in this PE 64770A to the DCGS–A program.

174

Communications and networking technologies

The budget request contained $49.3 million in PE 64805A for

communications, command and control engineering and manufacturing development.

The committee notes that communications and networking technologies are critical to command and control, precision strike, intelligence dissemination, logistics and day-to-day business operations

throughout the joint commands, military services and supporting

defense agencies. The committee recognizes that the most advanced

technological developments in these areas are emerging from commercial industry and are driven by the rapid evolution of the commercial markets. The committee believes that the Department

must capitalize on the rapid progress being made in the commercial sector and identify, assess, adapt and integrate state-of-the-art

commercial communications and networking technologies to

achieve the goal of Information Superiority established by the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Joint Vision 2010. The

committee also believes that there are significant gains to be made

by leveraging information technology developments from the commercial sector for the benefit of government users, through cooperative research and development of technologies that promise significant gains in both civil and military capabilities, and through

training government personnel in these rapidly evolving technologies.

Therefore, the committee recommends $62.3 million in PE

64805A, an increase of $13.0 million to accelerate on-going programs for the development and application of commercial information technologies for defense purposes and to foster cooperative and

complementary information technology research and development

programs. The committee recommends that the Secretary of the

Army work with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command,

Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence) to insure

the applicability of the increased program to the overall Defense

communications architecture.

Defense manufacturing technology

The budget request contained a total of $149.1 million for the

manufacturing technology (ManTech) program, including $29.3 million in PE 78045A, $59.6 million in PE 78011N, $53.1 million in

PE 78011F, and $7.1 million in PE 78011S.

The committee notes the progress by the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel (JDMTP) in developing an overarching

strategy for the ManTech program that focuses on defense-essential

requirements, involves prospective users of the technology, ensures

prioritization of projects, and plans for transition of ManTech

projects to the ultimate user of the technology. The committee also

notes the progress toward achieving congressional guidelines on

program funding levels, particularly in the Army. The total budget

request for Department of Defense ManTech represents an increase

of $16.0 million above the previous year, and the five-year

ManTech plan projects an 11 percent increase through fiscal year

2005, with the Army program increasing $71.2 million and stable

budget projections for the Navy, Air Force, and Defense Logistics

175

Agency. The positive funding trend will permit the establishment

of new ManTech initiatives in critical defense technologies.

The committee notes the increasing use of thick composite structures in rotary wing aircraft and other applications by all the military departments and encourages increased emphasis on the development of advanced manufacturing technologies for such composite

structures.

The committee supports a continuing program in munitions manufacturing technology and expects that munitions manufacturing

technology projects will compete for funding on an equal basis with

other manufacturing technologies.

The committee also notes that the Army, Navy, and Air Force

are developing methods to accelerate insertion of emerging

microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology into tactical

systems to meet precision navigation and guidance requirements.

The objective of the initiative is to develop and demonstrate low

cost manufacturing processes for emerging MEMS technologies

that will enable the production of affordable MEMS-based inertial

sensors, accelerometers and gyroscopes for tactical weapons. The

committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to establish a TriService initiative for the development of affordable MEMS manufacturing technology, and recommends that the funding for the program be provided in the Army’s ManTech program. The committee recommends $39.3 million in PE 78045A for the

Army’s manufacturing technology program, an increase of $ 10.0

million. The committee recommends $69.6 million in PE 78011N,

an increase of $10.0 million for the Navy’s ManTech program. As

noted elsewhere in this report, the committee has recommended an

increase of $4.5 million in PE 78011F for the development of manufacturing technology for specialty aerospace metals.

Emergency preparedness training

The budget request contained no funds for emergency preparedness training research and development.

The committee notes the progress in development of advanced

distributed learning programs for chemical and biological preparedness and consequence management response training for the

Army’s designated Civil Support Teams and other elements of the

Reserve Components.

The committee recommends a $3.0 million in PE 23610A to continue the development for selected Reserve Component forces of

training programs for response to and management of the consequences of potential terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.

Future combat system

The budget request contained $148.1 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, including

funding for efforts supporting the future combat system (FCS).

The committee is aware that the Army has begun the process,

through the FCS initiative, to transform the Army into a more

strategically responsive force that is dominant at every point across

the full spectrum of operations. The committee notes that the cornerstone of this aggressive transformation effort would begin in fisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.040 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
176

cal year 2001 with the partnership between the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to incorporate

the most promising, new, reaching technologies into a family of future combat systems.

The committee notes that, while DARPA has ongoing work in

many technology areas, these efforts have not been focused on solving Army identified problems or advancing technologies applicable

to the future combat system. The committee believes that DARPA

should dedicate more funding to the Army FCS program and other

high priority requirements identified by the services.

The committee strongly supports the future combat system development and notes that there is an urgent requirement to provide

additional funding at the program onset to allow a more inclusive

and robust concept definition phase that will enable as many participants as possible to explore innovative solutions for the future

combat system. The committee is also aware that additional efforts

focused on technology development in the areas such as robotics,

precision weapons, active protection and signature control are

needed.

Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $46.0 million in PE 63005A for the future combat system.

The committee notes that the joint United States-United Kingdom Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) program is developing leap-ahead technology for future ground systems. Both nations are contributing funding and technology to a program regarded as an excellent example of cooperation between allies and

the Army has indicated that it needs the technology from FSCS to

support development of the Future Combat System.

The committee is disturbed by the Army’s elimination of funding

for the FSCS engineering manufacturing development phase. The

committee believes that the FSCS is an essential collaborative program that should continue in order to develop and demonstrate key

technologies on which to build the family of future combat vehicles.

The committee believes that industry should be encouraged to continue its significant private venture funding and that will only

occur if the FSCS consortia can identify a firm connection between

FSCS and FCS. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of

the Army to report to the congressional defense committees on how

the Army will sustain the joint FSCS program to develop and demonstrate key technologies applicable to the future family of combat

systems, no later than December 31, 2000.

Future rotorcraft technologies

The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 62211A for

aviation advanced technology, but included no funds to support the

initiative to focus technology for the future generation of rotorcraft.

The committee notes that despite a clear need for modern, efficient, capable rotorcraft, no focused program exists to develop the

enabling technologies for more efficient, affordable rotorcraft in the

future.

The committee recommends $33.1 million in PE 62211A, an increase of $2.0 million for future rotorcraft technologies and directs

the Secretary of the Army to establish a focused program to develop technologies critical for the future rotorcraft.

177

Guardrail common sensor

The budget request contained $95.8 million in PE 23744A for aircraft modifications and product improvement programs, including

$11.3 million for continued development and modification of the

Army’s Guardrail Common Sensor aircraft and ground stations.

The committee notes that the Guardrail System 2 was recently

delivered to the Army after nearly ten years of modification. Unfortunately, this system was returned without upgrades to permit the

dissemination of tactical intelligence information via the Tactical

Information Broadcast Service (TIBS). TIBS is the baseline for the

Integrated Broadcast Service that is the DOD-mandated worldwide

tactical intelligence dissemination service. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

23744A to install the TIBS capability in the final Guardrail system.

Helmet mounted infrared sensor development

The budget request contained $33.3 million in PE 63710A for

night vision technology.

The committee is aware that the Army has initiated development

of a prototype helmet mounted infrared sensor system to support

the warfighter that has been demonstrated to significantly improve

situational awareness in all weather/environmental conditions.

This technology has direct applicability to Department of Defense

and civilian firefighting personnel and increases safety and effectiveness for firefighting in smoke filled environments as well as for

search and rescue.

The committee recommends $37.1 million in PE 63710A, an increase of $3.8 million for helmet mounted infrared sensor development.

High-energy laser test facility

The budget request contained $14.5 million in PE 65605A for the

Department of Defense (DOD) high-energy laser system test facility

(HELSTF).

The committee notes the recent release of the congressionally directed DOD high-energy laser master plan and identification of a

need for increased investment in solid-state laser technology. The

committee is aware that HELSTF has contributed significantly to

the development of high-power lasers, and will continue to provide

unique capabilities for research, development, test and evaluation

of high-power laser systems.

The committee supports the DOD high-energy laser master plan

and the selection of the Army as lead in solid-state laser development and recommends $19.5 million in PE 65605A, an increase of

$5.0 million for HELSTF.

Hypersonic wind tunnels

The budget request contained $47.2 million in PE 62303A for

missile technology, but included no funds for modernization of the

hypersonic wind tunnels at the Aero-optics Evaluation Center

(AOEC)

The committee notes that upgrading the hypersonic wind tunnel

diagnostics and instrumentation will provide enhanced testing caVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.041 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
178

pabilities for key ballistic missile defense programs, including Navy

Area Defense, the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology project, and

the Army’s scramjet technology program.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE

62303A to upgrade hypersonic wind tunnels.

Integrated inertial measurement unit-geo-positioning system

The budget request contained $47.2 million in PE 62303A for

missile technology, including funds for integrated guidance systems.

The committee notes that the development of a highly integrated,

jam-proof, micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) based inertial

measuring unit-geo positioning system (IMU–GPS) is critical to

achieving the goal of affordable precision fire and forget weapons.

The most demanding application for this capability is the 155mm

projectile for Army and Navy applications. The committee is aware

that: (1) recent Army flight tests have demonstrated significant

progress and shown that the goal is achievable and (2) a development plan has been established to produce a suitable system in approximately three years. The committee further notes that this program also offers potentially significant cost growth and technical

problem solutions to Navy fire support programs, and the use of

IMU–GPS systems by both the Army and Navy could result in billions of dollars of savings for the Department of Defense.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million

in PE 62303A for continued development of an integrated IMUGPS.

Land information warfare activity

The budget request contained $8.1 million in PE 33140A for the

information systems security program.

The committee notes that the Army’s land information warfare

activity (LIWA) continues to develop a state-of-the-art capability for

information security and analysis, and that the Department of Defense (DOD) has recently acknowledged the importance of this new

capability to DOD information assurance efforts.

The committee supports the Department of Defense efforts to establish such capability, and supports completion of the LIWA, including tests of that capability for Army and other entities to ensure that this potential capability is thoroughly evaluated.

Therefore, the committee recommends $11.9 million, an increase

of $3.8 million in PE 33140A for continued development and enhancement of the Army’s land information warfare activity.

Medical errors reduction research

The budget request contained $15.8 million in PE 62716A for

human factors engineering technology, but included no funds for

the medical errors reduction research program (MERRP).

The committee notes that MEERP is an extension of the previous

emergency teams coordination (MEDTEAMS) program to reduce

medical errors in operating rooms, intensive care units and other

hospital activities and will expand that effort from the emergency

department to advanced life support protocols.

179

The committee recommends $19.5 million in PE 62716A, an increase of $3.7 million for MERRP.

Mobile tactical high energy laser

The budget request contained $12.6 million in PE 63308A for

Army missile defense systems, but included no funds for mobile

tactical high energy laser development.

The committee is aware that the Army has determined a need

for a mobile directed energy air defense system. The committee understands that one alternate being explored is the evolution of the

stationary tactical high energy laser (THEL) being developed for

Israel. A mobile THEL for the U.S. Army would require further development of key elements such as solid-state laser development,

compact power sources, and a lightweight acquisition, tracking and

beam direction system.

The committee recommends $17.6 million in PE 63308A, an increase of $5.0 million for mobile tactical high energy laser development.

National automotive center-university innovative research

The budget request contained $148.1 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology.

The committee is aware that the national automotive center

(NAC) has supported efforts by various universities to perform research in a number of innovative technologies to solve current

ground vehicle problems and pioneer a new generation of lighter,

more efficient ground vehicles. Areas of innovation include propulsion and power sources, ultra lightweight structures and advanced

materials, supported by innovative modeling and simulation.

The committee supports efforts of the NAC to take advantage of

university expertise and recommends an increase of $3.0 million in

PE 63005A for NAC-university innovative research.

Passive millimeter wave camera

The budget request contained $20.7 million in PE 62120A for

sensors and electronic survivability, but included no funds for the

passive millimeter wave camera.

The committee is aware that passive millimeter wave camera

technology offers a weather-penetrating alternative to shorter

wavelength infrared thermal imaging cameras.

The committee recommends $24.7 million in PE 62120A, an increase of $4.0 million for passive millimeter wave camera development.

Real-time heart rate variability

The budget request contained $75.7 million in PE 62787A for

medical technology, but included no funds for real-time heart rate

variability.

The committee notes that heart rate variability technology offers

the potential for enhancing assessment of disease and trauma. This

technology provides the capability for emergency response personnel in trauma environments to detect injury severity, physiological stress and potential for survival.

180

The committee supports development of real-time heart rate variability technology to enhance trauma victim survivability, and recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62787A for real-time

heart rate variability technology.

Semi-automated imagery processor

The budget request contained $57.4 million in PE 64766A for

Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities, including development of the semi-automated imagery processor (SAIP).

The SAIP will provide the Department’s limited number of imagery analysts with an automated target recognition assistance capability, which will greatly improve their productivity. Accordingly,

the committee recommends $60.4 million in PE 64766A, an increase of $3.0 million, for continued development and fielding of

the SAIP.

Starstreak

The budget request contained $28.8 million in PE 63003A for

aviation advanced technology, but included no funds to complete

flight test of the Starstreak missile.

The committee continues to support the requirement for

Starstreak testing mandated by in the Defense Appropriations Act,

1999 (Public Law 105–262) that required an Apache Longbow sideby-side test between the Starstreak missile and the Stinger missile.

The committee notes the Army has announced its intention to

begin the tests and that the Ministry of Defense of the United

Kingdom is providing the Starstreak missiles for testing. The committee recommends $28.8 million in PE 63003A, the

budget request, and recommends initiation of the planned side-byside testing.

Surveillance control data link (SCDL)

The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 64770A for improvements to the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) ground stations, but no funds were included for

the Joint STARS SCDL System Improvement Program (SIP).

The committee notes the proven success of the Joint STARS system in both Operations Desert Storm and Joint Endeavor. A key

feature of Joint STARS is the secure, encrypted, anti-jam SCDL.

The SCDL links the Air Force’s E–8 Joint STARS aircraft to the

Army’s Joint STARS common ground stations (CGS), enabling realtime data transfer of radar imagery intelligence data and command

and control information between the aircraft and ground stations.

The committee has provided increases for phases one and two of

the three-phrase SIP in prior years. These phases eliminated CGS

common data terminal (CDT) obsolete parts and updated older circuit boards with state-of-the-art, software-based array boards, resulting in an increased data transfer rate while reducing component cost, size, weight, and power requirements. The committee understands that the Army requires funds to complete phase three of

the SCDL SIP, which would further improve interoperability

through performance testing of the CDT.

Based on the increased reliability and improved performance of

earlier SIP upgrades, the committee recommends an increase of

181

$4.0 million in PE 64770A to complete the SCDL SIP phase three

engineering effort.

Thermal fluid based combat feeding system

The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 63747A for sol- dier support and survivability, and included $3.4 million for food

and food systems.

The committee notes that a modern central heat unit co-generation kitchen has been developed to replace the existing field kitchen. The committee is aware that this kitchen uses diesel type fuel

rather than the more flammable gasoline that has been the primary source of the longstanding fire hazards in existing field kitchens.

The committee supports rapid introduction of this modern, safer kitchen, and recommends $15.1 million in PE 63747A, an increase

of $1.5 million for fabrication and field testing of the thermal fluid

based combat feeding system.

Trajectory correctable munitions

The budget request contained $29.7 million in PE 63004A for

weapons and munitions advanced technology.

The committee notes that the United States and Sweden have

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to demonstrate a

155mm trajectory correctable munition (TCM), which employs a

new technology to achieve precision indirect fire support. The committee also notes that development of this munition is on schedule

and recent firing tests have successfully demonstrated achievement

of key milestones. The committee recommends $37.2 million in PE 63004A, an increase of $7.5 million, and urges the Department of Defense to

complete testing of the TCM round.

Volumetrically controlled manufacturing technology

The budget request contained $75.7 million in PE 62787A for

medical technology applied research.

The committee recalls that the Defense Appropriations Act, 1997

(Public Law 105–56) provided $2.5 million in PE 62787A for the development of a prototype artificial hip using multidimensional,

volumetrically controlled manufacturing of synthetic materials. The

appropriation supported the first phase of a two-year, two-phase

project to develop an optimized hip stem for orthopedic implants

that would address the structural failure of implants in current

use.

In the statement of managers which accompanied the conference

report on S. 1059 (H. Rept. 106–301), the conferees stated that they

were encouraged by the progress made in the program at the U.S.

Army Medical Research and Materiel Command and the establishment of a mathematical foundation for advancing synthetic material development from two-dimensional processes to real-time,

three-dimensional manufacturing. The process has the potential to

eliminate the current mode of failure of conventional composite materials, namely delamination and polymer-fiber interface breakdown, and has potential applications in aerospace and other manufacturing.

182

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62787A to continue the program for development of multi-dimensional volumetrically controlled manufacturing technology at the

U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command.

NAVY RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $8,476.7 million for Navy RDT&E.

The committee recommends authorization of $8,834.5 million, an

increase of $357.8 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Navy

RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes

to the Navy request are discussed following the table.

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

Items of Special Interest

Advanced amphibious assault vehicle

The budget request contained $138.0 million in PE 63611M for

the Marine Corps Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAAV).

The AAAV is one of the highest priority Marine Corps modernization programs and is essential to the Marine Corps’ ability

to implement its operational maneuver from the sea doctrine.

The committee believes that an additional engineering manufacturing development AAAV test vehicle would significantly enhance

reliability testing, software maturation and other efforts designed

to reduce life-cycle costs. Therefore, the committee recommends

$165.5 million, an increase of $27.5 million in PE 63611M for this

purpose.

Advanced anti-radiation guided missile

The budget request contained $21.4 million in PE25601N for

operational systems development of improvements to the HighSpeed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) system, including $9.0 million to continue the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile

(AARGM) project.

The AARGM project is a Phase III Small Business Innovative

Research (SBIR) program to develop and demonstrate a dual-mode

guidance section on a HARM airframe. Program objectives are to

demonstrate an effective, affordable, and lethal suppression of

enemy air defense (SEAD) capability against mobile, relocatable, or

fixed air defense threats in the presence of potential air defense

radar emitter shutdown or other anti-radiation missile countermeasures.

The AARGM technology demonstration program is an outgrowth

of a Phase I and Phase II competitive SBIR program, which successfully demonstrated the feasibility of a dual-mode seeker to address anti-radiation missile countermeasures. The dual-mode technology under development in the AARGM program has demonstrated high potential to solve the problem of target radar ‘‘shutdown’’ not only for HARM, the primary SEAD weapon, but also for

application in other missile airframes. The committee notes the

progress made in the program and the delivery of advanced

ARRGM seeker hardware for development test and evaluation at

the Naval Air Weapons Center, China Lake, California. The committee also notes the application of AARGM technology being considered in the Quick Bolt advanced concept technology demonstration.

The committee recommends a $26.4 million in PE 25601N, an increase of $5.0 million to continue risk reduction, test, and other

field activities to prepare for a potential Milestone II decision to

enter engineering and manufacturing development. The committee

directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense committees on the results of the developmental testing of the

ARRGM seeker and the Navy’s plans for further development of

the AARGM with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

194

Advanced deployable system

The budget request contained $20.7 million in PE 64784N for the

advanced deployable system (ADS). The ADS is a surveillance system for use in littoral waters and restricted waterways that can be

rapidly deployed in time of crisis to provide a submarine detection

and tracking capability to U.S. Naval forces.

The committee notes the ADS program is transitioning to the engineering and manufacturing development phase and has consistently met or exceeded schedule and cost milestones. The committee

supports leveraging the early success of the ADS program by accelerating the development of enhanced capabilities for the system. Accordingly, the committee recommends $30.7 million in PE 64784N, an increase of $10.0 million, for the ADS to accelerate the

development of advanced, long-life sensors for trip-wire arrays, increased mine detection capabilities, and enhanced automation.

Advanced technology demonstrations and fleet battle experiments

The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for the

Navy’s advanced technology transition program to demonstrate

technologies that could significantly improve the warfighting capabilities of the fleet and joint forces and provide the opportunity to

identify and move emerging technologies quickly and efficiently

from the laboratory to the fleet.

The committee notes the role of the Navy Warfare Development

Command in developing Navy operational concepts and doctrine,

identifying required operational capabilities, focusing research and

development issues, maturing innovative concepts in naval, joint,

and coalition warfare for evaluation in fleet battle experiments,

and designing, planning, and evaluating the experiments. The committee is aware that fleet battle experiments have provided a test

bed for validation of Navy doctrine and operational concepts, assessment of innovative technologies and concepts, and identification of some of the operational, tactical, and technical challenges

that will be faced by the fleet in the future.

The committee also notes the role that the Navy’s science and

technology program performs by focusing on the long-term objective

of enabling future naval capabilities, science and technology developments that are critical to ensuring naval superiority, and the

demonstration of affordable technology for transition to the fleet.

The committee encourages the Office of Naval Research, the Navy

Secretariat, and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations to facilitate this strategy by ensuring a close working relationship between the Office of Naval Research, the Navy Warfare Development Command, and the numbered fleets.

Elsewhere in this report the committee notes the Navy’s progress

in concept evaluation of a littoral warfare fast patrol craft and the

significant advances in logistics support, surveillance, communications and fire support that such a craft could provide for naval

forces in littoral environments, and recommends increased funding

for prototype craft that would permit demonstration of the operational concept in fleet battle experiments and other exercises.

The committee notes recommendations from the Defense Science

Board for improvements in tactical mobility and intratheater lift

and recommendations for demonstration of high speed, fast shuttle

195

sealift and advanced amphibious capabilities for movement of

forces and logistical support within the theater and of other capabilities in future fleet battle experiments. The committee encourages the Navy to support such activities from available funds.

Advanced waterjet propulsor

The budget request contained $244.4 million for in PE 63513N

for shipboard systems component development, but included no

funds for advanced water jet technology.

The committee report on H. R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162) noted

proposals for a quarter-scale at-sea demonstration and cavitation

tunnel testing of an advanced waterjet propulsor (AWJ–21) to validate critical performance criteria and potential application of the

propulsor to the DD–21 land attack destroyer or other naval ships.

The report urged the Secretary of the Navy to assess the requirement for further development, demonstration, and evaluation of advanced waterjet propulsor technology and to provide recommendations regarding the demonstration, a program execution plan, and

Navy funding for the program.

On December 1, 1999, the Secretary reported that the Navy’s

AWJ–21 technology demonstration plan had developed hydrodynamic performance prediction and critical performance measurement capabilities for advanced waterjet concepts, and that the

knowledge and capability generated will be provided to both DD–

21 industry teams determining the suitability of the AWJ–21 for

use on DD–21. The report stated that a separate Navy-funded advanced waterjet development and large-scale demonstration program would be inappropriate because it could be viewed as Government endorsement of a specific propulsor solution and subverting

the DD–21 acquisition strategy (in which the industry team is

given full responsibility for recommending a total ship design for

the DD–21). The report stated further that development of the

AWJ–21 system by the DD–21 program is dependent upon a decision by the winning DD–21 industry team to include the AWJ–21

propulsion concept in their design. The report concluded that there

is currently no Navy operational requirement that requires the use

of an advanced waterjet propulsor and recommended no further development of advanced waterjet technology at this time.

Accordingly, the committee encourages the Navy to ensure that

advanced water jet technology is given all appropriate consideration.

Aircraft survivability study

The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for aircraft survivability demonstration and validation.

The committee is aware that the population of aircrew and passengers permitted on board military aircraft includes both female

and male personnel, and is concerned about the ability of crash

protective seating systems to provide adequate protection to occupants of lighter weight and smaller stature.

The committee recommends an increase of $500,000 in PE

63216N to determine and assess the potential for increased injury

risk to female operators and passengers in the Navy’s helicopter

fleet.

196

Aviation depot maintenance technology

The budget request contained $62.2 million in PE 63721N for environmental protection.

The committee notes that new environmentally friendly repair

processes are being developed that offer significant productivity improvements and potential cost savings. To this end, Congress provided increased funding in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for the development and demonstration of aviation depot maintenance technologies that will significantly reduce maintenance and repair costs

and reduce or eliminate hazardous waste and pollution products. The committees recommends $63.9 million in PE 63721N, an increase of $1.75 million to continue the program for demonstration

of advanced maintenance technologies for application of tungsten

carbide coatings to aircraft landing gear and hydraulic components.

Aviation modernization plan

The committee notes recent reports that the Office of the Chief

of Naval Operations is considering a major revision of naval aviation plans which would remove aircraft from inventory, cancel future aircraft systems concepts, and reconfigure the carrier air wing

in order to develop an affordable modernization plan for naval aviation. The reports indicate that the recommendations contained in

the ‘‘Common Vision for Naval Aviation’’ would be implemented beginning with the Navy’s budget request for fiscal year 2002. The

committee understands that the following alternatives are being

considered:

(1) Replacement of the EA–6B Prowler electronic warfare

aircraft by 2010 with an electronic warfare aircraft follow-on;

(2) Retirement of the F–14 Tomcat strike-fighter aircraft by

2008;

(3) Service life extension of the C–2 Grayhound Tracker carrier onboard delivery aircraft;

(4) Retirement of the S–3B Viking antisubmarine warfare

aircraft by 2008 and its mission replacement by a combination

of P–3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft and SH–60R Seahawk

multi-mission helicopter;

(5) Replacement of the S–3B Viking in its tanker role by F/

A–18E/F fighter aircraft with a aircraft refueling capability;

(6) Service life extension of the P–3C Orion maritime patrol

aircraft;

(7) Service life extension of the EP–3E Aries electronic surveillance aircraft;

(8) Cancellation of the concept of a common support aircraft

that would combine the mission of the E–2C Hawkeye airborne

early warning aircraft with the missions of the S–3 Viking and

C–2 Greyhound aircraft;

(9) Delay introduction of a multi-mission maritime aircraft to

replace the P–3C Orion and EP–3E Aries to no later than

2015; and

(10) Reduction of the number of strike aircraft in a carrier

air wing from 56 to 50.

The committee commends the Navy for its initiative in developing a long-term plan for naval aviation that attempts to meet the

challenges of affordability and effectiveness in a budget constrained

197

environment. The committee recognizes the issues of current and

future operational requirements, current force capabilities, personnel, training, research and development, procurement, logistics,

and estimated funding available that must be considered in developing such a plan. The committee notes that the Navy’s plan is not

complete and was not available during the committee’s review of

the budget request.

The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to provide information on the Navy’s revised aviation modernization plan to the

congressional defense committees at the earliest opportunity to ensure adequate opportunity for oversight review of this important

initiative prior to receipt of the budget request for fiscal year 2002.

Battle force tactical trainer (BFTT)

The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 24571N for consolidated training systems development, including $4.1 million

for development of the surface tactical team trainer (Battle Force

Tactical Training program).

The committee notes that the BFTT system provides the Navy

with an effective embedded training capability on many of the

Navy’s surface ships, permitting realistic unit level team training

and coordinated training among ships in port, and providing commanders the ability to conduct coordinated realistic, high stress,

combat system training when afloat. The Navy is converting BFTT

to a Windows NTTM personal computer (PC)-based environment

that will extend the BFTT simulation to shore-based facilities at

the training commands to provide more realistic combat system

team and individual training at these facilities, as well as providing the opportunity for expansion and upgrade of the capabilities of the BFTT system. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

24571N to accelerate the conversion and upgrade of the BFTT system to a Windows NTTM/PC-based environment.

Beartrap

The budget request contained $19.7 million in PE 63254N for

anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems development, including

$5.3 million for Project Beartrap.

The budget request for Beartrap supports hardware and software

development for the rapid prototyping of advanced capability acoustic and non-acoustic ASW sensors, as well as data collection and

analysis for threat assessment and environmental characterization.

The committee notes the progress being made in the evaluation

and development of the phenomena of nonlinear dynamics and

stochastic resonance (NDSR) for acoustic, magnetic, and other ASW

sensor and signal processing applications. The committee also notes

the Navy’s progress in developing a comprehensive and focused

strategy for acoustic, and non-acoustic environmental data collection, analysis and dissemination, and plans for continued implementation of the strategy to meet the Navy’s needs in environmental data bases, modeling for new systems research and development, and environmental inputs to tactical decision aids.

The committee recommends $24.7 million in PE 63254N, an increase of $5.0 million for Project Beartrap to continue the developVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.044 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
198

ment, demonstration, and evaluation of NDSR technology for ASW

applications and to continue the Beartrap environmental characterization program.

C–2 eight-blade composite propeller system

The budget request contained $51.0 million in PE 25633N for improvements in operational Navy aviation and aviation support systems.

The committee notes that the Navy is seeking solutions to operational limitations encountered with the propeller system used on

E–2C and C–2A aircraft. The current propeller system incorporates

technology developed in the 1950s and the 1960s, is difficult and

expensive to maintain, and is no longer in production. The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105–132) directed the initiation of development and demonstration of an eight-blade composite propeller for E–2C and C–2A aircraft. The Navy subsequently began a program for design, development, test, and production of the propeller system. The committee notes that the program

includes flight and ground test of the new propeller system for the

E–2 aircraft, but includes only ground tests for the new propeller

on the C–2 aircraft.

The committee recommends $57.0 million in PE 25633N, an increase of $6.0 million to flight test the new propeller system on the

C–2 aircraft sequentially with the E–2 flight test program.

Common command and decision system

The budget request contained $119.3 million in PE 63658N for

continued development of the Navy’s cooperative engagement capability (CEC), and $33.0 million in PE 63582N for combat systems

integration demonstration and validation, including $8.7 million for

common command and decision systems development.

The committee notes the Navy’s progress in resolving interoperability issues between CEC and Navy ship self-defense (SSD) combat systems and preparations for the CEC operational evaluation

in May 2001. The committee anticipates that successful completion

of the evaluation will provide the basis for widespread deployment

of CEC to the fleet and for joint purposes as well.

The committee also notes that the Navy initiated engineering

studies in fiscal year 1999 for a common command and decision

(CC&D) system that would be a preplanned product improvement

(P3I) to the Aegis weapons systems and the Mark 2 ship self defense system and would replace the command and decision capability presently in these systems with a common computer architecture. Such an architecture would reduce future combat systems

life-cycle costs, enable the fielding of new or modified combat systems capabilities more quickly and at a lower cost, enhance system

interoperability, and eliminate the redundant, conflicting processing that is inherent in these systems. The Navy has stated that

the CC&D is a critical step toward resolving long-term interoperability problems. Congress provided an increase of $30.0 million for

the program in fiscal year 2000. The Navy’s program plan includes

$91.2 million in addition to this year’s request through fiscal year

2005. The Navy has projected a notional program schedule that

would begin engineering and manufacturing development in March

199

2002 and achieve initial operational capability for the CC&D system in September 2008. The committee notes that the Chief of

Naval Operations has identified a $43 million unfunded requirement to accelerate the ability to begin engineering and manufacturing development by one year.

The committee supports the CC&D system program objectives

that have been identified by the Navy. The committee notes that

the CC&D development program is at an early stage, the program

schedule is notional, and operational requirements are being refined. The committee also notes Navy plans to evaluate a proposed

new approach to cooperative engagement capability data processing

and transmission (the Tactical Component Network (TCN)), which

could conserve CEC communications bandwidth and provide for a

wider, more efficient CEC network.

The committee encourages the Navy to seek technology insertion

opportunities that will improve the interoperability of Navy combat

systems and CEC’s capabilities for naval and joint forces and to

provide the required funding as a part of the Navy’s core budget

program. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report

to the congressional defense committees on the Navy’s program

plan and funding for the CC&D P3I program and for insertion of

advanced technology in the CEC/SSD integrated combat system

with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The committee recommends $119.3 million in PE 63658N for continued development of the Navy’s CEC and $33.0 million in PE

63582N to continue combat systems integration demonstration and

validation.

Common towed array

The budget request contained $113.3 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development, including $4.5 million

for the development of advanced towed array technology for submarines and surface ships.

The committee notes the Navy’s operational requirement for improvements in critical undersea warfare combat systems technologies needed in the littoral regions of the world. The committee

also notes that the Navy’s advanced towed array technology program is making considerable progress in developing multiple-line

and fiber optic affordable towed array technology that could result

in high gain, volumetric towed arrays with significantly improved

performance for submarine and surface ship sonar systems

The committee recommends $123.5 million in PE 63561N, an increase of $10.2 million to accelerate the development and demonstration of advanced towed array systems for surface ship and

submarine anti-submarine warfare tactical and strategic surveillance.

Composite advanced sail development

The budget request contained $113.3 million in PE 63561N for

advanced submarine systems development, including $5.7 million

for hydrodynamics/hydroacoustics and completion of the advanced

submarine sail development project.

The committee notes that the Navy’s technology insertion plan

for the Virginia class submarine includes installation of an adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.045 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
200

vanced sail made of steel on the seventh Virginia class ship. The

committee also notes the development of a quarter-scale advanced

submarine sail made of composite materials for the Navy’s large

scale vehicle and the conduct of submersion tests at the Navy’s

Idaho test range in which the composite sail exceeded the Navy’s

performance expectations.

The committee supports the advanced submarine technology insertion program for the Virginia class submarine and directs the

Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense committees on the Navy’s plan for further development of a composite

advanced sail for the submarine with the submission of the fiscal

year 2002 budget request.

CVNX aircraft carrier design product modeling

The budget request contained $149.0 million in PE 63512N for

carrier systems development.

The committee notes that all new classes of Navy ships, such as

the Virginia-class submarine, the DD–22 land attack destroyer,

and the LPD–17 amphibious transport dock, are being designed

using electronic three dimensional product models to take advantage of the inherent design, production and life cycle maintenance

cost savings offered by these modern design tools.

The committee also notes that design data for the Nimitz-class

nuclear aircraft carriers, upon which design work began in the

1950’s, remains largely in non-electronic form. Conversion of aircraft carrier design data into an electronic format was difficult to

justify when Navy plans previously called for a complete change in

designs following completion of CVN–77.

The committee notes, however, that the Navy has adopted an evolutionary design approach for future carriers, beginning with the

CVN–77 as a transition ship and retains the Nimitz-class hull form

largely unchanged through at least CVNX–2. Therefore, the committee believes that it now may be cost-effective to convert Nimitzclass design data and to develop future nuclear aircraft design data

utilizing electronic, three-dimensional product models to reap the

design, production, and life cycle maintenance cost savings offered

by this approach. The committee is aware that development of a

nuclear aircraft carrier design product model may take several

years and could be undertaken as part of the planned design efforts

for CVN–77, CVNX–1, and CVNX–2.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an

assessment of the cost-effectiveness of developing an aircraft carrier design product model for the CVNX and report the results of

the assessment, together with plans and funding requirements for

development of such a model to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

The committee recommends $149.0 million in PE 63512N, including $5.0 million to begin development of an aircraft carrier design

product model for the CVNX.

Distributed engineering plant

The committee supports continued integration of high performance computers for Navy Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)’s

multi-functional test control center and distributed engineering

201

plant (DEP) operations with the Joint Forces Command’s Joint

Interoperability Training Center and other military organizations

and activities, academia, and industry in the Hampton Roads region. The committee notes that cooperation and sharing of computer resources among joint forces and the military services, academia, and industry in the region could result in lower costs and

improved capabilities for analysis, design, modeling and simulation, which would be reflected in major combat systems developments, such as the cooperative engagement capability and the

CVN–77 and CVN–X aircraft carriers.

The committee is aware of the multi-functional test control center at NAVSEA Dam Neck and its interface with major Atlantic

test and training ranges used for joint operations and training. The

committee also notes that the Hampton Roads network access point

at NAVSEA Dam Neck provides transcontinental connectivity to

other development, test and evaluation, acquisition, and training

activities and an improved analytical and information exchange capability.

The committee encourages the Navy to continue to capitalize on

government-sponsored high performance computing and high speed

network programs, such as the National Science Foundation’s Partnership for Advanced Computing Infrastructure, the East Coast

Communication’s Network, and the Department of Defense high

performance computing modernization program, in developing improved capabilities for analysis, design, modeling and simulation,

combat systems integration, training, test and evaluation.

Distributed marine environment forecast system

The budget request contained $60.3 million in PE 62435N for applied research in oceanographic and atmospheric technology, including $12.0 million for ocean and atmospheric prediction.

The committee notes the long established need for a distributed

forecast system in the marine environment, which combines ocean

and atmospheric models with common database access and common tools to provide the capability for prediction of local and future

weather and sea conditions and their potential effects on fleet and

other operations. The committee also notes the potential for building upon oceanographic and atmospheric models and data from the

Department of Defense, National Air and Space Administration,

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency to integrate these resources into a

distributed marine environment forecast system.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62435N to establish an applied research program for development

and demonstration of a distributed marine environment forecast

system.

DP–2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration

The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 63217N for air

systems and weapons advanced technology development, but included no funds for continuation of the DP–2 thrust vectoring system proof of concept demonstration.

DP–2 is a proof-of-concept program to demonstrate the use of

thrust vector control to achieve vertical takeoff and conventional

202

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 being made in the DP–2 program in the design and fabrication of large, precise composite

structures and in the potential for the use of small models to demonstrate and confirm complex aeronautical guidance and control

laws for the DP–2 system prior to entering the flight test phase.

The committee also notes that technical issues regarding strength

of materials, engineering design, the development and test of an

automated control system, and other safety of flight issues must be

resolved before the program can proceed to the flight test phase.

The committee recommends $49.2 million in PE 63217N, an increase of $9.5 million to continue the DP–2 development program

leading to a proof-of-concept demonstration of a one-half scale flight

test vehicle. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to

provide an assessment of the program progress and plans and

funding requirements for completion of the flight-test demonstration to the congressional defense committees with the submission

of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Dry chemical fire suppressant

The committee notes that the Navy’s initial tests of a gelled, dry

chemical fire suppressant agent in a self-contained fire extinguishing system, which is reportedly non-toxic and has a long shelf

life, have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the material for fire fighting. The Naval Research Laboratory report of its

test of alternative fire suppressant technologies, dated July 1999,

indicated the agent’s high level of effectiveness and its potential for

performing better than clean agent fire suppressant systems in current use aboard Navy ships, and encouraged further research on

the agent. The committee encourages the Navy to conduct comprehensive field tests of the suppressant and, if the tests are successful, to consider deployment of the fire suppressant system to

the fleet.

E2–C2 rotordome and control surface improvements

The budget request contained $18.7 million in PE 24152N for E–

2 squadron operational systems development.

The committee notes that the rotordome and control surfaces on

the Navy’s E2–C2 Hawkeye aircraft have been experiencing problems due to structural damage from water absorption and excessive

wear and that the Navy’s plans to extend the service life of these

aircraft require a new retrofit design to eliminate costly maintenance and downtime.

The committee recommends $20.7 million in PE 24152N, an increase of $2.0 million to develop composite retrofit options to improve the serviceability and performance of the E2–C2 Hawkeye.

Extended range guided munition

The budget request contained $143.0 million in PE 63795N for

land attack technology, including $39.1 million for development of

the extended range guided munition (ERGM).

203

The committee notes that the Navy’s core program for near-term

improvements in naval surface fire support (NSFS) includes upgrading the existing 5-inch 54-caliber Mk 45 gun on its cruisers

and destroyers to fire a new extended-range guided munition

(ERGM) with nearly five times the range of current 5-inch projectile. Both the 5-inch 62-caliber Mk 45 Mod 4 gun and the ERGM

projectile were to have achieved initial operational capability in fiscal year 2001. The first Mk 45 Mod 4 gun was installed in the USS

Winston Church (DDG–81) on schedule in 1999. However, technical

challenges and the contractor’s relocation of the ERGM development activity have delayed the ERGM development program an estimated three years to 2004 and doubled the program cost.

The committee notes ERGM’s key role in the NSFS program and

the need for a long-range (63 nautical mile) guided, gun-fired projectile to achieve the approved operational requirements for support of ground forces ashore. The committee also notes that the

global positioning system/inertial measuring unit (GPS/IMU) guidance and control technology being developed for ERGM will establish a baseline for future advanced guided projectiles for the DD–

21 land attack destroyer and for other weapons systems.

The committee has closely monitored the ERGM program since

its inception and has supported the baseline development program

and accelerated development and integration of microelectromechanical system (MEMS)-based GPS/INS into ERGM. The

committee has encouraged close cooperation between the Navy and

Army guided munitions research and development communities in

order to achieve risk reduction in their respective guided projectile

development programs and maximum commonality and economies

of scale in production.

The committee notes the detailed reviews of the ERGM program

by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development,

and Acquisition) and the contractor; program management changes

and risk reduction measures taken; and program rebaseline and

other measures under consideration that might encourage program

competition. The committee believes that the technical goals of the

program are challenging, but achievable.

The committee recommends $39.1 million in PE 63795N, the

budget request, to continue the ERGM development program. The

committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense committees on the revised program baseline,

risk reduction measures, and measures to foster competition in the

ERGM program no later than November 1, 2000.

F–18

The budget request contained $248.1 million in PE 24136N for

continued development of capabilities for the F/A–18 aircraft.

The committee has supported the Shared Airborne Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) efforts to provide the F/A–18 aircraft with an

enhanced tactical reconnaissance capability that will also be applicable to other combat aircraft. The committee notes the recent successful demonstration of the SHARP risk-mitigation project for the

F–14 Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Podded System that was

employed by the battle group U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. This demonstration clearly indicated the force multiplying capability proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.046 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
204

vided by a real-time imagery system supports continuation of this

effort.

The committee is concerned, however, that the funding requested

for SHARP is insufficient to support completion of sensors for an

initial operational capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2003. The committee notes that this shortfall in funding results in an increase in

cost of tactical reconnaissance support by extending use of the less

capable F–14 Tactical Air Reconnaissance Pod (TARPS). The committee is also aware that emerging technology is being developed

to replace existing mechanical focal plane shutters with a solidstate shutter to further increase SHARP camera performance and

reliability. However, the committee is concerned that the current

program is insufficiently funded to ensure a fiscal year 2003

SHARP fleet deployment.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in PE 24136N for the development of the SHARP F–18 tactical

reconnaissance capability to maintain the SHARP IOC.

Fielded system obsolescence, technology insertion and technology refreshment

The committee notes the increasing reliance upon commercial-offthe-shelf in Department of Defense systems and the rapid obsolescence of technology and exponential increases in capability in subsequent generations that are common characteristics of the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) industry. The committee believes that

management of COTS in Defense systems is a major effort that

must be recognized, quantified and separately addressed as an integral part of the procurement process. To this end, the committee

recommends that all programs within DOD with high COTS content should include a management plan that addresses the costs

associated with sustaining the military capability of the systems in

a COTS environment. The plan should clearly distinguish the costs

associated with sustaining current performance requirements

through technology refreshment and meeting increased performance requirements through the technology insertion process.

The committee believes that institution of such a planning process in the Department would provide Congress with the information necessary to evaluate the merits of COTS products in DOD applications based on a true and accurate representation of operational requirements and total ownership costs. Based on ongoing

work in technology refreshment and technology insertion by the

Department of the Navy as represented by the Acoustic Rapid

COTS Insertion (A–RCI) program, the committee believes that a

pilot program to address these issues should be established within

the Navy.

The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy provide a report on the Navy’s plan for such a program that would address the issues of technology refresh and technology insertion in

legacy and developmental programs with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

205

Fleet health technology and occupational lung disease

The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63706N for medical development, including $4.8 million for the fleet health

technology program.

The Navy’s medical development program supports advanced

medical care and health protection from hazardous occupational

and operational exposure to Navy and Marine Corps personnel in

operational theaters. The committee notes that the budget request

would reduce funding for the fleet health technology program approximately $5.7 million less than the fiscal year 2001 estimate

that was provided in the fiscal year 2000 request. The committee

is disturbed with this reduction in the priority given to the medical

care and occupational health and safety of Navy and Marine Corps

personnel.

The committee also notes that concerns have been raised that

naval personnel diagnosed with sarcoidosis, may have suffered

from other lung diseases related to exposure to occupational hazards during their military service. A study by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has provided an

assessment of the incidence of sarcoidosis among Navy enlisted

personnel and suggests a relationship of sarcoidosis with assignment aboard aircraft carriers. The Navy Surgeon General has indicated that correlation of the results of the NIOSH study with a

pathologic review of tissue samples at the Armed Forces Institute

of Pathology taken from naval personnel during the 1960s and

1970s, would be relevant to resolving the concerns regarding sarcoidosis and other lung diseases. The Navy Surgeon General also

indicated that collaboration with the multi-center study of sarcoidosis etiology, natural history, and treatment currently being considered by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, should be

considered.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination

with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Director of the

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, to establish an occupational

lung disease assessment program to determine if naval personnel

with lung disease due to other causes may have been misdiagnosed

with sarcoidosis and if the incidence of sarcoidosis or other lung

disease could be attributable to service aboard Navy ships. The program should also consider collaboration with the National Heart,

Lung, and Blood Institute’s sarcoidosis etiology study. The Secretary of the Navy shall report the plan for the study and any initial study results to the congressional defense committees no later

than March 21, 2001.

The committee recommends $13.1 million in PE 63706N, an increase of $3.0 million, including $500,000 for the conduct of the occupational lung disease assessment discussed above. To offset the

recommended increase, the committee recommends a reduction of

$3.0 million in PE 63513N.

Flight worthy transparent armor system

The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for aircraft survivability demonstration and validation.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63216N for the development of a flight worthy transparent armor

206

system for the AH–1Z light attack helicopter and V–22 tilt-rotor

aircraft that could be migrated to other platforms as well.

High mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS)

The budget request contained no funds for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). The HIMARS is an Army-developed, Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle (FMTV)-mounted multiple

launch rocket system. The committee understands that the Marine

Corps currently lacks an all-weather, continuously available, longrange fire support system capable of prosecuting a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) and Marine Ground Combat Element’s (CGE)

deep strike mission and counter fire battle. The committee also understands that the existing prototype HIMARS has the potential to

fulfill the MEF and CGE mission requirements. The committee

notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified a

$17.3 million unfunded requirement for the procurement of two

HIMARS systems for evaluation and a system design study to address integrating the HIMARS launcher onto the Marine Corps’

Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement truck in fiscal year 2001.

The committee believes that evaluation of this weapon system as

a deep strike alternative capability for Marine expeditionary forces

is important, and, therefore, recommends $17.3 million in PE

63635M to procure two HIMARS systems for this purpose.

High performance sigma-delta waveform generator

The budget request contained $26.0 million in PE 62270N for applied research in electronic warfare technology.

The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research has been

developing semi-conductor and super-conducting technology for the

implementation of a Sigma-Delta Waveform Generator. This activity has included development of high speed gallium arsenide and/

or Josephson Junction circuits to implement a highly linear, flexible, digital waveform generator for next generation Navy systems.

The advanced semi-conductor and super-conducting circuits being

developed will enable higher levels of performance required to detect small targets in clutter and to perform multiple radio frequency functions.

The committee recommends an $29.0 million in PE 62270N, an

increase of $3.0 million to continue the program for development of

super-conducting wave form generator technology.

Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communication technology

The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 62232N for applied research in communications, command and control, intelligence, and surveillance.

The committee notes the progress made in development and

demonstration of the technology for hybrid fiber optic wireless communications systems, and believes that the application of this technology to shipboard communications will provide increased mobility

and security while reducing the effects of frequency interference.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE

62232N to continue the development of hybrid fiberoptic/wireless

communication system technology. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to assess the progress in the program and the

207

potential for incorporation of the technology in the Navy’s core

science and technology program and to report the results of that

assessment to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Hybrid light detection and ranging (LIDAR)/radar technology

The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for advanced technology demonstration and transition.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63792N to continue the development and further demonstration of

hybrid LIDAR/radar technology in the Claymore Marine advanced

technology demonstration.

Hyperspectral research

The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 62232N for applied research in communications, command and control, intelligence, and surveillance technology.

The committee notes that hyperspectral sensor systems provide

the capability to detect and identify targets that are not discernible

with conventional sensors by exploiting the spectral signature of

both the target and the environment. The Naval Research Laboratory has conducted extensive research into the use of hyperspectral

technology to provide a surveillance sensor that is capable of finding difficult military targets in clutter-rich environments. The laboratory has made excellent progress in developing hyperspectral

technology and has conducted successful testing on board Navy intelligence collection aircraft.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62232N to continue the Navy’s development, integration, and testing of hyperspectral sensors with other sensors.

Insensitive munitions

The budget request contained $28.6 million in PE 63609N for

conventional munitions demonstration and validation, including

$3.2 million for insensitive munitions advanced development; and

$7.5 million in PE 63216N for aviation survivability, including $1.8

million for aircraft and ordnance safety.

The committee notes that insensitive munitions reduce the severity of cook-off and bullet/fragment impact reactions, and minimize

the probability for sympathetic detonation (both in normal storage

and in use) without compromising combat performance, and are

recognized as a critical technology requirement in the design of

new weapons systems. The committee also notes that, despite the

Navy’s requirements for insensitive munitions, nearly all Navy munitions require a wavier to be carried aboard ships. The committee

notes that the Navy is the lead service for the development of insensitive munition technology and that the budget request would

reduce insensitive munition technology development funding almost $6.0 million below the amount provided in fiscal year 2000 as

well as the average program level of the past several years. In view

of joint requirements and the Navy’s requirements for insensitive

munitions, the committee believes that the Navy needs to assign a

high priority to the insensitive munitions program and directs the

208

Secretary of the Navy to address this issue in the fiscal year 2002

budget request.

Integrated aviation life support systems

The budget request contained $17.5 million in PE 64264N for aircrew systems engineering and manufacturing development, including $8.9 million for development of aviation life support systems.

The committee notes progress in development of the two-part,

tri-service modular helmet, the advanced visionics helmet system

for day/night, all-weather sight display, and the helicopter aircrew

integrated life support system. The committee also notes that the

current program, which develops the helicopter life support system

and helmet systems separately, could result in an overall aviation

life support system that is geared to the lowest performing component. The committee believes that integrated development of these

systems will result in an aviation life support system that provides

optimal performance, greater tactical advantage, and improved aircrew safety. Accordingly, the committee recommends $25.5 million in PE 64264N, an increase of $8.0 million for continued development and

flight evaluation of an integrated aviation life-support system that

includes the tri-service modular flight helmet, the advanced

visionics helmet system, and the helicopter aircrew integrated life

support system.

Integrated semiconductor bridge based fuze

The budget request contained $38.0 million in PE 62111N for applied research in air and surface launched weapons technology.

The committee notes the progress that has been made in the development of semi-conductor bridges as electrical initiators for explosives and their potential for replacing conventional hot

bridgewire devices with significant reductions in size, weight,

power and cost. The coupling of semiconductor bridge devices with

microelectromechanical systems technology in initiation and safe/

arm components offers the opportunity for the development of

electromechanical fuzes with superior accuracy and reliability, reduced power consumption and weight, and lower cost.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE

62111N to initiate a proof-of-concept development and demonstration of an integrated semiconductor bridge based fuze for potential

use in air and surface launched weapons systems.

Intermediate modulus carbon fiber and ultra-high thermal conductivity graphite fibers

The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials and radio frequency/electro-optics/infrared electronics technology and $72.8 million in PE 62102F for materials applied research, including $44.1 million for materials for

structures, propulsion, and subsystems.

The committee notes that the joint strike fighter (JSF), the F/A–

18E/F strike fighter, the V–22 tilt-rotor aircraft, the joint air-tosurface standoff missile, and many other advanced aviation and

weapons systems use composite structures which have carbon fiber

as a major component. The committee is aware of proposals for the

209

use of intermediate modulus carbon fiber materials as an alternative to the carbon fiber that could result in as much as a 50 percent reduction in the cost of raw materials used in these weapons

systems.

The committee also notes initial progress in the evaluation and

qualification of ultra-high thermal conductivity graphite fiber materials for critical spacecraft requirements related to countermeasures and spacecraft protection, high energy/thermal loading,

very large antennas, high-efficiency solar collectors, and other applications.

The committee believes that the Department of Defense should

place priority on the development of procedures for qualifying new

materials for potential use in military systems that could result in

lower costs while maintaining system performance requirements.

The committee supports continued validation of design methods,

material performance in various service environments, and the capability of the materials to manage thermal loads generated by

electronics.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62234N for evaluation of new, lower cost, commercially available

carbon fibers for JSF and other Navy aircraft and missile applications and $2.0 million in PE 62102F to continue the program for

evaluation and qualification of ultra-high thermal conductivity

graphite materials for critical spacecraft requirements.

Joint forces command operational testbed

The budget request contained $113.1 million in PE 35204N for

tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funds for the

Joint Forces Command unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) joint operational testbed.

Congress previously provided funds for two Predator unmanned

aerial vehicles and a tactical control system (TCS) ground station

to support development of TCS and UAV operational employment

procedures. The committee notes that the joint tactical UAV program office (JPO) was disestablished. The committee further notes

that the Joint Forces Command has responsibility for oversight of

joint operational testing and evaluation of weapons systems, a

function previously conducted by the UAVJPO for specific UAV systems.

The committee supports the efforts of the Joint Forces Command

and recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 35204N for the

Joint Forces Command UAV testbed. The committee directs the

Secretary of the Navy to transfer the two Predator UAVs and TCS

ground station to the Joint Forces Command for use by the joint

operational UAV testbed.

Joint helmet mounted cueing system

The budget request contained $248.1 million in PE 24136N for

operational systems development for F/A18 naval strike fighter aircraft, including $3.3 million to continue development of the joint

helmet mounted cueing system, digital communications systems,

and positive identification system.

The committee notes that the joint helmet mounted cueing system, when combined with state of the art missile systems currently

210

in development, provides a significant improvement in air to air

combat survivability. The committee is also aware that this improved capability is essential to the success of the Navy’s F/A–18

E/F strike fighter aircraft currently being deployed.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

24136N for continued development of the joint helmet mounted

cueing system for the F/A–18C/D fighter.

Joint tactical combat training system

The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 24571N for

consolidated training systems development, including $7.8 million

for development of the Joint Tactical Combat Training Systems

(JTCTS).

The JTCTS is a joint Air Force/Navy program for the development of fixed, transportable, and mobile range instrumentation for

shore-based tactical aircrew training and for deployable, at-sea

naval expeditionary force training. The statement of managers that

accompanied the conference report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105–746)

directed the Department of Defense to conduct a technical evaluation to compare the capabilities, performance, and costs of competing system approaches to JTCTS, and to identify the best technical solution with the best value for meeting the Department’s

operational training requirement. In November 1999, the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) reported that

after completion of the technical evaluation and a thorough analysis, the JTCTS was determined to be the system of choice to meet

the joint training requirement.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

24571N to accelerate the development and fielding of JTCTS for

fleet and fixed range support of Navy and Air Force tactical air

combat training.

Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)

The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for aircraft survivability demonstration and validation.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63216N to continue the application of lightweight environmentally

sealed parachute assembly (LESPA) sealing technology for use on

existing and planned parachutes for Navy ejection seats.

Littoral support fast patrol craft

The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for advanced technology transition.

The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research (ONR)

has evaluated initial results of the concept evaluation of a littoral

warfare fast patrol craft and is favorably impressed with the potential for such a system. The committee continues to believe that

such a craft could provide significant advances in logistics support,

surveillance, communications and fire support capabilities for naval

forces in littoral environments.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $22.0 million in PE 63792N to develop a prototype for demonstrating the

operational concepts of a littoral support fast patrol craft.

211

Location of global positioning systems (GPS) jammers

The budget request contained $97.3 million in PE 64270N for

electronic warfare development but included no funds to continue

development and demonstration of a state-of-the-art precision surveillance and targeting system for location of global positioning systems jammers (LOCO GPSI).

The committee notes that the Navy has developed a prototype

LOCO GPSI airborne detection system, capable of rapid, precision

location sources for GPS interference. In the committee report on

H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162), the committee recommended an increase of $6.0 million to continue development and evaluation of

the LOCO GPSI system and directed the Navy to assess its operational requirement.

Consistent with its past action, the committee recommends $103.3 million in PE 64270N, an increase of $6.0 million, to complete advanced development for the LOCO GPSI system, provide

two additional sensor systems, and to complete system testing.

Malaria deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) vaccine

The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63706N for advanced medical technology development.

The committee notes the outstanding achievement by the military medical research community in collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry in developing DNA vaccines for complex multistage pathogens and for multiple pathogens of military importance.

This collaboration has resulted in the promising development of an

effective recombinant protein malaria vaccine of unprecedented efficacy. Successful completion of the development will result in a

cost-effective means of controlling malaria, the most important infectious threat to ground troops and to third-world populations.

Of the funds authorized for PE 63706N, the committee recommends $1.5 million to continue development of the recombinant

protein malaria vaccine, and recommends that the Secretary of the

Navy accelerate the development of this technology in the fiscal

year 2002 budget request.

Manned reconnaissance systems

The budget request contained $27.5 million in PE 35207N for manned reconnaissance systems, including $25.3 million for development of the shared airborne reconnaissance pod (SHARP).

The committee continues its support for the SHARP program to

increase dramatically real-time tactical reconnaissance capabilities.

The committee is aware of developmental EO framing processing

techniques that will provide for real-time precision strike targeting

and solid-state shutter technology that will greatly reduce operational costs and improve camera performance. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

35207N for long-range optical sensor technology and $3.0 million

for development of a solid-state shutter mechanism that can be retrofitted on currently fielded framing array cameras.

Marine corps dragon warrior UAV

The budget request contained no funds in PE 35204M for Marine

Corps close range tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

212

The committee notes that the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL) is developing the Dragon Warrior, a low cost, small

UAV that combines the speed of a fixed wing UAV with some operational characteristics of a rotary wing UAV. The committee notes

that Dragon Warrior would carry a variety of payloads that are

currently being examined by the MCWL to provide the Marine

Corps with a highly, flexible close range reconnaissance capability

that will enlarge the area of influence of a small expeditionary

force.

The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 35204M, an increase of $5.0 million for Dragon Warrior.

Marine mammal research

The budget request contained $381.1 million in PE 61153N for

the Navy’s defense research sciences program, but included no

funds for marine mammal research.

The committee notes recent activities involving potential interaction of Navy tactical sonar operations with cetaceans in littoral

waters of the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas. The committee believes that the Navy should place a priority on gaining an increased understanding of the reaction of marine mammals to tactical sonar and other underwater sounds that are characteristic of

naval operations. The committee recommends $381.9 million in PE 61153N, an increase of $750,000 for the Navy’s cooperative marine mammal research program.

Maritime technology (MARITECH) program

The budget request contains $9.4 million in PE 78730N for the

Maritime Technology (MARITECH) program. The request also contained $244.4 million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development and $46.9 million in PE 63564N for ship preliminary design and feasibility studies.

The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated the MARITECH program in

1994 to enhance the commercial viability of U.S. shipbuilding and

preserve the defense industrial shipbuilding base. An independent

study of the economic impact of the program concluded that the

Navy shipbuilding industrial base experienced considerable productivity improvements and cost savings from the application of technologies developed in the MARITECH program. In fiscal year 1999

the program was moved to the Department of the Navy and a fiveyear, $20 million per year, Navy MARITECH Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise (ASE) was established to build upon the

progress made by the original DARPA program.

The committee believes that the success of the original

MARITECH program was the result of the application of innovative management and technologies, and stable funding throughout

the five-years of the program. The committee believes that the reduction in the budget request for the ASE breaks the paradigm established in the original program and will adversely affect the program objective of assisting the Nation’s shipbuilding industry in

achieving significant reductions in the cost and time required for

commercial and Navy ship construction, conversion, and repair.

213

The committee believes that all Navy shipbuilding programs will

benefit from the MARITECH ASE and should share in funding the

program. Accordingly, the committee recommends $15.4 million in PE 78730N, an increase of $6.0 million to fully fund the MARITECH

program. The committee further recommends a decrease of $3.0

million each in PE 63513N and PE 63564N.

Mobile electronic warfare support system

The budget request contained $96.2 million in PE 26313M, and included $449,000 for improvements to the Marine Corps’ mobile

electronic warfare support system (MEWSS).

The committee notes that the Marine Corps’ MEWSS tactical reconnaissance system is a cooperative effort with the Army’s ground

based common sensor (GBCS) program. The GBCS program was

terminated and all residual equipment was transferred to the Marine Corps for use in the MEWSS. However, no funds were included in the budget request to transfer and integrate GBCS components into the MEWSS vehicles or to maintain the limited rate

initial production items. The committee recommends $104.7 million in PE 26313M, an increase of $8.5 million for the specific purposes of transferring, integrating and maintaining the equipment gained from GBCS.

Mobile integrated diagnostic and data analysis system (MIDDAS)

The budget request contained $5.3 million in PE 64771N for

medical development.

The committee understands that the Navy has no trauma management tools to aid medical personnel in monitoring and analyzing wounded patient medical data on a real-time basis in the

field. The committee further understands that the Navy has made

significant progress in the development of the MIDDAS to provide

such a capability but that additional resources are required to complete this effort.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $7.3 million in PE

64771N for medical development, an increase of $2.0 million to accelerate development of the MIDDAS and demonstrate its ability to

interface with communications and medical data systems.

Multi-function radar/volume search radar and the Navy’s radar

roadmap

The budget request contained a total of $305.3 million in PE

64300N for total ship systems engineering and manufacturing development for the DD–21 land attack destroyer, including $69.6

million for the multi-function radar (MFR) for ship defense and

$57.5 million for the volume search radar (VSR) for air search and

track.

The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162) expressed

concern that significant radar upgrades are required to meet the

objective capabilities of the Navy theater wide (NTW) system. The

report also noted that radar upgrades for TMD need to be thoroughly integrated with continued radar improvements required for

fleet defense, development of the cooperative engagement capability

(CEC), and development of next generation Navy destroyers and

214

cruisers. The report called for a clearly defined roadmap of radar

requirements and technology to identify the best approaches for

meeting the overlapping requirements of fleet defense and TMD.

The committee notes the Navy’s submission of the Surface Navy

Radar Roadmap Study as an interim report on the Navy’s radar

roadmap. The study states that a series of time-phased radar development decisions must be made to support varying surface ship

acquisitions:

(1) Immediate decisions to be made regarding the radar suite

configuration for new ships including DD–21 and the CVN–77 aircraft carrier.

(2) Near term decision on the radar configuration for the initial

phase (Block I) of the NTW program.

(3) Near- to mid-term decisions (2–3 years) for Block II of the

NTW program and for improvement in self-defense capabilities of

ships now in service.

(4) Radar technologies to be developed for the next-generation air

dominance/theater ballistic missile defense (TBMD) cruiser that

would reach the fleet in 2015.

The plan provides a strategy to reduce the large number of redundant, obsolescing radars currently in the fleet to a small number of radars common across multiple ship classes. The plan confirms the need for:

(1) A radar suite composed of MFR and VSR for ships whose

radar requirements are limited to self-defense and air control.

(2) A next generation radar suite, either derived from MFR/VSR,

or perhaps involving one additional radar, for ships with TBMD

and area anti-air warfare requirements.

The committee expresses concern that a clearly defined and funded radar roadmap is necessary to ensure the necessary upgrades to

legacy radar systems and the development of new radar systems.

The committee awaits Secretary of the Navy approval of the radar

roadmap, delivery to the congressional defense committees, and incorporation of the approved program in the fiscal year 2002 budget

request.

Multipurpose processor

The budget request contained $34.8 million in PE 64503N for

submarine systems equipment development, including $28.2 million for submarine sonar improvements.

The committee notes that that the Acoustic Rapid CommercialOff-the-Shelf Insertion (A–RCI) program has provided a tremendous improvement in sonar processing capabilities through the application of a cost-effective multipurpose acoustic signal processing

technology and the advanced process build software development

initiative. The committee continues to support incorporation of this

advanced multipurpose signal processing technology into the

Navy’s acoustic surveillance and intelligence systems.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $49.8 million in PE

64503N, an increase of $15.0 million, to support the accelerated development and extension of common acoustic processing capabilities for undersea warfare applications through the use of the multipurpose processor.

215

Naval space surveillance

The budget request contained $2.0 million in PE 35927N for the

Navy Space Surveillance network life extension activities.

The committee notes that the budget request for the fiscal year

2001 included a request for design concept activities that were provided in fiscal year 2000. Therefore, the committee recommends

$1.4 million in PE 35927N, a decrease of $600,000.

Navy mine countermeasures program

The budget request contained a total of $647.3 million for the Department of the Navy mine countermeasures program, including

$334.9 million for research, development, test and evaluation,

$118.4 million for procurement, and $177.4 million for operations

and maintenance.

The committee has reviewed the U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Plan

and the Department of the Navy’s mine countermeasures (MCM)

program for fiscal year 2001. The plan highlights mine warfare as

a core competency of the naval services and near-, mid-, and longterm measures to ensure the continued readiness of the Navy’s

dedicated force of 26 MCM ships and the development and fielding

of organic MCM systems in the fleet.

The committee notes that the increased funding levels provided

for the MCM program through fiscal year 2005 will allow deployment of the programmed organic MCM capability to a carrier battle

group in 2005, as well as continued modernization of dedicated

MCM forces. The committee also notes that the Navy is establishing a capstone requirements document for a MCM system of

systems that will baseline current requirements and identify shortfalls in existing MCM systems. Because the deployment of advanced MCM systems to the fleet will require new tactics, techniques, and procedures for their employment, the committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy consider the establishment of a Mine Warfare Battle Laboratory to accelerate the introduction of new technologies and concepts of operations for both

MCM forces.

The committee is aware that the Navy has begun an analysis of

alternatives for replacement of the USS INCHON (MCS–12) MCM

support ship and a second analysis of alternatives for a future

MCM(X) ship for the dedicated MCM fleet. The committee notes

that technical problems encountered with the development of the

shallow water assault breaching system (SABRE) and the Army’s

cancellation of the ‘‘Grizzly’’ combat breaching vehicle program severely impacts the development of the Navy and Marines in-stride

assault mine-clearing capability. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide to the congressional defense committees the revisions to the MCM plan and programs that address

these issues with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Advanced sensors for mine countermeasures and oceanography

The budget request contained $60.3 million in PE 62435N for

oceanographic and atmospheric technology, including $22.6 million

for applied research in natural and environmental influences on

MCM systems and littoral oceanography.

216

The committee notes significant progress in the development of

advanced underwater chemical, optical, and physical sensors and

sensor systems for mine countermeasures and other underwater

sensor applications, including the successful test of an underwater

mass spectrometer for detection and mapping of trace quantities of

volatile organic compounds that might be associated with underwater mines, chemical or biological agents, or hazardous wastes.

The committee also notes the development of a small

spectrophotometric and fluormetric analysis system for detection of

trace elements underwater and of a high-speed, high resolution

laser line scanner for three-dimensional mapping sea floor topography, both of which have potential application for mine countermeasures and other purposes. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

62435N to continue the development and demonstration of advanced underwater chemical, optical, and physical sensors and sensor systems for mine countermeasures and other applications.

AN/AQS–20/X mine hunting sonar

The budget request contained $47.3 million in PE 64373N for airborne mine countermeasures engineering and manufacturing development, including $14.9 million to continue development of the AN/

AQS–20/X helicopter-towed, mine hunting sonar system.

The AN/AQS–20/X will be the common mine hunting sonar system for the submersible AN/WLD–1 Remote Minehunting System

(RMS) and the CH–60S airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM)

helicopter that will provide the primary organic mine countermeasures capabilities for the fleet. The committee notes the

progress that has been made in the development of the AN/AQS–

20/X mine hunting sonar and the Navy’s decision in fiscal year

1999 to add an electro-optical sensor to the system’s mine detection, localization and classification capabilities. The committee also

notes that incorporating current state-of-the-art, commercial-offthe-shelf (COTS) processor technology in the AN/AQS–20/X would

significantly improve system performance, eliminate obsolescent

components dating from the early 1990s, permit any system to operate from either the AMCM helicopter or the RMS, and significantly upgrade computer-aided detection and classification of mines

and mine-like objects.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $64.3 million in PE

64373N, an increase of $17.0 million for incorporation of COTS

processor technology in the AN/AQS–20/X mine hunting sonar.

Synthetic aperture sonar development for long-term mine reconnaissance system

The budget request contained $97.9 million in PE 63502N for

demonstration and validation of surface and shallow water mine

countermeasures, including $26.1 million for development of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV).

The committee notes that the Navy developed the near-term

mine reconnaissance system (NMRS) as a single operational prototype mine hunting UUV system, which is capable of mine detection, classification, and localization, and is launched and recovered

from an SSN–688 class submarine. Employing forward- and sideVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.051 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
217

scanning sonar systems, the AN/BLQ–11 long-term mine reconnaissance system (LMRS) will replace the limited capability provided

by the NMRS with a submarine launched and recoverable, autonomous capability that will have increased endurance, reliability, and

search rate, and will provide the fleet a greatly improved capability

to conduct clandestine mine reconnaissance. The committee also

notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has identified the development of a synthetic aperture sonar capability for the LMRS as

an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends $103.4 million in PE 63502N, including $5.5 million for development of a synthetic aperture sonar capability for the LMRS.

Naval modeling and simulation

The budget request contained $9.1 million in PE 38601N for

naval modeling and simulation.

The committee notes recent advances in modeling and simulation

for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,

surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. These advances

demonstrate the use of efficient systems engineering and business

practices and leverage and promote simulation based acquisition

applied to the assessment, planning, testing, and technology insertion for C4ISR systems. The committee also notes progress in modeling and simulation systems engineering initiatives that aid operations analysis, engineering assessment, and additional efforts directed at understanding model development, fidelity, accuracy, and

simulation efficiencies and their effects on tradeoff analyses involving C4ISR systems. The committee supports the development and

understanding of new modeling and simulation tools that will assist in more effective decision-making and in the design of C4ISR

systems and information architectures.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $12.1 million in PE

38601N, an increase of $3.0 million to continue initiatives for the

development of improvements in C4ISR modeling and simulation.

New composite materials for aircraft canopies

The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 62122N for applied research in aircraft technology.

The committee notes that aircraft windscreens and canopies are

made of relatively soft materials, which can degrade over time, resulting in significant replacement costs. The committee is aware of

proposals for the use of nano-composite materials that combine the

ultraviolet stability, hardness and abrasion resistance of glass and

the durability and adhesion of a plastic coating, offering significant

improvements over conventional coating materials. The committee

believes that the successful development and demonstration of the

use of such materials on canopies and windscreens could significantly reduce operations and maintenance cost for the armed services.

The committee recommend $23.1 million in PE 62122N, an increase of $2.0 million for applied research and development of

nano-composite hard coat materials for aircraft windscreens and

canopies.

218

Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition

The budget request contained $28.6 million in PE 63609N for

conventional munitions demonstration and validation.

The committee notes the progress in the development and demonstration of optical correlation technology to enhance target discrimination and aim point selection for next-generation weapon

system seekers. The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 63609N, an increase of $5.0 million to continue the program for development and

demonstration of miniature, rugged optical correlators for automatic target recognition and improved aim point selection for the

Navy’s Standard Missile.

Optically multiplexed wideband radar beam-forming array

The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 62232N for applied research in communications, command, control, intelligence,

surveillance, and reconnaissance technology, including $17.6 million for radar technology. The committee notes that Congress provided a total of $4.0 million in fiscal year 2000 to initiate a cooperative program for research, development, and demonstration of a prototype optically

multiplexed, wideband, radar beam-forming array that uses optical

wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM). The committee also notes

that the use of optical WDM is expected to reduce hardware complexity and system cost in a wideband electronically-steered active

radar antenna that has high instantaneous bandwidth and the resolution necessary for theater ballistic missile defense and ship self

defense in a littoral environment.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62232N to continue the program for development and demonstration of an optically multiplexed wideband radar beam-forming

array.

P–3 modernization program

The budget request contained $2.9 million in PE 64221N for the

P–3 maritime patrol aircraft modernization program, which provides upgrades to the aircraft’s systems in order to enhance its surface and subsurface tracking and classification capabilities.

The committee continues to note the increasing demands placed

by the major theater commanders on the P–3 for intelligence and

surveillance missions in maritime, regional, and littoral operations.

The committee also notes the Navy’s cancellation of the sustained

readiness program for the P–3 and the postponement of previous

plans to initiate an analysis of alternatives for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft. Yet, the Navy’s Integrated Submarine Warfare

Roadmap cites the need for improvements in P–3 capabilities that

are critical to near-term anti-submarine warfare operational capabilities. The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162) expressed the belief that increased priority must be given to the

maintenance of a robust, continuing research and development to

sustain current P–3 capabilities and support introduction of new

capabilities and recommended that the Secretary of the Navy review the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the P–3 to ensure that

it follows the program priorities established in the roadmap.

219

The committee is concerned that the Navy is not taking the steps

necessary to maintain the P–3 fleet and support the introduction

of new operational capabilities that may be required in the future.

The committee is aware of the need for the Navy to balance its

competing program priorities among available funds, but believes

that there is a systemic problem in the Navy in which insufficient

attention is given to funding for the sustainment, technology refreshment, and improvement of legacy systems that are expected to

remain in service and have no programmed replacement. The average age of the P–3 fleet is over 20 years, and the aircraft and its

weapons systems are expected to remain in service until after 2020.

The aircraft electrical system was designed for analog equipment

and has become less compatible with modern digital equipment as

technology has advanced. As expressed in previous reports, the

committee believes that additional funding is required for combat

systems development and integration of commercial-off-the-shelf

signal processing technology to ensure that the P–3 provides the

advanced anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, and surveillance capabilities that are required by the fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends $7.8 million in PE

64221N, an increase of $1.9 million for the design, demonstration,

and testing of a new electrical system and an increase of $3.0 million for advanced concept systems development. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report on the Navy’s plans for

sustaining the operational capabilities of the P–3 and for development of a replacement aircraft to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

P–3 special mission squadron sensor upgrade

The budget request contained $ 27.5 million in PE 35207N for

manned reconnaissance systems research and development, including $2.2 million for special mission P–3 reconnaissance squadrons.

The committee notes the increased operational requirements

placed on the P–3 special mission reconnaissance squadrons by the

major combatant commanders and the need for improvements in

aircraft sensors capabilities identified by the Chief of Naval Operations as an unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.6 million in PE

35207N to accelerate the development of three sensor upgrades for

special mission P–3 aircraft squadrons.

Parametric airborne dipping sonar

The budget request contained $58.3 million in PE 63747N for undersea warfare advanced technology development and $69.9 million

in PE 64216N for the multi-mission helicopter upgrade program,

but included no funds for the parametric airborne dipping sonar

(PADS).

The committee notes that the Navy’s advanced technology demonstration of a prototype PADS has indicated the significant potential of parametric sonar technology against both mine-like and submarine targets in littoral waters. The results of the Navy’s at-sea

test of PADS indicated that the essential goals of the PADS demonstration had been met and suggest PADS potential for mine detection. The Secretary of the Navy’s evaluation report, dated JanuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.052 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
220

ary 1999, stated that the PADS technology merits further pursuit

and that the Navy intended to continue demonstration of parametric sonar technology. The committee is aware that the Navy

plans at-sea tests of the PADS prototype against submarine targets

later this summer. Pending the successful completion of those tests,

the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the

congressional defense committees on the Navy’s plan for further development of the PADS system with the submission of the fiscal

2002 budget request.

The committee recommends no additional funds for PADS in PE

63747N and PE 64216N and awaits recommendations from the

Secretary of the Navy regarding the program.

Power node control centers

The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for advanced development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and engineering advanced technology.

The committee notes the progress made in the development and

demonstration of power node control centers for integrated switching, conversion, distribution, and control of electrical power aboard

naval vessels. The committee is aware of other new electric power

distribution and propulsion system architectures that can be automatically reconfigured to maintain the combat readiness of the

shipboard navigation, communication, and weapons systems following accidental or hostile damage. The committee also notes the

Navy’s plans for the application of power node control centers in integrated power systems for the DD–21 land attack destroyer and

other ships.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63508N to continue the development and demonstration of power

node control centers and other flexible power distribution architectures and their application in integrated power systems.

Project M

The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for advanced development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and engineering advanced technology, but contained no funds

to continue Project M development of advanced machinery quieting

technology.

The committee notes the initial reports of successful testing of

Project M quieting technology installed in the one-quarter scale

submarine at the Navy’s acoustic test range, and believes that the

technology is ready for transition from the Navy’s science and technology base to potential applications in Navy propulsion and other

machinery systems. The committee is aware that an issue of the

potential magnetic signature of the technology must be resolved as

a part of any transition to ship board applications.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63508N to transition Project M technology for Navy systems applications. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report

to the congressional defense committees on the Navy’s plan for

transition of the technology with the submission of the fiscal year

2002 budget request.

221

Radio frequency integration and testing environment

The budget request contained $270.3 million in PE 65864N for

test and evaluation support.

The committee notes that the proliferation of antennas and radio

frequency emitters on board Navy ships results in potentially severe electromagnetic interference among communications and sensor systems, which compete for bandwidth in the electromagnetic

spectrum, unless careful attention is given to electromagnetic compatibility. While research and development continues to pursue the

use of common aperture antenna arrays to reduce shipboard ‘‘antenna farms’’, the requirement to resolve potential electromagnetic

compatibility issues can only grow as demands for communications

channels and bandwidth increase and new sensors which use the

electromagnetic spectrum are deployed to counter new threats.

The committee believes that the requirement may exist for a

testing environment for radio frequency integration and ship electronic interoperability that would address the electromagnetic compatibility of ships in the demanding radio frequency environment

of modern, joint littoral warfare. Such a testing environment would

provide the capability for instrumented electronic testing for shipbased equipment to identify and resolve electromagnetic interference problems, before the deployment of the equipment to the

fleet. The committee believes that a fully instrumented, electromagnetic simulation environment, similar to that currently used in

aircraft and telecommunications system testing, would be reconfigurable for different ship classes and capable of participating

in distributed interactive simulations. This capability could enable

fleet analysis, technology evaluation, and development of new tactics, techniques, and procedures.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination

with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, to conduct

an assessment and provide recommendations on requirements for

electromagnetic compatibility testing of ship-based equipment and

the potential need to establish a radio frequency integration and

ship interoperability testing environment. The committee further

directs the Secretary to submit the results of the assessment and

any recommendations to the congressional defense committees with

the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

The committee recommends $270.3 million, the budget request,

in PE 65864N for Navy test and evaluation support.

Remote precision gun

The budget request contained $ 54.7 million in PE 63640M for

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations, but included no

funds for the remote precision gun.

The committee is aware that a remotely operated precision gun

platform is being developed to reduce risk to personnel under a variety of conditions. The committee notes that this remote fire system allows the operator to remain out of the line of fire and eliminates human error in aiming and firing a weapon.

The committee recommends $55.7 million in PE63640M, an increase of $1.0 million for completion of development of the remote

precision gun aiming platform for military applications.

222

S–3B surveillance system upgrade program

The budget request contained $455,000 in PE 64217N for engineering and manufacturing development for the S–3 weapons system improvement program.

The committee notes that the objective of the S–3B surveillance

system upgrade program is the integration of off-the-shelf radar,

electro-optic, and infrared sensors; electronic support measures;

and tactical data links to demonstrate an enhanced stand-off capability for this systems that could be achieved with low risk and at

relatively low cost.

The committee strongly supports efforts to improve Navy battle group operations and, therefore, recommends $12.5 million in PE

64217N, an increase of $12.0 million to continue the S–3B surveillance system upgrade prototype demonstration program.

Ship service fuel cell program

The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for

surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical advanced technology development, including $17.6 million for advanced electrical systems.

The committee notes the progress in the Navy’s marine fuel cell

program in the development of advanced ship service fuel cell

power systems as affordable, alternative electrical sources for ship

service power and the potential use of such systems in the DD–21

land attack destroyer program and for other ship service power applications. The committee notes program emphasis on leveraging

commercial fuel cell technology and solving Navy issues such as operation in salt-laden air, shipboard shock and vibration, and reforming diesel and other common naval fuels for use in fuel cells

systems. The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE

63508N to accelerate the on-going Phase II program for development and demonstration of a molten carbonate ship service fuel

cell power system.

Silicon carbide and gallium nitride semiconductor substrates

The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials, electronics and computer technology.

The committee is aware that silicon carbide and gallium nitride

are wide band-gap semiconductor materials with unique physical

and electrical properties, which make possible the fabrication of a

next-generation of microelectronic devices that will be capable of

operating in radiation environments and at high temperatures,

high voltages, high power levels, and microwave frequencies. These

capabilities will enable a wide range of applications in military and

commercial systems such as advanced radars, power systems, sensors and satellite communications. The committee continues to support the development of silicon carbide and gallium nitride materials and encourages the establishment of partnerships with industry to exploit the technology for commercial uses.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62234N for the continued development of silicon carbide and

gallium nitride semiconductor materials and microelectronic applications.

223

Single flux quantum electronics

The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials and radio frequency/electro-optics/infrared electronics technology.

The committee notes the steady progress in laboratory demonstration of single flux quantum electronics and the potential of

this technology for applications in high-speed military electronic

systems and the processing of high-speed electronic signals. The

committee notes that the development of the technology can be accelerated to take single flux quantum electronics from the present

stage of component demonstration in the laboratory to the development of integrated modules that demonstrate key functions needed

for specific military electronics applications, including analog to

digital conversion of very high-speed electronic signals. Accordingly, the committee recommends $3.0 million in PE

62234N for the initial two-year phase of a program for the development and demonstration of single flux quantum electronic technology for military applications.

SSGN Conversion

The budget request contained $34.8 M in PE 63559N to initiate

the option for converting Ohio class Trident ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), currently scheduled for retirement, to a conventional cruise missile submarine (SSGN) configuration.

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is

assessing alternatives to maintain the nuclear attack submarine

(SSN) force at the minimum force level of 55 SSNs, as recommended in the recent submarine force requirements study approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee notes that the

Secretary of Defense directed the addition of $1.1 billion spread

across the future years defense plan (FYDP) to sustain the 55 SSN

structure by refueling four additional SSN–688s. The committee

notes that the Secretary directed that conversion of up to four Trident SSBNs to an SSGN configuration be considered as an alternative to SSN refueling to maintain the 55 SSN force.

In the statement of managers which accompanied the conference

report on S.1059 (H. Rept. 106–301), the conferees directed the Secretary to initiate arms control studies and cost and operational effectiveness analysis required to provide the basis for a defense acquisition milestone decision to proceed with the SSBN-to-SSGN

conversion program. The committee notes that significant arms

control issues relating to the Trident SSBN to SSGN conversion remain unresolved and that the cost and operational effectiveness assessment of the SSGN conversion is incomplete.

The committee notes that the Navy’s notional plan for an SSGN

conversion program would begin refueling and conversion of the

first SSBN in fiscal year 2003. The notional schedule includes a

Milestone 0 review by the Defense Acquisition Board late in fiscal

year 2000, preliminary design and risk reduction studies in fiscal

year 2001, a Milestone I/II decision to begin engineering and manufacturing development in fiscal year 2002, and initial operational

capability for the first SSGN in fiscal year 2007. The committee

notes, however, that the Navy budget projection for fiscal years

2002 through 2005 contains no additional funds for the program.

224

Senior Navy officials have confirmed that the budget request of

$34.8 million is sufficient only to sustain the option for a version

of the SSGN accountable under Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

(START), and that $260 million is required in fiscal year 2001 to

retain the option for a treaty-compliant SSGN conversion. The

Navy estimates the cost of converting four SSBNs to START-accountable SSGNs at $1.3 billion and the cost of conversion to

START-compliant SSGNs at $3.4 billion. Either of these two

versions of SSGNs would require an additional $1.1 billion for refueling if SSGN conversion is conducted in addition to SSN refueling.

Navy officials acknowledged that the budget request is predicated on indications from the Administration that future START

negotiations might include discussion of a change to the START

protocol which would exempt non-treaty compliant SSGNs from

START accountability. The committee is concerned that the proposed START-accountable SSGN acquisition strategy, dependent on

successful resolution of START negotiations including a new protocol allowing special consideration of SSGNs, does not support the

Navy’s stated requirements to initiate design immediately in fiscal

year 2001 to support a fiscal year 2002 milestone decision to begin

the program.

Navy officials indicated that the converted SSBNs, although possessing unique operational capabilities, would not satisfy the mission capabilities required of nuclear attack submarines, and further

indicated that an SSGN conversion program would affect the submarine industrial base and the schedule for the Virginia class SSN

construction.

The committee expresses deep concern for the initiation of additional major program acquisition programs not currently in the

Navy’s outyear planning budgets. These new efforts threaten the

funding available for Navy aircraft modernization and ship construction programs through the end of the FYDP and beyond, and

are, (as noted elsewhere in this report), resulting in consideration

of significant changes in modernization and procurement programs

required to maintain essential Navy capabilities and core competencies. The funding required for Navy core programs and the

cost of the SSGN conversion program, even if the arms control and

cost and operational effectiveness issues can be resolved, will severely impact the Navy’s future budget projections. The committee

also notes that a development strategy for preserving the SSGN

conversion option that is based on the assumption of a willingness

to negotiate an exception to START could, if the negotiations were

not successful, have a significant impact on the U.S. strategic nuclear force levels under START II and an unacceptable impact

under proposed START III limits.

The committee recommends $34.8 M in PE 63559N, the budget

request for the SSGN conversion program. The committee directs

the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees with an approved acquisition strategy and program plan

for the SSBN–SSGN conversion that identifies program funding

and schedule, which addresses a milestone schedule for resolution

of the arms control issues and a decision as to whether the SSGN

225

shall be START-accountable or START compliant, with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Submarine sonar dome window

The budget request contained $207.1 million in PE 64558N for

the Virginia class SSN program.

The committee notes the Navy’s progress in the application for

submarine sonar domes and windows of an advanced glass-reinforced plastic and rubber structural acoustic sandwich material

system, which was originally developed for surface ship sonar

domes and windows. The committee understands that at-sea testing of a quarter-scale submarine sonar dome indicates potentially

significant improvements in sonar performance and sonar dome durability for the VIRGINIA class SSN and that system manufacturing costs for this dome should be reduced compared to the current sonar dome.

The committee recommends $209.1 million in PE 64558N for Virginia class SSN engineering and manufacturing development, an

increase of $2.0 million to continue the program for fabrication of

a full-scale sonar dome using the advanced acoustic sandwich material system for further evaluation and testing.

Supply chain management and development best practices

The budget request contained $949,000 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 life cycle costs of new

and modernized Navy systems.

The committee notes that technology advances by the Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency, other military services, and

other government agencies provide the Navy with an opportunity

to leverage research and development investments that could lead

to radical improvements in the affordability and effectiveness of

Navy systems. Similarly, technology and production and business

practices developed by industry can also contribute to the development of more effective and affordable defense systems. With a

growing reliance on industry as the integrator of ships and other

weapon systems, the understanding and promotion of new technologies and the adoption of best business practices between government and industry can result in significant improvements in

operational effectiveness and affordability over the life cycle of systems. The committee notes, however, that logistical support and

supply activities are often brought into the development cycle at

late stages and are, as a result, not able to influence the development of the system at a time when the adoption of improvements

in management and business practices could have the greatest effect on the system life cycle.

The committee strongly supports coordination and involvement

by the materiel developer, the user, the logistical support chain,

government, and industry in the development of new systems and

the modernization of existing systems. The committee believes that

there is much to be gained from the development and adoption of

best business practices in the materiel and systems development

life cycle from its initial stages through research and development,

226

acquisition and fielding, and support of the systems in the field,

and in facilitating the exchange of information and technology between industry and government for this purpose. Accordingly, the committee recommends $ 4.9 million in PE 65804N, an increase of $4.0 million to establish a program that will

facilitate the development and adoption of logistical best business

and management practices among government and industry that

are involved in the development, acquisition, and support of defense systems.

Surface ship torpedo defense

The budget request included no funds for continuation of the

Navy’s joint surface ship torpedo defense program with the United

Kingdom. The committee recommends $8.4 million in PE 63506N to continue the joint collaborative surface ship torpedo defense program

with the United Kingdom for upgrades to the SLQ–25A torpedo

countermeasures capability and development and integration of

promising soft kill and hard kill countermeasures.

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles

The budget request contained $113.1 million in PE 35204N for

tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funding to continue development of the multi-function self-aligned gate (MSAG).

The committee is aware that the MSAG technology successfully

demonstrated ability to transmit and receive full-motion video and

communication. This new form of antenna, with no moving parts,

offers reduced life-cycle costs and enables production of light, conformal, multi-beam antennas for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles

(TUAV) and associated systems. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

35204N to construct and test a line-of-sight array for the tactical

control system for the UAV.

Vacuum electronics

The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials and radio frequency, electro-optics, and

infrared electronics technology, including $10.0 million for applied

research in vacuum electronics.

The committee is aware of the potential need for increased funding levels for vacuum technology research and development in

order to support the development of advanced high power vacuum

tubes for Navy radar and other applications that cannot be met

with current solid state devices. In the committee report on H.R.

1402 (H. Rept. 106–162), the committee noted its support for continuation of a robust vacuum electronics research and development

program within the Department of Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies. The committee directed the Secretary of the Navy to

assess DOD’s requirements for advanced vacuum electronics technology and to report the results of that assessment and the longterm funding plan for the vacuum electronics program.

The committee notes that the Secretary’s interim report to the

congressional defense committees, dated March 7, 2000, states that

an ongoing assessment of vacuum electronics and solid state techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.054 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
227

nologies and applications will lead to the development of a longterm investment strategy and roadmap for future vacuum electronics and solid state technology activities. The results of the assessment will be reported to the congressional defense committees

with the fiscal year 2002 President’s budget request. In the interim, the Department of the Navy intends to continue its current

investment level in vacuum electronics.

The committee recommends $10.0 million in PE 62234N for applied research in vacuum electronics technology and awaits the

Secretary’s final report and recommendations for the long-term

vacuum technology program with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter demonstration

The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for advanced technology transition, including the vectored thrust ducted

propeller (VTDP) compound helicopter advanced technology demonstration project, and $13.2 million in PE 64212N for development

of the CH–60S airborne mine counter measures helicopter.

The committee notes that the Navy has placed a high priority on

the development of an organic airborne mine countermeasures capability and the demonstration of a variant of the CH–60 helicopter

for the towed airborne mine counter measures (AMCM) missions.

As a back-up technology, the Navy plans an advanced technology

demonstration (ATD) of the VTDP compound helicopter to demonstrate and assess the helicopter’s towed AMCM capability, other

multi-mission capabilities, and life cycle cost effectiveness.

The committee notes reports by Navy officials that early results

from CH-60 land- and sea-based tow tests indicate that the helicopter should be able to perform the towed AMCM mission and

that the final phase of the tow test will begin in late fiscal year

2000. Following integration of AMCM systems and sensors on the

CH–60S helicopter, the Navy plans initial operational capability of

the helicopter in its organic AMCM role in fiscal year 2005.

The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162) directed

the Secretary of the Navy to assess the requirements, schedule,

and cost of conducting the ATD for the VTDP compound helicopter.

The Secretary’s report, dated March 2000, states that the requirement to demonstrate the potential value of this back-up technology

for the AMCM mission and other multi-mission applications remains unchanged, and that the Navy has programmed the funds

required through fiscal year 2002 to complete the demonstration,

including $11.3 million in fiscal year 2001. The Department plans

to begin a two-phased ATD in the third quarter of fiscal year 2000,

contingent upon successful completion of VTDP ground test, and to

complete flight testing in fiscal year 2004. The report also indicated

delays in completion of the ground test are being assessed for their

effect on project cost, schedule, and risk. The Secretary’s report

concludes that the Department will proceed with the ATD as

planned and will advise the Congressional defense committees regarding any significant information that would affect the project’s

progress.

The committee intends to monitor closely the Navy’s progress in

development of the CH–60S helicopter for the AMCM mission and

228

progress in the VTDP compound helicopter ATD. The committee

recommends $11.3 million, the requested amount, in PE 63792N

for continuation of the VTDP compound helicopter demonstration

project.

Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems

The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for advanced development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and engineering advanced technology.

The committee continues to support the development and application of technologies that will lead to lower cost designs for future

naval ships. The committee notes the progress that has been made

in the development of a virtual, distributed test bed that supports

the integration of power electronics into ship systems. As a part of

the Navy’s program leading to the development of an all-electric

ship, the virtual test bed provides a virtual test laboratory of new

software and hardware modeling tools for shipboard machinery design, and allows government and industry ship designers to evaluate machinery alternatives in a virtual prototype before committing

to full-scale development. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63508N to continue the development and application of the virtual

test bed for the design and evaluation of advanced shipboard electrical power system concepts and designs.

AIR FORCE RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $13,685.6 million for Air Force

RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $13,677.1

million, a decrease of $8.5 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Air

Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major

changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table

and in the classified annex to this report.

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

Items of Special Interest

21st century affordable aircraft thrust demonstration project

The budget request contained $13.2 million in PE 63245F for

flight vehicle performance and supportability technologies but included no funds for the 21st century affordable aircraft thrust demonstration project, a unique, science and technology approach to

legacy aircraft modernization which provides an integrated, lifecycle focus for key technologies that support acquisition affordability processes.

The committee is increasingly concerned with the rising operations and support costs for the services’ aging inventory of fighter

and attack aircraft and believes that such rising costs have the potential to adversely impact the budgets required to both modernize

and maintain future operational readiness. To address this concern, the committee understands that the Air Force Research Laboratory completed a fiscal year 1999 study which determined that

near-term advanced technology, when coupled with innovative acquisition, design, production and support processes, could produce

a new and more capable F–15C aircraft. The committee also understands that the aircraft’s 20-year life cycle cost, including acquisition, would be dramatically less that the projected cost of both upgrading and sustaining the existing F–15C fleet.

In an effort to reduce rising operations and support costs, the committee recommends $69.2 million in PE 63245F, an increase of

$56.0 million to begin construction of two demonstration aircraft

consistent with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s fiscal year

1999 study and believes that lessons learned and data collected

from this project will be applicable to aircraft of all services.

Aging landing gear life extension

The budget request contained $14.2 million in PE 65011F for

RDT&E For Aging Aircraft.

The committee notes the increasing incidence of Class A aviation

mishaps attributable to landing gear failure, as well as rising Mission Incapable rates for high priority aircraft such as the KC–135

and C–130 due to limited availability of replacement landing gear

components. The committee is aware that the Air Force is working

to develop improved components and advanced inspection and overhaul equipment to address a number of aging problems for the current inventories of U.S. aircraft. However, the limited funds available in the RDT&E For Aging Aircraft program are insufficient to

support the promising goals of the Aging Landing Gear Life Extension (ALGLE) program.

The committee recommends $26.2 million in PE65011F, an increase of $12.0 million for acceleration of the ALGLE program.

Airborne laser

The budget request contained $148.6 million in PE 63319F for

the Airborne Laser (ABL) program.

The committee is disturbed that the budget request represents a

reduction of $92.4 million compared to the funding level projected

in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The committee understands

that this reduction will delay the first lethal test against a missile

240

by two years, from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005. The committee further understands that the Air Force reduced ABL funding throughout the future years defense plan by approximately fifty

percent, a decrease that would delay initial operational capability

by five years or more. The committee notes that, prior to these

funding decreases, the program was on schedule, meeting costs and

technical milestones.

The committee also notes that the Air Force justified the proposed reductions on the basis that the service has higher priorities.

The committee is aware that the ABL is an important part of the

ballistic missile defense architecture developed by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), yet the changes to the ABL

budget profile and the program delays that would result were not

coordinated in any way with the Director of the BMDO.

The committee continues to believe that ballistic missile defense

remains a very high priority and that the challenge of meeting rapidly evolving missile threats requires an integrated approach.

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (section 235) to

establish a new program element within defense-wide research and

development for the ABL program. The committee strongly recommends that the Secretary of Defense realign resources throughout the future years defense program to assure that the BMDO can

manage the ABL program to achieve timely development and testing.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish the

Director of BMDO as the ABL program acquisition executive

through development and operational testing, at which time the

committee would support a recommendation by the Secretary of

Defense to transfer procurement responsibilities to the Air Force.

The committee understands that the Department of the Air Force

has executed this program since its inception and directs the Director of BMDO assure that the Department of the Air Force continue

to execute program management during ABL development and

operational testing. The committee further understands that the

Air Force will provide ABL training and that Air Force personnel

will operate the ABL system when deployed.

The committee recommends no funds in PE 63319F, a decrease

of $148.6 million, and $231.0 million in a new PE 63XXXC, an increase of $82.4 million and transfer of all funding for ABL.

Airborne reconnaissance systems

The budget request contained $136.9 million in PE 35206F for

airborne reconnaissance systems.

The committee notes that the joint signals intelligence (SIGINT)

avionics family (JSAF) under development, consisting of a low-band

subsystem (LBSS) and high band subsystem (HBSS), has applications in several intelligence collection platforms. The committee

notes that the joint airborne SIGINT architecture (JASA) provides

future SIGINT payloads, such as JSAF, with a standard architecture, thereby providing the potential for reducing costs through use

of commercial off-the-shelf technologies. The committee fully supports the research and development of this program in order to determine if the JASA potential can be realized. However, the committee is concerned that procurement of JSAF is not properly fundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.056 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
241

ed and sequenced to preclude adverse effects on intelligence collection operations. Furthermore, the committee is aware that the

emerging commercial silicon germanium (SiGe) technology may

offer significant size, weight, performance, and cost advantages

over existing technology, and believes it may well be beneficially

applied to the JSAF requirements. The committee strongly recommends rapid development of SiGe technology for appropriate applications. Therefore, the committee recommends $136.9 million in PE

35206F. Further, the committee makes specific procurement funding modifications elsewhere in this report to better support both

the continued development of the JSAF and operational SIGINT

capabilities already fielded.

Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) partnership

The budget request contained $3.4 million in PE 63856F for the

Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office Partnership. The committee understands that $2.0 million of the funding requested would be used for studies and analysis of synergies between the Air Force and the NRO. The committee notes that the

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Space, also serves as the director of the NRO. The committee believes that coordination between the two organizations is inherently institutionalized, and

should be a matter of routine.

The committee recommends $1.4 million in PE 63856F, a reduction of $2.0 million.

Air Force science and technology

The budget request contained $1,291.3 million for Air Force science and technology (S&T) funding, including $206.1 million for

basic research, $590.3 for applied research, and $494.9 for advanced technology development.

The committee notes that the total request for Air Force S&T

represents a decrease from the amount provided for fiscal year

2000, and a third consecutive year of decline for this critical area

of modernization investment. The Air Force has shown modest improvement in this area by increasing the fiscal year 2001 S&T request above the forecasted level. However, the committee remains

concerned that Air Force modernization investments still reflect a

much higher priority on near-term modernization and sustainment

of legacy systems than on sustaining adequate levels of investment

in S&T to enable future modernization.

The committee is aware that the Air Force is designated as the

lead service for a number of technology areas including aerospace

propulsion, flight vehicle technology, and space systems development, and that many Army, Navy, and Marine Corps acquisition

programs depend on adequate levels of S&T funding being sustained in these areas. The committee is also aware that the Department of Defense has recently taken action to correct the unacceptable decline in the Air Force funding for aerospace propulsion

and fully supports the revitalized emphasis in this important technology area.

To correct the investment imbalances caused by the Air Force

prioritization of legacy system sustainment and near term modVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.056 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
242

ernization, the committee recommends an increase of $77.2 million

for Air Force science and technology as described in the following

adjustments to the specific programs. Elsewhere in this report, the

committee provides support for special materials development including an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62102F for intermediate

modulus carbon fiber and ultra-high thermal conductivity graphite

materials.

Aerospace propulsion

The budget request contained $116.3 million in PE 62203F for

aerospace propulsion applied research, $38.0 million in PE 62111N

for air and surface launched weapons technology, and $24.3 million

in PE 63302F for space and missile rocket propulsion technology.

The committee notes the numerous advances in Integrated High

Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) and Integrated

High Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT)

achieved over the past several years. The IHPRPT initiative has

enabled the services to pursue needed advances in liquid and solid

propulsion research for small missile projects such as the lightweight, low cost SPIKE infantry guided missile project and the

solid fuel ramjet deep strike missile. Programs that benefit from

IHPTET include F–22 Raptor and Joint Strike Fighter advanced

turbine engines, all current turbine engine aircraft programs, and

numerous strategic and tactical missile systems.

The committee also notes important technology advances in the

area of magnetic bearing cooling turbine designs that offer significant improvements in operational readiness and safety of the KC–

135 and C–130 aircraft fleets. The magnetic bearing provides near

frictionless bearing capability resulting in dramatically reduced

lifecycle costs and improved mission capable rates.

The committee notes that many space launch vehicles, both

planned and currently under development, will transition from traditional propulsion systems to high-pressure systems that use liquid oxygen and kerosene. The committee notes that this rocket fuel

is both more energetic than hydrogen fuels and is environmentally

friendly. The committee is concerned, however, that the research

and development test infrastructure is inadequate to validate the

performance of new high-energy propulsion technologies in a timely

manner and believes that additional funding is needed to reinforce

this effort. The committee believes that such upgrades would also

support a wide range of IPHRPT programs.

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

62203F, and an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62111N for acceleration of advanced aerospace propulsion initiatives associated with

the IHPTET and IPHRPT programs. The committee further recommends an increase of $23.7 million in PE 63302F for new technology insertion into existing large propulsion test facilities to test

new high-energy propulsion systems.

Aircrew laser eye protection

The budget request contained $12.5 million in PE 63231F for

crew systems and personnel protection technology, including $1.3

million for aircrew laser eye protection.

243

The committee has consistently supported the Department of Defense’s efforts to enhance aircraft crewmember protection systems.

The committee is aware of the ongoing efforts to develop both laser

eye protection in both the near-infrared and visible light portions

of the spectrum. The committee notes the exceptional future battlefield benefit of providing maximum protection in the visible spectrum urges the continued development of these initiatives and encourages them to be viewed as a high priority.

The committee recommends $14.5 million in PE 63231F, an increase of $2.0 million to address visible spectrum technologies and

development.

Ballistic missile technology

The budget request contained no funds in PE 63311F for the ballistic missile technology (BMT) program.

The committee notes that both the Navy Trident D–5 submarine

launched ballistic missile and the Air Force Minuteman III landbased intercontinental ballistic missile are aging, will require continuing efforts to assure their operational viability, and will eventually need to be replaced. The committee also notes that current

defense planning guidance directs the Air Force and Navy to apply

common technologies and components to meet requirements for ballistic missile sustainment and upgrades. The committee is aware

that the Navy and Air Force are actively seeking to avoid duplication of missile technology development efforts. If adequately funded, BMT is the Air Force program in which these efforts will be

pursued. The committee also believes that the BMT program could

support a number of other on-going technology developments with

potential to meet important military needs, including the demonstration of a portable Global Positioning System range safety

system and technologies relevant to the destruction of hardened

and deeply buried targets.

The committee believes these efforts offer significant contributions to Air Force missile programs and is concerned with the lack

of support for the BMT program. The committee, therefore, recommends $12.0 million in PE 63311F, an increase of $12.0 million.

Combat identification

The budget request contained $13.7 million in PE 63203F for target attack and recognition technology.

The committee notes the importance placed by the military services on pursuing technological advances to improve rapid combat

identification of friendly and opposing forces, and is disturbed by

recent Air Force funding reductions in this area. All-weather positive target identification at long stand-off ranges was specifically

cited as a limiting factor during operations in Kosovo.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63203F for acceleration of combat identification development.

Composite affordability initiative

The budget request contained $48.8 million in PE 62201F for

aerospace flight dynamics, including $1.8 million for concepts and

initiatives to reduce manufacturing cost.

244

The committee is aware of a number of technologies being developed under the Composite Affordability Initiative (CAI) program,

including 3D weaving technology. This technology offers the potential for improved performance and cost reduction in applications

such as future military aircraft unitized structures and lightweight

civil aircraft.

The committee supports the CAI program and recommends an

increase of $1.0 million in PE 62201F for 3D weaving technology.

Low cost launch technology

The budget request contained $24.3 million in PE 63302F for development of space and missile rocket propulsion, but included no

funds for low cost launch technology.

The committee is aware of a number of technologies and concepts

that offer the potential to reduce launch costs dramatically, including Scorpius, which utilizes simplified processes and technologies to

achieve streamlined, low cost launch and has successfully demonstrated launch capabilities. The committee believes that continued research in this area is important to the long-term viability of

the U.S. launch industry and that those technologies that have

demonstrated success deserve priority. The committee believes that

the Air Force, as the service primarily responsible for meeting national security launch needs, should manage this effort rather than

the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

63302F, for low cost launch technologies including Scorpius.

Miniature satellite threat reporting system

The budget request contained $97.3 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, of which $1.1 million is for space systems protection.

The miniature satellite threat reporting system (MSTRS) program is developing technologies for a variety of space platforms to

provide warning against ground-based, broadband radio frequency

threats to satellites and to help protect against interference, intrusion, jamming, and unauthorized use of U.S. satellites. Prior year

funding has supported miniaturization of the technology, preparations for a test flight of MSTRS technology in fiscal year 2001, and

a year-long demonstration of these technologies starting in fiscal

year 2004. The committee continues to believe that MSTRS is an

important effort given the increasing reliance of U.S. military

forces on space assets and the potential vulnerability of these assets to evolving threats.

The committee understands that additional funding is needed to

accommodate the 2001 flight test and to complete miniaturization.

Therefore the committee recommends $102.3 million in PE 63401F,

an increase of $5.0 million for further development of MSTRS technology.

Specialty aerospace metals

The budget request contained $72.8 million for PE 62102F for

applied research and $21.7 million in PE 63112F for advanced development of materials technologies for aerospace systems and

245

$53.1 million in PE 78011F for the Air Force’s manufacturing technology program.

The committee notes the continuing need for advances in special

aerospace metals and metal alloys for aircraft and space vehicle

structures, propulsion, components, and weapon systems. Both the

Navy and the Air Force are seeking access to materials that are

lightweight, high strength, high performance, and capable of withstanding the stressing environments that are experienced by aerospace systems, and for the development and optimization of manufacturing processes for these materials.

The committee recommends increases of $5.25 million in PE

62102F, $5.25 million in PE 63112F, and $4.5 million in PE

78011F to establish an integrated program for the development and

demonstration of special aerospace materials and materials manufacturing processes, and encourages the Secretary of the Air Force

to establish a continuing program for special aerospace metals and

alloys as an integral part of the Air Force’s science and technology

and manufacturing technology programs. The committee requests

the Secretary to assess Air Force requirements for advanced special

aerospace metals and alloys and to report to the congressional defense committees on the Air Force’s plan for meeting those requirements with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Upper atmospheric and astronomical research

The budget request contained $206.1 million in PE 61102F for

Air Force basic research, but included no funding for proposed enhancements to upper atmospheric and astronomical research activities.

The committee understands that completion and testing of a proposed thirty-six reflector telescope would support Air Force relevant space research and efforts to increase fundamental understanding of the upper atmosphere. The committee supports this effort and recommends $209.1 million in PE 61102F, an increase of

$3.0 million for upper atmospheric and astronomical research.

Advanced message-oriented data security module (AMODSM)

The budget request contained $12.6 million in PE 64735F for

combat training range development but included no funds to integrate AMODSM units in the Nellis Air Combat Training System

(NACTS) or the Tyndall Range Expansion (TRE). Additionally, the

budget request contained $398.5 million for in the procurement

miscellaneous production charges and $26.0 million for combat

training ranges but included no funds for procurement of

AMODSM units.

Both the NACTS and the TRE are used to train aircrews for

combat and are configured with instrumentation to determine aerial combat outcomes. AMODSM units provide encrypted fly-out information for the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile

(AMRAAM), the primary beyond-visual-range air-to-air weapon for

Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps fighter and attack aircraft, and

enable aircrews to determine AMRAAM training mission results at

the NACTS and TRE. The committee believes that AMOSM units

are required for training at the NACTS and TRE and recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.057 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
246

ommended an increase for this purpose in its report on H.R. 1401

(H. Rept. 106–162) for fiscal year 2000.

To complete the AMODSM unit integration effort on the NACTS and TRE, the committee recommends $16.6 million in PE 64735F,

an increase of $4.0 million. Additionally, the committee recommends $399.5 million in miscellaneous production charges, an

increase of $1.0 million, to begin procurement of AMODSM units

for aircraft installation; and $27.0 million for combat training

ranges, an increase of $1.0 million, for procurement of groundbased AMODSM equipment at the NACTS and TRE. The committee expects these additional funds to be expeditiously obligated

in order to achieve AMODSM operational capability at the earliest

possible date.

B–1B link 16 data link

The budget request contained $168.1 million in PE 64226F for

B–1B bomber modernization but included no funds for B–1B Link

16 connectivity.

The committee believes that upgraded data links are needed for

the B–1B that can provide real-time information to B–1B flight

crews to improve their situational and threat awareness and their

ability to plan and execute missions. The committee notes that the

Air Force Chief of Staff has identified the B–1B Link 16 data link

as one of his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2001. Therefore, the committee recommends $178.1 million in PE

64226F, an increase of $10.0 million for the B–1B Link 16 data

link.

B–2 upgrades

The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 64240F for

continued development of technologies to enhance the capabilities

of the B–2 bomber.

The committee continues to accept the conclusion of the 1998

Long Range Air Power panel that additional investments are required for the B–2 to reach its full operational potential. The committee notes that the Air Force has identified a number of technologies that would enhance B–2 capabilities, including development of a bomb rack assembly with communications interfaces, development of a 500-pound variant of the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), improvements in B–2 connectivity, and upgrades of

B–2 data displays. Development of the smart bomb rack and the

smaller JDAM will improve the B–2’s operational flexibility by allowing it to carry larger payloads of all-weather near-precision munitions. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has

identified development of the smart bomb rack assembly as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of $56.0 million for development of the smart bomb rack assembly for the B–2 bomber.

The committee notes the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) added funds for Link 16 integration with the B–2. The committee notes that this datalink in

conjunction with a center instrument display (CID) capable of augmenting the current display system will enhance the situational

awareness of B–2 aircrews and B–2 mission effectiveness. ThereVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.058 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
247

fore, the committee also recommends an increase of $38.0 million

for Link 16 integration and development of the CID. In total, the committee recommends $142.3 million in PE

64240F, an increase of $94.0 million for B–2 upgrades.

B–52 modified miniature receive terminals configuration

The budget request contained $15.3 million in PE 33131F for research and development on the minimum essential emergency communications network (MEECN), of which $2.7 million was for improvements for aircraft very low frequency/low frequency (VLF/LF)

communications.

The committee notes that B–52 bombers have not been equipped

with modified VLF/LF miniature receive terminals (MMRT) that

provide high data rate capability and that modification of existing

miniature receive terminals has been directed by the Joint Staff.

This capability is critical for timely reception of emergency action

messages by nuclear-capable bombers. The committee recommends $20.3 million in PE 33131F, an increase of $5.0 million to modify the B–52 miniature receive terminals to the MMRT configuration with high data rate capabilities.

Defense reconnaissance support program

The budget requested contained $45.1 million in PE 35159F for

various projects within the defense reconnaissance support program (DSRP). The committee recommends $38.0 million in PE35159F, a decrease of $7.1 million. This reduction is taken without prejudice.

Discoverer II

The budget request contained $97.3 million in PE63401F, includ- ing $54.2 million for Discoverer II, and $182.2 million in PE

63762E for sensor and guidance technology, including $40.1 million

for Discoverer II. The request also contained additional funding in

a classified program element for the design and development of the

Discoverer II space-based moving target indicator (MTI) demonstration project.

The committee remains supportive of the Discoverer II demonstration and believes that space-based radar has the potential to

meet identified military requirements. However, the committee believes that the capabilities promised by space-based radar are valuable only if the capability is developed and deployed at affordable

cost, and that cost discipline will be key to success for Discover II.

The committee also notes that the Department of Defense has yet

to provide a concept of operations that achieves synergies between

space and airborne MTI assets and other national and tactical sensor assets, and believes that the ultimate value of the program cannot be determined without this definition.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees, by February 15, 2001 describing the Discoverer II concept of

operations as defined, as of that date and a firm cost estimate for

the two-satellite demonstration program that will provide a benchmark by which the committees can judge the cost of the technologies.

248

Eagle vision

The budget request included no funds to improve the Eagle Vision imagery ground station’s capability to receive and process new

commercial imagery sources.

The committee notes the recent successful launch and initial operations of the Ikonos II commercial imagery satellite. The committee also notes that two other U.S. commercial companies are

about to launch their own high-resolution imagery satellites. Currently, the Eagle Vision ground station is designed to receive and

process relatively low-resolution imagery from Canadian and

French commercial satellites. It is, however, not able to process imagery from the higher resolution U.S. systems that are either in or

soon to be in orbit.

Therefore, the committee recommends $4.5 million in PE 27277F,

an increase of $4.5 million, for the purpose of integrating into the

Eagle Vision ground stations a receive and processing functionality

necessary to exploit current and future U.S. commercial satellite

imaging systems.

Electronic warfare development

The budget request contained $58.2 million in PE 64270F for

electronic warfare (EW) development, but included no funds for the

PLAID technology program. The budget request also included $4.0

million for the miniature air-launched decoy (MALD) program,

which, the committee notes, only partially funds its transition from

the advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) to the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase.

The PLAID technology program will enhance aircrew situational

awareness by providing accurate ground emitter location and identification. The improved situational awareness resulting from this

technology will help combat pilots to effectively avoid radar-guided

surface-to-air missiles. In its report on H.R. 1401 (H.Rept. 106–162)

for fiscal year 2000, the committee recommended an increase of

$13.7 million for PLAID, and understands that recent test reports

indicate that PLAID technology has been remarkably successful.

Further, the committee notes that PLAID technology has been

identified as critical for the joint strike fighter, unmanned aerial

vehicles, and suppression of enemy air defense platforms. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $17.7 million,

to continue the PLAID technology development.

The MALD is a low-cost decoy intended to stimulate enemy integrated air defense systems to enable pilots to either avoid or target

these systems. The committee understands that the Air Force

Operational Test and Evaluation Center recently evaluated the

MALD and found it to be potentially both operationally effective

and suitable with tactically significant capabilities for the Air

Force. Encouraged by these results, the committee believes that the

MALD should complete its ACTD effort and transition to EMD in

fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to increase the MALD’s suitability for operational use.

In total, the committee recommends $82.9 million, an increase of

$24.7 million, for EW development.

249

Extended range cruise missile (ERCM)

The budget request contained no funds for either the conventional air-launched cruise missile (CALCM) or for the ERCM, a

proposed replacement for this weapon.

The committee recalls that as a result of CALCM combat expenditures between 1991 and 1999 that substantially reduced inventory,

Congress required the Secretary of the Air Force to report on

CALCM replacement options in Section 132 of the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106–65). The committee notes that this report detailed the Air Force’s need for an

ERCM that would meet the requirement to quickly increase the inventory of cruise missiles and provide an extended-range missile

capability to protect the Air Force’s aging bomber force. The committee also notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included the

start of an ERCM program among his top 20 unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001.

Consequently, the committee recommends $86.1 million in PE

64XXXF to begin an ERCM program and expects the Department

of the Air Force to both employ fair and open competitive practices

and to fund fully a 618-unit program in its fiscal year 2002 and future years defense program. If the Department of the Air Force

proposes to pursue an acquisition strategy using other than full

and open competition, the Secretary of the Air Force shall inform

the congressional defense committees the rationale and justification

therefore at least 30 days prior to obligating any funds.

Additionally, the committee understands that the currently

planned ERCM program does not include missiles configured with

a penetration warhead. If the Department of the Air Force subsequently opts to include a penetration warhead as part of the ERCM

program, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall

report to the congressional defense committees, 30 days prior to the

obligation of funds for such a warhead, his independent assessment

of penetration warhead improvements necessary for the ERCM to

defeat the full spectrum of those targets identified by a Joint Requirements Oversight Council-approved requirement.

Global hawk unmanned aerial vehicle

The budget request included $109.2 million in PE 35205F for endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), including $103.2 million

for continued development of the Global Hawk UAV.

The committee supports the Global Hawk and believes that it

has the potential for providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support to military customers, complementing the current U–2 operations.

The committee notes that due to a crash of the one air vehicle,

and a runway accident of another, there are no electro-optic/infrared (EO/IR) sensors to continue test and evaluation of the UAV.

The committee believes it is important to procure sensor sets to replace those lost to the accidents. Further, the committee is aware

of unobligated and unexpended funding from prior year funds provided for endurance UAV that could be used to purchase these sensors and continue the Global Hawk engineering and development

in fiscal year 2001.

250

Therefore, the committee recommends $109.2 million in PE

35205F for endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), of which

$12.0 million is for the purchase of two EO/IR sensors for the Global Hawk aircraft.

Hyperspectral imagery system

The budget request contained $9.8 million in PE 27247F for Air

Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP)

projects.

The committee recalls Congress provided additional funding in

fiscal year 2000 for continuing development of a hyper-spectral sensor for application on Navy P–3 and Air Force unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). The committee is aware that this initiative has resulted in a joint effort to integrate and demonstrate a real-time

hyper-spectral sensor on a Predator UAV. The committee notes

that no funding was provided in the budget request to continue this

effort through demonstration. The committee believes that a hyperspectral sensor will significantly mitigate the problems of detecting

and targeting camouflaged targets that has hampered aerial targeting in past operations. Therefore, the committee recommends $13.8 million in PE

27247F, an increase of $4.0 million to continue this demonstration

with the goal of producing an operational real-time hyper-spectral

sensing system on UAVs and other intelligence, surveillance and

reconnaissance aircraft.

Integrated broadcast service

The budget request included $24.5 million in PE 63850F for development of the Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS). The request

also included $15.1 million in operation and maintenance, Navy,

for operating the legacy systems, including the Tactical Information

Broadcast Service (TIBS), the TRAP Data Dissemination System

(TDDS), the Tactical Reconnaissance Information Exchange System

(TRIXS), the Tactical Digital Information Exchange System

(TADIXS–B) and the Near-real-time Dissemination (NRTD) System.

The committee has been very supportive of the IBS program

since its inception in fiscal year 1995. IBS was to result in a coordinated broadcast capability and the termination of the legacy systems, providing better support to real-time users of intelligence.

This goal clearly has not been achieved, and the committee is extremely disappointed with the Department’s progress toward IBS.

The original program schedule provided for the legacy systems to

be integrated into an initial IBS functionality in the 2000 time

frame. The current schedule now shows such a capability in 2007.

Further, there has been no progress in terminating any or all of

the legacy systems. In fact, some of the legacy systems have actually been modified to increase their capabilities. It is clear that the

program managers have had no intention of terminating these systems. In preparation of the fiscal year 2001 budget markup, the

committee drafted legislation to direct the Department to terminate all legacy broadcast systems on a date certain. However, the

committee decided to rescind the provision, allowing the Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and InVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.059 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
251

telligence) (ASD(C3I)) to be responsible for commitments to the

Congress to move forward with IBS.

The committee notes that the IBS executive agent has been

moved from the Navy to the Air Force. However, the budget request for IBS had been submitted before this change. Therefore, all

operation and maintenance funding should be transferred to the

Air Force in accordance with the transfer of management responsibility.

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has tentatively decided to proceed with IBS in a phased spiral-development approach beginning with an ‘‘increment one’’ that uses the

current, or slightly modified, TIBS message set as the baseline.

This will allow the Department to baseline the IBS program using

an existing program, and improve on it, rather than begin wholly

anew. The committee supports this approach and expects the

ASD(C3I) personally will oversee its progress and the most expedient retirement of all other legacy systems.

Finally, the IBS contract was terminated for non-performance

prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2000. The committee understands that, accordingly, there are funds available from previous

congressional appropriations. Further, the committee believes the

current request for program office personnel and funding is far in

excess of need. Therefore, the committee recommends $15.8 million,

a decrease of $8.7 million in PE 63850F for IBS. Further, the committee recommends a transfer of $15 million from operation and

maintenance, Navy, to operation and maintenance, Air Force.

Joint ejection seat program

The budget request contained $14.8 million in PE 64706F for life support systems, including $10.9 million for ejection seat development, but included no funds for standardized cockpit and crew

seats.

The committee notes the serious shortage of ejection seat manufacturers available to meet U.S. aircraft ejection seat requirements

and fully supports the Joint Ejection Seat Program (JESP). The

goal of this joint program is to distribute equally, JESP funds

among viable ejection seat producers to enable them to compete for

Air Force and Navy requirements, including the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. However, the committee is aware that ejection

seat development efforts are currently being conducted, that assists

only one of the potential competitors in preparing to meet these requirements. Although well intentioned, these ongoing projects result in unfairly disadvantaging other potential competitors during

this highly sensitive period immediately prior to selection of the

ejection seat producer for the JSF. The committee notes that the

Department of Defense is making every effort to ensure that the

JSF program is closely monitored and that the enormous implications to the fighter aircraft industrial base are completely understood and taken into account prior to the planned ‘‘winner take all’’

selection for development and production of JSF. However, the

committee is concerned that similar precautions are not in place to

prevent a potential imbalance to the competitive playing field for

selection of the JSF ejection seat. In order to protect the JSF program from potentially damaging program delays due to unfair comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.059 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
252

petition claims, the committee recommends that no funds other

than that included in the JESP be allowed for ejection seat development efforts involving producers identified as potential JSF ejection seat competitors . Thus, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.9 million in

PE 64706F for all Air Force ejection seat development efforts. The

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a thorough

assessment of all development work for fighter aircraft ejection

seats within the Department to ensure that no funding is provided

which unfairly benefits any potential competitor prior to a full and

open competitive selection for the ejection seat for JSF. The Secretary shall provide the results of this assessment to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year

2002 budget request.

The committee is also aware of Air Force efforts previously supported in PE 64706F to develop standardized cockpit and crew

seats to protect aircrew members and passengers against crash

loads up to 1.6 times the force of gravity. The committee notes that

these efforts are separate from ejection seat development and recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 64706F for continued

development and testing of standardized cockpit and crew seats.

Joint strike fighter

The budget request contained $856.6 million for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, including $129.5 million in PE 63800F,

$299.5 million in PE 64800F, $131.6 million in PE 63800N, and

$296.0 million in PE 64800N.

The committee notes that $261.1 million of the total funds requested for JSF are intended to support completion of the demonstration and validation phase of the program and a ‘‘winner take

all’’ selection of one of two competing approaches for entry into engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). The remaining

$595.5 million will support award of an EMD contract to the winning competitor.

The committee understands that the JSF program is attempting

to integrate a significant number of challenging new technologies

into one joint service multi-purpose aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, and United Kingdom to replace a number of

aging fighter and attack aircraft fleets. The committee believes

that, in light of the program’s scope and technological advances,

the Secretary of Defense should take all necessary measures to ensure that the JSF program’s critical technologies are sufficiently

mature before entry into the EMD phase. Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (Section 213) that would limit the

JSF program’s approval to proceed beyond the demonstration and

validation phase until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that the technological maturity of

the JSF program’s key technologies is sufficient to warrant its

entry into EMD stage.

The Committee continues to express concern for the stability of

the fighter aircraft industrial base and notes that the JSF program

represents the only new fighter aircraft acquisition program proposed by the Department of Defense during the next three decades.

Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (Section 141)

253

that would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to

Congress providing the results of a study of production alternatives

for the JSF and the effects on the tactical fighter aircraft industrial

base of each alternative considered.

Additionally, while the Department is currently reviewing the

planned JSF ‘‘winner take all’’ strategy to ensure that aircraft industrial base concerns are addressed, the committee notes that no

specific concern has been stated with respect to the future stability

of the fighter aircraft engine industrial base. The committee supports continuation of the JSF alternate engine program (AEP) as

directed in section 211 of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105–85) and recommends that the Department specifically address measures to ensure the health of the

fighter aircraft engine industrial base in any proposed restructure

of the acquisition program for JSF.

The committee also notes that the JSF AEP, as currently funded,

will not be capable of completing development and flight qualification of the alternate engine until after award of lot five of the JSF

production program. In order to reduce risk to JSF production and

aircraft fielding, the Committee supports acceleration of AEP development to ensure that the alternative engine completes configuration compatibility for the JSF airframe. The committee recommends $299.5 million in PE 64800F, $131.6

million in PE 63800N, and $296.0 million in PE 64800N, the requested amounts. The committee also recommends $144.5 million

in PE 63800F, an increase of $15.0 million, to accelerate the JSF

AEP.

Military strategic and tactical relay (MILSTAR)

The budget request contained $236.8 million in PE 64479F for

development of the Military Strategic and Tactical Relay

(MILSTAR) communications satellite, including $14.2 million for

the automated communications management.

The committee understands that demand for military satellite

communications continues to rise and that the efficient use of military satellite communications resources remains a priority. The

committee believes that web-based satellite communications management technologies that utilize the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, such as the Satellite Planning Information Network

(SPIN), have the potential to greatly expand flexibility in the use

of satellite communications, improve insight into system status,

balance communications loads, and provide superior connectivity

during wartime or humanitarian operations. The committee believes that the use of common standards will allow such efforts to

improve utilization of legacy systems, such as MILSTAR, as well

the effectiveness of next generation communications satellites, including the Advanced Extremely High Frequency system. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

64479F for development of new technologies, such as SPIN, to improve the automated management and command and control of

communications satellites.

The committee notes that the MILSTAR budget request represents an $11.0 million increase over the level forecast in the fiscal year 2000 budget submission. Although this increase is inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.060 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
254

tended to fund engineering change orders, the committee does not

believe that adequate justification has been provided for the full increase requested. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease

of $4.0 million in PE 64479F.

Overall, the committee recommends $237.8 million in PE

64479F, an increase of $1.0 million.

Mobile approach control system

The budget request contained $15.9M in PE 35114F for development of the Mobile Approach Control System (MACS).

MACS is the Air Force replacement for the Air National Guard

MPN–14K and Active Force TPN–19 mobile and tactical approach

control facilities. These facilities enable expeditionary operations by

providing safe launch and recovery for combat air operations in all

weather conditions at deployed airfields. These facilities are also

the primary means by which the Air National Guard trains its

force of air traffic controllers and maintenance personnel to meet

their wartime commitments.

The committee is aware of the deplorable condition of the current

systems and that the schedule for the program to replace these systems is unacceptably late. Several, if not all, Air National Guard

and Active units with the current antiquated equipment will be

forced to discontinue operations over the next several years until

replacement equipment is in place. The committee is also aware

that the current MACS acquisition strategy, a combination of Air

Force and Navy acquisition efforts, will place the first operational

units into service in 2004. The committee is concerned with the

operationally unacceptable position this imposes on the Air National Guard forces and the limitations placed on their ability to

train and operate.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force,

as lead service for the MACS program, to restructure its MACS acquisition strategy to initiate low-rate initial production (LRIP) at

the earliest opportunity, but not later than fiscal year 2002, and to

include necessary funds to support LRIP and appropriate modifications in the fiscal year 2002 and beyond budget requests.

Multi-link antenna system

The budget request contained no funding in PE 35207F for

manned reconnaissance systems including exploitation technologies

for RC–135 aircraft.

The Congress provided funds for development and evaluation of

the Multi-function, self-aligned gate (MSAG) active array antenna

technology on the RC–135 aircraft in fiscal year 2000. The conferees were convinced that the MSAG technology, now called Multilink Active System (MLAS) has the potential for satisfying several

RC–135 antenna deficiencies, and also has the potential for reducing the size and number of antennas for many other applications.

In fact, the committee is aware that the Department of Defense has

determined that the potential for this technology merited funding

through an advanced concept technology demonstration.

The committee is aware that the budget request was insufficient

to complete the fabrication, installation and evaluation of an MLAS

255

antenna on an RC–135. Therefore, the committee recommends $2.0

million in PE35207F for this purpose.

Satellite control network

The budget request contained $58.6 million in PE 35110F for sat- ellite control network research and development, and $39.1 million

for satellite control network procurement.

The satellite control network is a global system of control centers, remote tracking stations, and communications required to control satellites in orbit. The committee understands that telemetry

and command data rates need to be improved and supports the

modernization of the current system, which is inefficient and increasingly difficult to support. The committee believes that current

technology can meet these improvement needs, but is concerned,

however, that the current Air Force program fails to adequately leverage opportunities offered by commercial technology to reduce

the cost of modernizing and operating the network.

The committee recommends the requested amount for PE 35110F and directs that $1.5 million shall be available to the Space

Battlelab to evaluate the utility of commercial antennae networks

for satellite control. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air

Force to provide to the congressional defense committee, by February 15, 2001, a report on satellite control network modernization,

including possible architectures, the command and control interface

between the satellite control network and satellite operations centers, the roles that commercial technology and services might play,

a description of commercial technology demonstrations that would

be useful, and operational, manpower, cost and schedule implications associated with the architectures.

Small smart munitions

The budget request contained $1.2 million in PE 64618F for continued development of the joint direct attack munition (JDAM) but

included no funds for the 500-pound variant of the JDAM. The

budget request also contained $8.9 million in PE 64602F for Air

Force armament development, but included no funds for miniaturized munitions capability (MMC).

The committee is supportive of Department of Defense efforts to

increase future weapons load-outs and combat effectiveness for

bomber and other ground attack aircraft. The committee believes

that development of a 500-pound JDAM variant and a 250-pound

MMC are important in this regard.

The committee notes that the B–2 bomber, when deployed with

a smart bomb rack assembly, will be able to carry up to 80 500-

pound JDAMs for near-precision delivery against individual targets

or target sets and that the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified

development of the 500-pound JDAM as an unfunded requirement

in fiscal year 2001. The committee believes that this development

should proceed rapidly and will serve as a strong foundation for follow-on MMC technologies. Therefore, the committee recommends

$26.2 million in PE 64618F, an increase of $25.0 million for development of the 500-pound JDAM.

The committee notes that the February 2000 interim report of

the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of the Navy on MMC,

256

prepared in response to a requirement in the committee report on

H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–62), did not include consideration of development of a 250-pound MMC. However, the committee has been informed that there are relatively mature MMC technologies which

offer considerable potential capability against both fixed and mobile

targets and can support an initial operational capability (IOC)

sooner than fiscal year 2007, the currently planned date. Accordingly, the committee recommends $23.9 million in PE 64602F, an

increase of $15.0 million to accelerate development of a 250-pound

MMC variant.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and the

Secretary of the Navy to submit a final report on the MMC analysis of alternatives to the congressional defense committees with

the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The report shall include a review of all 26 government and industry MMC concepts noted in the

interim report, specific analysis of the technical feasibility of a future-250 pound MMC variant, and funding requirements associated

with a fiscal year 2007 IOC as well as accelerated IOCs for 250-

pound MMC variants.

Space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS-High)

The budget request contained $569.2 million in PE 64441F for

engineering and manufacturing development of the space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS-High) program, including $162.1 million

for geosynchronous SBIRS-High satellites.

The committee notes that the ground control segment to support

the SBIRS-High satellites has been delayed due to difficulty in developing and integrating the computer codes needed to manage the

data flow from both SBIRS-High and the Defense Satellite Program

early warning satellites. While concerned with these delays, the

committee has been informed that the ground control segment will

be operational in time to support the scheduled launch of the first

SBIRS-High satellite into a highly elliptical orbit in fiscal year

2001. The committee further understands that the delays, while delaying the development of follow-on upgrades of the ground control

segment, will not impact the scheduled fiscal year 2004 launch of

the first geosynchronous SBIRS-High satellite.

The committee notes that SBIRS-High capabilities will be essential to achieving the required levels of confidence in the performance of the national missile defense system and continues to support the deployment of SBIRS-High satellites without delay. Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide written notification to the congressional defense committees of

any proposed change to the currently established milestones for the

SBIRS-High program prior to approval of those changes.

The committee recommends $569.2 million for SBIRS-High.

Space-based infrared system-low (SBIRS-Low)

The budget request contained $241.0 million in PE 64442F for

research and development on the space-based infrared system-low

(SBIRS-Low) system.

The committee notes that Section 231 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) establishes ballistic missile defense as the primary mission of SBIRSVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.061 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
257

Low and that SBIRS-Low will be critical to achieving advanced national missile defense (NMD) and theater missile defense (TMD)

capabilities.

The committee further notes that Section 231 also directs that

the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)

will have authority to approve or disapprove any changes to the

baseline SBIRS-Low schedule, budget and system level technical

requirements. The committee has been informed that BMDO and

the NMD lead system integrator have not been sufficiently consulted with by the Air Force and the SBIRS contractor to assure

that missile defense requirements are effectively reflected in the

SBIRS Low development process. The committee understands that

the Secretary of the Air Force acknowledges these concerns and

has testified that he recommends moving SBIRS-Low program

management from the Air Force to BMDO. Senior BMDO officials

have confirmed to the committee that BMDO management would

ensure appropriate interaction between the NMD and SBIRS-Low

programs. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (section 212) that would transfer management authority for the

SBIRS-Low program from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

The committee concurs with views expressed by senior DOD officials that the primary SBIRS Low mission is ballistic missile defense. The committee, however, believes that the director of BMDO,

in coordination with other defense agencies, should afford appropriate priority to ancillary SBIRS Low requirements in battlespace

characterization and technical intelligence, to the extent that they

do not increase technical or schedule risk to the primary SBIRS

Low mission. The committee believes that the intelligence community and other organizations that seek to add technical capabilities

to the SBIRS Low system to meet those ancillary requirements

must provide the resources needed to do so.

Consistent with the transfer of ABL management authority, the

committee recommends no funds in PE 64442F, a decrease of

$241.0 million and an increase of $241.0 million in PE 63871C, the

national missile defense program. The committee understands that

the Air Force would remain the executive agent for the SBIRS-Low

development program and would retain operational control of the

system when deployed.

Spacelift range system

The budget request contained $53.7 million in PE 35182F for research and development for the spacelift range system.

The Air Force spacelift range system program funds modernization for the Eastern Range at Cape Canaveral, Florida, and the

Western Range at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. This is

accomplished through the Range Standardization and Automation

(RSA) project, which funds long-term upgrades, and the Space Lift

Range System contract, which supports short-term system integration and engineering and recapitalization priorities.

The Air Force continues to subsidize heavily the commercial

launch industry at the Eastern and Western Ranges, even though

commercial launches and other government launches now far outnumber Air Force launches. The subsidy results from Air Force

258

funding of the modernization, management, and operation of the

launch ranges, while recovering only about five percent of direct incremental costs and none of the indirect support costs of a commercial launch.

The committee believes that the funding burden of modernizing,

managing and operating the spacelift ranges should be shared

more equitably by the range users. Such an arrangement would

more accurately reflect the costs and benefits to each of the users

and allow the Air Force to meet its legitimate priorities more fully.

At the same time, the committee recognizes that the Air Force

must be responsible for sustaining the ranges until satisfactory alternative funding and management arrangements that meet civil,

national security and commercial requirements can be established.

The committee notes that the February 2000 report of the interagency working group on ‘‘The Future Management and Use of the

U.S. Space Launch Bases and Ranges’’ supports maximizing the

use of ‘‘non-federal’’ funding sources ‘‘for the continued maintenance and modernization’’ of the launch bases and ranges. The report also points to restrictions imposed by in the Commercial Space

Launch Act (Public Law 98–575) that limit reimbursement to the

Air Force for costs incurred in supporting commercial launch activities and the Air Force ability to accept privately financed range improvements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, with appropriate consultation with other federal and state

officials and private industry, to identify the legal impediments to

such non-federal funding of range improvements and maintenance,

and the changes required to eliminate these impediments. The Secretary shall submit a report on his findings to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed

Services by January 15, 2001.

The committee understands that the flight termination system in

use at both the Vandenberg Air Force Base and Cape Canaveral

test ranges is obsolescent, expensive to maintain, unreliable, subject to unintentional signal interference during flight missions, and

unable to preclude inadvertent flight termination. The committee

recommends an increase of $700,000 in PE 35182F to initiate a

study for a new flight termination system.

The committee also endorses an effort to develop a space launch

operations complex at the Vandenberg test range to improve space

launch operations through improved communications and better integration of launch system technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 35182F for this purpose. The committee expects that this effort will become a publicprivate partnership in the future.

Overall, the committee recommends $59.9 million in PE 35182F,

an increase of $6.2 million for the spacelift range system.

U–2 senior year electro-optic system polarimetry

The budget request included $27.5 million in PE 35202F for

Dragon U–2 reconnaissance aircraft.

The committee notes that the use of a polarization technique on

the U–2 Senior Year Electro-optic System (SYERS) will provide the

ability to discern military targets hidden under camouflage or conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.061 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
259

cealed in dense vegetation. The committee believes the SYERS polarization processor will provide a force multiplying effect. Therefore, the committee recommends $31.5 million in PE

35202F, an increase of $4.0 million for this purpose.

DEFENSE WIDE RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $10,238.2 million for Defense

Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of

$11,077.8 million, an increase of $839.5 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Defense

Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major

changes to the Defense Agencies request are discussed following

the table.

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

Items of Special Interest

Advanced sensor applications program

The budget request contained $15.5 million in PE 63714D8Z for

the advanced sensor applications program. The committee recommends $25.0 million in PE 63714D8Z, an

increase of $9.5 million for the program. Details of the recommendations are contained in the classified annex.

Ballistic missile defense (BMD)

The budget request contained $4,490.6 million for the programs

of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), of which

$3,737.6 was for research and development, $444.0 was for procurement, and $103.5 million was for military construction.

The committee notes a succession of BMD test successes that

provides considerable confidence that hit-to-kill technology is fundamentally sound. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC–3),

Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and National Missile Defense programs all conducted highly successful tests that

demonstrated substantial degrees of system maturity and the potential for more rapid progress.

The committee also notes that the BMDO budget request represents a substantial increase compared over the fiscal year 2000

request and the funding level anticipated for fiscal year 2001 in

last year’s budget request. The committee is gratified that this request would more fully fund ballistic missile requirements than in

the past. The committee believes that the urgent need to meet substantial and growing ballistic missile threats and demonstrated

technical progress fully justifies these increases.

However, the committee remains deeply concerned about the

pace and direction of BMD programs on a number of grounds:

(1) The committee notes that the Director of BMDO identified

$1.0 billion in additional funding for BMD programs for fiscal year

2001 that would reduce risk, speed deployment schedules, and provide greater capability. The committee continues to believe that

BMD programs remain seriously underfunded.

(2) Major BMD programs such as Navy Theater Wide and

THAAD are not adequately funded throughout the future years defense program to achieve timely operational capability.

(3) Funding for advanced BMD technologies has declined dramatically to a level that cannot support next generation BMD systems. The committee believes that such funding is critical to prevent the obsolescence of systems now being developed and to meet

more demanding threats in the future.

(4) The commitment to BMD by the services to service-funded

BMD programs remains highly suspect. The committee notes that

the Air Force budget request would reduce funding for the Airborne

Laser by 50 percent over the future years defense program.

(5) Deployed missile defenses are not adequate to meet identified

threats. The missile threat from North Korea is particularly stressing for deployed U.S. systems.

(6) Deployment timelines for key systems may fail to meet expected threats, particularly new ballistic missile developments in

North Korea and Iran.

269

(7) The President has not committed to deployment of NMD, in

spite of the fact that the Secretary of Defense has stated that the

threat justifies such a deployment.

The committee believes that ballistic missile defense remains a

very high priority and urges the Department of Defense to commit

the funds needed to achieving timely deployment of systems that

will defeat current and future ballistic missile threats.

Overall, the committee recommends $5,245.8 million for BMDO

including an increase of $283.2 million and transfers of $472.0 million.

Advanced technology development

The budget request contained $93.2 million in PE 63173C for advanced ballistic missile defense technologies. The committee remains concerned that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(BMDO) technology efforts are insufficiently funded to keep pace

with expected threats, and strongly recommends that the Director

of BMDO identify funds throughout the future year defense program to support a technology development effort capable of doing

so.

The budget request included $19.4 million in project 1281 for atmospheric interceptor technology (AIT). The AIT program develops

advanced interceptor technologies to support the theater high-altitude area defense (THAAD), Navy theater wide (NTW), and Patriot

advanced capability-3 configuration 3 (PAC–3) missile defense systems. This effort is needed to keep pace with rapidly evolving ballistic missile threats. The committee recommends an increase of

$20.0 million in project 1281 for this effort. The budget request also

included $18.9 million in project 1282 for exoatmospheric interceptor technology (EIT). This effort is key to keeping pace with

evolving long-range missile threats. The committee recommends an

increase of $5.0 million in project 1282 for development of advanced sensors that will enhance NMD, NTW, and THAAD capabilities.

The committee notes that the Director of BMDO identified funding to develop robust adaptive algorithms needed to counter evolving and off-nominal ballistic missile threats as an unfunded priority. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to initiate this effort.

The committee recommends the $122.2 million in PE 63173C, an

increase of $29.0 million for advanced technology development.

Liquid surrogate target

The budget request contained $270.7 million in PE 63874C ballistic missile defense (BMD) technical operations, including $49.1

million was for BMD targets, but contained no funds for liquid surrogate targets.

The committee notes that many of the operational targets for the

airborne laser (ABL) will be liquid-fueled theater ballistic missiles

and the ABL program has a validated requirement for a liquid surrogate target. The committee also understands that the Ballistic

Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) has concluded that development of a liquid surrogate target will be required to support other

270

BMD programs by emulating threat missiles in their boost and ascent phases. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million

in PE 63874C for the development of a liquid surrogate target.

National missile defense (NMD)

The budget request contained $1,740.2 million in PE 63871C for national missile defense research and development, $74.5 million

for NMD procurement, and $101.6 million for NMD military construction.

The committee notes that the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) provided an accounting of unfunded

BMDO priorities that included additional NMD risk reduction activities. The committee continues to believe that NMD remains one

of the highest defense priorities. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $ 85.0 million in PE 63871C for additional kill vehicle emulators to reduce

risk during integration and assembly of kill vehicles, in-flight interceptor communications system modem development to reduce

schedule risk, site activation teams to provide required support at

potential deployment sites, an additional target booster to reduce

schedule risk in the event of target problems, and additional development of the test and training evaluation center to enhance system test and evaluation capabilities. To further reduce risk, the

committee also encourages the Director of BMDO to maximize the

use of test launches of ballistic missiles to analyze and advance the

NMD battle management, command, control, and communications

system.

The committee notes that BMDO has planned an evolutionary

deployment of NMD capabilities to address long-range missile

threats. The committee believes that a new radar technology proposal may offer improved capabilities to discriminate warheads

from sophisticated offensive countermeasures that may be deployed

in the future. The committee recommends that the director of

BMDO fully assess future NMD radar requirements; all radar technologies and architectures relevant to the NMD program beyond

fiscal year 2005; and technical risk, schedule and cost implications

associated with those technologies and architectures. The committee also recommends that the director of BMDO assure the use

of all appropriate competitive procedures in the development and

acquisition of NMD radars. The committee directs the director of

BMDO, if he determines that the development and acquisition of

NMD radars should not be competed, to provide a report to the

congressional defense committees detailing the justification for that

determination not later than 30 days prior to the proposed initiation of any noncompetitive effort.

As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee also recommends that the budget request for the space-based infrared system—low (SBIRS Low), $241.0 million, be transferred from PE

64442F to PE 63871C. The committee believes that this transfer

will provide needed focus and management efficiencies that will

allow more rapid maturation of both SBIRS Low and NMD capabilities. Overall, the Committee recommends $2,066.3 million in PE

63871C for NMD research and development. The committee also

271

recommends $74.5 million for NMD procurement and $101.6 million for NMD military construction.

Navy theater wide

The budget request contained $382.7 million in PE 63868C for

the Navy theater wide (NTW) missile defense system.

The committee is concerned that the NTW deployment schedule

is both inadequate to meet expected threats and inadequately funded. The current NTW schedule provides for a four missile contingency Block I capability by fiscal year 2006, a limited capability on

two dedicated missile defense ships by fiscal year 2008, and a full

Block I capability by 2010. However, the committee understands

that NTW Block I will only defend against very limited numbers

of unsophisticated missile threats. Further, the committee notes

that funding for even this limited capability is not programmed

through the future years defense plan, and that no timeline has

been laid out for development and deployment of NTW Block II,

which will be capable of defense against larger numbers of more sophisticated threats.

The committee understands that NTW will be tested a number

of times in fiscal year 2001, and that the budget request fully supports these tests. The committee expects that if these tests meet

with substantial success that funds will be identified and programmed to provide for rapid development and timely NTW deployment.

The committee believes that an effort is needed to provide greater NTW capability earlier than planned and notes the support of

the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for that

research and development on an advanced technology kill vehicle.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million

in PE 63868C to support this effort.

The committee also understands that the Navy has considered an

X band high power discriminator and modifications to the current

SPY–1 radar to meet ballistic missile defense radar needs for NTW.

However, the committee believes that a new radar technology approach may offer improved capabilities in the 2010 timeframe. The

committee understands that this new approach would take advantage of new algorithms and beam steering technology to achieve

improved capabilities to discriminate warheads from sophisticated

offensive countermeasures that may be deployed in the future.

Therefore, the committee directs the director of BMDO to assess

NTW radar requirements and technologies and architectures relevant to the NTW program, and provide a report on his assessment

to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2001. The

report should include consideration of expected threats, and technical risk, schedule and cost implications associated with those

technologies and architectures.

The committee also recommends an increase of $10.0 million in

PE 63868C to initiate a demonstration of the alternative radar approach.

Overall, the committee recommends $407.7 in PE 63868C for research and development of the Navy theater wide system.

272

Russian-American cooperative national missile defense

The committee notes that representatives of the government of

Russia have expressed concern that deployment of a U.S. national

missile defense (NMD) would undermine the effectiveness of the

Russian deterrent forces and existing arms control agreements.

The committee is also aware of ongoing discussions between the

U.S. and Russian governments related to U.S. plans for deployment

of an NMD system.

The committee believes that these discussions are important and

that additional confidence building measures are warranted to assure the Russian government that NMD deployment does not

threaten Russian interests. One such measure could include discussions and eventual development of a joint U.S.-Russian national

missile defense system that could defend both nations from a range

of missile threats.

The committee encourages the Administration to continue the

discussions with Russia to explore this possibility. The committee

directs the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(BMDO) to examine this concept and provide a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2001. The report

should include consideration of possible architectures, technical

merits and challenges, and potential cost, effectiveness, technology

transfer risks, and areas of technical cooperation related to a joint

U.S.-Russian national missile defense effort.

Support technology

The budget request contained $37.7 million in PE 62173C for

ballistic missile defense support technologies.

The committee remains concerned that funding for innovative

ballistic missile technology projects is insufficient to support Ballistic Missile Defense Organization’s (BMDO) future needs. The

committee strongly recommends that the Director of the Ballistic

Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to identify funds throughout

the future year defense program sufficient to support a technology

program that hedges against rapidly evolving missile threats.

The committee also understands that BMDO has identified wideband gap electronic materials for high speed and high temperature

device operation as a high priority that is insufficiently funded. The

committee notes that significant progress has been made in the development of these materials and believes that additional research

offers the opportunity for further progress. The committee recommends $47.7 million in PE 62173C, an increase $10.0 million for the continuation of wide-band gap materials research.

Wide bandwidth information infrastructure

The budget request contained $270.7 million in PE 63874C for

ballistic missile defense technical operations.

The committee understands that the Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization (BMDO) is using recent advances in wide band information technology to enhance operational efficiency and improve

the test infrastructure. BMDO’s efforts have linked geographically

dispersed radar and missile hardware-in-the-loop test facilities to

improve the ground testing of theater missile defense systems and

273

increase the probability of successful flight tests. The committee believes that the use of this technology can be expanded into other

critical areas, including battle management, command, control,

communications, and intelligence. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63874C to continue the development of a wide bandwidth information infrastructure for BMDO.

Chemical-biological defense program

The budget request contained $835.8 million for the chemical bio- logical defense (CBD) program, including $361.9 million in research, development, test and evaluation, and $473.9 million in

procurement. The budget request also contained $162.1 million in

PE 62383E for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency biological warfare applied research program.

In order to insure an integrated CBD program within the Department of Defense (DOD), section 1703 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160) mandated the coordination and integration of all DOD CBD programs

and the funding of these programs in a defense-wide account, separate from the accounts of the military departments. The committee

notes that funding for the DOD program has grown significantly

from $387.8 million in fiscal year 1996, and is projected to continue

at an average of $876 million per year through fiscal year 2005.

The committee has reviewed the Department’s Chemical and Biological Defense Program Annual Report to Congress, dated March

2000, and notes that the oversight and management of the program

continue to mature. The report details the considerable progress

made in improving cooperation among the military departments

and the jointness of CBD research, development, and procurement

since the establishment of the consolidated program, but indicates

a number of issues with regard to chemical-biological medical defense, logistics, readiness, and training. As addressed elsewhere in

this report, the committee intends to examine these issues in greater detail during upcoming oversight hearings.

The committee also notes a growing tendency to fund individual

CBD projects directly within the budget accounts of the military

services. The committee emphasizes that this practice violates the

intent and purpose of Congress in establishing the consolidated

program.

Chemical and biological defense program initiatives

The committee believes that the Department of Defense has established a robust chemical and biological defense research and development program that focuses on meeting joint and service

unique operational requirements for medical and non-medical

chemical and biological defense in the areas of contamination

avoidance, battle management, collective protection, decontamination, and individual protection. The committee recognizes the challenges faced by the medical chemical and biological defense program in the development of medical prophylaxes, pretreatments,

and therapies necessary to protect personnel from the toxic or lethal effects of exposure to chemical or biological agents. The committee notes the development and fielding of a number of medical

274

countermeasures that improve individual medical protection, treatment, and diagnoses. The committee also notes technical and procedural shortcomings in the development, licensing, and production

of vaccines and drugs that require both short-term and long-term

solutions. The committee continues to monitor closely the Department’s policy for the development and production of vaccines

against anthrax and for vaccination of members of the armed forces

who might be exposed to anthrax.

The committee continues to support initiatives for research, development, and demonstration of advanced chemical and biological

defense technologies and systems. The committee directs that these

initiatives compete for funding within the appropriate program elements of the joint chemical and biological defense program and the

DARPA biological defense program on the basis of technical merit

and the anticipated ability of the technology or system to meet

joint and service unique needs.

The committee recommends increases of $3.0 million in PE

61384BP and $5.0 million in PE 62384BP for research, development, and demonstration of advanced chemical and biological defense technology, systems, and capabilities for contamination avoidance, battle management, collective protection, decontamination,

and individual protection.

Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE

61384BP to continue the basic research program in organic and inorganic optical computing device materials for use in standoff sensors for detection and identification of chemical agents.

Commercial off-the-shelf-receiver development

The budget request included $95.7 million in PE 35885G for development of tactical cryptologic systems.

The committee is concerned about the lack of a true commercial

off-the-shelf (COTS) signals intelligence (SIGINT) receiver that is

based on open-architecture standards established by the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Versa Module Europa

(VME) backplane. The Department of Defense has stated that all

future signals intelligence systems will be COTS based. However,

most SIGINT developments the Department is currently pursuing

are based wholly, or in part, on custom approaches that are not

‘‘interchangeable’’ at the circuit board level. The committee is further concerned that these customized approaches do not encourage

competitors for U.S. signal intelligence systems to utilize the COTS

marketplace, thereby forcing more expensive solutions.

The committee is aware of a small business development that

has produced a true COTS receiver solution for several Defense

Cryptologic Program needs. The committee notes that this solution

is cost-effective and based completely on ANSI and VME standards,

thereby allowing true ‘‘plug and play’’ use between systems. The

committee also notes that the Joint SIGINT Avionics Program Office has sought to use this technology as a commercial replacement

for one of its custom applications. However, there is no funding in

the budget request to pursue or procure this commercial solution.

275

The committee is aware of other innovative small business development using emerging commercial silicon germanium technology

and supports rapid application of this leading-edge commercial

technology for defense applications. Therefore, the committee recommends $97.7 million in PE

35885G, an increase of $1.0 million for development of COTS VME

receiver technology for SIGINT applications, and an increase of

$1.0 million for development of commercial silicon germanium integrated circuits for defense and intelligence applications.

Competitive sustainment demonstration

The budget request contained $23.1 million in PE 63712S for generic logistic research and development technology demonstrations.

The committee notes that an increasing portion of the defense

budget is being used to support and manage large inventories of

older weapons systems. The committee believes that costs associated with logistics and maintenance must be reduced in order to

free resources to develop and procure modern systems. Leveraging

the best practices of commercial industry in logistics and maintenance planning and management could permit the Department of

Defense to reduce these costs in weapons and supporting systems.

The committee notes the establishment by the Defense Logistics

Agency of a sustainment demonstration program that pursues dramatic reductions in sustainment costs and improvements in logistics efficiency. The committee recommends $26.1 million in PE 63712S, an increase of $3.0 million to continue the competitive sustainment demonstration program.

Complex systems design

The budget request contained $10.8 million in PE 63704D8Z for

special technical support, but included no funds for complex systems design.

The committee notes that the effort to develop an integrated digital environment for complex systems design has made significant

progress, and is ahead of schedule. This development is critical to

improving the acquisition process and minimizing life-cycle costs of

future weapons systems.

The committee recommends $15.8 million in PE 63704D8Z, an

increase of $5.0 million for complex systems design.

Computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis

The Department of Defense university research initiative supports basic research in a wide range of scientific and engineering

disciplines that are relevant to maintaining the superiority of U.S.

military technology such research contributes to the education of

scientists and engineers in disciplines critical to defense needs, and

helps build and maintain the infrastructure needed to improve the

quality of defense research performed at universities.

The committee notes the increased reliance in defense research,

development, and acquisition on the use of computer modeling and

simulation and the testing of system and component scale models

to evaluate system concepts, technology, and design. The ability to

extend the results of such modeling, simulation, and testing to the

276

development and fabrication of full-scale operational systems which

can then be expected to operate in accordance with the test results

of the system scale model places a premium on advances in the development and application of finite element analysis and computational fluid dynamics. The committee believes that the application

of such capabilities to real-world problems associated with analysis

of advanced structures and materials will provide an effective vehicle for research, education of scientists and engineers, and establishment of the infrastructure required to insure future U.S. capabilities in these disciplines.

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to place increased emphasis in the university research initiative on the development of advanced capabilities in finite element analysis and computational fluid dynamics.

Computer network security

The budget request contained $164.0 million in PE 63755D8Z for

the High Performance Computing Modernization Program

(HPCMP).

The committee understands that the Department of Defense’s

HPCMP is the primary source of Department of Defense computer

system upgrades and enhancements and that the HPCMP specifically supports needed computer system modernization for defense

laboratories as well.

The committee strongly supports the HPCMP, but expresses concern that the programs charter does not highlight efforts to address

the increasing security threat to computer systems. The committee recommends authorization of $164.0 million, the

budget request, in PE 63755D8Z for HPCMP and strongly urges

the DOD to work with industry and basic research organizations

to ensure that computer modernization efforts include the latest

state-of-the-art computer network security and access assurance capabilities.

CV–22 Osprey radar improvements

The budget request contained $133.5 million in PE 116404BB for

special operations tactical systems development.

The committee is aware that the covert, all-weather, nap-of-theearth operations that are characteristic of the special operations

command make stealth and terrain avoidance imperative. The committee notes that low probability of intercept/ low probability of detection (LPI/LPD) radar and terrain following/terrain avoidance

(TF/TA) capability are essential to safe and successful CV–22 Osprey operation.

The committee recommends an increase of $9.2 million in PE

116404BB for LPI/LPD radar and terrain avoidance improvements.

Defense agency science and technology funding

The budget request contained $7,543.2 million for defense science

and technology, including all defense-wide and military service

funding for basic research, applied research, and advanced development.

The committee notes that this amount represents a decrease of

$853.3 million from the amount provided in fiscal year 2000. As

277

outlined elsewhere in this report, the committee continues to be

disturbed by the growing number of military service research and

development programs that have been reduced or eliminated as a

result of insufficient research and development funding, and is particularly concerned with the low level of science and technology

funding. 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 interests around the world.

As expressed in previous reports, the committee is also concerned

by the Department’s continuing trend of placing higher priority on

defense agency research and development 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 maintaining funding of

several defense agencies at the levels projected by the Department

for fiscal year 2001.

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following adjustments and, except as noted, decreases are made without prejudice:

Biological warfare defense

The budget request contained $162.1 million in PE 62382E for

applied research in biological warfare defense, including $10.0 million for applied research in consequence management information

systems.

The committee supports the progress being made in the Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency’s biological warfare defense

program in research in medical countermeasures, advanced

diagnostics, sensors for the detection of biological and chemical

warfare agents, and decontamination. The committee also notes ongoing efforts within the chemical-biological defense program as

noted elsewhere in this report to transition technologies developed

in the DARPA program to the military services and other agencies

for exploitation and further development.

The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162) expressed

the belief that DARPA’s consequence management project did not

meet the high risk, high payoff, breakthrough concepts and technology criteria normally associated with DARPA programs and directed transfer of the program to the DOD chemical and biological

defense program following completion of the prototype phase. In reviewing the project after another year has passed, the committee

maintains its original view.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $142.1 million in PE

62383E for the DARPA biological warfare defense program, a decrease of $20.0 million for the DARPA consequence management

project.

Computing systems and communications technology

The budget request contained $376.6 million in PE 62301E for

applied research in computing systems and communications technology.

278

The committee recommends $331.6 million, a decrease of $45.0

million in PE 62301E.

Extensible information systems

The budget request contained $69.3 million in PE 62302E for applied research in extensible information systems. The committee recommends $49.3 million in PE 62302E, a decrease of $20.0 million.

Nuclear sustainment and counter-proliferation technologies

The budget request contained $230.9 million in PE 62715BR for

applied research in nuclear sustainment and counterproliferation

technologies. The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in PE

62715 BR for nuclear sustainment and counter-proliferation technologies.

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 the DEPSCoR program provides

funding that enables broader university participation in national

defense research.

The committee supports DEPSCoR and notes that the Department of Defense has acknowledged the importance of the program

by requesting funding under a separate program element line in

the budget request, and recommends $19.9 million in PE

61114D8Z, an increase of $10.0 million for DEPSCoR.

Facial recognition technology

The budget request contained $41.3 million for DOD combating

terrorism technology support (CTTS) in PE 63122D8Z.

The CTTS is an interagency program for development and demonstration of surveillance, physical security, and infrastructure protection technology. The committee supports use of advanced technology to control access to critical facilities and is aware of the Department’s examination of biometric access control technology, including the use of authentication software and the principal component method of facial recognition.

The committee recommends $45.3 million in PE 63122D8Z, an

increase of $4.0 million for continued development of facial recognition technology.

High definition displays for military applications

The budget request contained $31.8 million in PE 62708E for applied research in high definition displays.

The committee notes that many Department of Defense systems

utilize the display of visual and graphical information and are

therefore dependent on high definition display production capability. Major components of the program are the development of

technologies for advanced flexible emissive displays, development of

equipment and components required to manufacture advanced display technologies, and prototyping display systems for system evalVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00302 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.065 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
279

uation. The program is designed to establish a domestic capability

for the manufacture of components necessary for high-resolution

military displays.

The committee notes the efforts by the Department of Defense

and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to

develop advanced high definition display technologies for military

applications and to establish a domestic production base for these

displays. However, despite the Department’s investment and the

strength of the commercial display industry, the number of suppliers of military-qualified displays has declined. The committee

notes the efforts by the Department to form a Joint Display Acquisition Working Group and proposals to form a permanent Display

Overarching Integrated Process Team to address these issues. The

committee is concerned, however, that the budget request indicates

no funding for the DARPA high definition display program beyond

fiscal year 2001.

The committee believes that the Department must renew efforts

to define a comprehensive strategy for development and acquisition

of high definition display technology and for maintaining a domestic high definition display infrastructure capable of supporting the

requirements of the military services and defense agencies. The

committee believes that the strategy should include appropriate

funding levels for the development of advanced high definition display and display manufacturing technology, and should build on

prior Department efforts to ensure that this technology becomes reliably and widely available to all Services.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a

strategy for meeting the Department’s requirements for advanced

high definition displays that addresses the issues raised above, and

to report the proposed strategy and budget requirements to the

congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal

year 2002 budget request.

High energy laser research and development

The committee notes that the March 2000 DOD laser master

plan mandated by section 251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) will facilitate better coordination between service high energy laser (HEL) programs

and will enable the Department of Defense to direct a more coherent and more effective investment strategy for all future high energy laser development. The committee believes that the management structure recommended in the plan represents a substantial

improvement over the current situation, where such coordination is

virtually absent. The committee believes that high energy lasers

hold considerable promise for weapons applications sooner than

widely anticipated, and believes that these efforts deserve greater

attention and priority than they have received in the past.

Defense-wide high energy laser development

The budget request contained no funds in PE 61108D8Z, PE

62890D8Z, or PE 63921D8Z for HEL research development.

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has established program elements 61108D8Z, 62890D8Z, and 63921D8Z

through which it will manage HEL development investments. The

280

committee understands that $5.7 million in fiscal year 2000 funds

were made available for these program elements to initiate these

efforts.

The committee believes that the establishment of these program

elements will provide the Department of Defense with an effective

management tool that can reinforce HEL developments managed

and funded by the services and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The committee recommends a provision (section 211), described elsewhere in this report, to reinforce and provide additional

structure to this effort. The committee notes that this provision

would require the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of

the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to conclude

a memorandum of agreement to conduct joint high energy laser research.

The committee recommends $10.0 million in 61108D8Z to support basic research in high energy lasers, and $25.0 million in PE

62890D8Z, to support heat capacity laser development being conducted by the Army and other HEL applied research. The committee further recommends that of these funds, $10.0 million may

be made available for high energy laser research and development

pursued jointly with the NNSA.

Free electron laser

The budget request contained $38.0 million in PE 62111N for applied research in electronic warfare technology, but included funds

for free electron laser development.

The committee notes the Navy’s support for a proposal to upgrade the Department of Energy’s free electron laser demonstration

facility for applied research in the potential use of tunable free

electron lasers as countermeasures against anti-ship missiles and

anti-aircraft missile infrared seekers.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62111N to continue the demonstration facility upgrade program.

Solid state laser

The budget request contained $1.0 million in PE 62307A for research and development of high power lasers for tactical weapons

systems. The committee is aware that the Army, in cooperation

with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has developed a

prototype ten kilowatt solid state heat capacity glass laser that has

been tested successfully. The committee understands that the

Army plans to develop a 100 kilowatt demonstration laser that

could be mounted on Army vehicles for weapons applications depending on the availability of funds.

The committee believes that this technology has reached a state

of maturity that supports such a demonstration, and if successful,

has significant potential in air defense, missile defense, and other

weapons applications. Therefore, the committee recommends $11.0

million in PE 62307A, an increase of $10.0 million, for the Army’s

solid state laser demonstrator.

The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army to

provide funds for this initiative in the fiscal year 2002 budget request and throughout the future years defense plan.

281

Information technology, superiority and assurance

The budget request contained a total of $19,913.7 million for the Defense information technology program: including $2,456.3 million

for information technology research, development, test, and evaluation, and $1,233.6 million for information assurance.

The budget request for information technology research and de- velopment represents an increase of $472.2 million, while the budget request for information assurance contains an increase of $95.2

million.

The committee notes that the goal of the ‘‘National Plan for Information Protection, Version 1.0,’’ dated January 2000, is to establish a full operational capability by 2003 to defend the United

States against deliberate attacks aimed at disrupting national critical infrastructures, such as communications, banking, electric

power. Key elements of the plan include establishing the Federal

government as a model for infrastructure protection; the development of public-private partnerships to defend our national infrastructures; meeting the nation’s needs for skilled information technology personnel; and ensuring a robust and comprehensive critical

infrastructure protection research and development program.

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has a

major role in information protection, accounting for approximately

$450 million of the $606 million in research and development that

is specifically contained in the President’s request for the National

Plan. The committee is aware of other ongoing information systems

security and critical infrastructure protection activities that are

part of the Department’s information assurance program.

The committee notes that Joint Vision 2010, the capstone document for joint forces, emphasizes information superiority and information technology as key enablers for joint operations by U.S.

forces. The committee also notes that the globalization of information systems and networks has created a new dimension for warfare in which the dependence of U.S. Forces upon advanced information technology and information systems is both an advantage

and vulnerability.

The committee notes that considerable progress has been made

in the program to achieve information superiority, provide information assurance, and protect critical defense infrastructure. The

committee recognizes, however, that additional work is required,

particularly in the areas of operations-other-than-war or asymmetrical conflict. The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense

must continue to assign a high priority to resolving critical shortcomings in the Department’s information technology program.

The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162) directed

the Assistant Secretary of Defense to provide a comprehensive report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees on

the Department of Defense’s information superiority program. The

report by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control,

Communications, and Intelligence) (ASD C3I) cites the need to

focus more attention and to accelerate efforts on the following:

(1) Information assurance to better protect information and

information processes;

(2) Establishing the connectivity and interoperability needed

in the global information grid;

282

(3) Collection and analysis capabilities and end-to-end integration of communications and intelligence systems;

(4) Education, training, and retention of information technology professionals;

(5) Removal of legal impediments to protecting information

and information processes; and,

(6) Implementation of electronic commerce and electronic

business practices within the Department.

To address these issues the committee recommends the budget

request for information technology research, development, test, and

evaluation. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess shortfalls in the information technology program and to report

his findings and recommendations to the congressional defense

committees by November 1, 2000.

Interference with global positioning system

The committee notes that section 1062 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) provided for an interagency review and assessment and report to Congress and the President on the progress made in implementation

of national spectrum planning, the reallocation of Federal Government spectrum to non-Federal use, and the implications of such reallocations to the affected federal agencies. The report would also

include which would include the effect of the reallocation on critical

military and intelligence capabilities, civil space programs, and

other Federal government systems used to protect public safety.

The committee notes the potential interference to the communications frequency bands used by the global positioning system

(GPS) due to the emergence of new telecommunications and information technologies that could aversely affect GPS use in both

military and civilian sectors. As a part of the Department of Defense contribution to the interagency review and assessment, the

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to identify potential interference with the GPS frequency bands as one of the issues that

should be addressed in the assessment. The Secretary shall coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Chairman of

the Federal Communications Commission in developing the technical information, support, and assistance necessary to address this

issue and to begin the development of appropriate regulations and

enforcement procedures to protect the delivery of GPS signals during peacetime.

MC–130 autonomous landing guidance system

The budget request contained $133.5 million in PE 116404BB for

special operations tactical systems development but included no

funds for the autonomous landing guidance (ALG) system for the

MC–130 aircraft.

The MC–130 aircraft provides night and all-weather infiltration

and extraction of special operations forces (SOF) personnel and

equipment, as well as military re-supply operations, in hostile

areas. To accomplish this mission, the committee understands that

the ALG system will provide SOF MC–130 pilots with a precision

approach system that enhances their ability to land under adverse

weather conditions. Since the committee also understands that the

283

ALG system may have application to other aircraft such as the C–

130X and the C–17, it believes that both the ALG system’s MC–

130 flight tests and its engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) should be accelerated.

Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0

million in PE 116404BB to accelerate the ALG system’s flight tests,

EMD and installation on the MC–130.

Medical free electron laser

The budget request contained $15.0 million in PE 62227D8Z for

medical free electron laser (MFEL) technology.

The committee is aware of the progress made by the medical free

electron laser program. The committee notes that recent accomplishments include a new method of treating chemical burns, controlling sepsis, the development of artificial cartilage for injured

joints, non-thermal cutting of bone, tissue welding and delivery of

drugs through the skin. These new health care technologies are not

only cost effective but also address key health care issues important both to military personnel and the general population.

The committee commends the Department of Defense for requesting sufficient funding for the MFEL to maintain the meritbased program’s continued research momentum and recommends

$15.0 million. The committee supports the MFEL program and encourages the Department of Defense to sustain this level of funding.

Microelectromechanical systems sensor development

The budget request contained $253.6 million in PE 61103D8Z for

the Department of Defense university research initiative.

The committee continues its support for and recommends funding for research and development in microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and applications of MEMS technology in precision

weapons guidance and control, reconfigurable antenna elements,

and a variety of other applications.

The committee recommends $263.1 million in PE 61103D8Z, including an increase of $9.5 million for basic research in MEMS sensors for radionuclide detection and ordnance monitoring.

National imagery and mapping agency

The budget request contained $75.0 million in PE 35102BQ for

the National Imagery and Mapping Agency’s (NIMA) to conduct research and development of imagery and geospatial exploitation

tools and for the National Technology Alliance (NTA).

The committee is concerned that the variety of current synthetic

aperture radar (SAR) imaging systems, including the Joint Surveillance, Target and Attack Radar System (JSTARS), the U–2 Advanced SAR System (ASARS) and unmanned aerial vehicles have

limited to no capability to image moving targets. The committee

notes that the Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, New York,

has been developing the Multi-Platform Target Exploitation Processing capability that will allow SAR imaging of moving targets.

However, no funds were included in the budget request to field

such a capability, which, the committee is convinced, will result in

significant new capabilities for SAR-equipped platforms.

284

Further, the committee notes that the NTA has proven its ability

to rapidly apply commercial technology to defense applications, reducing cost and increasing systems performance. The committee

also notes that the NTA has been a very effective means of

leveraging commercial technology to solve intelligence community

technical problems.

The committee is aware that the airborne geographic synthetic

aperture radar GeoSAR) is being developed to provide a dual band

interferometric radar that is able to provide the military high resolution, three-dimensional maps of the earth, above, through and

below the vegetation canopy. Therefore, the committee recommends $97.0 million in PE

35102BQ, an increase of $22.0 million, $4.0 million for continuing

the Rome Laboratory moving target exploitation effort, and $3.0

million for the NTA to continue national imagery and mapping

agency viewer development and $15.0 million for GeoSAR.

Requirement for ‘‘designated laboratory’’

The committee notes that section 2, paragraph (18) of Senate Executive Resolution 75 providing the advice and consent of the Senate to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC),

established the condition that the President certify to the Senate

that no sample collected in the United States pursuant to the Convention will be transferred for analysis to any laboratory outside

the United States. In its verification annex, the CWC requires that

samples for off-site analysis be analyzed in at least two ‘‘designated

laboratories,’’ i.e. laboratories that have been ‘‘designated’’ for such

testing by the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

(OPCW). The Army’s Edgewood Forensic Science Laboratory is currently the only U.S. designated laboratory. The committee notes

that establishment of a second designated laboratory within the

United States is necessary in order to fulfill U.S. ratification commitments, as well as the requirements imposed by the Senate.

The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense report to

the congressional defense committees with the submission of the

fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Department of Defense position, actions, and funding requirements relative to establishment of

a second designated laboratory.

Science and technology affordability initiative

The committee is aware of the Department’s ‘‘Defense Science

and Technology Strategy 2000’’ and notes the potential for significant savings in defense systems ownership cost savings associated

with science and technology investments. The committee agrees

that science and technology advancements can contribute to the affordability of both current and future systems, and supports the

Department’s emphasis in this area as one of its top five priorities.

Further, the committee is aware that each service has a current

program of emphasis in this area. Anticipated Army science and

technology investments focus a great deal of attention to reduced

logistical requirements for improved deployability and maneuverability. Air Force plans anticipate targeted investments to facilitate

the fielding of a more lean and efficient expeditionary force. The

Navy has embraced a concept called Total Cost of Ownership as

285

one of its twelve Future Naval Capabilities. Two initiatives, Shipboard Integration Logistics System (SILS) and a proposed knowledge-based diagnostic and maintenance system, offer significant potential cost savings during the operation and maintenance of naval

assets.

The committee urges further development of these proposals and

supports the budget request. The committee directs the Secretary

of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees by

March 1, 2001, a report on the manner in which the science and

technology program addresses total life cycle costs of weapons systems. The report shall include a description and assessment of the

programs, associated funding requirements, and related policy initiatives.

Special operations tactical video system

The budget request contained $3.0 million in PE 116405BB for

Special Operations Forces (SOF) intelligence system developments,

including $100,000 for continued development of the Special Operations Tactical Video System (SOTVS).

The committee notes that no commercial solution to the SOF underwater camera requirements exists, and that a dedicated research and development program is necessary to satisfy this critical

mission requirement. Therefore, the committee is dismayed that

the budget request is insufficient to develop and procure a replacement for the aging cameras currently in the inventory.

The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE116405BB, an increase of $2.0 million to expedite the development of the SOTVS

camera.

Tactical and support aircraft noise reduction

The committee notes problems with increasing levels of noise pollution associated with aircraft operations ashore and afloat and the

potential physical and environmental hazards posed by high frequency and intensity noise and vibration to aircrew, ground support personnel, and those residing and working in the vicinity of

active aviation operations. The committee also notes the impact of

high noise and vibration levels experienced in tactical aircraft on

aircraft structural fatigue.

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has

not given adequate attention to noise reduction as an essential element of the tactical aircraft modernization program. The committee

directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director

of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, to assess

requirements for establishment of an aviation noise and vibration

reduction research and development program that will lead to reduction in noise associated with tactical and support aircraft operations. The committee further directs the Secretary to report to the

congressional defense committees by March 1, 2001, the status of

funding and plans for noise reduction in tactical and support aircraft and for the reduction of sound pressure levels that can cause

vibration problems and structural fatigue.

286

Texas regional institute for environmental studies

The budget request contained $51.4 million in PE 63716D8Z for

the strategic environmental research program, but included no

funds for the ongoing Texas regional institute for environmental

studies (TRIES) program The committee recommends $51.4 million in PE 63716D8Z for

the strategic environmental research program, including $3.0 million for the TRIES computer-based land management model and to

collaborate with Brooks Air Force Base San Antonio, Texas for potential application of environmental technologies.

Thermionics for space power systems

The budget request contained $230.9 million in PE 62715BR for

applied research in nuclear sustainment and counterproliferation

technologies, but included no funds to continue the program for development of thermionic power conversion technology.

The committee notes that the Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have identified potential applications for large capacity (40–100 kilowatt) nuclear space power systems having long lifetimes. The committee also notes the progress

being made in the advanced thermionics program to develop technologies for making thermionics a more viable power conversion option for space power systems, demonstrate highly reliable thermionic power converters capable of providing high output power per

unit mass, and design of thermionic system concepts. The committee further notes that the program supports the Defense technology area plan for space platforms.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the

progress being made in the advanced thermionics program, the potential for incorporation of the program in the Department of Defense core science and technology program, and anticipated requirements for thermionic power conversion systems. The Secretary

shall report the results of the assessment and plans for continuation of the program to the congressional defense committees with

the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62715BR to continue the development of advanced thermionics

power conversion technology.

TRICARE encounter data system

The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 65013D8Z for

information technology development.

The committee is concerned that no funds were included to accelerate the development and deployment of the TRICARE encounter

data system (TEDS), a key system for improving the efficiency of

the TRICARE claims processing system. The committee recommends $15.6 million in PE 65013D8Z, an

increase of $3.6 million to complete development of TEDS.

Ultra-wideband radar

The budget request contained $116.4 million in PE 63750D8Z for

advanced concept technology demonstrations, but included no funds

to demonstrate ultra-wideband, single-cycle radar and communications.

287

The committee is aware that recent unanticipated technology

breakthroughs in radio frequency electronics have resulted in applications for radar and communications. The committee notes that

ultra-wideband, single cycle technology is now ready for demonstration of wall penetrating radar capability. The committee recommends $117.4 million in PE 63750D8Z, an

increase of $1.0 million for radar vision demonstration.

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview

The budget request contained $201.6 million for Operational Test

and Evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends authorization

of $219.6 million, an increase of $18.0 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense programs are identified in

the table below. Major changes to the Operational Test and Evaluation request are discussed following the table.

288

289

Items of Special Interest

Central test and evaluation investment program

The budget request contained $121.4 million in PE 64940D8Z for

Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP).

The committee notes that the objective of the CTEIP is to fund

critically needed, high priority, test and evaluation capabilities for

joint and multi-service system test requirements. The Department

of Defense recently disbanded the office of the Director, Test, Systems Engineering and Evaluation, formerly responsible for CTEIP

as an element of the Department’s developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) program, and transferred responsibility for the CTEIP

to the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). The

committee notes that the first CTEIP budget request under the

DOT&E management represents a decrease in funding for this important program.

The committee expresses concern that while the Department’s

decreased request for CTEIP indicates that less funding is required, the military services are, at the same time, identifying an

alarming increase in critically needed test facility upgrades and instrumentation modernization. The committee believes that the

combination of declining research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) budgets and an increasing number of test facility

sustainment issues is largely responsible for the decline in utilization of service operated test facilities. The committee is also aware

of test and evaluation (T&E) community concerns that the continued decline in utilization of these T&E facilities is a primary cause

of the underfunded status of these facilities within the service

budget requests and, therefore, a direct cause of the higher testing

costs assessed to test program customers.

The committee is aware that the Department is reviewing this

critical test facility sustainment issue, but believes that decreases

in the CTEIP are premature and do not address the importance of

the growing list of proposed test facility and range modernization

efforts. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a high priority unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for

$26.0 million of test and evaluation upgrades. The committee also

notes that the Air Force is conducting a propulsion wind tunnel

(PWT) upgrade program to modernize the primary wind tunnel facilities used for transonic and supersonic testing of major propulsion development programs including F–22 and the Joint Strike

Fighter. Additional funds for the PWT program would enhance

structural test monitoring and data analysis and enable Air Force

test facilities to increase and enhance turbine engine test capability. The committee is also aware of an innovative new technology, Laser Induced Surface Improvement (LISI), which would

have far reaching joint service benefits. A multi-service cooperative

program incorporating the LISI technology would cut test time and

costs, as well as reduce long term maintenance and material construction costs through the use of new laser surfacing technologies

synergistically applied to several Air Force, Navy, and Army assets

vulnerable to corrosion and abrasion. The committee believes LISI

is a project with a limitless potential for the military and eventuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.069 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
290

ally for private sector use, and is a worthy candidate for funding

under CTEIP.

The committee believes that many of the service test facility

modernization proposals such as digital video data collection and

similar instrumentation upgrade efforts would support establishment of uniform test data collection for all service-run T&E facilities.

The committee is disturbed by the Department’s inability to ensure sufficient funds necessary to sustain T&E facilities, as well as

the many worthy test facility upgrades identified by the services.

The committee is aware that the Department is conducting an assessment of various funding methods, to include consideration of

working capital funding and other T&E customer cost-sharing alternatives in order to ensure adequate sustainment funding for

T&E facilities. The committee expresses strong congressional interest in this issue and directs the Secretary of Defense to report any

recommended change to current funding procedures for these facilities prior to including them in future budget requests.

The committee recommends $139.4 million, an increase of $18.0

million to address additional T&E facility upgrade proposals within

the CTEIP and supports this program as an appropriate method of

ensuring coordinated investments to support joint requirements for

T&E facility upgrades and capability sustainment efforts.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations

This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing

and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 2000.

Section 202—Amount for Basic and Applied Research

This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal year

2000 for technology base programs.

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 211—High Energy Laser Programs

This section would authorize funds for high energy laser (HEL)

research and development; require a designated senior civilian official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to carry out responsibilities for coordinating, prioritizing, planning, programming,

and oversight of HEL programs, establish appropriate policy to

guide funding of OSD, services and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) HEL programs; state a sense of Congress concerning funding levels for HEL research and development; require

the establishment of a memorandum of agreement between the

Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to conduct joint laser research programs; and establish certain reporting requirements.

291

The committee notes that the High Energy Laser Executive Review Panel (HELERP) prepared the laser master plan mandated by

section 251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). This report identifies many of the

technical challenges in maturing laser technologies for weapons applications and establishes a High Energy Laser Board of Directors,

chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, to oversee and approve HEL science and technology investments. The committee believes that this organization

represents a significant advance over the past, in which laser development activities proceeded within the services with little or no

coordination.

However, the committee remains concerned that the management structure established by the HELERP may not vest sufficient

authority in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to assure that

service and BMDO HEL programs are fully coordinated. The committee is also concerned that this structure and the funding mechanisms established in the laser master plan will not be adequate to

encourage the services to invest scarce resources in a potentially

revolutionary capability. Section 211 would define the authorities

of a designated OSD official to assure that HEL programs within

the Department of Defense are adequately funded and coordinated.

The committee also believes that requiring OSD funding to support

service—and BMDO—funded HEL programs at a level no greater

than that provided by the service or BMDO will maximize the relevance of OSD efforts to service and BMD requirements and

incentivize appropriate investment in these technologies.

Section 212—Management of Space-Based Infrared System-Low

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to assign

program management authority for the Space-Based Infrared System-Low to the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

Section 213—Joint Strike Fighter

This section would limit the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program’s

approval to proceed beyond the demonstration and validation phase

until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense

committees that the technological maturity of the JSF program’s

key technologies is sufficient to warrant its entry into the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) stage.

SUBTITLE C—BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Section 231—Funding for Fiscal Year 2001

The section would authorize appropriations for research and development for National Missile Defense for fiscal year 2001.

Section 232—Sense of Congress Concerning Commitment to Deploy

National Missile Defense

This section would make certain findings and express the sense

of Congress that the enactment of the National Missile Defense Act

292

of 1999 (Public Law 106–38) entails a commitment to deploy a national missile defense.

The committee believes that integrated flight tests to date demonstrate the feasibility of the National Missile Defense (NMD) technology under development. Integrated Flight Test-3 (IFT–3) confirmed the ability of the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) to discriminate a warhead from other objects. IFT–4, notwithstanding

the fact that the EKV missed the target because of failure of EKV

sensors, confirmed the ability of the NMD battle management,

command and control system, early warning sensors, and radar to

provide engagement information to the kill vehicle as a functioning

system of systems. The committee recognizes that much test and

evaluation remains to be done, but believes that the tests to date

provide confidence that NMD system technologies are feasible.

The committee believes that the North Korean development of

long-range missiles capable of reaching the continental United

States is sufficiently mature that a commitment to a firm deployment schedule is warranted. The committee notes that the September 1999 threat assessment by the National Intelligence Council states that Iran could test an ICBM by the latter half of this

decade. The committee further notes that the Secretary of Defense

shares the view that ‘‘the threat threshold has been crossed.’’

The committee notes that the National Missile Defense Act of

1999 (Public Law 106–38) established that it is the policy of the

United States to deploy an NMD system as soon as technically possible. The committee remains baffled by Administration statements

to the effect that, while the policy of the United States is to deploy

a national missile defense, no decision has been made to deploy

such a defense. The committee believes that the establishment of

any policy incurs an inherent commitment to execute it.

Section 233—Reports on Ballistic Missile Threat Posed By North

Korea

This section would require the President to issue, within two

weeks of the next test of a long-range ballistic missile by North

Korea or 60 days after the date of enactment, a report to assess

the North Korean missile threat, the U.S. capability to defend

against that threat, proliferation threats, steps the U.S. will take

to reduce the threat while the nation is vulnerable, and the viability of testing other BMD systems against targets with flight characteristics similar to those of long range North Korean missiles.

The committee believes that if North Korea should test a longrange missile, the Department of Defense should quickly revise

threat assessments and rapidly put into place actions to reduce the

increased vulnerability that are assessed as result of the test.

Section 234—Plan to Modify Ballistic Missile Defense Architecture

to Cover Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile Threats

This section would require the Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to develop a plan to address threats posed by

ballistic missiles of 2500 to 4000 kilometers in range.

The committee notes that the National Missile Defense system

under development will defend the United States from intercontiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.070 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
293

nental range ballistic missiles, and theater missile defense systems

under development will provide effective defense for U.S. forces and

allies from ballistic missiles with ranges out to approximately 2000

kilometers. The committee notes that, according to public reports,

Iran is developing an intermediate range ballistic missile with a

range well in excess of 2000 kilometers, capable of striking virtually all of Europe. The committee believes that the evolution of

this threat must be addressed in BMD architecture and technology

development.

Section 235—Designation of Airborne Laser Program as a Program

Element of Ballistic Missile Defense Program

This section would establish a new program element in the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) for the airborne laser.

The committee notes that Airborne Laser (ABL) is a key element

of BMDO architectures. The committee notes that the Air Force

drastically reduced funding and delayed ABL testing and deployment schedules by as much as seven years. The committee further

notes that the Air Force did so without consulting BMDO and without consideration of the impact on the BMD architecture developed

by BMDO or requirements for upper and lower tier BMD systems.

To properly coordinate the elements of the BMD architecture and

BMD technology development, the committee believes that ABL is

more effectively managed and funded by BMDO.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 241—Recognition of Those Individuals Instrumental to

Naval Research Efforts During the Period from Before World

War II Through the End of the Cold War

This provision would recognize those individuals instrumental in

the establishment and conduct of oceanographic and scientific research partnerships between the Federal Government and academic institutions during the period beginning before World War II

and continuing through the end of the Cold War, support efforts by

the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Research to

honor those individuals, and express appreciation for the ongoing

efforts of the Office of Naval Research to support oceanographic

and scientific research and the development of researchers in scientific fields related to the missions of the Navy and the Marine

Corps.

(294)

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

OVERVIEW

The budget request for fiscal year 2001 for operation and mainte- nance represents an increase in spending of just $3.0 billion over

spending levels authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Increasing fuel prices account for $1.2 billion of that increase, and

the remaining represents inflation assumptions of about one percent. Despite the Administration’s reported funding increase, the

reality of the budget request is that there are little if any real increases. The committee is concerned that current budget estimates

project a decrease in operation and maintenance funding for critical

readiness needs for fiscal year 2002.

Despite increased funding by Congress for readiness, the budget

request for fiscal year 2001 falls well short of addressing many of

the military services’ current and future readiness requirements.

Compounding the problem, the budget request does not adequately

take into account the current and future financial impacts on

equipment, training, and facilities being created by the high pace

of unscheduled contingency operations around the world. The committee remains deeply concerned that the continued underfunding

of key readiness and quality of life accounts, coupled with a continued high pace of operations, will exacerbate readiness and personnel retention concerns. For example, in spite of the addition by

Congress of $858.4 million to the real property maintenance and

repair accounts of the four military services in fiscal year 2000, the

chiefs’ fiscal year 2000 unfunded priorities list still identifies a real

property and repair shortfall of over $1.03 billion. Despite a Congressional increase last year of $135.0 million for spare parts, the

services unfunded priorities list nonetheless identifies a shortfall in

spare parts funding of $250.0 million in fiscal year 2001. As a further example, Congress increased the budget request for ship depot

maintenance by $25.0 million last year, yet this year’s unfunded

priorities list reflects a shortfall in fiscal year 2001 of $182.3 million.

In an effort to obtain a more accurate and detailed assessment

of current and near-term readiness, the committee conducted a series of hearings. The evidence received during the hearings was of

an overextended force struggling to maintain acceptable readiness

levels in an environment of declining human and budgetary resources. The committee continues to hear significant complaints

about lack of spare parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure

and growing equipment and facilities’ backlogs and the difficulties

of conducting quality training and operational deployments with

significant personnel shortages.

The committee continues to believe that DOD must continue to

take steps to reduce costs in non-readiness related accounts. At the

295

same time, DOD must provide more aggressive oversight of the

military department’s proposals to reduce costs through contracting

out and privatization. As an example, the Department of the Navy

has proposed the contracting out of a major portion of its communications requirements without including any documentation for

this proposed five-year, $10.0 billion program. Proposals of this

magnitude may have serious budgetary consequences for other

DOD programs. The committee fully supports well developed and

justified programs that will reduce costs; but, at a time when readiness shortfalls are growing almost exponentially, the committee

does not believe that poorly developed and uncoordinated new programs, or that funding for administrative and support activities,

such as headquarters management, should be increasing. Consistent with past practice, the committee has identified spending

that does not directly support military 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 lessons learned during extensive oversight

hearings and on the unfunded priorities lists provided by the service chiefs.

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

BUDGET REQUEST INCREASES

Critical Readiness Accounts

The committee continues to place a high priority on addressing

funding shortfalls for critical readiness accounts. Accordingly, the

committee recommends an increase of approximately $1.4 billion to

support a number of underfunded readiness accounts. Although the

committee has significantly increased funding above the budget request in key readiness accounts by just under $10.0 billion during

the past six years, this has not been sufficient to significantly improve readiness across the military services. The committee recommendations emphasize problems highlighted throughout extensive hearings and have been guided by the shortfalls identified by

the service chiefs.

Depot maintenance

The committee notes that operational tempo is at an all-time

high and that aging military equipment is approaching a point beyond its useful service life. As a consequence of the aging of significant elements of the services’ combat equipment, the maintenance

of such equipment is increasingly difficult, time consuming, and expensive. The committee recommends an increase of $461.1 million

for depot maintenance to address the added requirements of aging

combat equipment as follows:

[Dollars in millions]

Army ....................................................................................................................... $125.0

Navy (Air) ............................................................................................................... 30.0

Navy (Sea) .............................................................................................................. 204.3

Marine Corps .......................................................................................................... 22.0

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................................................... 2.0

Air Force ................................................................................................................. 77.8

Real property maintenance

The committee continues to note that shortfalls in real property

maintenance accounts remain among the principal unfunded requirement identified by the service chiefs. To address the backlog

of facility maintenance, the committee recommends an increase of

$660.0 million as follows:

[Dollars in millions]

Army ................................................................................................................. $280.36

Navy .................................................................................................................. 162.17

Marine Corps ................................................................................................... 38.320

Marine Corps Reserve ..................................................................................... 3.11

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 176.04

Miscellaneous unfunded requirements

The committee recommends an increase of $403.992 million in

funding for miscellaneous unfunded readiness-related requirements

identified by the service chiefs and the committee:

[Dollars in millions]

Army ................................................................................................................. $136.152

Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 12.0

Army National Guard ..................................................................................... 24.0

Navy .................................................................................................................. 44.74

325

Marine Corps ................................................................................................... 75.8

Marine Corps Reserve ..................................................................................... 8.2

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 67.1

Air National Guard ......................................................................................... 6.0

Mobility enhancement funding

The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to improve the deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies

through investment in en route infrastructure. These funds are

provided to the United States Transportation Command Mobility

Enhancement Fund (MEF), which was established to address strategic mobility shortcomings that were apparent during the conduct

of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. The committee believes that these funds will improve the ability of the military services to respond to future contingencies.

Training accounts

The committee continues to focus its attention on the training accounts of the military services. In hearings this year, the committee continued to hear reports that insufficient funding has been

a contributing factor in the decline in the quality of training provided our combat forces. Shortages of equipment, parts, decaying

infrastructure, and personnel shortages were identified as serious

problems. The committee believes that training equipment and

base facilities at many of the established training ranges is in urgent need of both repair and upgrade.

Therefore, based on shortfalls identified by the military services,

the committee recommends an increase of $153.3 million as follows:

[Dollars in millions]

Army:

Training Range Modernization ...................................................................... $76.0

Training Area Environmental Management ................................................ 32.0

Institutional Training ..................................................................................... 15.0

Specialized Skill Training .............................................................................. 15.0

Marine Corps:

Institutional Training ..................................................................................... 4.0

Marine Corps Reserve:

Training Center Improvements ..................................................................... 1.2

Air Force:

LD/HD Flight Crew Training ........................................................................ 5.1

Institutional Training ..................................................................................... 5.0

Army Cold Weather Clothing

The committee is aware of unbudgeted requirements for the reserve components for the Extended Cold Weather Clothing System

(ECWCS), which is designed to provide protection during cold and

wet weather. The committee notes, for example, that the Army National Guard has equipped only 25 percent of its forces with this

clothing. The committee believes ECWCS is a significant contributor to the combat readiness of the individual soldier. Therefore,

the committee recommends an increase of funding for ECWCS as

follows:

[Dollars in millions]

Army National Guard ............................................................................................ $24.0

Army Reserve ......................................................................................................... 12.0

Air National Guard ................................................................................................ 6.0

326

BUDGET REQUEST REDUCTIONS

Civilian Personnel Reductions

The committee understands that in order to determine civilian

personnel requirements for the budget request, the Department of

Defense relied on actual fiscal year 1999 personnel levels and the

estimated personnel levels the Department would have on hand at

the end of fiscal year 2000 to forecast civilian personnel levels for

fiscal year 2001. The committee notes that the Department was unable to estimate accurately the fiscal year 2000 end strength prior

to the submission of the budget request. The committee further

notes the General Accounting Office (GAO) has determined that

the Department will employ fewer civilian personnel at the beginning of fiscal year 2001 than are assumed in the budget request.

Therefore, the committee recommends decreases in funding as follows:

[Dollars in millions]

Navy ........................................................................................................................ $49.6

Defense Agencies .................................................................................................... 0.9

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.

In addition, the committee understands that the Defense Foreign

Currency Fluctuation Account already contains a balance of over

$600.0 million to be used in the event that unfavorable currency

fluctuations develop. The committee believes the requested amount

is, therefore, in excess of the needs of the Department and recommends the following reductions:

[Dollars in millions]

Army ....................................................................................................................... $150.0

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 30.0

Marine Corps .......................................................................................................... 2.2

Air Force ................................................................................................................. 37.7

Defense Agencies .................................................................................................... 10.1

Headquarters Reductions

As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Department has failed

to comply with the reductions in headquarters personnel mandated

by section 921 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65). Therefore, the committee recommends decreases in funding for headquarters activities as follows:

[Dollars in millions]

Army ................................................................................................................. $27.086

Navy .................................................................................................................. 13.340

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 12.200

Special Operations Command ......................................................................... 1.682

Office, Secretary of Defense ............................................................................ 4.446

The Joint Staff ................................................................................................. 0.552

Defense Agencies ............................................................................................. 12.586

327

Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises

The committee continues to be concerned with the increasing

pace of operations throughout the military services and believes

that requirements for Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) training exercises

are levied against units already overextended with operational deployments, home station training exercises, and training exercises

at the services’ major combat training centers. The committee questions whether the benefits of the current scope of JCS exercises exceeds the costs to military units otherwise experiencing the effects

of high operational tempo. Therefore, the committee recommends a

reduction for participation in JCS exercises as follows:

[Dollars in millions]

Army ................................................................................................................. $11.000

Navy .................................................................................................................. 1.014

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 12.200

Joint Chiefs of Staff ......................................................................................... 32.914

OTHER ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Accountability of Operation and Maintenance Funding

The committee is alarmed by recent reports regarding the movement within the military services of large amounts of funds authorized and appropriated for operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts. The committee notes recent reports by the General Accounting Office (GAO) indicate the Department of Defense (DOD)

redirected funds within O&M readiness accounts by almost $43.0

billion between fiscal years 1994 and 1998. These changes to the

original intent specified by Congress included transfers into, as

well as out, of several accounts considered critical to readiness. Although these transferred funds were subsequently used for shortfalls in other O&M accounts, the committee is especially concerned

about the underexecution of funding provided by Congress in the

readiness critical accounts. The committee notes that over the fiveyear period assessed by GAO, the Department of the Navy underexecuted by $1.2 billion the ship depot maintenance portion, and

that the Department of the Air Force underexecuted by $988.4 million support of primary combat forces. The Department of the

Army, over just the past two years, underexecuted by $579.9 million its support of combat divisions. Although the committee understands that the unexecuted funds were applied to other requirements, the committee believes that movements of funds intended

for critical readiness accounts will have a severe impact on the

ability of the services to maintain readiness at acceptable levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Fines and Penalties

The committee supports the goal of the Department of Defense

(DOD) environmental quality program to transition from a reactive, compliance-driven focus to a more proactive goal-oriented approach. The committee is concerned, however, with the Department

of the Army’s effort to achieve this goal. The committee notes that

the Army continually receives a disproportional number of environVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:36 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00351 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.073 pfrm02 PsN: HR616
328

mental non-compliance assessments, and that the Army pays the

majority of fines and penalties levied against DOD. The committee

further notes, of the total DOD fines and penalties paid in fiscal

years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Army’s portion was 97, 53, and 87

percent, respectively. The committee believes that the Secretary of

the Army must place greater emphasis on efforts to achieve environmental compliance and to achieve DOD’s goals within the environmental quality program.

Navy Environmental Leadership Program

The committee continues to support the Chief of Naval Operation’s Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP) and believes that while there have been numerous programmatic successes in NELP, many of which are being implemented throughout

the Navy, budget constraints have prevented NELP from reaching

its full potential in providing solutions to priority Navy environmental problems. Current requirements include pollution prevention technologies, implementation of Green Energy Management

initiatives, and development of a regional prototype for hazardous

waste management. To support improved environmental stewardship efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

for the NELP. The committee strongly believes that this increase

in funds would permit a cost-effective leveraging of ongoing efforts

to meet urgent Navy environmental requirements.

INTELLIGENCE ISSUES

Cryptologic Skills Training

The budget request contained $1.3 million in operation and

maintenance, Army, for conducting cryptologic and language skills

training at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center (USAIC).

The committee is aware of a unique Korean language training

program developed in-house at the USAIC. The committee believes

this computer-based tool has the potential of providing critical language maintenance training for many language specialists, and it

believes this effort should be expanded to other languages.

Consequently, the committee recommends $5.3 million in operation and maintenance, Army, an increase of $4.0 million, for continued development of this language training program into the

service’s seven core language requirements. The committee also

recommends that this program be provided to the other services for

language training maintenance.

Defense Foreign Language Program

The budget request contained $61.9 million in operation and

maintenance, Army, for the Defense Language Institute (DLI)

The committee is supportive of DLI training efforts to provide

high quality linguists for the growing requirement of many agencies and services but believes that its language laboratories are in

need of technical upgrades, to include new equipment and access

to the internet. The committee is aware of local area Marine Corps

self-help efforts that have done similar upgrades very cost effectively. The committee believes the Army should utilize the Marine

329

Corps self-help assistance to upgrade the DLI language laboratories

Further, the committee is aware of an unfunded DLI initiative

to provide better language training by issuing laptop computers to

students. These computers would be used to provide language laboratory access to on-line language training materials, allow ‘‘after

hours’’ access from the institute’s dormitories, and access to ‘‘live’’

world-wide foreign training materials. The committee believes this

is a worthwhile effort that should be properly funded

Therefore, the committee recommends $64.9 million in operation

and maintenance, Army, an increase of $3.0 million, for the Defense Foreign Language Program. Of this amount, $1.0 million is

for self-help upgrade of the language laboratories and $2.0 million

is for the laptop computer initiative.

Distributed Common Ground System

The committee understands that the Air Force is currently operating with a waiver to utilize communications for the Air Force’s

Distributed Common Ground Systems (DCGS) reachback operations that are provided in whole or part by national agencies within the National Foreign Intelligence Program. The committee further understands that this arrangement has allowed the DCGS to

have access to wideband communications at very inexpensive rates,

and accordingly, that the Air Force is seeking a permanent waiver

to continue this arrangement.

However, the committee has learned that the Assistant Secretary

of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence)

has directed that all continental United States DCGS long-haul

communications are to be procured through the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). The committee understands that this

will increase the Air Force’s communications costs by a factor of 16

and that this cost increase is unfunded in the fiscal year 2001 request. The committee finds this increase incomprehensible and

notes that such direction is not in accord with congressional efforts

to create an interoperable, networked Intelligence Community communications environment.

Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence) to

provide the defense and intelligence committees a report that clearly identifies the costs, the rationale for the cost differences and the

benefits versus drawbacks of providing DCGS communications

through the national partner or the DISA. Further, this report is

to provide the rationale for approval of the current temporary waiver and the Assistant Secretary’s decision for a permanent waiver.

The committee directs that no DCGS funding authorized for appropriation in this act be obligated or expended by DISA, or transferred through DISA, for procurement or lease of DCGS communications until this report is provided.

Eagle Vision Commercial Imagery

The budget request contained $10.0 million for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to purchase commercial data.

330

The committee notes the successful Air Force operation of the

Eagle Vision commercial imagery ground station, which has resulted in timely, unclassified imagery support to the theater commanders-in-chief (CINCs). Much of this imagery has been unique

and could not be provided by other technical means due to higher

priorities. The committee believes that there are insufficient funds

to meet the CINCs’ commercial image and mapping needs and,

therefore, recommends $16.0 million, an increase of $6.0 million,

for purchasing Eagle Vision commercial imagery.

Integrated Broadcast Service

The budget request contained $15.1 million in operations and

maintenance, Navy, for the Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS).

The committee notes that, subsequent to the submission of the

budget request to Congress, the IBS executive agent was changed

from the Navy to the Air Force. Therefore, the committee recommends a transfer of $15.1 million from operation and maintenance, Navy, to operation and maintenance, Air Force.

RC–135 and U–2 Operations and Maintenance

The budget request contained a total of $373.1 million for operations and maintenance of the RC–135 and U–2 aircraft fleets.

The committee is concerned that funding for many Intelligence

Community programs, including intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft are regularly transferred from the programs for which funds were authorized and appropriated to fund

shortfalls in other programs, often not related to ISR requirements.

The committee understands the theater and functional Commanders in Chief have stated that their number one shortfall is in

ISR aircraft and systems. The committee is concerned that transferring funding, particularly operation and maintenance funding,

from ISR aircraft to fund non-intelligence programs exacerbates

the CINCs’ ISR shortfalls.

Therefore the committee directs that the RC–135 and U–2 programs be designated as congressional interest items.

MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION ISSUES

Armed Forces Recreation Centers

The committee notes that the Army operates, on behalf of all

military personnel, several popular recreational facilities known

collectively as Armed Forces Recreation Centers (AFRC). These facilities provide much needed recreation opportunities to service

members and their families at a reasonable cost, and the committee has consistently supported these important programs. The

committee is aware that access to AFRC facilities is not limited to

active duty, reserve, and retired service members, but is also available to a broad array of other personnel, including many with no

military service. The committee believes that such a relatively unrestricted access policy suggests that honorably discharged veterans could be accommodated by these facilities. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the categories of personnel

with AFRC privileges to determine whether those categories should

331

be broadened to include honorably discharged veterans, and to report his findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services by January 31, 2001.

Lodging Programs

The committee is aware of a recent change in lodging policy by

the Department of Defense (DOD) that all permanent change of

station travel be considered as official travel for the purposes of onbase lodging. The committee notes this change in policy will cost

Army Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs alone over

$14.0 million annually. The committee is also concerned that this

action essentially donates approximately $75.0 million soldier dollars invested in bricks and mortar lodging facilities to appropriated

fund accounts. In the course of attempting to determine the policy

reason underpinning the regulatory change, the committee learned

that the files documenting the reason for this decision could not be

found. DOD officials were thus forced to speculate as to the actual

policy rationale used, but most often have cited consistency among

the military services as the reason. The committee believes that a

shift of this magnitude should be the subject of open debate, rather

than a seemingly arbitrary decision apparently made in the name

of consistency. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of

Defense to review this change in policy, detailing the reasons for

the change, and to submit a plan to hold harmless Army and Marine Corps MWR by this action to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January

31, 2001.

Nonappropriated Fund Support of Official Activities

The committee is pleased to note that the service secretaries

have at last begun to provide nonappropriated fund activities with

the minimum established standard of appropriated fund support.

The committee expects this trend to continue. In that regard, the

committee heard testimony that some nonappropriated fund category C activities, which are generally expected to be self-sustaining, have become essential elements of command programs on

some installations. An example of this phenomenon is the club system, which is generally prohibited from receiving appropriated

fund support, but which is frequently used for official functions and

training sessions. The committee notes that previous criticism of

club management practices resulted in stringent restrictions on the

amount of appropriated fund support for these activities. The committee is concerned that the restrictions are too rigorous, and that

category C activities of all types are unduly penalized as a result.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the support that category C activities provide to official activities without

reimbursement and report his findings and any recommendations

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.

332

OTHER ISSUES

Army Apprenticeship Program

The committee is concerned that the Department of the Army

has paid little attention to sustaining critical readiness workforce

skills at Army depots. The committee heard testimony that the majority of skilled workers at these depots will be eligible to retire by

fiscal year 2005, and that there is no plan to fill these jobs. Many

of these workers are highly proficient craftsmen, possessing skills

that take years to develop under careful supervision. The committee believes that the Army should establish a program to hire

and train new workers equally capable of repairing complex Army

vehicles and weapons systems. The committee understands that

the Secretary of the Navy operates a successful apprenticeship program in its shipyards to address a similar shortfall in the Navy.

The committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Army to establish an apprenticeship program for Army maintenance depots to

address these critical needs and report to the Senate Committee on

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by

January 31, 2001, on his plans to implement this program. In addition, the committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million as a

separate line item in the Department of the Army’s Budget Activity

03 to establish this depot-level apprenticeship program.

Army Workload and Performance System

The committee has long supported the Department of Defense in

the development of analytical systems based on workload requirements to support its civilian personnel budget requirements. The

committee commends the Department of the Army for leading the

effort to correct this material weakness in the staffing requirements determination process by the development of the Army

Workload and Performance System (AWPS). Although slow in its

formulation, the committee continues to believe that AWPS should

be the standard functional management system for all industrial

operations and should be adequately funded. In the committee report on H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (H. Rept. 105–532), the Secretary of the Army was

required to provide the committee with a long-range master plan

for the implementation of AWPS. In its review of the AWPS master

plan, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported to the committee that untimely and inadequate funding was causing major

delays in the full implementation of AWPS. In addition, the GAO

reported that the Army needs to develop a more detailed master

plan that includes better system cost estimates for future modules,

and an improved management and oversight structure. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to update the AWPS master plan to incorporate GAO’s recommendations and submit a revised master plan to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services not later than February

1, 2001.

In order to sustain this important program at an adequate funding level, the committee recommends the addition of $2.0 million

specifically for AWPS during fiscal year 2001. The committee beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00356 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.074 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
333

lieves that this minimum level of funding is necessary for AWPS

to develop in a timely and effective manner.

Automatic Identification Technology

The committee continues to be concerned with reports of shortages of repair parts that have necessitated the grounding of critical

aviation assets and other combat equipment, and by the decrease

in mission capable rates due to a combination of increased maintenance requirements and a lack of spare parts. Although the committee has increased funding for spare parts and additional maintenance by nearly $3.5 billion between fiscal years 1994 and 2000,

the committee notes that improvement trends in these areas show

minimal improvements.

The committee understands that Automatic Identification Technology (AIT), currently being developed by the Department of the

Army, has the potential to provide the needed solutions to these

problems and could significantly improve readiness. As also discussed elsewhere in this report, AIT would make key maintenance

information available to all participants in the repair process and

would improve productivity and effectiveness to enhance overall logistics operations. In addition, AIT will provide connectivity and information to related business processes such as financial, supply

and transportation. Although Congress included funding for AIT in

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, there

is no funding in the budget request for AIT.

Because of the potential to significantly improve readiness in the

military services, the committee recommends the addition of $4.0

million for the Department of the Army to continue AIT integration.

Civilian Air Traffic Controllers

The committee notes that civilian air traffic controllers who are

employed by the Federal Aviation Administration are compensated

significantly better than air traffic controllers who are employed by

the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee understands

that the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–50) established a separate personnel system for the Federal Aviation Administration,

even though DOD air traffic controllers perform the same work to

the same standards. The committee has learned that this disparity

of pay has created a difficult recruiting and retention challenge for

DOD as the Department strives to maintain safety at military airfields around the world. The committee is disturbed that the Department has known about this problem for some time, but has yet

to formulate a solution. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to determine the best method to solve the Department’s recruiting and retention problem for air traffic controllers and report

his recommendations accompanied by any necessary legislative

changes to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services by January 31, 2001.

334

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 to bring the most modern and advanced manufacturing capabilities from commercial industry to depot and related maintenance activities, is valuable as

a technology resource which will have a positive effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department’s industrial activities.

The CTMA program is a by-product 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. The

committee is concerned that DOD has not provided funding for this

vital and cost-effective program. Therefore, the committee recommends the addition of $12.0 million for the Defense Logistics

Agency to pursue strategies for re-engineering 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. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to

ensure that funds for the CTMA program will be forthcoming in future budget requests.

Container Freight Station Operations

The committee is aware that the Military Traffic Management

Command (MTMC) is presently considering the transfer of workload from the Container Freight Station (CFS), Norfolk, Virginia,

to the Defense Distribution Center (DDC), New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. While supportive of the efforts of MTMC for its efforts to

reduce costs, the committee is concerned that MTMC has not adequately evaluated the potential adverse impact on fleet operational

requirements, contingency operation flexibility, mission readiness

of forward deployed units, operations at the Military Ocean Terminal, Norfolk, Virginia, and operations at the Norfolk Naval Air

Station. The committee is also aware that MTMC is conducting a

business case analysis to evaluate the potential impacts of the CFS

transfer on current and future military readiness.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Services on the results of the MTMC business case analysis and to assess the effects of the proposed transfer

on military readiness. Further, the committee directs the Secretary

of Defense to take no action on the transfer of any existing CFS

functions until 180 days after the submission of this report.

Core Logistics Capabilities

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)

is undertaking a study to examine the military logistics system, including a review of the implementation by the military departments of core logistics capabilities methodology as required by section 2464 of title 10, United States Code. Because the military departments have not had the benefit of clear policy guidance conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.075 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
335

cerning core logistics, the implementation of DOD’s current core logistics determination policy has not been consistent. As a result,

significant confusion has developed, which the committee believes

has worked against the most effective capitalization of resources

made available for core logistics activities.

The committee believes that the DOD core logistics study represents a necessary first step and opportunity to develop and implement the required policy and methodology on a consistent basis,

and urges the Department to complete the study as soon as possible. Every effort should be made to develop a consensus of all

those involved on those items that would be included in any final

policy guidance.

Defense Joint Accounting System

As well documented by General Accounting Office, the Inspector

General of the Department of Defense, and other Department of

Defense (DOD) studies, the DOD has had a longstanding history of

poor and inadequate automated financial accounting systems. DOD

has repeatedly indicated a commitment to financial management

reform, part of which is to integrate and thus reduce the number

of financial and accounting systems. In 1996, DOD initiated the

Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS), a financial information

management system that supports the general ledger for general

and working capital funds at the installation level. The committee

understands that DJAS will ultimately cost $322 million to develop

and fully deploy. The committee is concerned that the Department

of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force do not intend to

participate in this program.

The committee has consistently urged DOD and the military departments to move away from service unique automated information systems. The DJAS, as its title indicates, appears to be a financial accounting system that has been designed to be truly joint.

The committee fails to understand why the Navy and the Air Force

have failed to incorporate this joint accounting system and have decided to retain their own service specific legacy systems. Therefore,

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, no later than September 1, 2000, that

addresses the following:

(1) The decision to withdraw the Air Force from DJAS to include the date of the decision and justification used;

(2) The impact of the decision to withdraw the Air Force

from DJAS on the projected cost of DJAS; and

(3) The rationale why the Department of the Navy was not

required to participate in this joint program.

In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and

the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the Senate

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services, no later than September 1, 2000, that address the following:

(1) The specific rationale as to why DJAS will not meet service needs;

336

(2) The identification of any business process reengineering

initiatives that were attempted in order to participate in the

DJAS program; and

(3) The accounting systems are currently in use to support

the general ledger, funds control, budget execution, disbursing,

travel, cost accumulation and asset accounting for general and

transportation working capital funds at the installation level,

the level of funding in fiscal year 2001 to support these systems, and whether any of the identified systems will migrate

to any other system in the next five years, and if so identify

the new system.

The committee expects that a milestone III decision on DJAS

shall not be made until these reports are submitted.

Defense Personnel Records Imaging System-Electronics Military

Personnel Records System

The committee is concerned with the Defense Personnel Records

Imaging System-Electronics Military Personnel Records System

(DPRIS-EMPRS). DPRIS-EMPRS is an automated imaging system

whereby a digital image replaces the current military personnel

records systems which are stored on obsolete and worn out microfiche. The committee is concerned that the Department of the Navy

is not adequately committed to DPRIS-EMPRS because the Navy

has not adequately funded this program since fiscal year 1996. The

committee notes that the Navy recently reported that this automated system is not being properly developed and implemented,

and that an inadequate number of program management support

personnel is the principal cause of problems in the program. The

Navy also reported that the infrastructure to support the system

development, testing, and configuration management is currently

non-existent. The committee, however, notes the obligation of the

Department of Navy to maintain an adequate personnel-reporting

system. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit

a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 1,

2000, identifying the strategy for the sustainment of this system.

Department of Defense Civilian Personnel

Personnel safety

The committee is concerned with civilian personnel safety and

notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has a safety and

worker incident rate over twice the rate of comparable companies

in the private sector. The committee further notes that accidents

to federal civilian employees cost the taxpayer approximately $2.4

billion per year. In the statement of managers accompanying the

conference report on H.R. 2561 (H. Rept. 106–371), the conferees

directed the Secretary of Defense to initiate programs funded from

within existing Operation and Maintenance accounts at designated

DOD facilities that employ alternative, private sector proven, models of safety to determine the best ways to improve DOD’s record

with respect to injury incidence rates and associated costs. The

committee fully supports this effort and strongly encourages the

Secretary of Defense to initiate expeditiously the required worker

337

safety enhancement programs to bring the Department of Defense

accident rate more in line with private sector achievements.

Recruiting and retention

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense

(DOD) has not begun the planning necessary to recruit and retain

civilian employees with the technical skills required to fill the critical jobs of the future. The committee received testimony from

workforce shaping experts that such planning is essential for large,

complex organizations such as DOD. Yet, the committee continues

to receive numerous unofficial requests for special hiring authorities from various components of DOD that would solve a particular

need for hiring scientific and engineering personnel.

While the committee desires the Department to attract high

quality scientists and engineers, the committee is disturbed by the

lack of a comprehensive plan to meet this critical need. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive

plan to meet these requirements, and to report his findings and

recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services by January 31, 2001.

Distance Learning Courseware Development Program

The committee is aware that distance learning technologies have

the potential to benefit the armed forces in many ways. These technologies enable those stationed or who perform required duty away

from major military installations to complete required educational

courses, receive updates on important information, and to participate remotely in operationally-oriented learning activities. In short,

the ‘‘anytime-anywhere’’ characteristics of distance learning enable

service members, particularly those in the National Guard and Reserve, to better meet military education, training and readiness requirements. Such technologies could also have benefit in new,

evolving areas of military endeavor, such as weapons of mass destruction-related response activities. The committee anticipates

that funds authorized for distance learning will be used to create

web-based courseware to meet National Guard requirements associated with the development of weapons of mass destruction response capabilities.

Financial Policy

The committee is aware of circumstances where the military

services have not recorded financial obligations at the time that

their legal obligation is incurred. The committee notes the established financial management policy of the Department of Defense

(DOD) requires all obligations to be recorded not later than 10 calendar days following the date the obligation is incurred. The committee believes that prompt recording of all obligations is absolutely essential to prudent financial management. The committee

directs the Secretary of Defense to provide further guidance to the

military departments and to take the necessary steps to ensure

that all defense agencies follow DOD guidelines for the accurate

and timely recording of financial obligations.

338

Local School Renovation and Repair

The committee is concerned that children of military personnel

are forced to attend many local schools around the country that are

falling into disrepair. The committee understands that school districts that serve a great number of military families often have difficulty raising bond issues because the local tax base is constrained

by the presence of large federal reservations. Nevertheless, the

committee believes that failing school infrastructure is a national

problem that is not restricted to local schools serving children of

military personnel, and is therefore not appropriately solved using

Department of Defense funds. The committee is heartened to learn

that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has

passed the impact aid reauthorization bill of 2000 (H.R. 3616),

which when enacted, will provide authority for funding these

needs. The committee commends the House Committee on Education and the Workforce for its farsighted efforts on behalf of all

children of the United States, including the children of military

personnel. The committee agrees that these pressing needs should

be addressed by appropriations authorized by the committees with

jurisdiction over Department of Education funding.

Logistics Support Planning

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) is

implementing a logistics support strategy that is resulting in actions that move more authority and responsibility for the performance of logistics support operations from the public to the private

sector. Some of these actions are being taken using best practices

from the private sector and directly applying them to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of logistics support operations. In the

past, DOD has based many of these initiatives on a series of studies that promote the outsourcing of various logistics support activities such as supply and base level maintenance. The committee understands that these initiatives are intended to provide resources

that can be applied to the modernization of military systems and

equipment. The committee is concerned, however, that these activities may or may not be performed more cost-effectively in the private sector, and to what extent that at least some of these activities should be retained by the military departments to support

military requirements. In addition, the General Accounting Office

(GAO) has issued a series of reports that question the adequacy of

DOD’s long-range logistics strategic planning process. The committee believes that a comprehensive long-range logistics strategic

plan that is in concert with current statutes and past GAO recommendations will ensure the best utilization of DOD’s current

logistical infrastructure.

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United

States to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than

February 15, 2001 that addresses the following issues:

(1) An analysis of the various studies that form the basis for

DOD’s privatization initiatives to determine the extent to

which these studies provide evidence to support the cost effectiveness of on-going and proposed privatization initiatives;

339

(2) Cost and management data for military systems managed

using contractor logistics support to determine the extent to

which these systems provide information on cost-effectiveness

of this strategy of weapons system support;

(3) An examination of depot maintenance contracts and military costs for the same workloads to compare the cost and responsiveness of both categories of maintenance support;

(4) An examination of DOD core depot maintenance policy

and its implementation in each of the military services to determine:

a. How core maintenance policy is being implemented;

b. The extent to which the military depots are being allocated workloads to support new technologies and systems;

and

c. The extent to which the DOD depot maintenance

strategy and the implementation of that strategy is supporting the long-term viability of the military depots.

(5) An assessment whether source-of-repair decisions are

being made in coordination with all sectors of the logistics community and whether acquisition officials are considering total

life-cycle costs in weapons systems purchasing decisions;

(6) The type and extent of usage of waivers to bypass

supportability analyses, including source-of-repair decisions for

developments, modifications, new acquisitions, and upgrades,

and the impact on the field of these waiver decisions;

(7) An assessment of the current status of the Department

of the Army’s merger of logistics into the acquisition community, including benefits/problems encountered to date and the

validity of the rationale for the merger; and,

(8) An assessment of the methodology used by DOD in the

formulation of their long-range logistics strategic plan, and

whether the plan conforms with current statutes.

Military Affiliate Radio System

The committee reiterates its long-standing support for the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS), a Department of Defensesponsored program that relies on volunteer civilian amateur radio

operators to provide an auxiliary means of communication in the

event of local, national, or international emergencies. Although the

MARS program operates at low cost to the Department, the committee believes that the Department continues to underutilize the

system and is failing to derive maximum benefit from it.

With this in mind, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense

take a number of actions to improve the utility of MARS. Such actions should include:

(1) Increasing the visibility of MARS to senior military and

civil authority leadership;

(2) Incorporating MARS into appropriate contingency and

emergency operations plans;

(3) Increasing the use of MARS as a cost-effective and viable

alternative to commercial telecommunications for the purposes

of troop morale and welfare;

340

(4) Ensuring that all forward deployed units possess communications equipment capable of operation on MARS frequencies; and

(5) Considering the applicability of using MARS as a low-cost

test bed for the evaluation of new communications technology

and equipment.

The committee notes that contemplated changes to communications modes and frequency allocations between military and commercial use may negatively impact the ability of MARS to fulfill its

auxiliary communications role in the event of emergency. The committee also notes that section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) prevented the

commercial use of certain frequencies previously assigned to the

federal government and used primarily by the Department of Defense, and further required an interagency review prior to the commercial reallocation of frequencies currently used by the Department. The committee encourages the Department to ensure that

issues related to MARS frequency allocations are addressed in connection with any review of emergency response mission requirements.

National Maintenance Program

The committee commends the Secretary of the Army for addressing the critical maintenance needs of the Army with the establishment of the National Maintenance Program (NMP) and the inclusion in the budget request of $16.8 million as an incremental step

to execute this program worldwide. While the Army is making significant progress in developing the NMP, as well as developing

other needed organizational changes such as the Depot Maintenance Corporate Board, further improvements are needed. The

committee continues to believe that the Army needs an effective

total depot maintenance and repair program to sustain readiness.

For example, the Army still cannot identify the total amount of

depot-level maintenance work conducted at field locations. Depotlevel maintenance work is currently being performed by civilians

and active duty personnel in military units, by contractors in various field locations, as well as in the public depots. Until the Army

is able to distinguish and account for depot-level maintenance

workloads from other work performed by organizations outside of

the established maintenance depots, it is unclear how the Army

can realistically comply with existing statutes, including section

2466 of Title 10, United States Code.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Service by February 1, 2001 that identifies

the proliferation of depot-level maintenance that is performed outside of the public depots. The committee further requests that the

Comptroller General of the United States review this report and

provide an analysis, including an assessment of the Army’s ability

to comply with section 2466 of title 10 United States Code, to the

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on

Armed Services by March 31, 2001.

341

Naval Audit Service

The committee supports the Department of Defense and the military services to implement initiatives to become more efficient and

more cost effective. As an example, the Department of the Navy

plans to reorganize and consolidate the Naval Audit Service. The

committee supports this reorganization to the extent that there is

efficiency to be gained and all applicable rules, regulations, and

statutes are followed. The committee questions, however, whether

it would be efficient and economical for the Department of Navy to

close audit sites in major fleet concentration areas. The committee,

therefore, directs the Secretary of the Navy to inform the Senate

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services of any decision to close audit sites in major fleet concentration areas, and to submit documentation to support this decision, within 10 days of such a decision being made. Further, the

committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to take no action to

implement such a decision until 180 days after the Congressional

notification.

Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS)

The committee notes that the Reserve Component Automation

System (RCAS) is a system critical to the day-to-day operational

capabilities and mobilization of the Army National Guard and the

Army Reserve. The committee is concerned that without continued

support and modernization, the Army Reserve could experience a

serious deterioration in readiness. The committee is further concerned that the Army has allocated only limited funding for the

RCAS program in the future years defense program. In order to ensure this program continues to enable the effective administrative

support and mobilization capability required by the reserve components, the committee expects the Department of the Army to program sufficient funds for RCAS. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report not later that March 1, 2001

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services detailing programmed funds for RCAS

for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.

Spare and Repair Parts

The committee continues to be concerned by reports of persistent

shortages of spare and repair parts throughout the military services. The committee believes that one of the primary causes of unacceptable reliability rates, especially for operational unit aircraft,

is the shortage of spare repair parts. The status of critical Air

Force C–5 aircraft repair and spare parts is illustrative of the committee’s concern. The C–5 remains a key asset in air mobility and

the airlifting of heavy equipment and personnel to both military

contingencies and humanitarian relief efforts around the world.

While the Air Force has identified several problem areas, and has

begun to implement actions that are intended to mitigate this problem, the committee continues to receive reports of spare and repair

parts backlogs and repeated parts cannibalization of air-worthy C–

5 aircraft.

342

The committee is concerned whether the Air Force will be able

to meet all of its commitments in the future without addressing its

parts shortfall problems. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the Senate Committee on

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services no

later than January 31, 2001 and again on September 30, 2001 on

the overall status of the Air Force spare and repair parts program,

with a specific emphasis on the C–5 aircraft, to include whether

the necessary resources are programmed to address future spare

and repair parts requirements.

Urban Warfare Training

The committee notes favorably the recent assessment conducted

by General Accounting Office of the Department of Defense’s (DOD)

urban warfare training. The committee is concerned about significant shortfalls in the areas of joint experimentation, joint training

and training facilities, and intelligence. The committee is aware

that joint experimentation, which is designed to systematically

evaluate what new doctrine, organizations, and equipment are

needed for urban operations, is not taking place. Although urban

operations will likely involve larger units such as battalions and

brigades, the military services continue to concentrate their urban

training on individual soldiers and small units, such as squads,

platoons, and companies.

The committee supports the recommendation of the GAO that

the Secretary of Defense should designate a single entity to lead

and coordinate Joint Staff and service efforts to improve capabilities to conduct urban operations. The committee believes that the

current Joint Urban Working Group does not have the resources or

authority necessary to ensure the necessary coordination in this

area.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to designate an appropriate executive agent with the authority to develop

and coordinate a master plan for a DOD-wide strategy, with milestones, for improving service and joint capabilities to conduct military operations in urban environments. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to report on such a master plan to

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding

This section would authorize $lll million 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 $lll million for Working Capital

Funds of the Department of Defense.

343

Section 303—Armed Forces Retirement Home

This section would authorize $69.832 million from the Armed

Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed

Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s

Home and the Naval Home.

Section 304—Transfer From National Defense Stockpile

Transaction Fund

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer not more than $150.0 million from the amounts received from sales

in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military services.

SUBTITLE B—ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section 311—Payment of Fines and Penalties Imposed for

Environmental Violations

This section would authorize the secretary of the army and the

Secretary of the Navy to pay for specific environmental violations

at several locations within the united states.

Section 312—Necessity of Military Low-Level Flight Training to

Protect National Security and Enhance Military Readiness

This section would mandate that the environmental impact statements previously completed for special use airspace designated by

a military department, for the performance of low-level training

flights, satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (title 42, United States Code).

Section 313—Use of Environmental Restoration Accounts to

Relocate Activities from Defense Environmental Restoration Sites

This section would amend section 2703 of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize environmental restoration funds to be obligated

or expended in order to permanently relocate facilities on land

under the control of the Department of Defense, or formerly under

control of the Department, if there is a release of a hazardous material on the land, and the Department is obligated to cleanup and

restore the land. This new authority would be in effect for the next

three fiscal years.

SUBTITLE C—COMMISSARIES AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND

INSTRUMENTALITIES

Section 321—Use of Appropriated Funds to Cover Operating

Expenses of Commissary Stores

This section would provide that funds appropriated for the operation of the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) may be used for

salaries, utilities, communications, operating supplies and services,

second destination transportation costs, and above store level costs.

The committee notes that the surcharge fund currently supports

several of these items. The committee is concerned that since the

surcharge must pay operational expenses first, little or no funds reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00367 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.078 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
344

main to provide for store maintenance and replacement. The committee believes that appropriated funds are the correct funding

source for commissary store operating costs, leaving to the commissary patron the responsibility of providing for capital replacement through payment of the surcharge. The committee expects,

however, that DECA will aggressively pursue efficiencies that will

result in no increase in the requirement for appropriated fund support.

Section 322—Adjustment of Sales Prices of Commissary Store

Goods and Services to Cover Certain Expenses

This section would clarify that commissary store prices shall include the cost of first destination transportation of the goods to the

stores and the actual or estimated cost of shrinkage, spoilage, and

pilferage of merchandise under the control of commissary stores.

The committee notes that the Defense Commissary Agency has an

exceptional record in controlling shrinkage and expects that high

standard to continue.

Section 323—Use of Surcharges for Construction and Improvement

of Commissary Stores

This section would limit the responsibility of the patrons to finance the commissary system with their surcharge dollars to store

replacement and maintenance only, putting the surcharge fund on

sound financial footing. This section would provide that funds received from the surcharge on the price of goods sold in commissary

stores shall be used exclusively for construction and maintenance

of commissary stores and central product processing facilities.

The committee notes that the surcharge currently is responsible

to fund these items, as well as other expenses such as utilities, operating supplies, and Defense Commissary Agency wide information technology. The committee notes further that the surcharge is

unable to meet these expenses and still provide for the maintenance and replacement of older stores. The committee believes that

commissaries are an essential non-pay benefit for the nation’s service members, retirees, and their families; and that a system of commissary stores bereft of capital funding is not a true benefit.

Section 324—Inclusion of Magazines and Other Periodicals as an

Authorized Commissary Merchandise Category

This section would remove magazines and periodicals as items

that may be sold in commissary stores as noncommissary store inventory and add magazines and periodicals to the list of authorized

commissary store merchandise.

The committee believes that military patrons rightfully expect to

find magazines and periodicals at the checkout counter, as is the

practice in commercial grocery stores. The committee understands

that this change will provide extra funding to the commissary surcharge fund through increased sales with little impact on military

exchange sales.

345

Section 325—Use of Most Economical Distribution Method for

Distilled Spirits

This section would amend section 2488 of title 10, United States

Code, to repeal the restriction on the procurement of distilled spirits from a private distributor by nonappropriated fund instrumentalities if the use of a private distributor results in direct or indirect state taxation.

The committee notes that in some instances nonappropriated

fund instrumentalities are currently compelled to make less than

optimal purchases in order to avoid state taxes. The committee

urges nonappropriated fund instrumentalities to explore the most

economical means of procurement of all products intended for resale.

Section 326—Report on Effects of Availability of Slot Machines on

United States Military Installations Overseas

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report to

Congress the effect that the military services’ slot machine operations overseas have on military community life and service members’ personal financial stability.

SUBTITLE D—PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS BY PRIVATE-SECTOR

SOURCES

Section 331—Inclusion of Additional Information in Reports to Congress Required before Conversion of Commercial or Industrial

Type Functions to Contractor Performance

This section would amend section 2461 of title 10, United States

Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress additional information on studies concerning the change of performance

of Department of Defense functions by civilian personnel to performance by the private sector. The provision would require the

Secretary of Defense to identify when outsourcing studies were initiated, how the results of the study will affect the government

workforce, and a certification that necessary funds have been specifically included in a budget request to perform the study.

Section 332—Limitation Regarding Navy Marine Corps Intranet

Contract

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from using

FY2001 funds for payment of a long-term contract for comprehensive end-to-end information services until supporting documentation is provided to Congress.

The committee understands that the Department of the Navy’s

initiative, known as the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI), is an

effort to acquire information technology that would require a private sector contractor to own and maintain all Navy and Marine

Corps desktop computers, network hardware, and software, and to

provide all other required information technology services. The proposed transfer of responsibility from the Navy to the private sector

is to be achieved through a ‘‘seat management’’ contract. The comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.079 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
346

mittee notes that the Navy’s expected contract for at least 360,000

seats would exceed all prior government contracting experience.

The committee recognizes the Navy’s requirement for seamless

and interoperable data, voice, and video communications. The committee, however, is quite concerned with the Navy’s overall approach to this multi-billion dollar initiative. First, of utmost concern, is the Navy’s failure to present Congress with any documentation in the budget request for this initiative. In pursuit of

this initiative the Navy has circumvented internal financial management regulations and Office of Management and Budget requirements. Despite repeated requests, the Navy has not identified

what funds will be used in the procurement of the Navy Marine

Corps Intranet. The committee is concerned by the Navy’s failure

to provide basic funding information when the Navy plans to award

a multi-billion contract in fiscal year 2000. This section would prohibit the use of FY2001 funds for NMCI until the Navy provides

Congress the specific funding requirements for the NMCI contract.

The committee expects that if the Navy enters into the NMCI

contract, that in future year budget submissions the Navy will comply with all planning and budgeting documents.

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 $35.0 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 long-standing commitment to the children of military

personnel has provided significant assistance to their education.

The committee acknowledges that the Department of Education

impact aid program provides supplementary funds to eligible school

districts nationwide, and the committee believes that the Department of Education should continue to asserts its leading role to

provide federal support for the educational needs of the children of

military personnel.

Section 342—Eligibility Requirements for Attendance at Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary

Schools

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to permit

a student who is a dependent of an employee of the American Red

Cross performing armed forces emergency services on a full-time

basis to enroll in Department of Defense domestic schools located

in Puerto Rico on a reimbursable basis. The committee notes that

children of Red Cross employees stationed in overseas areas are

currently authorized to enroll in Department of Defense overseas

schools on a reimbursable basis. The committee believes that similarly-situated dependents of American Red Cross employees in

Puerto Rico should have similar privileges.

347

SUBTITLE F—MILITARY READINESS ISSUES

Section 351—Additional Capabilities of, and Reporting

Requirements for, the Readiness Reporting System

This section would amend section 117 of title 10, United States

Code to include an annual report detailing the funding programmed for deficiencies identified in the Joint Monthly Readiness

Review process. Currently, section 117 requires the Secretary of

Defense to provide Congress with a quarterly report detailing the

readiness of military units. Although generally satisfied with the

information provided by this report, the committee believes there

should be additional information included to provide an indication

that adequate funding is being programmed for identified military

readiness and capability deficiencies. This section would provide

Congress with more visibility of the existence of these readiness deficiencies and the programmed funding to rectify these known deficiencies.

This section would also require the reporting of the amount of

cannibalization performed on vehicles and aircraft during the quarter and the efforts being made to decrease the amount of cannibalization required. The committee is concerned with the increasing

amount of cannibalization that takes place in each of the service’s

maintenance programs due to the chronic shortage of spare and replacement parts. The committee continues to hear of numerous occasions where aircraft sit in hangars and are used for spare parts,

which are unavailable through normal parts requisition channels.

The cannibalization of parts creates extra work for an already overworked maintenance crew and often leads to the damage of other

parts in the process.

Section 352—Reporting Requirements Regarding Transfers from

High-Priority Readiness Appropriations

This section would amend section 483 of title 10, United States

Code, which currently requires an annual report to Congress on

any transfers from several specified high-priority readiness accounts. This section would extend the requirement for this report

and expands the report to include additional high priority sub-activity groups.

In recent years, the Department of Defense has improved the information it gives to Congress on the movement of Operations and

Maintenance (O&M) funds. The report, submitted pursuant to section 483, has been useful to the committee in trying to understand

the transfers of funds from several critical readiness accounts. The

committee believes that extending and expanding the requirement

for this report would continue to be helpful in reviewing the transfer of funds within operation and maintenance accounts.

Section 353—Department of Defense Strategic Plan to Reduce

Backlog in Maintenance and Repair of Defense Facilities

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop an

overall strategic plan for the maintenance, repair, and sustainment

of facilities and infrastructure of the Department of Defense (DOD)

to include a comprehensive strategy for facilities revitalization, reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.079 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
348

placement, demolition of unusable facilities, and sustainment maintenance tied to measurable goals, specified time frames, and expected funding in the five year defense plan. The provision would

require the plan to be submitted to the Congressional defense committees by March 15, 2001, and be updated annually.

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense and

the military services do not have complete, reliable information on

the cost associated with either maintaining their current facilities

infrastructure or the cost associated with various infrastructure reduction options. Such information is critical to the development of

a department-wide strategic plan that considers difficult options for

the care and maintenance of essential facilities and infrastructure.

The committee is also concerned that the complete disclosure of

costs associated with facilities’ deferred maintenance and repair

and demolition cannot be adequately calculated without such a

plan.

SUBTITLE G—OTHER MATTERS

Section 361—Authority to Ensure Demilitarization of Significant

Military Equipment Formerly Owned by the Department of Defense

This section would amend chapter 153 of title 10, United States

Code to allow the Secretary of Defense to recover significant military equipment that has been released by the Department of Defense without proper demilitarization. Section 1051 of the Strom

Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

(Public Law 105–261) identified the need for the Department of Defense to improve demilitarization of excess and surplus defense

property. This section would clarify the authority of the United

States to recover critical and sensitive defense property that has

been inadequately demilitarized.

Section 362—Annual Report on Public Sale of Certain Military

Equipment Identified on United States Munitions List

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Services on excess military items sold to the

public. The report would list all items sold to the public that were

included on the United States Munitions List and labeled with a

Department of Defense (DOD) demilitarization code of ‘‘B’’. Demilitarization code ‘‘B’’ is placed on any item of inventory that is included on the United States Munitions List and for which the Department of Defense does not require demilitarization before the

item is sold to the public.

The committee is concerned that once again sales of excess military items may have been diverted to uses and individuals that

could be harmful to national security. The committee is aware of

a recent case in which individuals were indicted for illegally exporting items on the munitions list to China without the required export license. The committee understands that the items included

export-controlled electronic parts for missiles and military aircraft.

349

Section 363—Registration of Certain Information Technology

Systems with Chief Information Officer

This section would require that for the next three fiscal years all

mission essential and mission critical information technology system be registered with the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense.

Section 364—Studies and Reports Required as Precondition to

Certain Manpower Reductions

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a

report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Services prior to the initiation of any civilian

manpower reductions at any organizations within the Department

of Defense. A separate report would also be required once a decision has been made to consolidate, restructure, or reengineer an organization or function within the Department.

Section 365—National Guard Assistance for Certain Youth and

Charitable Organizations

This section would amend section 508 of title 32, United States

Code to include an additional youth organization, known as Reach

for Tomorrow, to the list of youth and charitable organizations that

are eligible for assistance by the National Guard.

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW

The committee’s military personnel recommendations have four

major complementary goals that, taken together, will advance and

help to sustain the manpower readiness of the all-volunteer force.

Those four goals are to:

(1) Reform the Defense Health Program (DHP) to improve

the TRICARE managed care program; to achieve savings in the

DHP through management and process changes; to provide access for all Medicare-eligible military retirees to a pharmacy

benefit; and to set the stage for the near-term implementation

of a permanent health care program for Medicare-eligible military retirees.

(2) Continue improvements in the economic well-being of

military personnel and their families—a long term effort begun

last year by the committee—through both targeted and broadbased pay and benefits initiatives that put real dollars in the

pockets of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

(3) Assist the armed services in the demanding task of attracting and retaining sufficient numbers of quality personnel.

(4) Provide targeted increases in active and reserve military

manpower where such increases improve readiness or otherwise directly facilitate the recruiting effort.

A fundamental challenge facing the committee in achieving these

goals was that the President’s budget request was clearly inadequate in several key aspects and required substantial enhancement.

With regard to health care, for example, the budget request

failed to support the commitment of the Chairman of the Joint

350

Chiefs of Staff to provide health care reform for military retirees.

To fulfill that commitment and to make substantial progress toward defining permanently future military retiree health care, the

committee recommends a retail and mail order pharmacy benefit

for all Medicare-eligible military retirees and their families. The

committee also is committed to renewing TRICARE Senior Prime

(the Medicare subvention demonstration program) that the Department of Defense would have allowed to expire this year, and extending the two other demonstration programs—TRICARE Senior

Supplement and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.

In addition, believing that final decisions must soon be made to define the military health care benefit for Medicare-eligibles, the committee recommends a process to implement a permanent benefit in

2004. To fund the pharmacy benefit and other health care initiatives, including DHP reforms designed to reduce spending by as

much as $500.0 million over the next five years, the committee recommends an increase of over $286.0 million to the DHP.

With regard to its longstanding effort to improve the economic viability of service members and their families, the committee again

went beyond the welcome, but limited, initiatives contained in the

budget request. For example, the committee authorizes a targeted

subsistence payment, and $5.0 million, that is designed to assist

the most economically challenged service personnel—those living

off post and receiving food stamps. To more comprehensively address the economic difficulties confronting junior enlisted people,

the committee also authorizes $30.0 million and requires an upward revision of minimum housing standards. Also, the committee

provides $30.0 million, an increase of nearly 19 percent over the

budget request to accelerate the reduction in service members’ outof-pocket housing costs, and $6.0 million to establish a minimum

dislocation allowance. This latter measure, targeting junior enlisted

military personnel, would begin to reduce the substantial out-ofpocket costs military people experience while moving. Moreover, despite numerous other proposals in the President’s budget request

that both increased and reduced entitlement spending, the budget

request gave no priority to the entitlement spending needed to

allow service members to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan

(TSP). To rectify this significant shortfall, the committee, building

on the funding provided in the conference agreement on the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, authorizes

service members to begin enrolling in TSP.

Being aware of the severe and continuing challenges facing each

of the military services in their mutual goal of sustaining the allvolunteer force with sufficient numbers of quality personnel, the

committee is disturbed to learn that most service budget requests

for fiscal year 2001 reflect either steady state or decreased funding

from fiscal year 2000 when measured in the investment per recruit,

or in select critical recruiting accounts, and that the recruiting and

retention budget shortfalls identified by the services amount to

more than $700.0 million. Furthermore, the current Deputy Secretary of Defense testified to the committee that the services deliberately underfunded recruiting and retention, with the expectation

that Congress would step up to fill the shortfalls.

351

This information directly affected the committee’s decision regarding funding allocations for the services’ recruiting and retention. First, where in the past the committee has willingly provided

added resources to meet much of the services’ unfunded requirements, this year the committee recommends additional funding for

less than one third of the shortfall, an increase of $217.6 million.

Second, the recommended additional funding gives priority to enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, rather than recruiting advertising because bonuses not only are highly effective at drawing and

retaining people, but they also put money into service members’

pockets. The committee strongly urges the military services to resolve the remaining fiscal year 2001 recruiting and retention requirements in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Finally, in an effort to overcome the manpower shortfalls contained in the budget request for both the active and reserve components, the committee authorizes nearly 650 additional active duty

Navy personnel, and a total of nearly 2,900 full time support personnel in the Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.

(352)

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL

AUTHORIZATIONS

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, 2001.

Service

FY 2000 authorized &

floor

FY 2001 request

FY 2001 committee recommendationChange from

FY 2001 request

Army ............................................................................................... 480,000 480,000 480,000 0

Navy ............................................................................................... 372,037 372,000 372,642 642

USMC .............................................................................................. 172,518 172,600 172,600 0

USAF ............................................................................................... 360,877 357,000 357,000 0

DOD ................................................................................................ 1,385,432 1,381,600 1,382,242 642

The committee, responding to the critical manpower shortfall

identified by the Chief of Naval Operations, recommends an increase in Navy end strength by 642 above the requested level. The

increase will provide 500 recruiters, as well as 142 personnel for

the crew of the U.S.S. Houston that the Navy intends to retain in

the force structure. To support the additional end strength, the

committee authorizes an increase of $18.5 million in Navy military

personnel accounts.

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

end strengths contained in the budget request.

The committee is surprised that each of the active and reserve

components of the Air Force are projected to end fiscal year 2000

below the strengths authorized by law. The committee notes that

the Congressional Budget Office projects that the active Air Force

could have a shortfall of up to 4,700, the Air National Guard a

shortfall of up to 3,200, and the Air Force Reserve a shortfall of as

much as 2,300. If these predictions should become fact, the active

Air Force will violate the statutory end strength floor for a second

consecutive year. The existence of these projected shortfalls in the

Air Force is surprising because Congress provided, in the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 105–

65) and the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–79) the full funding requested by the Department of

Defense to sustain end strengths at the requested levels, as well

as additional funding beyond the budget request for recruiting and

retention initiatives. While the committee applauds the recent Air

353

Force decision to launch major short-term initiatives to stave off active component recruiting and retention shortfalls in fiscal year

2000, the committee believes that the fundamental cause of the

projected fiscal year 2000 end strength shortfalls is a lack of early

full commitment by the Department of the Air Force to sustain required manpower levels with adequate resources.

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that future budget requests comply with the requirements of section 691

of title 10, United States Code, and to provide the full funding required to sustain active and reserve end strengths at the levels required by law.

Section 403—Adjustment to End Strength Flexibility Authority

This section would authorize the Secretary to reduce the end

strength below the floor in cases where the authorized end strength

was higher than the floor. Section 691(e) of title 10, United States

Code, provides authority to the Secretary of Defense to reduce by

one-half of one per cent the authorized end strength of a service

when the statutorily authorized end strength is equal to the end

strength floor established in law.

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, 2001:

Service FY 2000 authorized

FY 2001 re- quest

FY 2001 committee recommendationChange from

FY 2001 re- quest

Army National Guard ..................................................................... 350,000 350,000 350,706 706

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

Naval Reserve ................................................................................ 90,288 88,900 88,900 0

Marine Corps Reserve .................................................................... 39,624 39,500 39,558 58

Air National Guard ......................................................................... 106,678 108,000 108,000 0

Air Force Reserve ........................................................................... 73,708 74,300 74,358 58

Coast Guard Reserve ..................................................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 0

Total .................................................................................. 873,298 873,700 874,822 1,122

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,

2001:

Service FY 2000 authorized

FY 2001 request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

FY 2001 request

Army National Guard ..................................................................... 22,430 22,448 23,154 706

Army Reserve ................................................................................. 12,804 12,806 13,106 300

Naval Reserve ................................................................................ 15,010 14,649 14,649 0

Marine Corps Reserve .................................................................... 2,272 2,203 2,261 58

Air National Guard ......................................................................... 11,157 11,148 11,148 0

Air Force Reserve ........................................................................... 1,134 1,278 1,336 58

354

Service FY 2000 authorized

FY 2001 request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

FY 2001 request

Total .................................................................................. 64,807 64,532 65,654 1,122

The committee believes that full time manning is a crucial component of readiness in the reserve components and therefore recommends an increase of 1,122 above the requested end strength for

reserves on active duty to support the reserve components. To support the increase, the committee authorizes an additional $37.5

million.

Section 413—End Strength for Military Technicians (Dual Status)

This section would authorize the following end strengths for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2001:

Service FY 2000 authorized (floor)

FY 2001 re- quest

Committee

recommendation (floor)

Change from

FY 2001 re- quest

Army National Guard ..................................................................... 23,125 22,357 23,392 1,035

Army Reserve ................................................................................. 6,474 5,271 5,921 650

Air National Guard ......................................................................... 22,247 22,221 22,247 26

Air Force Reserve ........................................................................... 9,785 9,733 9,785 52

Total .................................................................................. 61,631 59,582 61,345 1,763

The committee recommends an increase of 1,763 in the requested

end strength for military technicians (dual status). The bulk of the

increase is to meet high priority manning shortfalls in the Army

National Guard and the Army Reserve. To support the increases,

the committee authorizes a total increase of $51.0 million to the civilian personnel pay accounts of those two components.

The committee is aware that some of the military services have

attempted to reduce civilian personnel funding for technicians in

the belief that because the annual defense authorization act does

not specifically authorize end strength for non-dual status technicians, the committee is suggesting that non-dual status technicians

should not be funded. To the contrary, the committee believes that

the civilian personnel accounts of the military services must fund

not only the military technician (dual status) end strength authorized above, but also the end-strength for the non-dual status technician end strength indicated below:

Service FY 2001 request

Army National Guard ............................................................................................ 1,600

Army Reserve ......................................................................................................... 997

Air National Guard ................................................................................................ 326

Air Force Reserve ................................................................................................... 0

Total ................................................................................................................. 2,923

Section 414—Increase in Number of Members in Certain Grades

Authorized To Be on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves

This section would authorize increases in the grades of reserve

members authorized to serve on active duty or on full-time national

guard duty for the administration of the reserves or the national

guard. The section would authorize 20 additional colonels, 82 additional lieutenant colonels, 138 additional majors, 97 additional E–

355

9s, and 90 additional E–8s in the Air Force. This section would also

authorize 76 additional colonels, 219 additional lieutenant colonels,

178 additional majors, 221 additional E–9s, and 373 additional E–

8s in the Army. The committee believes these increases are necessary to support the additional missions now being performed by

the reserve components.

The committee notes that the increases listed above would be the

third consecutive year in which the grade tables were adjusted for

reserve officers on active duty in support of the reserves. The committee recognizes that section 555 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) expanded the

roles that could be performed by reserve officers on active duty in

support of the reserves and that there would be new requirements

for career progression for these officers. The committee believes a

comprehensive solution for the controlled grades is now necessary.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to

study the grades assigned to reserve officers on active duty in support of the reserves and to recommend a permanent solution for

managing the grade structure for those officers. In developing his

recommendations, the Secretary should consider the following

areas during the study:

(1) The grade structure authorized for the active duty forces

and the reasons why the grade structure for reserve officers on

active duty in support of the reserves is different;

(2) The need for independent grade limits for each reserve

component;

(3) The potential for repealing the current grade tables in

favor of a system that would manage grades based on the

grade authorized for the position occupied by the service member; and

(4) The current mix within each reserve component of traditional reservists, military/civilian technicians, regular component officers, and reserve officers on active duty in support of

the reserves in each controlled grade and how that mix for

each component would shift over time under the Secretary’s

recommended solution.

The committee further directs the Secretary to report on his findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March

31, 2001.

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Authorization of Appropriations for Military

Personnel

This section would authorize $75,801.7 million to be appropriated

for military personnel.

This authorization of appropriations reflects both reductions and

increases to the budget request that are itemized below.

356

[Dollars in millions]

Military

personnel

accounts

O&M

accounts

RECOMMENDED INCREASES

Active End Strength: ................ ................

Navy:

Add Recruiters (500) ............................................................................................................. $15.0 ................

USS Houston (142) ................................................................................................................ 3.5 ................

RC End Strength:

Army National Guard:

Add AGR’s (706) .................................................................................................................... 23.5 ................

Add Military Technicians (Dual Status) (1035) .................................................................... ................ $30.5

Army Reserve:

Add AGR’s (300) .................................................................................................................... 10.0 ................

Add Military Technicians (Dual Status) (650) ...................................................................... ................ 20.5

Air Force Reserve:

Add AGR Recruiters (50) ....................................................................................................... 1.7 ................

Add Red Horse AGR’s (8) ...................................................................................................... 0.4 ................

USMC Reserve Add ARs (58) .......................................................................................................... 1.9 ................

Compensation

Change Minimum Housing Standards for BAH .............................................................................. 30.0 ................

Accelerate Buydown of Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs .................................................................... 30.0 ................

Increase Minimum Dislocation Allowance ...................................................................................... 6.0 ................

Special Subsistence Stipend .......................................................................................................... 5.0 ................

Reimburse Pet Quarantine Fees ..................................................................................................... 1.0 ................

Recruiting & Retention:

Army:

Enlistment Bonus .................................................................................................................. 50.0 ................

Senior ROTC Recruiting ......................................................................................................... ................ 7.0

Army National Guard Enlistment Bonus ........................................................................................ 12.0

Army Reserve:

Recruiting Advertising ........................................................................................................... ................ 9.0

Additional Recruiters ............................................................................................................. 1.0 ................

Enlistment Bonus .................................................................................................................. 12.0 ................

College First .................................................................................................................................... 5.0 ................

Navy Enlistment Bonus .................................................................................................................. 24.0 ................

Navy Reserve:

Recruiting Advertising ........................................................................................................... ................ 3.7

Recruiter Support ................................................................................................................... ................ 3.0

Non-prior Svc Enlistment Bonus ........................................................................................... 2.4 ................

USMC:

Enlistment Bonus .................................................................................................................. 4.0 ................

Selective Reenlistment Bonus ............................................................................................... 4.0 ................

College Fund .......................................................................................................................... 4.4 ................

Recruiting Advertising ........................................................................................................... ................ 7.5

Recruiter Support ................................................................................................................... ................ 0.6

USMC Reserve Recruiting Advertising ............................................................................................ ................ 2.0

Air Force:

Enlistment Bonus .................................................................................................................. 7.5 ................

Selective Reenlistment Bonus ............................................................................................... 29.0 ................

College-to-USAF Enl. Program ............................................................................................... 6.0 ................

Air Guard:

Recruiter Support ................................................................................................................... ................ 3.5

Recruiting Advertising ........................................................................................................... ................ 6.0

AF Reserve:

Tuition Assistance ................................................................................................................. 5.2 ................

Air Reserve Technician Pilot Retention Bonus ...................................................................... ................ 5.0

AGR Pilot Retention Bonus .................................................................................................... 3.8 ................

Senior ROTC:

Open Air Force Senior ROTC Detachment ...................................................................................... ................ 0.4

Other Issues:

Army Reserve Funeral Honors ......................................................................................................... ................ 3.0

Naval Reserve:

Reserve Annual Training ....................................................................................................... 2.4 ................

Reserve ADT (CINC Support) ................................................................................................. 13.4 ................

Reserve ADT (Schools) ........................................................................................................... 4.4 ................

357

[Dollars in millions]

Military

personnel

accounts

O&M

accounts

ADSW (Voluntary Support) ..................................................................................................... 1.2 ................

Inactive Duty for Training Travel .......................................................................................... 3.5 ................

USMC Reserve Active Duty for Special Work ................................................................................. 3.0 ................

USMC Staffing for Voluntary Education Programs ........................................................................ ................ 4.0

International Student Program at Senior Military Colleges ........................................................... ................ 2.0

Recruiter-High School Guidance Counselor Internet Connection ................................................... ................ 2.0

Defense Health Program:

Fund Study of DHP Accrual ............................................................................................................ ................ 2.0

Fund Study of Medicare Eligible Health Options ........................................................................... ................ 2.0

Feasibility Study DOD/VA Joint Research Facility .......................................................................... ................ 2.5

Modernize TRICARE Management/Increase Use of Treatment Facilities ....................................... ................ 134.5

Reimburse travel expenses for long-distance referrals ................................................................. ................ 15.0

Reduce Catastrophic Cap for Retirees ........................................................................................... ................ 32.0

TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Benefit ................................................................................................. ................ 94.0

Chiropractic Services for Active Duty Personnel ............................................................................ ................ 3.0

Telemedicine Radiology Demonstration .......................................................................................... ................ 1.5

Total Recommended Additions .......................................................................................... 326.2 396.2

[Dollars in millions]

Military

personnel

accunts

O&M

accounts

RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS

Active Component Strength and Grade Underexecution:

Army ................................................................................................................................................ $5.3 ................

USMC .............................................................................................................................................. 16.0 ................

Air Force .......................................................................................................................................... 59.6 ................

Reserve Component Strength, Grade and Drill Underexecution:

Army National Guard ...................................................................................................................... 4.2 ................

USMC Reserve ................................................................................................................................. 0.7 ................

Air National Guard .......................................................................................................................... 1.0 ................

Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................................................ 8.1 ................

DOD Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund ................................................................................. 17.0 ................

Defense Health Program Foreign Military Training ................................................................................. ................ $10.0

Unemployment Compensation:

Army ................................................................................................................................................ 2.1 ................

Navy ................................................................................................................................................ 1.4 ................

Marine Corps .................................................................................................................................. 0.7 ................

Air Force .......................................................................................................................................... 0.6 ................

Foreign Currency Fluctuation:

Army ................................................................................................................................................ 73.3 ................

Navy ................................................................................................................................................ 45.4 ................

Marine Corps .................................................................................................................................. 4.8 ................

Air Force .......................................................................................................................................... 86.0 ................

Defense Health ............................................................................................................................... ................ 15.4

Total Recommended Reductions ................................................................................................ 326.2 25.4

(358)

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office

The committee notes that section 1501 of title 10, United States

Code, charges the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office

(DPMO) with broad responsibilities throughout the Department of

Defense concerning policy, control, and oversight of the process for

the investigation and recovery of missing persons. The committee

has learned that DPMO is developing a strategic plan intended to

serve as a roadmap for all elements of the Department in carrying

out those important responsibilities. However, the committee is

concerned that the strategic plan envisions a lessening of ongoing

efforts to account for the thousands of service members still unaccounted for in previous wars. The committee directs the Secretary

of Defense to consult the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services before implementing any

plan that would reduce the current level of effort to account for

missing personnel.

The committee further notes that the Secretary of Defense has

published directives implementing the Missing Persons Act (section

569 of Public Law 104–106), as amended. However, the committee

is disappointed that the directives do not provide a means to inform family members of the existence of classified information that

could pertain to one or more missing persons as required by section

1506(d) of title 10, United States Code. The committee directs the

Secretary of Defense to incorporate the procedures required by law

into a revised directive by December 1, 2000.

Department of Defense International Student Program at the

Military Colleges

The committee, despite working cooperatively last year with Department of Defense (DOD) officials to incorporate the Senior Military Colleges (SMC) into the DOD international student program

in a manner to allow the Secretary of Defense to expand the impact

and scope of that program, was severely disappointed that the fiscal year 2001 budget request did not include funds for the SMC

international student program. The committee, therefore, authorizes $2.0 million for the Secretary of Defense to carry out the SMC

international student program and directs the Secretary of Defense

to provide funding to the program from funds, other than those for

the Senior ROTC program, made available to the Secretary for fiscal year 2001. The committee also strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to fund this program in the fiscal year 2002

budget request.

359

Funding for Recruiting and Retention

The committee continues to be concerned about the ability of the

services to recruit and retain a quality force, as well as the apparent unwillingness or inability of the armed services to adequately

resource their recruiting and retention programs. Furthermore,

based on testimony presented to the committee, it appears that the

armed services are taking advantage of Congressional support for

recruiting and retention by underfunding their budget requests

with the expectation that additional resources for recruiting and retention will be provided in the authorization and appropriations

process.

Congressional support for recruiting and retention has been substantial, with over $400.0 million in additional funding to recruiting accounts alone provided by Congress over the last three years.

In addition, Congress crafted the extensive pay and retirement reforms enacted by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65).

Despite this support, the committee notes that the active Army,

the Army Reserve, the active Navy, the Naval Reserve, the active

Air Force, and the Air Force Reserve all failed to achieve recruiting

objectives in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, the armed services continue to experience difficulty in recruiting due to increased

college attendance, reduced youth population, and record low unemployment rates, with all components of the Air Force (active, national guard and reserve), the Army Reserve and the Naval Reserve unlikely to meet recruiting goals. Additionally, the active

Army, the active Marine Corps and active Navy will be severely

challenged to do so.

Similarly, the armed services continue to experience difficulty in

retaining personnel with certain technical skills and within units

burdened with high operations tempo. Additionally, both the active

component Air Force and the active component Navy failed to meet

retention objectives across all segments of the enlisted force during

fiscal year 1999, and are unlikely to achieve those retention objectives in fiscal year 2000.

The committee believes that DOD’s inadequate funding for recruiting and retention programs only exacerbates the recruiting

and retention difficulties. For example, following the submission of

the budget request for fiscal year 2001, the armed services reported

$704.0 million in unfunded requirements in recruiting and retention programs. Additionally, the budget request included examples

for each of the armed services, including both active and reserve

components, of recruiting and retention accounts that were funded

at considerably lower levels for fiscal year 2001 than what the

armed services expected to execute during fiscal year 2000. The

committee concludes from these facts that inadequate defense

budgets have forced the service secretaries into tough choices, with

recruiting and retention getting a lower priority than other programs. The committee believes that the low priority placed on recruiting and retention programs by budget managers can be attributed in part to the presumption that Congress will add the needed

resources that the secretaries concerned are unwilling or unable to

provide.

360

In recognition of the general inadequacy of the defense budget to

meet all the armed services requirements, the committee recommends an increase of $217.6 million over the amounts requested

for the recruiting and retention by the active and reserve components. In deciding what shortfalls to address, the committee gave

priority to those recruiting and retention initiatives that provide

money directly to service members. The details of the recommended

increases are provided in the table accompanying section 421

above.

The committee notes, however, that the recommended increase is

less than one third of the funding shortfall reported by the armed

services. The committee expects DOD and the armed services to

move aggressively to eliminate the remaining shortfall in fiscal

year 2001. Furthermore, the committee strongly recommends the

secretaries concerned include full funding for recruiting and retention programs in the fiscal year 2002 budget request and not rely

on Congress to provide the necessary resources to sustain the all

volunteer force.

Additionally, the committee is disappointed that progress in developing recruiting kiosks using computer technology has been

slowed due to inadequate funding. The committee believes that recruiting kiosks are an important initiative that should be developed

expeditiously. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to initiate a fully funded joint program to expand the testing of computer kiosks within all the military departments.

Homosexual Conduct Briefings

The committee desires to clarify the objectives of the briefings

and training sessions on the policy, regulations, and laws governing

homosexual conduct that are required by section 654 of title 10,

United States Code, or directed by the Secretary of Defense. The

committee believes that all briefings and training sessions on homosexual conduct should focus on the standards of behavior as required by law, and should be limited to the behavior expected of

service members regarding the professional treatment of other

members. The briefings and training sessions should respect and

acknowledge the personal or religious values of service members,

and they shall be informed of their right to retain them.

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to review all

homosexual conduct briefings and training being conducted by the

armed services and bring them in compliance with the committee’s

directions.

Incentives for Overseas Assignments

The committee is concerned that the military services are having

difficulty filling overseas duty positions with volunteers. The committee notes that volunteers for overseas duty in the Navy are considered to have met their sea duty requirement, and further notes

that volunteers in overseas shore-based positions hinder the Navy’s

ability to meet its ship staffing requirements. While overseas duty

is often desirable for younger unaccompanied service members, senior service members are frequently reluctant to go overseas because

of family concerns. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary

361

of Defense to study incentives for overseas assignments and report

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2000, on attainable and

affordable recommendations to resolve this problem.

National Guard Military Technician Overtime Pay

The committee notes that section 709(h) of title 32, United States

Code, prohibits Army and Air Force National Guard military technicians from receiving overtime pay. Instead, that section requires

that technicians be granted compensatory time for overtime work.

The committee recognizes that the law concerning national guard

military technician overtime has remained essentially unchanged

since the enactment of the National Guard Technicians Act of 1968

(Public Law 90–486). The committee believes that a review of this

policy is needed, however, because the role and utilization of the

full time support force has changed fundamentally since 1968. This

increased reliance on the full time force causes many military technicians to routinely work irregular and overtime hours. While the

law directs that these national guard military technicians be given

time off in lieu of overtime, the reality is that they are receiving

neither. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review

the policy and cost considerations by which national guard military

technicians are treated for overtime work and to report his findings

and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March

31, 2001.

Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act

The committee notes that section 643 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review

of the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA)

and to report his findings to Congress by September 30, 1999. The

committee considers this an important review with significant implications for many service members and their families. The committee is disappointed the review remains incomplete and encourages the Secretary to submit the report as soon as possible.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—GENERAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES

Section 501—Authority for Secretary of Defense to Suspend Certain Personnel Strength Limitations During War or National

Emergency

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to suspend

in time of war or national emergency the limits on the number of

personnel serving on active duty in the grades of E–8 and E–9, and

the number of personnel serving on active duty in support of the

reserves in grades 0–6, 0–5, 0–4, E–9, and E–8. This section would

also make the procedures for calculating the number of service

members authorized to serve in controlled grades in time of war or

362

national emergency for the categories of personnel listed above consistent with the procedures used for active duty officers.

Section 502—Authority to Issue Posthumous Commissions in the

Case of Members Dying Before Official Recommendation for Appointment or Promotion is Approved by Secretary Concerned

This section would clarify that the secretary concerned may confer posthumous commissions in cases where military members die

prior to the approval of an official recommendation for appointment

or promotion.

Section 503—Technical Correction to Retired Grade Rule for Army

and Air Force Officers

This section would repeal conflicting provisions of law regarding

the determination of retirement grade for reserve officers. This section would also clarify that retirement grade for reserve officers

will be determined in accordance with section 1370 of title 10,

United States Code.

Section 504—Extension to End of Calendar Year of Expiration Date

for Certain Force Drawdown Transition Authorities

This section would extend through December 31, 2001, certain

force drawdown transition authorities. These authorities include:

(1) Active duty early retirement authority;

(2) Special separation benefit authority;

(3) Voluntary separation incentive authority;

(4) Increased flexibility in the management of selective early

retirement boards;

(5) Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for retention of

grade upon voluntary retirement;

(6) Reduction of length of commissioned service for voluntary

retirement as an officer;

(7) Enhanced travel and transportation allowances and storage of baggage and household effects for certain involuntary

separated members;

(8) Increased flexibility for granting educational leave relating to continuing public and community service;

(9) Enhanced health, commissary and family housing benefits;

(10) Increased flexibility in the management of enrollments

of dependents in the Defense Dependents’ Education System;

(11) Definition of the force reduction transition period for reserve forces;

(12) Force reduction period reserve retirement authority;

(13) Reduction of length of non-regular service requirements

for reserve retirements;

(14) Reserve early retirement authority;

(15) Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for retention of

grade upon voluntary reserve retirement;

(16) Increased flexibility in the management of the affiliation

of active duty personnel with reserve units;

(17) Increased flexibility in the management of eligibility for

reserve educational assistance.

363

Section 505—Clarification of Requirements for Composition of Active-Duty List Selection Boards When Reserve Officers are Under

Consideration

This section would clarify section 612 of title 10, United States

Code, by specifying that reserve officers serving on active duty may

be appointed to serve on promotion boards even though they are

not on the active-duty list.

Section 506—Voluntary Separation Incentive

This section would authorize service members who simultaneously receive retired or retainer pay and voluntary separation incentive (VSI) to terminate their eligibility for VSI. The section

would also allow the service member who is eligible for retired pay

and who has received VSI to reimburse the government for the

amount of VSI received without concurrently increasing the

amount of VSI that is owed.

Section 507—Congressional Review Period for Assignment of

Women to Duty on Submarines and for Any Proposed Reconfiguration or Design of Submarines to Accommodate Female Crew

Members

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide to

Congress written notification prior to any policy change affecting

the current male-only assignment policy for submarines take effect,

and prior to the expenditure of funds to reconfigure or design a

submarine to accommodate the assignment of female crewmembers. Such changes could take place only after 120 days of continuous congressional session have expired following receipt by

Congress of the notice of the proposed changes.

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL POLICY

Section 511—Exemption from Active-Duty List for Reserve Officers

on Active Duty for a Period of Three Years or Less

This section would prevent a reserve officer voluntarily serving

on active duty for a period of three years or less from being placed

on the active-duty list and required to compete for promotion with

active duty officers. This section would also authorize such officers

to remain on the Reserve Active Status List and compete for promotion with other reserve officers. The committee considers this

section to apply to reserve component officers serving in positions

authorized by section 526(b)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code.

Section 512—Exemption of Reserve Component Medical and Dental

Officers from Counting in Grade Strengths

This section would exempt medical and dental officers from the

calculation of the number of officers in each grade authorized to

serve in an active status in a reserve component. This section

would also make the procedures for calculating the number of officers serving in controlled grades for the reserve components consistent with the procedures used for active duty officers.

364

Section 513—Continuation of Officers on the Reserve Active Status

List Without Requirement for Application

This section would authorize the secretary of a military department to offer continuation on the Reserve Active Status List to reserve officers without requiring the officer to request continuation.

Section 514—Authority to Retain Reserve Component Chaplains

and Officers in Medical Specialties Until Specified Age

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to extend the service of Medical Service Corps and biomedical sciences

officers to age 67.

Section 515—Authority for Temporary Increase in Number of Reserve Component Personnel Serving on Active Duty or Full-Time

National Guard Duty in Certain Grades

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to increase

the number of reserve members serving on active duty in support

of the reserves in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps in

the grades of 0–6, 0–5, 0–4, E–9, and E–8 by the same percentage

the Secretary is authorized to increase the end strength of that

force by section 115 of title 10, United States Code.

Section 516—Authority for Provision of Legal Services to Reserve

Component Members Following Release from Active Duty

This section would authorize legal services assistance to reservists who served on active duty for more than 29 days and their dependents for a period not to exceed twice the length of time served

on active duty.

Section 517—Entitlement to Separation Pay for Reserve Officers

Released from Active Duty Upon Declining Selective Continuation on Active Duty After Second Failure of Selection for Promotion

This section would clarify that the separation of a reserve officer

on active duty who was non-selected for promotion twice to the

same grade, and who subsequently declines selective continuation

shall be considered an involuntary separation, and would authorize

such an officer to be eligible for separation pay.

The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of the Army

was unable to prevent a number of reserve captains from being

separated from active duty involuntarily without separation pay

because the officers declined continuation on active duty after

being non-selected for promotion. The committee notes that regular

captains non-selected for promotion by the same promotion board

did receive separation pay after declining continuation on active

duty. This section would insure that similarly situated reserve officers receive separation pay in the future, but would not allow separation pay to be provided to those reserve captains separated during fiscal year 2000.

The Secretary of the Army indicates that he will rely on the

Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to restore

fairness and equity to the reserve captains denied separation pay

365

during fiscal year 2000. The committee requests that the Secretary

expedite consideration of these cases by the ABCMR to minimize

hardships for these members and their families.

Section 518—Extension of Involuntary Civil Service Retirement

Date for Certain Reserve Technicians

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to retain certain non-dual status reserve technicians

until age 60, an age beyond which these technicians would otherwise be required to separate from federal civil service as required

by section 10218 of title 10, United States Code.

The committee notes that current law was intended to reduce the

numbers of non-dual status technicians while providing for a process that minimized the impact on the technicians being separated.

The committee has learned that the process has not worked as intended, and the committee is concerned that some technicians

would be forced to retire without adequate notice as a result of that

process.

SUBTITLE C—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Section 521—College Tuition Assistance Program for Pursuit of Degrees by Members of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class

Program

This section would authorize the use of the Marine Corps Platoon

Leaders Class Tuition Assistance Program for the purpose of providing educational assistance to include legal training to commissioned officers participating in the Platoon Leaders Class program.

Section 522—Review of Allocation of Junior Reserve Officers

Training Corps Units Among the Services

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to review

and redistribute the current service Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) allocations for fiscal years 2001 to 2006 to enable those services that want to more quickly eliminate their current JROTC waiting lists and are willing to commit the necessary

resources to do so, have the opportunity to grow. Further, if the reallocation results in the Secretary of Defense determining that the

current statutory cap of 3,500 JROTC units should be increased,

then his recommendations for the increase should be included in

the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The Secretary of Defense has

begun expanding the number of JROTC units from the present

2,700 to the statutory maximum of 3,500. The committee commends this effort and encourages the Secretary of Defense to

achieve expansion before 2006, the target completion date. To that

end, the committee believes that if a military service is willing to

commit the resources to expand its JROTC program to eliminate

its waiting list of high schools that have requested a JROTC program more quickly than envisioned by the six-year Department of

Defense (DOD) plan, then the service should not be constrained by

the internal unit allocation limits of the DOD plan.

366

Section 523—Authority for Naval Postgraduate School to Enroll

Certain Defense Industry Civilians in Specified Programs Relating to Defense Product Development

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enroll

up to ten defense-industry civilians at any one time at the Naval

Postgraduate School in a defense product development curriculum

leading to the award of a master’s degree. The defense-industry civilians would be joined in the curriculum by Department of Defense civilian and military personnel who themselves are engaged

in defense product development. The committee believes that the

new authority granted by this section will create a shared learning

environment that will facilitate the growth and development of government-industry partnerships that are critical to faster and more

efficient defense acquisition.

SUBTITLE D—DECORATIONS, AWARDS, AND COMMENDATIONS

Section 531—Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to Andrew

J. Smith for Valor during the Civil War

This section would waive the statutory time limitations for the

award of the Medal of Honor to Andrew J. Smith for valor during

the Battle of Honey Hill in South Carolina.

Section 532—Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to Ed W.

Freeman for Valor during the Vietnam Conflict

This section would waive the statutory time limitations for the

award of the Medal of Honor to Ed W. Freeman for valor during

the battle of the IaDrang Valley in the Republic of Vietnam.

Section 533—Consideration of Proposals for Posthumous or Honorary Promotions or Appointments of Members or Former Members of the Armed Forces and Other Qualified Persons

This section would authorize Members of Congress to request the

secretary concerned review a proposal for posthumous or honorary

promotion or appointment of a member or former member of the

armed services or other person. The section would require the secretary concerned to review the case and provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, and the requesting Member of Congress written notice of one

of the following determinations, to include a statement of the reasons supporting the determination:

(1) The appointment or promotion does not warrant approval on

the merits.

(2) The appointment of promotion warrants approval on the merits and has been recommended to the President as an exception to

policy.

(3) The appointment or promotion warrants approval on the merits and authorization by law is required, but not recommended.

The committee is concerned that requests for posthumous or honorary promotions and appointments are being considered by Congress without the benefit of the views of the service secretaries.

367

Section 534—Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Navy

Distinguished Flying Cross to Certain Persons

This section would waive the statutory time limitations for the

award of Distinguished Flying Cross to individuals recommended

for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross by the secretaries of

the military departments.

Section 535—Addition of Certain Information to Markers on

Graves Containing Remains of Certain Unknowns from the

U.S.S. Arizona Who Died in the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941

This section would require that the Secretary of the Army, based

on a review of existing information related to the interment of unknown casualties from the U.S.S. Arizona, provide the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs with information to be added to the inscriptions

on the grave markers of those unknowns who are interred at the

National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Section 536—Sense of Congress Regarding Final Crew of U.S.S.

INDIANAPOLIS

This section would express the Sense of Congress that the commander of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS, Admiral (then Captain)

Charles Butler McVay III was not culpable for the sinking of the

ship. The section would also express the Sense of Congress that the

President should award the Presidential Unit Citation to the final

crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS for courage and fortitude after

the torpedo attack.

Section 537—Posthumous Advancement of Rear Admiral (Retired)

Husband E. Kimmel and Major General (Retired) Walter C.

Short on Retired Lists

This section would request the President to advance Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to admiral and Major General Walter

Short to lieutenant general on the retired list with no increase in

compensation or benefits. The provision also expresses the Sense of

Congress that both officers were professional and competent, and

the losses incurred during the attack on Pearl Harbor were not the

result of dereliction in the performance of duties in the case of either officer.

Section 538—Commendation of Citizens of Remy, France, for World

War II Actions

This section would commend the bravery and honor of the citizens of Remy, France for their action to bury Lieutenant Houston

Braly, 364th Fighter Group, during World War II. The section

would also recognize the efforts of the surviving members of the

United States 364th Fighter Group to raise funds to restore the

stained glass windows of Remy’s 13th century church that were destroyed.

368

SUBTITLE E—MILITARY JUSTICE MATTERS

Section 541—Recognition by States of Military Testamentary

Instruments

This section would amend chapter 53 of title 10, United States

Code, to require the fifty states of the United States, the District

of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and each territory and

possession of the United States, to include Guam, American

Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin

Islands to recognize a will prepared for a person eligible to receive

legal assistance under section 1044 of title 10, United Sates Code.

This section would also ensure that wills prepared by members of

the armed forces, their spouses, and other persons eligible for legal

assistance are admitted for state probate proceedings. This section

would also simplify will preparation for eligible personnel and afford them greater certainty and security in accomplishing their testamentary intent.

Section 542—Probable Cause Required for Entry of Names of

Subjects into Official Criminal Investigative Reports

This section would require the Department of Defense to apply

the ‘‘probable cause’’ standard before titling a crime suspect. This

section would also require the Secretary of Defense to amend the

standards and procedures for the removal of titling information

from the Defense Clearance and Investigations Index to permit the

removal of a titled person’s name by the head of the submitting Defense Criminal Investigative Organization when there is reason to

believe that the titling is in error, a person is falsely accused, no

crime occurred, or the entry does not serve the interests of justice.

The committee is concerned that the standard of the Department

of Defense for titling a crime suspect as established by Department

of Defense Instruction 5505.7 requires ‘‘credible information.’’ This

standard appears to be significantly different from the ‘‘probable

cause’’ standard common in state and federal criminal procedure.

Section 543—Collection and Use of DNA Identification Information

from Violent and Sexual Offenders in the Armed Forces

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to collect a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample from each

member of the armed forces who is, or has been, convicted of a violent or sexual offense. This section would also require the Secretary

of Defense to analyze each sample and furnish the results of each

DNA analysis to the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) for use in the Combined DNA Index System of the FBI.

Section 544—Limitation on Secretarial Authority to Grant Clemency for Military Prisoners Serving Sentence of Confinement for

Life Without Eligibility for Parole

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to make two

changes to the procedures for considering clemency for prisoners

serving sentences of life without parole. First, the authority for the

369

granting of clemency to prisoners serving sentences of life without

parole would be vested solely in the secretary of the military department concerned and would not be delegable to any other person. The section would also establish as a minimum that a prisoner

will have served twenty years of a sentence of life without parole

before being eligible for consideration for clemency. The committee

is aware that a majority of the members of the Department of Defense Corrections Council has recommended these or similar actions. The committee supports these recommendations to ensure

that prisoners serving sentences of life without parole will remain

incarcerated for a significantly longer period of time than would

otherwise be expected for prisoners serving lesser sentences.

Section 545—Authority for Civilian Special Agents of Military Department Criminal Investigative Organizations to Execute Warrants and Make Arrests

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to grant the authority to execute and serve warrants

and make arrests to the civilian special agents of their respective

military criminal investigative organization subject to certain

guidelines.

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 551—Funeral Honors Duty Compensation

This section would authorize a reserve component member assigned to a funeral honors detail for the funeral of a veteran to be

compensated at the same rate as the member would be compensated for participating in inactive-duty training.

Section 552—Test of Ability of Reserve Component Intelligence

Units and Personnel to Meet Current and Emerging Defense Intelligence Needs

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a

three-year test to determine the most effective peacetime structure

and operational employment of reserve component intelligence assets for meeting future Department of Defense peacetime operational intelligence requirements, and to establish a means of coordinating the transition of the peacetime operational support network into wartime requirements.

Section 553—National Guard Challenge Program

This section would authorize the head of a federal agency or department to provide funds to the Secretary of Defense to support

the National Guard Challenge Program, and would allow the Secretary to expend those funds notwithstanding the $62.5 million

limit in defense funding established by section 509(b) of title 32,

United States Code, for the Challenge program. The section would

also require the Secretary of Defense to establish regulations for

the Challenge program.

370

Section 554—Study of Use of Civilian Contractor Pilots for

Operational Support Missions

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to study the

feasibility and cost of using civilian contractor personnel as pilots

and other aircrew members to fly government aircraft performing

non-combat personnel transportation missions worldwide. Military

pilots and aircrew now perform these missions. The committee recommends this study to determine whether such contracting out

would help to resolve pilot shortages being experienced by several

of the armed services, and help to improve pilot retention.

Section 555—Pilot Program to Enhance Military Recruiting by

Improving Military Awareness of School Counselors and Educators

The committee has noted that at some locations the strained relationship between military recruiters and student counselors and

educators limits the access of recruiters to students. The committee

believes that historical barriers between the two groups can be

overcome and access to students enhanced by improving the understanding of student counselors and educators about military recruiting and career opportunities.

Accordingly, this section would direct the Secretary of Defense to

conduct a pilot program to improve communication with student

counselors and educators by providing funding, assistance, and information to an existing interactive Internet site designed to provide information and services to employees of local education agencies and institutions of higher education. The pilot program would

be conducted during a three-year period beginning not later than

180 days after the date of enactment of this act.

Section 556—Reimbursement for Expenses Incurred by Members in

Connection with Cancellation of Leave on Short Notice

This section would authorize the service secretaries to reimburse

members for travel expenses when leave is cancelled within 48

hours of commencing due to mission requirements of a contingency

operation.

(371)

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

OVERVIEW

The committee remains convinced that compensation provided to

service members and their families is the key to reversing unfavorable retention trends. Surveys of military members conducted during the past year have confirmed that compensation remains the

most important factor in the decision of service members to leave

the military.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000

(Public Law 106–65) enhanced and reformed the following compensation programs:

(1) Pay raises guaranteed to exceed private sector pay raises

were authorized.

(2) Pay table reform was implemented to recognize individual effort.

(3) Military retirement benefits were restored to pre-1986

levels.

(4) Basic allowance for housing (BAH) was increased to

promise improved reimbursement levels.

(5) Special pays and retention bonuses were initiated and increased to improve compensation to military members.

(6) A military Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) was authorized to

provide military members a retirement savings vehicle.

The committee is committed to fulfill the promise for continued

improvement to compensation programs begun in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65).

The committee is pleased that the budget request for fiscal year

2001 included a pay raise of 3.7 percent, one-half of one percent

above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) level, and a program to

increase BAH and reduce out-of-pocket housing costs for members

to zero by fiscal year 2005. Given the Administration’s reluctance

to fund adequate pay raises and a decision to abandon after one

year a prior six-year plan to reduce out-of-pocket housing costs, the

committee applauds the Administration’s improvement of military

compensation programs.

The committee is disappointed that the Administration was unable to identify the pay-go offsets needed to implement the military

Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). The committee is pleased that the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2001, does include

the necessary offsets. Accordingly, the committee would authorize

the military TSP to be implemented during fiscal year 2001.

The committee is concerned that even a small percentage of military families qualify for the food stamp program. Accordingly, the

committee would authorize a family assistance supplemental subsistence allowance specifically targeted to increase compensation

372

for low-income members who qualify for food stamps. The allowance would pay members the monthly amount of supplemental allowance required to remove them from the food stamp program, not

to exceed a maximum of $500 per month. Additionally, the committee would authorize a series of broad-based initiatives to enhance the fiscal welfare of young families by increasing the minimum standards for adequate housing, increasing reimbursement

for moving costs, and reducing out-of-pocket housing costs.

The committee also recognizes that military personnel are likely

to respond positively to indications that Congress is prepared to

make substantial investments in their long-term welfare. Accordingly, the committee would increase the maximum levels on several

special pays and would also establish a new retention bonus program that affords the Secretary of Defense a more flexible and responsive tool to retain service members with critical skills.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Briefings on Benefits of Military Service

The committee is concerned that the armed services have not included among the many new retention initiatives a robust program

for briefing service members on the benefits of military service. The

committee believes that retention would be improved by a program

designed to provide service members periodic briefings on benefits.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the current programs employed by the armed services to provide service members information on the full array of benefits

available to them. The review shall include an assessment of program effectiveness in communicating information on the following

benefit programs, at a minimum, as well as other programs operated by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, at the discretion of the Secretary.

(1) Military compensation and retired pay;

(2) Health care benefits, including the TRICARE program;

(3) Survivor benefits;

(4) Montgomery G.I. Bill and other education and training

opportunities;

(5) Morale, welfare, and recreational benefits, including child

care benefits;

(6) Commissary and exchange benefits;

(7) Retirement homes operated for the benefit of former military members; and

(8) Veteran benefits offered by the Department of Veterans

Affairs, including health care; disability benefits, education

and training, home loan guarantees, life insurance, burial benefits, and survivor benefits.

The Secretary shall also determine if the current programs providing information on benefits to service members require modification and expansion.

The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings and

recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.

373

Extension of Time Limitation on Use of Reserve Education Benefits

The committee is concerned that the time limitation on the use

of education benefits by members of the selected reserve detracts

from the potential of the program to promote career-long retention.

Section 16331 of title 10, United States Code, provides that members of the selected reserve who remain in an active status lose eligibility 10 years from the date the service member becomes eligible

for benefits.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the time

limitations on the use of education benefits by the selected reserve

and determine if an extension of the time limitations is useful and

cost effective. The committee directs the Secretary to report his

findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by

March 31, 2001.

Improved Basic Allowance for Housing

The committee believes that the additional funding for the basic

allowance for housing (BAH) included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) and the

proposal to reduce out-of-pocket housing costs in the fiscal year

2001 budget request will improve the quality of life for many military members and their families. The BAH rates in high cost areas

have already been significantly increased as of January 1, 2000,

pursuant to Public Law 106–65.

The committee is concerned that some landlords will view the increase in the BAH as an incentive to increase housing costs not

only for military members, but also for civilians in the local community. The committee supports additional funding for the BAH to

ensure that military families receive sufficient compensation for

adequate housing as dictated by the local housing market. The

committee intends to monitor any growth in housing costs within

areas that appear to be fueled by BAH increases and not the economic forces of the local housing market. The committee is prepared to reexamine BAH rates in areas where there is evidence

that BAH increases have unduly influenced local housing markets.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the

growth of housing costs in areas where the local costs of housing

are believed to be directly influenced by increases in BAH rates.

The Secretary shall report his findings and recommendations for

correcting the problem to the Senate Committee on Armed Services

and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31 of each

year of the period beginning in 2001 and ending in 2006.

Military Pay Day Every 14 Days

The committee recognizes that the current practice of paying

military personnel twice a month causes some pay periods to be

longer, thus increasing the financial stress for military families.

The committee notes that paying military personnel every 14 days

would provide military members with more consistent pay periods.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to

study whether the change to a 14-day pay period for military personnel is both necessary and desirable. The committee directs the

374

Secretary to report his findings and any recommendations to the

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on

Armed Services by March 31, 2001.

Pay Table Reform for Mid-Grade Enlisted Members

The committee is increasingly interested in pay increases targeted for noncommissioned officers in pay grades E–5 through E–

7. The committee recognizes that the pay table reform provision included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2000 (Public Law 106–65) did little to restore the historic pay advantages enjoyed by mid-grade and senior enlisted members when

compared to junior enlisted members.

The committee is concerned that more needs to be done to improve mid-grade enlisted pay levels. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to study the issue and present

with the fiscal year 2002 budget request either a legislative proposal to remedy the concerns of the enlisted force, or an explanation as to why the concerns of the enlisted force are not valid.

Reimbursement for Reservists’ Travel Expenses

The committee is concerned that some reservists incur significant

expenses traveling to inactive-duty training locations. This problem

becomes particularly acute when reserve members are forced to use

commercial air when surface transportation is not available or

large distances are involved. For example, reservists must use commercial air between Pacific islands and some locations in Alaska.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the current travel practices used by reservists to meet training obligations and determine the financial impact on members.

The Secretary will assess the potential advantages for reservists

and the reserve components of providing reimbursement for travel

expenses, to include the potential for increasing retention, improving recruiting, and attracting higher quality members to leadership

roles.

The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings and

recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.

Reimbursement of Permanent Change of Station Expenses

The committee is aware of the results of a study conducted by

the Department of Defense that demonstrates that military members bear approximately 40 percent of the cost of moving to a new

duty station. The committee is deeply concerned that personnel in

the grades E–4 and below bear approximately 70 percent of the financial burden to change permanent duty stations (PCS).

The committee intends to focus on improving PCS reimbursements. Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to develop a legislative proposal designed to enhance PCS reimbursement levels and to submit such a proposal

with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

375

Retired Pay Following Reduction in Grade

The committee notes that during calendar year 2000 longevity

retired pay for members of the uniformed services who entered

service after September 8, 1980, will be calculated based on the average of the highest 36 months of base pay. The committee is concerned that members covered by the high-36 rule will enjoy a windfall when reduced in grade due to misconduct prior to retirement.

Under high-36 procedures, the retired pay of such personnel is

largely based on the grade held by the member prior to the reduction in grade.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to

study the need for legislation to provide an alternative method for

calculating retired pay when a member has been reduced in grade

due to misconduct. The Secretary shall report his finding and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2001

This section would authorize a 3.7 percent military pay raise effective January 1, 2001. This pay raise would be one-half of one

percent more than the pay raise that would result if the Employment Cost Index (ECI) standard were used.

The committee strongly supports this pay raise and believes it is

critical that military members receive military pay increases over

the next five years that improve their level of pay compared to the

private sector, as authorized in section 602 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65).

Section 602—Revised Method for Calculation of Basic Allowance for

Subsistence

The committee believes that the program to transition the basic

allowance for subsistence (BAS) for enlisted members to a lower

rate established in section 602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) is no longer serving the best interests of service members.

Accordingly, this section would repeal the transition program effective October 1, 2001, and establish a process for increasing the

BAS rate in effect for the prior year by the increase in food costs

as determined by the Department of Agriculture.

The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to pay eligible

service members a partial BAS effective January 1, 2002 equal to

rate of BAS reduced by the rate of Basic Daily Food Allowance as

determined by the Secretary.

Section 603—Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance for LowIncome Members of the Armed Forces

The committee is concerned that a number of service members

are eligible to receive food stamps. Although the number of members receiving food stamps has been reduced from the 12,000 estiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00399 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.089 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
376

mated in 1996, there are still 6,300 service members believed to be

relying on food stamps to meet the nutritional needs of family

members.

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to pay members who qualify for food stamps a

monthly amount to supplement the basic allowance for subsistence

(BAS). The program would pay members who qualify for food

stamps the amount of supplemental allowance necessary to make

them ineligible for food stamps, up to a maximum of $500 dollars

per month. The member’s eligibility for food stamps would be determined by DOD officials using the same gross income standards

used by state officials to determine food stamp eligibility for the

general public, except that the income for all military members

would be calculated to include the payment of basic allowance for

housing (BAH) even when the member resides in government quarters.

Section 604—Calculation of Basic Allowance for Housing for Inside

the United States

This section would repeal the requirement that service members

pay 15 percent of housing costs out-of-pocket. The section would

also authorize the Secretary of Defense to increase basic allowance

for housing rates and to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for

military members to zero by fiscal year 2005.

Section 605—Equitable Treatment of Junior Enlisted Members in

Computation of Basic Allowance for Housing

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish

a single housing rate for members in grades E–1 through E–4 with

dependents and to increase the basic allowance for housing rate

paid to such members above the rate previously paid to members

in grade E–4.

Section 606—Basic Allowance for Housing Authorized for

Additional Members Without Dependents Who Are on Sea Duty

This section would include personnel in the grade of E–4 among

those authorized to receive basic allowance for housing (BAH)

while assigned to sea duty.

The committee notes that some personnel authorized to receive

BAH while assigned to sea duty do not maintain residences on

shore when their ships are deployed. The committee directs the

Secretary of the Navy to study this issue. The committee directs

the Secretary to submit a report on his findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.

Section 607—Personal Money Allowance for Senior Enlisted

Members of the Armed Forces

This section would authorize a $2,000 personal money allowance

to the senior enlisted members in each of the armed services.

377

Section 608—Allowance for Officers for Purchase of Required

Uniforms and Equipment

This section would increase the one-time initial uniform allowance paid to officers from $200 to $400, and the one-time additional

uniform allowance paid to officers from $100 to $200.

Section 609—Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for

Members of Precommissioning Programs

This section would increase the minimum stipend to $250 per

month, and establish a maximum stipend of $600 per month, and

it also would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to establish a tiered-stipend system. Under such a system, the committee intends that the value of the monthly stipend should grow

as a student’s involvement in ROTC grows. The changes contained

in this section would be effective on October 1, 2001. The committee is aware that the senior Reserve Officers Training Corps

(ROTC) programs of the Army and the Air Force continue to have

difficulty meeting officer commissioning objectives. The committee

notes that the Army may miss its objectives by 20 percent, and the

Air Force by five percent for fiscal year 2000. The committee further notes that the Department of Defense has reported a 20 percent reduction in the number of ROTC scholarship applications,

and that the current monthly fixed subsistence stipend of $200

paid to all contracted cadets is ineffective as a recruiting and retention measure. The committee is concerned by these trends in the

ROTC program and believes that a fundamental change is required.

Section 610—Additional Amount Available for Fiscal Year 2001

Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States

The committee remains concerned that military families are not

receiving sufficient reimbursement for housing. The committee is

pleased that the budget request included an initiative to decrease

out-of-pocket housing cost for service members, but the committee

is disappointed that the initiative would only reduce out-of-pocket

housing costs to 15 percent.

Accordingly, this section would increase the funding available for

basic allowance for housing by $30.0 million. This initiative would

reduce out-of-pocket housing costs by an additional one-half of one

percent.

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Section 611—Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay

Authorities for Reserve Forces

This section would extend the authority for the special pay for

health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve in critically short wartime specialties, 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 enlistVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00401 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.090 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
378

ment bonus until December 31, 2001. This section would also extend the authority for repayment of educational loans for certain

health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve until

January 1, 2002.

Section 612—Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses and

Nurse Anesthetists

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for registered

nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists until

December 31, 2001.

Section 613—Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of

Other Bonuses and Special Pays

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer

retention bonus, reenlistment bonus for active members, enlistment

bonus for persons with critical skills, Army enlistment bonus, special pay for nuclear qualified officers extending the period of active

service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus to December 31, 2001.

Section 614—Consistency of Authorities for Special Pay for Reserve

Medical and Dental Officers

This section would clarify that reserve medical and dental officers are paid special pay in a consistent manner.

Section 615—Special Pay for Coast Guard Physician Assistants

This section would extend the authority to pay special pay currently provided to physician assistants in the military departments

to physician assistants in the Coast Guard.

Section 616—Special Duty Assignment Pay for Enlisted Members

This section would increase the maximum amount that may be paid in special duty assignment pay from $275 to $600 per month.

The committee notes that recruiters would be eligible for this increase. Given the stress associated with recruiting duty and the importance of attracting quality service members to recruiting duty,

the committee recommends that the secretaries of the military departments begin to pay increased rates of special duty assignment

pay to production recruiters at the earliest date possible.

Section 617—Revision of Career Sea Pay

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to restructure career sea pay and increase the rates of career sea pay to a

maximum of $750 per month and the rates for premium sea pay

to $350 per month after 36 months of sea duty.

The committee continues to be concerned that the eroding value

of sea pay has contributed to the shortage of personnel in some

sea-going positions. The committee looks forward to the implementation of enhanced sea pay rates by the uniformed services at the

earliest opportunity.

379

Section 618—Revision of Enlistment Bonus Authority

This section would consolidate existing enlistment bonus authorities and establish a maximum amount of $20,000 that may be paid

to any enlistee.

Section 619—Authorization of Retention Bonus for Members of the

Armed Forces Qualified in a Critical Military Skill

The section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to implement a critical skill retention bonus program providing payments

up to $200,000 over the course of the career of a military member

effective 90 days after providing notice of the details of the program to Congress.

The committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense does

not have a retention tool sufficiently flexible to allow skill-specific

retention problems to be addressed in a timely manner.

Section 620—Elimination of Required Congressional Notification

before Implementation of Certain Special Pay Authority

This section would eliminate the requirement for the secretary

concerned to notify Congress of the intent to pay special pay to optometrists and nurse anesthetists.

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 631—Advance Payments for Temporary Lodging of

Members and Dependents

This section would authorize advance payment of temporary

lodging and living expenses incident to permanent changes in station.

Section 632—Additional Transportation Allowance Regarding

Baggage and Household Effects

This section would authorize the secretaries concerned to reimburse a member for mandatory pet quarantine fees for household

pets up to a maximum of $275 when the member incurs the fees

incident to a permanent change of station.

Section 633—Equitable Dislocation Allowances for Junior Enlisted

Members

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to increase

the amount of dislocation allowance paid to service members with

dependents in pay grades E–1 through E–4 to the amount paid to

service members in pay grade E–5.

Section 634—Authority to Reimburse Military Recruiters, Senior

ROTC Cadre, and Military Entrance Processing Personnel for

Certain Parking Expenses

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse service members and civilian employees for expenses incurred in parking their privately owned vehicles at their duty locations if they are assigned to duty as a recruiter, with a military enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00403 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.091 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
380

trance processing facility, or with a Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps detachment.

Section 635—Expansion of Funded Student Travel for Dependents

This section would authorize funded student travel payments to

be made for students pursuing graduate and vocational education

programs in addition to secondary and undergraduate education

programs.

SUBTITLE D—RETIREMENT AND SURVIVOR BENEFIT MATTERS

Section 641—Increase in Maximum Number of Reserve Retirement

Points That May be Credited in Any Year

This section would increase from 75 to 90 the maximum number

of days in any one year that a reservist may accrue as credit towards retirement benefits by permitting a reservist to earn more

points each year for attending drills, performing annual training

and completing correspondence courses.

Section 642—Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan Spousal

Consent Requirement

This section would require retirement-eligible reservists to obtain

the concurrence of their spouses before making a decision to decline

or defer participation in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit

Plan, to select a level of participation that is less than the maximum available, or to select the coverage of a child but not the

spouse. This section would conform the procedures for the Reserve

Component Survivor Benefit Plan to the procedures for the active

component Survivor Benefit Plan.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 651—Participation in Thrift Savings Plan

This section would authorize active duty and reserve members of

the uniformed services to deposit up to five percent of their basic

pay, before tax, each month in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) now

available for federal civil service employees. The section would not

require the employing department to match the member’s contributions. This section would also authorize members to deposit special

pays, incentive pays, and bonuses into a TSP account up to the extent allowable under the Internal Revenue Code. The section would

also authorize the secretary concerned to make contributions to the

TSP account belonging to members serving in a critical specialty as

a retention incentive.

(381)

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

OVERVIEW

The committee was encouraged by the early, strong commitment

late last year by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to make

major reforms in the Department of Defense health program a part

of the budget request for fiscal year 2001.

Notwithstanding that commitment, the budget request unfortunately provided only a shadow of the program support and improvements recommended by the Joint Chiefs. The request was notably bereft of any initiatives to improve military health care benefits available to Medicare-eligible military retirees.

In the face of an incomplete reform effort by the Department of

Defense, and in order to better understand the full range of reforms required, the committee undertook a deliberate oversight and

fact finding effort that included field hearings. These hearings, as

well as informal staff investigations and meetings, provided all

stake holders—beneficiaries, advocacy groups, health care providers and contractors, as well as the Department of Defense—the

ability to present options and information upon which the committee could base reform decisions. The oversight developed several

significant findings, to include:

(1) The provision of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare-eligible military retirees and their dependents was given the highest

priority by all stakeholders.

(2) Neither the Department of Defense, nor Congress, had sufficient information to move the currently running health care demonstration programs for the military Medicare-eligible beneficiaries

from the demonstration to the permanent program stage.

(3) The cost to the Defense Health Program (DHP) to process

claims was found to be three to four times that of Medicare’s cost

per claim. As a result, the committee determined that hundreds of

millions of dollars annually could be saved through investment in

reform of the DHP claims system.

(4) Access to care was severely hampered by the lack of effective

use of information technology and funding limits that reduced use

of military treatment facilities. The difficulty in getting access to

care generated enormous frustration among beneficiaries with the

TRICARE system.

(5) Despite a continuing promise that the medical benefits would

be portable from one region of the country to the next, military personnel and their families repeatedly found that not to be the case.

To address these and other issues, the committee recommends a

range of initiatives to improve and reform the DHP for all beneficiaries including active, retired and the Medicare-eligible. These

reforms are explained in more detail below in their respective secVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00405 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR616.093 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
382

tions, but can be summarized as follows by saying that the committee recommends:

(1) Implementation of a TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program to

provide the same level of benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees as is now available to other TRICARE beneficiaries through

the mail order pharmacy program and retail pharmacies.

(2) Extension until 2003 of the current Medicare related demonstration programs to ensure each program receives a fair and

comprehensive test, with an independent oversight effort required

to make recommendations to Congress on what a permanent program of health care for the Medicare-eligibles should provide.

(3) Claims processing reform, with additional investment funding

recommended to the DHP to kick-start the reform effort.

(4) Required use of Internet based systems to help improve

claims processing, access to health care and portability of benefits.

(5) Additional funding to increase use of the military treatment

facilities through the hiring of additional support staff, refurbishment of facilities, and procurement of technology and equipment.

While the committee believes that the reforms recommended

here will move DHP reform forward significantly, other challenges

will remain to ensure that the DHP is adequately funded and managed. To that end, the committee recommendations also include requirements for the Secretary of Defense to determine if accrual

funding of the DHP is necessary, and to assess whether mandatory

enrollment of beneficiaries should be required as a possible future

step.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Funding for the Defense Health Program

The committee is deeply concerned about the persistent inattention demonstrated by the Department of Defense to adequately

fund the Defense Health Program. The committee received testimony that the underfunding will reach $6.0 billion over the future

years defense plan. Two foreseeable and unfortunate responses by

military health care managers to this chronic underfunding have

resulted: reduced funding for maintenance and repair of facilities,

and the delay or elimination of infrastructure and technology investments in order to avoid reductions in the provision of health

care services. These two critical budget areas are key components

of an effective Defense Health Program. Continuing to underfund

these areas will result in less efficient facilities and, ultimately, in

a reduction in the amount and quality of services available.

The committee is pleased by the active participation of the senior

uniformed leadership of the Department of Defense in the important decisions affecting the management of the military health care

system. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to foster this level of participation and to ensure the health system is

funded to a level that not only provides for continuous patient care,

but also invests in the health system infrastructure to ensure the

long-term effectiveness of the system.

383

Preventive Health Care Services

The committee notes the recent report of the Secretary of Defense, prepared pursuant to the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H.

Rept. 106–162) describing the scope of preventive health care benefits provided to all eligible TRICARE beneficiaries. The report favorably compared the TRICARE preventive benefits to those recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American

Academy of Family Physicians and the Agency for Health Research

and Quality. At the committee’s direction, the Secretary also evaluated implementation of the ‘‘Put Prevention into Practice’’ (PPIP)

initiative prepared by each service and concluded that PPIP needs

to be more effectively and uniformly implemented. The committee

concurs with that assessment and directs the Secretary to submit

a report by March 1, 2001, to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the steps

taken to improve the implementation of the PPIP initiative.

Report on Computer-Based Patient Record and Medical Records

Tracking System

The committee notes the on-going cooperation between the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA), and the Indian Health Service to develop a Government Computer-Based Patient Record (GCPR) system. The GCPR system

would serve as the core of a medical digital network by linking the

agencies’ currently incompatible health information systems to provide a life-long medical record for all service members. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report,

beginning March 1, 2001, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the progress

to date and the remaining timelines and tasks associated with integrating these medical information systems. The committee further

directs the Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate

the program with a focus on the agencies’ plans for meeting critical

GCPR milestones, including budget and cost estimates, and issues

related to data quality, privacy, and security. The Comptroller General shall report on his findings to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services not later

than March 1, 2001.

While GCPR will provide for the timely transfer of patient

records in the future, the committee has recently learned that the

Military Personnel Records section of the National Personnel

Records Center (NPRC) has been unable to provide timely retrieval

of complete medical records needed for adjudication of claims filed

with the VA. Many medical records needed by veterans cannot be

retrieved because the records are filed according to the treating

hospital or other facilities and copies or reference to hospitalization

are normally not included in the service member’s records. The

committee understands that DOD has been working since 1995 on

a Medical Records Tracking System (MRTS) to facilitate the supply

of this information to the Medical Records Registry System being

developed by the VA and the NPRC. 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

384

31, 2001, on the progress of the MRTS and any interim measures

to assure that all hospital and medical records of service members

can be easily identified.

Report on Mandatory Enrollment Program for TRICARE

Beneficaries

The committee is aware that military beneficiaries are required

to enroll in the Department of Defense TRICARE Prime option if

they wish to participate in the managed care program. Enrollment

provides the Department of Defense a valuable management tool

on which manpower, budget, contracting, and other management

decisions are based. The committee is concerned that the same degree of analytic rigor cannot be brought to bear on decisions related

to beneficiaries using the point of service options under TRICARE

because there is no mandatory enrollment requirement. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of the

benefits to be gained by requiring TRICARE beneficiaries to enroll

in any of the Department’s TRICARE programs. The study should

include, but not be limited to, an analysis of the benefits of requiring eligible beneficiaries to enroll in TRICARE Prime or risk being

prohibited from using the Department of Defense military treatment facilities. The report should include an analysis of the value

of requiring all non-active duty beneficiaries to pay a small enrollment fee to enroll in any TRICARE program. The report shall be

submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 31,

2001.

SUBTITLE A—HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Section 701—Two-Year Extension of Authority for Use of Contract

Physicians at Military Entrance Processing Stations and Elsewhere Outside Medical Treatment Facilities

This section would extend for two years, from December 31,

2000, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to contract with

physicians to provide health care and new-recruit examination

services at military entrance processing stations and other locations. The extension would permit the Secretary of Defense to complete tests of alternative methods for streamlining the new-recruit

medical screening and make recommendations for changes to Congress.

Section 702—Medical and Dental Care for Medal of Honor

Recipients

This section would authorize Medal of Honor recipients who are

not otherwise entitled to military medical and dental care and the

dependents of those recipients to be given medical and dental care

in the same manner that such care is provided to former members

who are entitled to military retired pay and the dependents of

those former members.

385

Section 703—Provision of Domiciliary and Custodial Care for

CHAMPUS Beneficiaries and Certain Former CHAMPUS Beneficiaries

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse certain former Civilian Health and Medical Program of the

Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) beneficiaries for costs incurred for

custodial or domiciliary care services during a period of temporary

ineligibility for such services under CHAMPUS. The section would

also authorize a maximum expenditure for the continuing custodial

care program at $100.0 million.

Section 704—Demonstration Project for Expanded Access to Mental

Health Counselors

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a

demonstration project to determine the effect of increasing access

to certified professional mental health counselors by removing the

requirement for physician referral prior to engaging a counselor

under the TRICARE program. The committee is aware that certified professional mental health counselors are only authorized to

be reimbursed by TRICARE for treating military beneficiaries if a

physician refers those beneficiaries to the counselors. The committee views this referral requirement as possibly unnecessary and

would test the effect of lifting the requirement in a demonstration

project to be conducted in one TRICARE region over a two year period.

Section 705—Teleradiology Demonstration Project

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to implement

a teleradiology demonstration project for the purpose of increasing

efficiency of operations and coordination between outlying clinics

and a major military medical facility (MTF). The teleradiology initiative would be demonstrated at a multi-specialty tertiary care

MTF with a university medical school affiliation and would link at

least 5 geographically-dispersed Army, Navy and Air Force clinics

as well as remote Department of Veterans Affairs and Coast Guard

health care clinics. Once implemented, the initiative would be

unique in having all but one of the medical facilities in a single

TRICARE region using a common Composite Health Care System

(CHCS) data platform. The committee expects this teleradiology

initiative to increase the efficiency of patient and provider contacts,

particularly in the need for follow-up diagnostic and therapeutic

appointments. The project will demonstrate the usefulness of teleradiology by eliminating many follow-up appointments and accelerating the processing, reading and interpretation of radiographic

exam imagery prior to providing clinical reports and consultation

to the primary care providers in the outlying clinics. To fund this

demonstration project in fiscal year 2001, the committee authorizes

an increase of $1.5 million in the amount requested for the Defense

Health Program.

386

SUBTITLE B—TRICARE PROGRAM

Section 711—Additional Beneficiaries Under TRICARE Prime

Remote Program in the Continental United States

This section would repeal the requirement for co-payments by

family members of active duty military members under TRICARE

Prime Remote and would require the same access and claims processing standards as would be available under TRICARE Prime.

This section would also extend this program to all uniformed service personnel and their immediate family members as described in

section 101 of title 10, United States Code.

The committee is concerned that family members accompanying

an active duty member who is stationed in a location that is remote

from military treatment facilities must pay TRICARE co-payments

not normally required of active duty families that have access to

military treatment facilities.

Section 712—Elimination of Copayments for Immediate Family

This section would repeal the requirement for co-payments by

family members of active duty military members enrolled in

TRICARE Prime.

The committee is aware that some active duty families enrolled

in TRICARE Prime do not pay co-payments when they receive care

in military treatment facilities, while others are required to pay copayments for care received as a result of a referral from a military

treatment facility to a civilian network provider when the required

care is not available at the military treatment facility. This section

would eliminate that inequity.

Section 713—Modernization of TRICARE Business Practices and

Increase of Use of Military Treatment Facilities

This section would require managers for the Department of Defense TRICARE program to implement improvements in business

practices by the end of fiscal year 2001, and would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan for improving TRICARE business practices by March 15, 2001, to the Senate Committee on

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services and

require implementation of the plan by October 1, 2001. This section

would also establish improvement benchmarks for the TRICARE

program in the area of portability of the benefit. This section would

also require the Secretary of Defense to simplify and Internet-enable critical administrative processes within the military health

system and TRICARE and authorize the Department of Defense to

work with a managed care support contractor to build an open architecture model administration system in one TRICARE managed

care region.

The committee also recommends an increase of $134.5 million in

the amount requested for the Defense Health Program in fiscal

year 2001 to be used solely for the purpose of maximizing the use

of military treatment facilities. The committee recommends $85.5

million to provide additional support staff to primary care providers in the military direct care system, $20.0 million to support

procurement of a local appointing and scheduling system, and

387

$29.0 million to support local customer service and support initiatives. While the committee expects these funds to be used to improve access at the military treatment facilities, the committee also

directs that the planning and installation of the local appointing

and scheduling and customer service operations be coordinated

with the regional managed care support contractors in order to integrate and synchronize the local systems with regional applications the managed care support contractors might be operating to

the maximum extent possible.

The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense is not taking full advantage of business practices and technologies that could result in increased provider satisfaction or

budgetary savings, which could be redirected to providing increased

benefits. The committee believes opportunities exist for immediate

improvements in the areas of claims processing, appointment access, and benefit portability. The committee also continues to be

concerned that the scheduling of appointments for beneficiaries is

difficult. Many of the administrative procedures currently employed

by TRICARE program managers and claims administrators are relics of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed

Services (CHAMPUS) program. The model system would fully exploit all available technologies to enhance beneficiary and provider

satisfaction and improve TRICARE efficiency.

Section 714—Claims Processing Improvements

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement

several changes to the TRICARE claims processing system. These

actions include: replacing the Health Care Service Record (HCSR)

with the TRICARE Encounter Data system, separating the HCSR

and claims payment components of the claims adjudication and

payment system, requiring high volume TRICARE providers to

submit claims by electronic means, and increasing the use of automated voice response unit systems for determining claims status.

The committee has also coordinated with the research and development subcommittee to recommend an increase of $3.6 million in

the amount requested for the Defense Health Program in fiscal

year 2001 to be used only for the purpose of implementing the

TRICARE Encounter Data system as a replacement for the HCSR

during fiscal year 2001. During field hearings and in discussions

with TRICARE providers, the committee learned that providers

were dissatisfied with TRICARE payment levels seemingly unnecessary, administrative requirements and continuing slow claims

payment practices. The committee notes the concern of health care

providers that the timeliness of claims processing continues to be

a problem, hampering the program’s ability to attract and retain

qualified health care providers. Several witnesses also testified that

processing TRICARE claims could cost three to four times the cost

of similar Medicare claims. The committee is concerned that the

Department of Defense continues to spend money on administration that could be used to provide valuable benefits to military

beneficiaries.

388

Section 715—Prohibition Against Requirement for Prior Authorization for Certain Referrals; Report on Nonavailability-of-HealthCare Statements

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from requiring any TRICARE managed care support contractors to establish

prior approval requirements among network providers.

The committee is concerned that some TRICARE patients are

being needlessly required to seek approval prior to being referred

to another specialist or institution within the TRICARE network of

providers and institutions.

Section 716—Authority to Establish Special Locality-Based

Reimbursement Rates; Reports

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish higher rates for reimbursement for services in some localities

under certain conditions.

The committee is aware that there are a few areas in the United

States where recruitment of health care providers into the

TRICARE provider networks is hampered by TRICARE provider

reimbursement rates which are unusually low, compared to the

prevailing local or other governmental reimbursement rates.

Section 717—Reimbursement for Certain Travel Expenses

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse TRICARE beneficiaries for their reasonable expenses incurred while traveling to a referral more than 100 miles from the

location at which they normally receive their primary care services.

Provisions under TRICARE managed care support contracts require network providers to limit their referrals to specialists available within a one hour drive. However, exceptions are allowed

under certain circumstances. These so called ‘‘drive time waivers’’

can require TRICARE beneficiaries to travel great distances at

their own expense only because a particular specialist is not available within the local network of TRICARE providers. To fund this

policy change in fiscal year 2001, the committee authorizes an increase of $15.0 million in the amount requested for the Defense

Health Program.

Section 718—Reduction of Catastrophic Cap

This section would reduce the maximum amount retired

TRICARE beneficiaries could pay under TRICARE to $3000 per

family. To fund this policy change in fiscal year 2001, the committee authorizes an increase of $32.0 million in the amount requested for the Defense Health Program.

TRICARE beneficiaries not enrolled in TRICARE Prime face potential medical expenses of up to $7500 per family. The committee

is concerned that as a result of the decreasing amount of space

available care to which the retired beneficiary population has access, more families of retired military personnel who are not enrolled in TRICARE Prime will face these burdensome medical expenses.

389

Section 719—Report on Protections Against Health Care Providers

Seeking Direct Reimbursement from Members of the Uniformed

Services

The section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a

report by January 31, 2001, to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on ways to

discourage or prohibit TRICARE health care providers from seeking inappropriate direct reimbursement from military service members or their families for eligible health care services.

The committee is concerned that the financial credit status of

military service members or their family members is being adversely affected by the inability of health care providers to receive

reimbursements from TRICARE in a timely manner.

Section 720—Disenrollment Process for TRICARE Retiree Dental

Program

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to permit

retirees who enrolled in the Department of Defense Retiree Dental

Program to disenroll from the program under certain circumstances.

SUBTITLE C–HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS FOR MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BENEFICIARIES

Section 721—Implementation of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy

Program

This section would authorize establishment of the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program. The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program

would provide Medicare eligible military retirees and their eligible

family members the same pharmacy benefit as is currently available to other military health care beneficiaries through the

TRICARE preferred provider and fee-for-service options commonly

referred to as TRICARE Extra and TRICARE Standard. No enrollment fee or premium would be required, but the co-pays and out

of network deductible expenses normally associated with these programs would apply. Participation in the program would also require Medicare-eligible military retirees and their eligible family

members to be enrolled in the Medicare Part B supplemental medical insurance program. The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program

would make available the full range of prescription pharmaceuticals now offered through the Department of Defense TRICARE

uniform formulary and preserves the beneficiaries’ right to choose

a non-network pharmacy when that is their best choice. Participants in the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program would continue

to be eligible to use the pharmacies located in military treatment

facilities. To fund this requirement in fiscal year 2001, the committee authorizes an increase of $94.0 million in the amount requested for the Defense Health Program.

390

Section 722—Study on Health Care Options for Medicare-Eligible

Military Retirees

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a

study on alternatives for providing continued health care benefits

for Medicare-eligible military retirees. The section would also require the Secretary of Defense to conduct the study through an

agreement with a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) and require the Secretary of Defense to appoint an

independent committee to advise the Secretary and the FFRDC on

the conduct of the study. To fund this requirement in fiscal year

2001, the committee authorizes an increase of $2.0 million in the

amount requested for the Defense Health Program.

Section 723—Extended Coverage Under Federal Employees Health

Benefits Program

This section would extend the period of the Federal Employees

Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) demonstration program for one

year and would require the Secretary of Defense to take the necessary actions to encourage participation in the program to its fullauthorized enrollment level of 66,000 persons.

The committee is concerned that the FEHBP demonstration program has not attracted sufficient retirees to be considered a true

test of its value as an alternative source of health care benefits for

military retirees. In the selection of additional sites for this program, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to select

at least one site with at least 5,000 military retirees served by multiple military installations. The committee expects such a site

would show evidence that retirees are heavily reliant on the local

Department of Veterans Administration hospitals and outpatient

clinics, thereby demonstrating the attractiveness of the FEHBP option relative to Departments of Defense and Veterans Administration facilities. The committee also expects such a site to be representative of both urban and rural populations in order to test the

attractiveness of the FEHBP option for persons with easy access to

military treatment facilities as well as those residing in locations

more remote from military treatment facilities.

The committee is aware that some beneficiaries are reluctant to

sign up for the FEHBP program because of concerns about health

insurance availability, without any assurance of continuation in the

elected FEHBP option, when the test period ends. Congress anticipated this concern in the original authorization for the program

and provided assured availability of standard Medigap plans. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense marketing materials for

this demonstration program failed to effectively convey this assurance thereby leading potential enrollees to believe they might be

without any health insurance options at the conclusion of the demonstration program. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary to modify all marketing materials in such a way as to make

clear to potential enrollees that alternative health care insurance

will be available at the conclusion of the demonstration project.

391

Section 724—Extension of TRICARE Senior Supplement Program

This section would extend the period of the TRICARE Senior

Supplement Program for one year. The committee is concerned that

several Department of Defense TRICARE demonstration programs

will not be in effect for sufficient time to permit a complete evaluation of their desirability as an alternative TRICARE benefit or

their effectiveness as health benefit management tools.

Section 725—Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration

Project

This section would extend to December 31, 2003, the Senior

Prime Demonstration to make the project consistent with the termination date of other demonstration projects.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 731—Training in Health Care Management and

Administration

The section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a

report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Services on the continued implementation of

section 715 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106). This section would increase the

number of senior management positions requiring professional

management and administrative experience. Section 715 directed

the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the training of Department of Defense health care managers. Since the submission of

that report, the TRICARE managed care environment has changed

significantly and even more change lies on the horizon. The committee is concerned that Department of Defense personnel are not

being properly prepared before being assigned to duties requiring

expert knowledge of the managed care environment.

Section 732—Study of Accrual Financing for Health Care for

Military Retirees

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a

study on the feasibility and desirability of financing the military

health care program for uniformed services retirees on an accrual

basis. The committee expects the study be conducted by an organization, which has expertise in financial programs, retirement systems, actuarial methodologies and health care financing and is

independent of the Department of Defense. To fund this requirement in fiscal year 2001, the committee authorizes an increase of

$2.0 million in the amount requested for the Defense Health Program.

Section 733—Tracking Patient Safety in Military Medical

Treatment Facilities

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement

a system of indicators, standards, and protocols necessary to track

patient safety. The Department of Defense does not have a process

392

to systematically report, compile and analyze errors in the provision of health care under the Defense Health Program.

Section 734—Pharmaceutical Identification Technology

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement

a pharmaceutical bar code identification program to improve the

safety of Department of Defense pharmacy programs. The committee notes that similar pharmaceutical bar code identification applications utilized by the private sector have resulted in significant

improvements in patient safety.

Section 735—Management of Vaccine Immunization Program

This section would strengthen Congressional oversight of the Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program

(AVIP). The Department of Defense Inspector General and the Defense Contract Audit Agency have both been critical of the management of financial aspects of the program. The committee is concerned that poor financial practices could lead to wasteful expenditures. The committee is also concerned that these practices, if continued, could undermine service members’ confidence in the program itself. Therefore, the committee would require the Secretary

of Defense to implement several initiatives to strengthen oversight

of the program. These actions include: require the Secretary to

keep track of and report separations resulting from refusal to participate in the program; require clear guidance for emergency essential civilian personnel who are participating in AVIP; require

the Secretary of Defense to put uniform medical and administrative

exemptions into regulation; improve the system for the monitoring

of adverse reactions including ‘‘active surveillance’’ and long term

follow-up; require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan of action for modernizing all-force protection immunizations and avoid

using a single manufacturer wherever possible; require reports on

financial and overall program management.

Section 736—Study on Feasibility of Sharing Biomedical Research

Facility

Modern biomedical research requires highly sophisticated equipment, sufficient research facilities and a highly skilled and educated workforce. The committee recognizes the desire of the Army

to expand its research capabilities and commends its efforts to

partner with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), particularly

at the Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC). The partnering successes between TAMC, VA and the School of Medicine at the University of Hawaii (UH) has allowed for further collaboration. The

committee understands that the Army is interested in expanding

their research capabilities, but acknowledges the scarcity of funds

to expand research. The committee believes that it would be advantageous for the Army to conduct a feasibility study for a medical

research facility to be shared by TAMC, VA, and UH that includes

a clinical research center, educational, academic, and laboratory research space to better leverage its limited research funds. The committee authorizes an additional $2.5 million in the amount requested for the Defense Health Program to fund this study.

393

Section 737—Chiropractic Health Care for Members on Active Duty

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a plan to phase in over a period of five

years, permanent chiropractic services for all active duty military

personnel. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense

to continue to provide the same level of chiropractic health care

services and benefits during fiscal year 2001 as were provided during fiscal year 2000. The committee intends that the scope of services offered under this section would include, at a minimum, care

for neuro-musculoskeletal conditions typical among military personnel on active duty. The committee does not intend that the

scope of chiropractic services should be limited to the treatment of

conditions of the lower back.

Section 738—VA/DOD Sharing Agreements for Health Services

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to give full

force and effect to any sharing agreement entered into between the

Veterans Health Administration and the Department of Defense

treatment facilities. The section would also require the Secretary of

Defense over the next year to review all sharing agreements.

The committee is concerned that some payments from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs under

existing VA/DOD sharing agreements are not being made in accordance with the agreements.

(394)

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Procurement of Military Clothing and Clothing-Related Items by

Military Installations in the United States

Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) the Department of Defense Inspector General performed an audit of purchases of military clothing

and clothing-related items in excess of the micro-purchase threshold by military installations during fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to

determine the extent to which such procurements did not comply

with the Buy American Act. The committee is concerned with the

number of violations of the Buy American Act identified in the

audit. The committee directs the Department of Defense Inspector

General to perform a follow-up audit on the purchases of military

clothing and clothing-related items in excess of the micro-purchase

threshold by military installations during fiscal years 1998 and

1999. The audit shall also include an evaluation of DOD actions,

if any, taken since the original audit in order to improve compliance by military installations with the Buy American Act.

Compliance with Applicable Labor Laws in Procurement of Military

Clothing

The Secretary of Defense shall report to the congressional defense committees, no later than April 1, 2001, any information indicating non-compliance with applicable labor laws by contractors

supplying military clothing and clothing-related items. Emphasis

shall be placed on proper wage payments and scales. This information shall be gathered pursuant to compliance checking required by

part 22 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 801—Extension of Authority for Department of Defense

Acquisition Pilot Programs; Reports Required

This section would amend the Federal Acquisition Streamlining

Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–355) to extend until fiscal year 2005

the acquisition pilot programs originally authorized by that Act.

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit,

no later than January 1, 2001, a report evaluating the success of

these pilot programs.

395

Section 802—Technical Data Rights for Items Developed

Exclusively at Private Expense

This section would amend section 2320 of title 10, United States

Code, by modifying the circumstances under which a contractor

would be considered responsive to a solicitation. This section would

authorize the Department to negotiate with a potential contractor

the United States rights to technical data, developed exclusively at

private expense, when the technical data is necessary for normal

operations, maintenance, installation, or training. This section

would also require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations

describing the difference between normal and critical operations,

maintenance, installation, or training.

Section 803—Management of Acquisition of Mission-Essential

Software for Major Defense Acquisition Programs

This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to designate a Director of

Mission-Essential Software Management. The Director would oversee development and management of software embedded in software intensive defense acquisition programs.

The committee expects the Director to seek advice from a wide

range of organizations and officials, including the Chief Information Officer for the Department of Defense and the Software Program Managers Network. The committee also expects the Director

to examine issues best software management practices such as a

set of standard metrics, strong risk management analysis, interoperability, and opportunities for reuse of software.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than March

1, 2001, that identifies plans implemented and recommendations

made to improve the acquisition, management, development, and

maintenance of mission essential software for major defense acquisition programs. The report shall also describe any necessary legislation needed to carry out plans and recommendations.

Section 804—Extension of Waiver Period for Live-Fire Survivability

Testing for MH–47E and MH–60K Helicopter Modification Programs

This section would amend section 142 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102–484) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive the survivability testing

requirements of section 2366 of title 10, United States Code, for the

MH–47E and MH–60 K helicopters prior to full materiel release of

those systems.

Section 805—Three-Year Extension of Authority of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain Prototype

Projects

This section would amend section 845 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160), by

extending for three years the authority of the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency, the military departments, and other offiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00419 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR616.099 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
396

cials designated by the Secretary of Defense to carry out prototype

projects using transactions other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants, which must be executed with statutes or regulations applicable to contracts.

The committee believes that other transaction authority is an important acquisition tool that facilitates integration of the civilian

and military industrial bases and incorporation of commercial technology into military weapon systems. The flexibility of the other

transaction authority provides the Department the opportunity to

streamline the procurement process, facilitate development of contractor strategic relationship, take advantage of innovative or commercial business practices, and attract companies that do not traditionally do business with the Department of Defense. In an environment where commercial industry is leading defense in many

technological areas and defense budgets are declining, it is imperative that the Department continue to have the flexibility provided

by this tool to use innovative contractual instruments that provide

the opportunity to broaden the technology and industrial base or

foster new relationships and practices that support our national security.

Section 806—Certification of Major Automated Information

Systems as to Compliance with Clinger-Cohen Act

This section would require that in each of the next three fiscal

years the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer certify

that each major automated information system is in compliance

with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 prior to granting milestone approval. This section would also require the Chief Information Officer for the Department of Defense to notify the Congressional defense committees upon each decision to label a major automated information system as a special interest major technology initiative.

Section 807—Limitations on Procurement of Certain Items

This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United States

Code, to extend the limitations on the procurement of ball bearings

and roller bearings. This section would also extend the limitations

on the procurement of naval valves for another three fiscal years,

and authorize limitations on the procurement of polyacrylonitrile

based carbon fiber for the next three fiscal years.

Section 808—Multiyear Services Contracts

This section would amend section 2306b of title 10, United States

Code, to clarify that this section applies to the multiyear procurement of property, as well as to the multiyear procurement of services.

Section 809—Study on Impact of Foreign Sourcing of Systems on

Long-Term Military Readiness and Related Industrial Infrastructure

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to study and

provide a report to Congress on whether parts, components, and

materials of certain systems are obtained through domestic sources

397

or from foreign sources, and the impact on military readiness of

purchasing such items from foreign sources.

Section 810—Prohibition Against Use of Department of Defense

Funds to Give or Withhold a Preference to a Marketer or Vendor

of Firearms or Ammunition

This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from

using a preference for the procurement of items from a marketer

or vendor of firearms or ammunition that has entered into an

agreement to abide by a designated code of conduct, operating practice, or product design.

Section 811—Study and Report on Practice of Contract Bundling in

Military Construction Contracts

This section would require the General Accounting Office to

study the use of ‘‘contract bundling’’ in military construction contracts. A report on the study findings would be due to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2001.

(398)

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs

The committee notes that section 914 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) required the Secretary of Defense to establish a Center for the Study

of Chinese Military Affairs at the National Defense University. Although the Secretary established this center on March 1, 2000, the

committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has not

placed sufficient priority on ensuring that the center can carry out

its mandate. The committee is especially concerned that the Department has not identified a source of funding for the center to

allow it to proceed with hiring a permanent director and implementing the research, conference, and other activities for which the

center was established.

The committee reiterates its belief that the center should play a

central role in assessing political, strategic, and military developments within the People’s Republic of China and the security implications of the evolving U.S.-China relationship. The committee believes the importance of the center is highlighted by recent developments in the evolution of Chinese military capability and strategic

thought.

The committee believes that these developments reinforce the

need to move forward rapidly with the appointment of a permanent

director for the center by June 1, 2000, and to ensure that the center is fully operational by June 1, 2001, as required by Public Law

106–65. The committee is aware of proposals by the center’s interim director for the center to identify and hire research scholars,

create a high-level Board of Visitors, establish a working group,

and conduct at least one conference this year. The committee encourages the Department to provide adequate funding to the center

in order to allow planned activities to proceed in a timely manner.

Finally, the committee expects the Department to facilitate the

center’s mission of informing government policymakers, including

Congress, of the national goals and strategic posture of the People’s

Republic of China and that country’s ability to develop and deploy

effective military power in support of its national strategic objectives. In this regard, the committee expects the Secretary of Defense to provide the committee with regular reports on the activities and research findings of the center.

399

Management Headquarters

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2001 budget request for

the Department of Defense supports an estimated 60,867 positions

performing management headquarters functions, an increase in

personnel of nearly 30 percent over the revised fiscal year 1999

level as reported to Congress in March of this year. The committee

is aware that this personnel increase is a result of a statutorily

mandated directive contained in section 921 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65),

which was intended to more accurately capture the Department’s

personnel level of effort in support of management headquarters

activities.

The committee continues to strongly believe that management

headquarters reductions must be in alignment with overall personnel cuts that have occurred throughout the Department. However, the fiscal year 2001 budget request, after adjusting for the revised baseline, only reduces management headquarters positions by

734 from the fiscal year 2000 estimate, far below the mandated

3,182 positions required by section 921. Accordingly, the committee

recommends a decrease of funding for management headquarters

activities as provided elsewhere in this report.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 901—Change of Title of Certain Positions in the

Headquarters, Marine Corps

This section would abolish the positions of Chief of Staff and

Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff from Headquarters, Marine

Corps, authorized by sections 5041 and 5045 of title 10, United

States Code, respectively. This section would also authorize five

Deputy Commandant positions within the Marine Corps. The committee understands that this section would not change the current

staffing requirements of the Marine Corps.

Section 902—Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and

Support Workforce

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement

13,000 reductions in the Defense acquisition workforce in fiscal

year 2001. This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense

to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services

and the House Committee on Armed Services by May 1, 2001, containing an implementation plan for re-shaping, recruiting, and sustaining the Department’s acquisition workforce and any changes in

statutory authorities that the Secretary deems necessary.

The committee is aware that the Department has programmed

personnel reductions of 11,800 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in fiscal

year 2001 in the defense acquisition workforce, as defined in section 931 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261). Since 1996, however, the Department has exceeded its annual reduction goals within the acquisition workforce. The committee supports continued reductions in this area for the purposes of reducing costly overhead,

encouraging cross-functional acquisition relationships between the

400

military services, and improving the acquisition process. In addition, the committee believes the Department must reorganize and

streamline its acquisition structure to capitalize on rapidly changing technology and industry practices.

Section 903—Clarification of Scope of Inspector General Authorities

under Military Whistleblower Law

This section would authorize the inspectors general of the defense agencies and joint service organizations and civilian employees assigned as inspectors general elsewhere within the Department of Defense to receive and process protected communications

and reprisal allegations from members of the armed forces under

section 1034 of title 10, United States Code.

Section 904—Report on Number of Personnel Assigned to

Legislative Liaison Functions

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services a report identifying all personnel assigned to legislative affairs and legislative liaison offices throughout the military departments and all defense agencies not later

than December 1, 2000.

The committee has long benefited from the Department’s various

legislative affairs offices and relies on these offices to provide timely and accurate information and to respond to numerous inquires

daily. However, the committee is concerned by the increasing number of legislative affairs, or liaison offices throughout the Department. The committee notes that there are now legislative affairs or

legislative liaison offices at nearly every unified and specified command, at major military commands, and at most defense agencies.

The committee questions how the necessary coordination between

these separate various offices and the primary legislative affairs offices of the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military

departments can be effectively accomplished.

Section 905—Joint Report on Establishment of National

Collaborative Information Analysis Capability

The committee is aware of the emerging capability to collect and

analyze information using the latest computer technology to leverage the ability of analysts. The committee notes that this capability

to discern meaningful intelligence from disparate data has, to this

moment, been best demonstrated through the work of the Army’s

Land Information Warfare Activity’s (LIWA) recent analysis conducted at the request of the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

The committee believes that this data mining capability must be

rapidly and fully developed as strong foundation for future efforts

to support national defense against new and growing worldwide

asymmetrical threats.

The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to determine the proper architecture for a collaborative operations and

analysis capability to fuse the distributed efforts of the more than

thirty appropriate entities into a national level center. However,

the committee realizes that several approaches are under considerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00424 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.101 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
401

ation, including the Joint Counterintelligence Assessment Group

and the National Analysis and Operations Hub concepts. Therefore,

the committee recommends a provision, (sec. 905) that would require the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare a joint report assessing alternatives for the establishment of a national information analysis capability. The provision would also require that the Secretary of Defense take maximum advantage of the data mining, profiling and analysis capability of the LIWA.

Section 906—Organization and Management of Civil Air Patrol

This section would revise section 9441 of title 10, United States

Code to define more clearly the relationship between the United

States Air Force and the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). This section would

also authorize a new board of governors for the CAP to include representatives from the Air Force, the CAP, and from outside interests, and would also make numerous changes in the organization

of the CAP to improve administrative and financial management.

Section 907—Report on Network Centric Warfare

This section would require a report on Network Centric Warfare

(NCW). It would require the Secretary of Defense to clearly define

NCW, and outline the conceptual, doctrinal and operational concepts surrounding NCW. It would also require the Secretary to outline how NCW is related the overall strategy for military transformation. Finally, the Secretary would be required to report on

any acquisition programs and experiments that are planned or currently underway that relate to NCW.

Historically, revolutions in military affairs (RMA) have occurred

when new technologies imbedded in a significant number of military systems, combined with innovative operational concepts, have

fundamentally altered the nature of armed conflict. This combination often significantly increases the combat power and military effectiveness of military forces. The committee recognizes that due to

the rapid advances in information technology, such a condition may

exist today.

One possible concept proposed in relation to the emerging RMA

is the idea of Network Centric Warfare (NCW). According to proponents, NCW will integrate emerging technologies to create a

‘‘system-of-systems’’ that will enable the U.S. military to apply

force with dramatically greater efficiency while simultaneously reducing the risk to U.S. forces. While there has been much discussion of this concept within the Department, no consensus on the

definition, operational concepts, doctrine, programs or experiments

relating to NCW has emerged. The committee also recognizes that

some detractors are critical of NCW believing it is an attempt to

impose a technically rigid theory of warfare on the inherent chaos

of armed conflict.

The committee believes this to be an important debate and recognizes the potential enhancement in military capability that could

result from transformation concepts such as NCW. Therefore, the

committee looks forward to the Department’s assessment and to

the resultant debate on this issue.

402

Section 908—Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security

Cooperation

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish and operate the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. The purpose of the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation would be to provide professional education and

training to military, law enforcement, and civilian personnel of nations of the Western Hemisphere in defense and security matters.

The section would require that the curriculum of the Institute include a minimum of eight hours of instruction per student in

human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the

military, and the role of the military in a democratic society. The

section would additionally establish a board of visitors to oversee

the activities and curriculum of the Institute and require the board

to submit a report to the Secretary of Defense and, in turn, to Congress. This section would strike the authority for the Secretary of

the Army to operate the School of the Americas contained in section 4415 of title 10, United States Code, and direct the Secretary

of Defense to take such steps as he deems necessary to ensure that

the Secretary of the Army provides for the transition of the School

of the Americas into the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security

Cooperation.

The committee affirms its long-standing support for the mission

of the Army School of the Americas to enhance military professionalism and respect for democratic values throughout Latin

America. The committee notes the significant contribution the

School has played in advancing democratization in the hemisphere

over the past two decades. However, the committee is aware of persistent concerns that the School of the Americas does not focus sufficient classroom attention upon critical issues such as rule of law

and civilian control of the military within the countries of Latin

America. While the committee believes that these concerns are unfounded, the committee recognizes the need to implement fundamental changes to the School of the Americas to ensure that its

student curriculum is properly structured. Accordingly, the committee proposes to eliminate the School of the Americas and establish in its place the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. The committee believes that the establishment of a

board of visitors with a broad mandate to examine the activities

and curriculum of the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security

Cooperation will serve to address any future concerns associated

with the operations of the program.

The committee believes a relationship should exist between the

duration of courses offered at the Institute and instruction in

human rights, rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society. Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consider initiatives to increase such instruction beyond eight hours, where

practicable. The committee recommends the Secretary consider a

minimum of twelve hours of instruction in human rights, rule of

law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the

military in a democratic society for each student attending courses

of the Institute for up to eight weeks duration; twenty four hours

403

of instruction for courses between eight and fifteen weeks duration;

and forty hours of instruction for courses over fifteen weeks duration.

Section 909—Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security

Studies

This section would consolidate in title 10, United States Code,

various authorities that currently exist regarding the operation of

Department of Defense regional centers for security studies. It

would also require congressional notification of an intent to establish additional regional centers and an annual report to Congress

by the Secretary of Defense on the status, objectives, and operations of the regional centers.

Section 910—Change in Name of Armed Forces Staff College to

Joint Forces Staff College

The section would strike the reference to Armed Forces Staff College contained in section 2165 of title 10, United States Code, and

insert in its place Joint Forces Staff College.

(404)

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Overview

The budget request for fiscal year 2001 for counter-drug activities includes an expanding commitment by the Department of Defense to support the government of Colombia in its counter-drug efforts. In particular, the budget request would support the training

and equipping of two Colombian army counter-drug battalions in

addition to naval riverine units, upgrade Colombian military aircraft, and expand intelligence collection in Colombia. The committee notes with concern that the budget request continues the

trend of requesting authorization of appropriations for foreign military assistance through the Department of Defense as opposed to

the Department of State.

The committee is aware that the escalating production of cocaine

and heroin in Colombia has fueled the ongoing conflict between the

government of Colombia and armed insurgents and paramilitary

groups. The increasing level of violence within Colombia continues

to cause instability throughout the region and has specifically

strained the ability of the governments of Panama, Ecuador, and

Peru to respond adequately to incursions by Colombian drug trafficking organizations, guerrillas, and paramilitary forces. The committee recognizes the important contribution that the Department

of Defense can play in support of these regional allies as part of

a comprehensive and coordinated effort by the United States to

contain the drug trade. However, as noted in the committee report

on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162), the committee remains concerned

with the appropriateness of expanding the role of the Department

of Defense in support of Colombian governmental security forces

and, in particular, the force protection risks for U.S. military personnel stationed or assigned to temporary duty in Colombia.

The committee continues to support a robust Department of Defense counter-drug program and notes the challenges to U.S.

Southern Command with the 1999 closure of Howard Air Force

Base in Panama that served as a key installation for aircraft monitoring the source and transit zones. The committee notes that longterm agreements for the establishment of forward operating locations (FOLs) for drug interdiction purposes at Manta, Ecuador, and

Curacao and Aruba in the Netherlands Antilles, were recently secured and that limited operations are ongoing at these sites. The

committee also notes the testimony provided by senior officials of

the Department of Defense that an FOL in Central America is crucial in confronting drug trafficking by the way of the Eastern PaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00428 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR616.103 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
405

cific. The committee has raised concern over the prior two fiscal

years that the Department has failed to resource adequately the

gaps in Eastern Pacific detection and monitoring despite increased

usage by maritime drug traffickers. Therefore, the committee is encouraged that a long-term FOL agreement with the government of

El Salvador is pending and urges the Secretary of the Navy, as executive agent, to utilize fully such an FOL for the conduct of detection and monitoring flights over the Eastern Pacific transit zone.

Funding

The budget request for counter-drug activities contained $836.3

million for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition

to $155.9 million for operational tempo, which is included within

the operating budgets of the military services. The budget request

represents a net increase of $48.2 million from the fiscal year 2000

budget request of $788.1 million, and a decrease of $10.6 million

for operational tempo from the previous budget request of $166.5

million. The committee understands that the overall increase in the

fiscal year 2001 counter-drug budget request is attributed to increased activities in Colombia.

The committee recommends authorization for Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:

[Dollars in thousands]

FY01 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request ........................................ $836,300

Educate America’s Youth ......................................................................... 23,029

Increase Safety of Citizens ...................................................................... 81,974

Reduce Health & Social Costs ................................................................. 74,754

Shield America’s Frontiers ...................................................................... 339,486

Break Drug Sources of Supply ................................................................ 317,057

Recommended Decreases:

Air National Guard Fighter Operations ................................................. 5,000

Coastal Patrol Equipment Procurement ................................................. 3,000

Recommended Increases:

Operation Caper Focus ............................................................................ 6,000

Puerto Rico ROTHR Security .................................................................. 1,200

Southwest Border Fence .......................................................................... 6,000

Recommendation .............................................................................................. 841,500

Items of Special Interest

Air National Guard Fighter Operations

The committee notes the fighter operations of the Air National

Guard previously located at Howard Air Force Base, Panama, in

support of the Department of Defense counter-drug program have

relocated to Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, and are currently conducting operations. The committee further notes that in fiscal year

1999, the Air National Guard was funded at $7.2 million for this

purpose. The fiscal year 2001 budget request included $15.8 million

for this purpose, due in part to the high cost of temporary duty for

pilots and crews in Curacao. However, the committee believes the

budget request significantly overstates the actual costs associated

with planned operations and, therefore, recommends a reduction of

$5.0 million for this purpose.

406

Coastal Patrol equipment procurement

The budget request contained $3.0 million for the continued installation of Combatant Craft Retrieval Systems (CCRS) on two

Navy Coastal Patrol ships. The committee is aware that such

equipment supports various activities of the Special Operations

Command, but understands that CCRS provides slight benefit for

the conduct of counter-drug operations. Accordingly, the committee

recommends a decrease of $3.0 million for this program.

Operation Caper Focus

The committee notes with concern that the budget request failed

to support fully Operation Caper Focus, a valuable, ongoing operation to disrupt maritime narcotics trafficking in the Eastern Pacific. The committee continues to support strongly this important

operation and, therefore, recommends an increase of $6.0 million

for this purpose.

Puerto Rico ROTHR security

The committee understands the Relocatable Over-The-Horizon

Radar (ROTHR) based in Puerto Rico will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the interagency effort to curtail the flow of illegal

narcotics into the United States. The committee supports strongly

the ROTHR program but notes with concern that the Navy’s

planned transfer of land on the western side of Vieques, Puerto

Rico, would leave the ROTHR without adjacent federal property.

The Navy, as executive agent for the program, recognizes the inadequacy of its force protection plan for the ROTHR but the committee notes the budget request does not contain funding for this

purpose. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2

million for security enhancements of the ROTHR facility.

Southwest border fence

The committee remains concerned with the increased smuggling

of narcotics across the Southwest border in the San Diego County,

California, area. The committee is aware that the Southwest border

continues to be one of the most heavily utilized drug trafficking

corridors into the United States. Accordingly, the committee believes that existing fence and road-building activities must continue and recommends an increase of $6.0 million for this purpose.

OTHER MATTERS

Quadrennial Defense Review

The committee reiterates its concern over the pending Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Previous attempts to define U.S. national security interests in the post-Cold War world have been less

than satisfactory, as have efforts to identify the proper national

military strategy and the force structure required to execute that

strategy. The committee has previously expressed its view that any

defense strategy should be designed to protect the full range of

U.S. national security interests and that forces should be sufficient

to do so at the lowest possible risk.

407

The committee reemphasizes this view and reminds the Department that the QDR should be driven by the demands of strategy

and should not be constrained by any presupposition about the size

of future defense budgets. Previous reviews, including the 1996

Quadrennial Defense Review and the 1993 Bottom-Up Review,

were budget-driven exercises that reduced the size of the armed

forces by approximately 40 percent from 1991 levels. Neither study

recommended a substantial change to the way the services were

structured or organized. This reduced force, coupled with a national

security strategy of ‘‘engagement and enlargement,’’ has increased

operations tempo 300 percent over Cold War levels.

Currently, the force is ostensibly sized and structured to fight

and win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. However, the requirement to forward deploy forces on an ever-increasing number of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions on a rotational basis with a force designed to fight major theater wars has

strained military readiness. In addition, the committee believes

that not enough attention is paid by the Department of Defense to

future threats facing this nation and the requirement to maintain

forces to meet these threats. These include the rise of a near-peer

competitor and the difficulties posed by asymmetric threats, including weapons of mass destruction, improved ballistic missile technology, and cyber-attacks against critical infrastructure.

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take a comprehensive approach to the QDR and to develop an honest and realistic assessment of the vital national security interests of this nation. With these interests in mind, the QDR should provide recommendations for a force that is sized and structured to meet the

challenges of this new era.

Department of Defense Personnel Security Investigation

Requirements Priorities

The federal government uses personnel security investigations to

determine whether individuals should be granted access to classified information. These investigations are a critical first step in

safeguarding national security information. The committee is concerned over the results of a review conducted by the Comptroller

General that established that Department of Defense personnel security investigations are often incomplete and are not conducted in

a timely manner. Moreover, there does not seem to be a

prioritization scheme for these investigations to ensure that those

with the most sensitive duties are investigated first and subject to

more frequent review and update.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the service secretaries and heads of defense agencies,

to develop a means of quantifying requirements for personnel security investigations for clearances and of prioritizing categories of

personnel involved in duties requiring access to the most sensitive

national security information. This prioritization scheme should ensure that personnel with sensitive positions should be subject to

background investigation review and update at least every five

years to ensure the currency of relevant information. Priority categories should be used to guide the submission and expeditious

completion of background investigations on personnel with the

408

most sensitive duties. The Secretary shall submit a report describing the Department’s efforts to establish a prioritization scheme

and to provide more timely and complete personnel security investigations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services no later than March 1, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE AU—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—Transfer Authority

This section would permit the transfer of amounts of authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any fiscal year to

any other authorization made available in Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such a transfer would

be in the national interest. The provision would provide the authorization for reprogramming involving the transfer of authorization

between amounts authorized as set out in bill language.

The authority to transfer could only be used to provide authorization for higher priority items than the items from which authorization was transferred and could not be used to provide authorization

for an item that was denied authorization by Congress. The Secretary of Defense would be required to notify the Congress promptly of transfers. The total amount of transfers would be limited to

$2.0 billion. Historically, the transfer authority authorized has

changed as follows:

Billions

FY85–88 .................................................................................................................. 2.00

FY89–91 .................................................................................................................. 3.00

FY92 ........................................................................................................................ 2.25

FY93 ........................................................................................................................ 1.50

FY94–00 .................................................................................................................. 2.00

Section 1002—Incorporation of Classified Annex

This section would incorporate the classified annex prepared by

the Committee on Armed Services into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

Section 1003—Authorization of Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000

This section would extend authorization to those defense items

appropriated pursuant to the 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. Specifically, $5,254,346,000 of national defense

appropriations in the Act would be authorized as follows:

Department of Defense

Title I, Chapter 2:

$185,800,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense.

Title I, Chapter 4:

$116,523,000 for Military Construction, Defense-Wide.

Title II, Chapter 2:

$19,532,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army;

$20,565,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy;

409

$37,155,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps;

$30,065,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force;

$40,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide;

$2,174,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve;

$2,851,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army National

Guard;

$2,050,400,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund;

$73,000,000 for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force;

$3,533,000 for Defense Health Program.

Section 2202:

$1,556,200,000 for Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund.

Section 2204:

$125,000,000 for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.

Section 2205:

$854,500,000 for Defense Health Program.

Title II, Chapter 4:

$12,348,000 for Military Construction, Army Reserve.

Section 2401:

$2,000,000 for Family Housing, Army.

$3,000,000 for Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps.

$1,700,000 for Family Housing, Air Force.

Department of Energy

Title III, Chapter 3:

$63,000,000 for Other Defense Activities.

Title IV, Chapter 1:

$55,000,000 for Weapons Activities.

Section 1004—Contingent Repeal of Certain Provisions Shifting

Certain Outlays from One Fiscal Year to Another

This section would repeal, subject to inclusion in appropriations

acts, provisions of fiscal year 2000 appropriations acts that delayed

obligations of Department of Defense funds for pay and benefits

and progress payments.

Section 1005—Limitation on Funds for Bosnia and Kosovo

Peacekeeping Operations for Fiscal Year 2001

This section would limit the amount of funds available for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo to the amounts contained

in the budget request, $1,387.8 million for operations in Bosnia and

$1,650.4 million for operations in Kosovo. The provision would authorize the president to waive the limitation after submitting to the

Congress a written certification that the waiver is necessary to the

national security interests of the United States. This section would

also require a written certification that the exercise of the waiver

will not adversely affect the readiness of U.S. military forces; a report setting forth the reasons for the waiver, a discussion of the impact of the involvement of U.S. military forces in Balkans peacekeeping operations on U.S. military readiness; and a supplemental

appropriations request for the Department of Defense for fiscal

410

year 2001 costs associated with U.S. military forces participating

in, or supporting, Bosnia or Kosovo peacekeeping operations.

SUBTITLE B—NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

Section 1011—National Defense Features Program

This section would amend section 2218 of title 10, United States

Code, to permit the payment to a vessel operator, as consideration

for making a vessel available to the government on such terms as

the Secretary of Defense or secretary of a military department and

the operator agree, amounts equal to the cost of maintaining the

vessel in a 4 day Reduced Operating Status (ROS¥4) condition in

the Ready Reserve Fleet for a period of 25 years.

SUBTITLE C—COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Section 1021—Report on Department of Defense Expenditures to

Support Foreign Counter-Drug Activities

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 2001,

detailing the total amount and type of, and legal basis for, foreign

counter-drug assistance provided by the Department of Defense

during fiscal year 2000.

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has increased its level of counter-drug assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies and militaries in recent years. As part of the fiscal

year 2001 budget request, the Department requested additional authority to directly support the governments of Colombia, Peru, and

Ecuador. Under section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510) and section 1033 of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), the Department is presently authorized to support

various types of foreign assistance ranging from equipment maintenance to military training and intelligence sharing. While the committee recognizes the important role of the Department of Defense

in supporting regional allies in combating the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States, the committee believes that any additional counter-drug authorities for the Department should be considered only after a comprehensive review of the current foreign

counter-drug support activities of the Department.

Section 1022—Report on Tethered Aerostat Radar System

The section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, to submit to Congress a

report on the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) by May 1,

2001, that includes the operational availability of each of the existing TARS sites; a discussion of any plans to close TARS sites over

the next 5 years and a justification for each proposed closure; a review of the requirements of other agencies, especially the United

States Customs Service, for TARS data; an assessment of the value

of TARS in the conduct of counter-narcotics, border security, and

air sovereignty operations, and; costs associated with the DepartVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00434 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.106 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
411

ment’s planned standardization of the program and the Secretary’s

analysis of that standardization.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1031—Funds for Administrative Expenses Under Defense

Export Loan Guarantee Program

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to allocate

up to $500,000 per year from available Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide, funds to administer the Defense Export Loan

Guarantee Program. The provision would require the Secretary to

replenish fully the funds expended under this authority from fees

generated from the loans guaranteed under the program.

The committee notes the increasing interest in the Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program recently displayed by domestic defense industry, eligible countries, and the financial sector. The committee believes the program has significant potential to support

U.S. national security objectives in certain regions of the world and

believes further that the authority in this section will provide the

stability needed for the effective long-term management of the program.

Section 1032—Technical and Clerical Amendments

This section would make a number of technical and clerical

amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis.

Section 1033—Transfer of Vietnam Era TA–4 Aircraft to Nonprofit

Foundation

This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to convey,

without consideration, one surplus TA–4 aircraft to a nonprofit

foundation. This section would also require that any aircraft transferred under this authority would be completely demilitarized prior

to transfer and that the conveyance would be at no cost to the

United States.

Section 1034—Transfer of 19th Century Cannon to Museum

This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to convey,

without consideration, a specific 19th century cannon that was

manufactured in Macon, Georgia, to the Cannonball House Museum, Macon, Georgia. The section would also direct the Secretary

of the Army to acquire, by donation or purchase, one or more cannons documented as having been manufactured in Macon, Georgia,

during the Civil War in order to replace the cannon conveyed to the

museum.

Section 1035—Expenditures for Declassification Activities

This section would require that any future budget request submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense (DOD) specifically identify, in a single display, funds being requested for the Department, each military department, and each defense agency to be

used to declassify records to comply with declassification requirements of any statute or executive order. This section would also

412

limit the expenditure of funds by the Department of Defense for

the declassification of records during fiscal year 2001 to no more

than $30.0 million.

The review or records for potential declassification and release to

the public can be quite costly. The Department estimates that

records review for declassification and public release will cost the

Department $34.0 million from operation and maintenance (O&M)

accounts during fiscal year 2000. The committee is concerned about

the drain on operations and maintenance resources resulting from

the declassification process. The O&M accounts, and the readiness

accounts in particular, have been dramatically underfunded for

years, a serious problem that is exacerbated by almost annual

unbudgeted contingency operations. The committee believes that

record declassification is a significantly lower priority for already

scarce O&M funds and believes these funds should be spent addressing shortfalls in higher priority areas such as maintenance,

training, spare parts, and other key readiness activities. Consequently, this section would limit the amount of funds available

for the Department’s fiscal year 2001 records declassification effort

to $30.0 million, the amount the Department estimates will be necessary for planned record reviews.

In addition, section 230 of title 10, United States Code provides

that the Secretary of Defense shall provide in budget justification

materials submitted to Congress ‘‘specific identification, as a budgetary line item, of the amounts required to carry out’’ declassification activities. The Department of Defense failed to provide in the

fiscal year 2001 budget request the required declassification line

item. Parts of the declassification budget request were scattered

across more than 10 budget accounts, and other portions of the declassification budget request were invisible, having been imbedded

in other budget lines. The committee believes it is necessary that

the full DOD declassification budget be visible in the annual budget request, so Congress will be better able to establish appropriate

levels for such expenditures. Therefore, this section would require

the Department to include in future budget request materials a

single display reflecting the total amount requested for records declassification.

Section 1036—Authority to Provide Loan Guarantees to Improve

Domestic Preparedness to Combat Cyberterrorism

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to provide loan

guarantees to qualified commercial firms seeking to improve their

critical infrastructure protection. It would require the Secretary to

prescribe regulations providing that fees assessed for the purpose

of loan guarantees be credited to a special account and be available, to the extent provided in appropriations acts, to pay administrative expenses associated with this program. This section would

also require the recipients of loan guarantees to report to the Secretary on the results of improvements made pursuant to this program, and would require the Secretary to submit to Congress an

annual report on the loan guarantee program.

413

Section 1037—V–22 Cockpit Aircraft Voice and Flight Data

Recorders

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to require that

all V–22 Osprey aircraft be equipped with state-of-the-art cockpit

aircraft voice and flight data recorders which meet, as a minimum,

the National Transportation Safety Board standards for such devices.

(414)

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN

PERSONNEL

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1101—Employment and Compensation Provisions for Employees of Temporary Organizations Established by Law or Executive Order

This section would provide legislative and executive agencies the

flexibility to use a streamlined process to hire and pay employees

for temporary organizations established by law or executive order.

The committee notes that temporary organizations are normally established to examine issues of immediate public concern, yet these

organizations are often slow to begin substantive work due to the

lack of established structures or processes to acquire staff.

Section 1102—Restructuring the Restriction on Degree Training

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay tuition for a civilian employee to obtain an academic degree if that degree training occurs at an accredited institution and is part of a

planned Department of Defense (DOD) professional development

program. The committee supports education and training programs

that the service secretaries conduct for military personnel, but is

concerned that DOD civilian personnel professional development

programs have been neglected. The committee expects this authority will be used to enhance the professional abilities of the Department’s most promising civilian employees.

Section 1103—Continuation of Tuition Reimbursement and

Training for Certain Acquisition Personnel

This section would amend section 1745 of title 10, United States

Code, to extend the ‘‘shortage of personnel’’ designation for qualified civilian acquisition personnel of the Department of Defense

until September 30, 2005, in order for such personnel to qualify for

eligibility for reimbursement of expenses for training and tuition.

The committee believes such an extension is necessary to enhance

the professional development of the acquisition workforce of the

Department of Defense.

Section 1104—Extension of Authority for Civilian Employees of the

Department of Defense to Participate Voluntarily in Reductions

in Force

This section would amend section 3502 of title 5, United States

Code, to extend to September 30, 2005, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to allow certain civilian employees to volunteer

for separation under reduction in force procedures even though

415

those employees would not otherwise be subject to separation. The

committee believes that this program has ameliorated the disruptive effects of reductions-in-force by lessening the number of civilian employees who would otherwise have been involuntarily separated.

Section 1105—Expansion of Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel

System Positions

This section would amend section 1601 of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to create positions

within the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System outside

the designated intelligence components of the Department of Defense. The committee believes that a limited number of positions

should be created outside the designated intelligence components to

establish appropriate career broadening intelligence related positions within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence and other

activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Section 1106—Pilot Program for Reengineering the Equal

Employment Opportunity Complaint Process

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to carry

out a pilot program to demonstrate improved processes for the resolution of equal employment opportunity complaints.

(416)

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER

NATIONS

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Arms Control Implementation

The budget request contained $219.0 million for arms control implementation programs, representing a slight decrease from the fiscal year 2000 current spending level of $222.7 million. The committee recommends $207.5 million, a decrease of $11.5 million from

the budget request.

The committee notes that the budget request assumes the entry

into force of a number of arms control treaties that remain unratified by all necessary parties. This includes the Open Skies Treaty

and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); the latter failed

a vote on ratification before the United States Senate. In addition,

although the START II Treaty between the United States and Russia was signed in 1993, subsequently ratified by the United States

Senate, and ratified by the Russian Duma in April 2000, the Duma

has linked Russian observance of START II to acceptance by the

United States of a Protocol to the START II Treaty that was agreed

to by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in 1997. The START II Treaty

cannot enter into force prior to the Senate giving its advice and

consent to the Protocol to the Treaty, which has yet to be submitted to the Senate for its consideration.

In light of the delayed entry into force of these treaties, the committee believes that adjustments to the budget request are warranted. The committee’s recommendation to reduce the requested

level of funding is premised on the belief that funds should not be

expended on activities to comply unilaterally with treaties that

have not yet entered into force. The committee expects the Department to take this into account in apportioning the recommended

reductions.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1201—Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts to

Inspect and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities

This section would amend section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass

Destruction Control Act of 1992 by extending the authority provided to the Department of Defense under that Act to support the

activities of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) in fiscal year 2001. This section

would limit assistance provided to UNMOVIC by the Department

of Defense to $15.0 million.

The committee continues to be troubled by the efforts of Iraq to

develop and potentially to militarize weapons of mass destruction

417

(WMD). The committee strongly believes that the United Nations

must re-establish a robust, long-term monitoring program in Iraq

that includes on-site inspections and remote surveillance involving

cameras, sensors, seismic devices, and other technology. However,

United Nations weapons inspectors have been barred from entering

Iraq since October 1998. The committee believes the current statusquo is unacceptable and jeopardizes long-standing U.S. policy that

Iraq must be denied access to ballistic missile technology and

weapons of mass destruction.

The committee notes the adoption by the United Nations Security Council of Resolution 1284 in December 1999 that established

UNMOVIC as the successor to the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). The committee remains doubtful that Iraq

will fulfill its responsibility to allow inspections as mandated by

the Security Council. However, the committee supports the Department of Defense’s assistance to UNMOVIC under the Weapons of

Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 and believes the Department

should maintain a level of readiness necessary to ensure the swift

resumption of monitoring missions should future conditions permit.

Section 1202—Annual Report Assessing Effect of Continued Operations in the Balkans Region on Readiness to Execute the National Military Strategy

This section would amend section 1035 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) to

make annual the reporting requirement of the Secretary of Defense

to submit a report 180 days after enactment assessing the effects

of operations in the Balkans on the ability of the United States to

meet other regional contingencies and the National Military Strategy. The committee notes that the slow pace of civil implementation in both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo will require the

United States and NATO to maintain military forces in the region

for the foreseeable future necessitating an annual reporting requirement.

The committee further notes with concern that the Army announced in November 1999 that the two divisions deployed to the

Balkans, the 1st Infantry Division in Kosovo and the 10th Mountain Division in Kosovo, had been assigned a C-4 readiness rating.

The division commanders of each unit assigned this rating over

concerns that neither division could disengage from their peacekeeping duties in time to deploy to a major theater conflict as required by current war plans. These concerns were subsequently reported in the Department’s Quarterly Readiness Report of the Department of Defense to Congress for that period, in which the Department expressed concern over the ability of the armed forces to

disengage forces from on-going contingencies in order to fight major

regional conflicts. The committee believes that as long as the

United States has military forces in the Balkans region conducting

peacekeeping operations, combat readiness will be degraded.

Section 1203—Situation in the Balkans

This section would require the President to establish militarily

significant benchmarks that will create a sustainable peace in

418

Kosovo and that will facilitate the withdrawal of US troops from

Kosovo. This section would also require the President to seek concurrence with members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO) to establish a comprehensive political-military strategy toward the situation in the Balkans. In creating this strategy, this

section would urge the President to take into consideration the

benchmarks already established for the Bosnia peacekeeping mission as well as those that are to be developed for Kosovo. This section would also require an initial and subsequent semi-annual reports on the progress being made toward developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy in the Balkans. This section

would also require an initial and subsequent semi-annual reports

on the progress being made on the establishment and implementation of the benchmarks for Kosovo.

The committee remains concerned about the on-going, openended peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and their effect on

military readiness. Since last year, the United States, in conjunction with the NATO alliance, fought a 78-day air war against Serbia, followed by the introduction of a peacekeeping force into the

province of Kosovo. These efforts were in addition to NATO’s already extensive commitment to peacekeeping in BosniaHerzegovina that began in 1995. As a result, the United States has

a significant military commitment to peacekeeping operations in

the region.

These extensive military efforts have produced an absence of war

in the Balkans. However, the pace of civil implementation has

lagged far behind the military operations in both areas. In Bosnia,

the slow progress on implementation of the Dayton Accords has led

to questions regarding the duration of the Stabilization Force

(SFOR) mission. Due to the lack of civil institutions, military forces

have assumed many tasks more appropriately reserved for civilian

law enforcement and judicial institutions. In Kosovo, the final status of the province remains unresolved. The Kosovar Albanians desire an independent country, while the Serbs desire the area remain a province of Serbia. The committee is concerned that several

European nations are not maintaining commitments regarding

promised troop levels in the Kosovo Force (KFOR). The committee

is also concerned that there is a chronic shortage of civilian international police and that the United Nations Mission in Kosovo is

severely underfunded. Without a clearly defined end-state, and

with unrest between the warring parties continuing, prospects for

stability in Kosovo are bleak.

The committee is concerned that the lack of an overall strategy

in the Balkans, compounded by the continuing destabilizing influence of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, is slowing the pace

of civil implementation and prolonging the military mission in the

region. The lack of a comprehensive strategy ensures that the military missions in both Bosnia and Kosovo appear vague and openended.

The studies conducted by the Government Accounting Office estimates the cost of U.S. operations in Bosnia and Kosovo to the Department of Defense at $15.6 billion between fiscal years 1992 and

2000. These operations are projected to cost the Department $3.1

billion in fiscal year 2001 alone. These operations drain funds from

419

modernization and operations and maintenance accounts. At the

same time, the requirement to maintain large numbers of personnel on a rotational basis in the region adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to conduct wartime missions as required by

the National Military Strategy. The increased pace of operations

has compelled the Department to augment active duty units with

reserve component forces in an attempt to relieve the pressure on

already over-committed units.

The committee believes that a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the Balkans is an essential prerequisite to lasting stability

in the region and the maintenance of the readiness of the armed

forces.

Section 1204—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 on duty in Colombia at any time. This section would exclude

from the numerical limitation any U.S. military personnel who are

in Colombia for a period of not more than 30 days, unless expressly

authorized by law, for the purpose of rescuing or retrieving U.S.

military or governmental personnel. This section would also exempt from the limitation U.S. military personnel assigned to the

U.S. Embassy in Colombia as an attache ́, as part of the security

assistance office, or the Marine Corps security contingent; service

members participating in natural disaster relief efforts, and; nonoperational transient military personnel.

(420)

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $458.4 million for cooperative

threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing a slight increase of

$0.3 million over the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

The request included $226.2 million for destruction and dismantlement, $161.1 million for fissile materials and nuclear weapons safety and storage, $32.1 million for reactor core conversion in Russia,

$12.0 million for biological weapons proliferation prevention in

Russia, $14.0 million for defense and military contacts, and $13.0

million for other program support, including administrative and

management costs.

The committee recommends a total of $433.4 million for CTR activities in fiscal year 2001, a decrease of $25.0 million from the

budget request. The committee recommends the request of $57.4

million for fissile material storage in Russia; $9.3 million for fissile

material processing and packaging in Russia; $14.0 million for nuclear weapons transportation security in Russia; $89.7 million for

nuclear weapons storage security in Russia; $12.0 million for biological weapons proliferation prevention in Russia; and $13.0 million for other program support. The committee recommends the following increases to the budget request: $10.0 million for strategic

offensive arms elimination in Russia; and $5.0 million for strategic

nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine; The committee recommends

the following decreases to the budget request: $35.0 million for

chemical weapons destruction; and $5.0 million for defense and

military contacts.

Although the committee supports 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, the

committee remains concerned that the United States is absorbing

an increasing share of the costs of implementing CTR projects as

a result of the continued poor economic situation in the states of

the former Soviet Union. In Congressional testimony on March 6,

2000, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Threat Reduction

Policy Susan Koch stated that Russia’s economic conditions mean

that its financial contribution to threat reduction projects ‘‘is less

than originally expected.’’ The committee is concerned that U.S.

costs will continue to grow unless economic conditions in the

former Soviet Union improve markedly. As the General Accounting

Office (GAO) noted in recent testimony, ‘‘Given the current situation, the United States may have to fully fund not only its implementation but also the operations and maintenance of the threat

reduction projects.’’

421

In this regard, the committee is troubled by the Department of

Defense’s willingness to absorb additional costs without prior consultation with the Congress. In response to the reporting requirement contained in section 1308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), the Secretary

of Defense noted that the Department ‘‘continuously urges the

states receiving CTR assistance to contribute their own funds to

projects. . . . CTR assesses the contribution arrangements of each

project to avoid starting a project under conditions whereby the recipient will not be able to meet its share and restructuring has to

occur.’’ Unfortunately, the committee sees no evidence that this

strategy has achieved the desired results, and calls on the Department to redouble its efforts in this regard.

Further, the committee is convinced that the focus of the CTR

program should remain on eliminating those weapons that pose the

most serious and direct threat to U.S. security—first and foremost,

strategic nuclear weapons and associated infrastructure. The committee notes that the original focus of the CTR program has expanded in scope since its inception, raising questions about the Department’s role in funding certain projects. Section 1306 of Public

Law 106–65 prohibits the obligation or expenditure of more than

50 percent of fiscal year 2000 CTR funds until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a report explaining why the Department

is the appropriate funding source for each CTR project for which

funding is requested, and identifies those projects that might more

appropriately be funded by other agencies. The committee has not

yet received this report, but believes that certain projects—for example, those associated with the effort to eliminate the production

of weapons-grade plutonium at Russian nuclear reactors—ought

not to be funded by the Department.

Finally, the committee’s overall support of the CTR program is

tempered with the realization that it is increasingly difficult to

know with certainty how effective this program is in actually reducing the threat to the United States. This is the case as the program transitions away from more concrete projects involving the

destruction of missile launchers and associated hardware and toward support of less tangible projects, such as funding collaborative

research with former Soviet scientists. The committee notes recent

testimony by the GAO, which points out that ‘‘conclusively demonstrating that most of these programs are having a positive impact has proven to be very difficult. . . . Most of these programs

. . . are inherently a cost risk in that we may never be able to

prove that they have achieved their intended purpose.’’

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Arms Elimination Projects in Russia

The budget request contained $152.8 million for strategic offensive arms elimination projects in Russia, a 16 percent decrease

from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated amount of $182.3 million.

The committee recommends $162.8 million for this activity, an increase of $10.0 million to the budget request.

The committee continues to support the accelerated reduction

and elimination of Russian strategic nuclear arms. However, the

422

committee remains concerned that Russia has not been complying

with certain arms reduction obligations and that CTR funding provided to assist Russia in meeting its obligations is not being used

for this purpose. In particular, the committee notes that under the

START I Treaty, Russia committed to eliminating at least 22 SS–

18 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers annually. According to the Department of Defense, Russia eliminated only 6

SS–18 launchers in 1997 and none in 1998 or 1999. In a January

9, 2000 report to Congress on the SS–18 ICBM elimination program, the Department conceded that Russia’s commitment to eliminate at least 22 SS–18 ICBM launchers per year is ‘‘legally binding.’’

The committee remains concerned with Russia’s failure to carry

out its obligations in this regard, and fails to understand why Russia should be allowed to renege on its legally binding obligation

while it continues to invest scarce resources in the development,

production, and deployment of more modern and capable ICBMs

such as the SS–27 ‘‘Topol-M.’’ The committee expects the Department to continue to press Russia to comply with its obligations

under START I, regardless of the level of CTR assistance provided.

Moreover, the committee notes that under the START II Treaty,

recently ratified by Russia, up to 90 SS–18 silos may be converted

for deployment of modern SS–27 ICBMs. The committee supports

the complete elimination of SS–18 missiles, silos, and related infrastructure, and does not support the use of CTR funds for activities

that would facilitate silo conversion. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to focus the Department’s SS–18

elimination effort at locations where missile silos are to be eliminated, not converted, to ensure that CTR assistance is not used in

support of Russia’s strategic modernization program.

Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine

The budget request contained $29.1 million for strategic nuclear

arms elimination projects in Ukraine, a 17 percent reduction from

the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $35.0 million. This decrease continues a downward trend in funding strategic nuclear

elimination projects in Ukraine made possible by the completion of

certain activities and objectives. The committee recommends $34.1

million for this activity, a $5.0 million increase to the budget request, for the purpose of accelerating dismantlement activity.

The committee notes that last year Ukraine agreed to transfer to

Russia 11 heavy bombers, including Tu-95 Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack bombers, in partial payment of energy debts. More than 500

air-launched cruise missiles were also included in the deal. These

weapons and platforms were planned to be eliminated in Ukraine.

The committee regrets Ukraine’s decision to transfer these systems

to Russia, and encourages the Department to seek Russia’s agreement to the elimination of these systems.

Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia

The budget request contained $12.0 million for biological weapons proliferation prevention activities in Russia, a 14 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $14.0 million.

423

This would support approximately one dozen collaborative research

projects with Russian scientists at institutes previously involved in

biological weapons work. In addition, it would help to secure and

safeguard stockpiles of biological pathogens that exist at several institutes in Russia. The committee recommends the budget request.

The committee continues to support efforts directed toward reducing the risk of biological weapons proliferation, but continues to

have concerns regarding the overall approach taken by the Department to addressing those risks.

First, unlike other collaborative ventures where joint research

projects are directed toward exclusively civilian applications, it is

difficult to demonstrate that collaborative research projects in the

area of biological defense have no offensive military application. According to an April 2000 GAO report, ‘‘This type of research is difficult to distinguish from offensive research because of the inherent

dual-use nature of biotechnology.’’

Second, the committee is concerned that funding collaborative research efforts with Russian scientists in the area of biological defense may serve to perpetuate a knowledge base and set of skills

among Russian scientists that might make them more attractive

targets for recruitment by foreign states seeking to develop their

own biological weapons programs. Such an outcome would be precisely the opposite of that intended. As the GAO recently testified,

‘‘supplementing the salaries of these scientists is no guarantee that

they will not in the future sell their services to individuals or countries that pose national security risks to the United States.’’ Moreover, the GAO’s April 2000 report concludes that ‘‘sustained U.S.

support of institutes, especially through research aimed at advancing U.S. biodefense capabilities, may help to preserve Russian scientists’ knowledge and skills and otherwise help to maintain these

institutes’ capacity to research and develop biological weapons.’’

Third, the committee remains troubled with the overall lack of

transparency with respect to Russia’s biological weapons programs.

Existing and planned collaborative projects involve scientists at

Russian civilian institutes that were a part of the former Soviet

Union’s massive biological weapons complex. To date, the Russian

Ministry of Defense has refused to engage the United States in collaborative projects at sites or institutes exclusively under its control. Moreover, there is much about the former Soviet biological

weapons program that remains unknown, and Russia has not been

forthcoming in providing information that would reassure the

United States that it is not still engaged in offensive biological

weapons work. The United States cannot be assured that scientists

currently engaged in collaborative efforts at civilian institutes will

not be subsequently employed at facilities controlled by the Russian Ministry of Defense. According to the GAO report, ‘‘None of

these [proposed U.S. risk-mitigation] measures, however, would

prevent Russian project participants or institutes from potentially

using their skills or research outputs to later work on offensive

weapons activities at any of the Russian military institutes that remain closed to the United States.’’

Fourth, the committee is concerned about the ability of the

United States to verify that assistance is being used for the purposes intended and not being diverted to offensive weapons work.

424

This concern has increased in light of recent revelations that civilian research assistance previously provided to Russia by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Agency for

International Development was diverted to Biopreparat, the main

civilian support arm of Russia’s biological weapons complex.

Fifth, the committee notes that under the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative, the Department of Defense is only one of several

agencies involved in support of collaborative biological research efforts with Russian scientists. This places a premium on ensuring

that current and planned efforts are not in conflict and raises questions regarding the Department of Defense’s overall role in this effort. To this end, section 1309 of Public Law 106–65 required the

President to submit to the Congress no later than March 31, 2000

a report on the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative. This report

has not yet been submitted, and therefore, the committee does not

have all the information it needs to determine whether program

redundancies have been avoided. Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1311) that would prohibit the obligation

or expenditure of CTR funds for biological weapons proliferation

prevention activities until the required report is submitted. The

committee will continue to assess carefully the Department’s plans

and programs with respect to this activity.

Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia

The budget request contained a provision that would repeal section 1305 of Public Law 106–65, which prohibits any funding for

the design, planning, or construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia. The budget request also contained

$35.0 million to restart funding for the chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch’ye, Russia. The committee disapproves repeal of the existing statutory prohibition and denies the requested

funding for this activity.

The Department of Defense bases its request for repeal of the

section 1305 prohibition on three main arguments: 1) that the risk

of proliferation of the chemical munitions stockpiled at Shchuch’ye

remains a threat to the United States; 2) that Russia has begun

to take the actions necessary to move forward with the project; and

3) that the international community is willing to contribute additional resources to the task of assisting Russia with the elimination

of its chemical weapons. The committee questions the Department’s

assessment and does not believe that the situation warrants a reversal of the Congress’ decision last year to halt funding for this

project.

To begin with, while the committee supports in principle efforts

to eliminate Russia’s chemical weapons stockpile in accordance

with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the

committee takes issue with the Department’s characterization of

the proliferation threat at Shchuch’ye. The committee recognizes

that there is a risk of proliferation of chemical weapons in Russia.

For this reason, the Congress last year directed that $20.0 million

in CTR assistance be used to enhance security at Russia’s existing

chemical weapons sites. Nevertheless, the committee is not aware

of any evidence to suggest that the risk of theft or diversion of the

chemical munitions stockpiled at Shchuch’ye is particularly acute.

425

The committee notes that no fiscal year 2001 CTR funds are proposed to be spent on additional security upgrades at Shchuch’ye.

This alone calls into question the Department’s assertion that the

risk of weapons theft or diversion at this site is serious.

Second, the Department has noted that Russia has begun making infrastructure improvements to the local community—a necessary prerequisite to U.S. construction of the chemical weapons

destruction facility. For example, new housing units are being constructed and water and sewer lines are being installed. However,

the committee notes that, in part, the Congress’ prohibition on

funding the Shchuch’ye facility last year was not based on the lack

of infrastructure improvements but on concern over Russia’s ability

to absorb all of the prospective costs associated with this effort.

This concern has not abated. Consequently, the committee does not

believe that recent developments warrant a repeal of last year’s

statutory prohibition.

Third, the level of international contributions to Russia’s chemical weapons elimination effort in general—and to support for the

Shchuch’ye facility in particular—is minimal. Based on the Department’s projection of the life-cycle costs of the Shchuch’ye facility

($1.6 billion) and the level of international funding required to ensure that the facility meets its chemical weapons destruction objectives ($721.5 million to $756.0 million), current assistance provided

by the international community amounts to roughly 0.001 percent

of what is required. To date, only Canada has provided assistance

to help Russia with the costs of local infrastructure improvements

at Shchuch’ye—and only in the amount of $70,000. Great Britain

is considering contributing approximately $5 million to the effort,

but has conditioned this assistance on a U.S. decision to restart

funding. Other countries had previously committed to assist in the

overall Russian chemical weapons elimination effort. However, the

level of assistance committed is also a small fraction of what is required and little is directed toward the effort at Shchuch’ye.

The Department’s latest estimate of the cost to the United States

of the Shchuch’ye project has grown significantly, rising from

roughly $750 million last year to almost $900 million. The committee expects that this cost estimate will continue to rise and may

soon exceed $1.0 billion. Moreover, the committee remains concerned over the ability of Russia to fund the costs of increasing the

destruction rate of the facility and to operate and maintain it over

the period of time required to eliminate the chemical weapons

stockpile located there. Without any assurances that Russia will

absorb the costs of running and maintaining the facility over the

next decade, the United States may spend more than a billion dollars to build a facility that never accomplishes its objective, unless

the United States—despite Administration representations to the

Congress—reverses its position and agrees to pay these costs. In

fact, the committee notes that Russia continues to significantly

underfund its chemical weapons destruction effort.

According to Russian officials, Russia has fallen significantly behind schedule in destroying its chemical weapons stockpiles and

has missed the April 1, 2000 deadline established by the Chemical

Weapons Convention to eliminate 400 tons of its declared chemical

weapons stockpile. As Lieutenant General Valery Kapachin, the

426

head of Russia’s chemical weapons elimination effort, declared on

March 31, 2000, ‘‘We haven’t destroyed anything as of today.’’ With

respect to the demilitarization of existing chemical weapons production plants, three Russian officials noted last year that ‘‘the

Russian Government can provide only ten percent of the necessary

budget,’’ and therefore ‘‘financial assistance from other countries is

crucial.’’

Finally, the committee notes that Shchuch’ye is only one of seven

declared sites where Russian chemical munitions are stored and

one of five sites where nerve agents are located. The Department

asserts that Russia’s arsenal of nerve agents poses the most serious

security threat to the United States. However, Russian law prohibits the transportation of agents located at one stockpile site to

another site for destruction. Therefore, unless Russia changes its

law, additional chemical weapons destruction facilities will need to

be built at the other locations.

Last year, the committee directed the Department to use unobligated prior year balances ‘‘to provide for an orderly close-out’’ of activities at Shchuch’ye. To date, the Department has ignored this direction. The committee reiterates its call for an orderly close-out

and urges the Department to focus its efforts on projects with

greater prospective benefits for U.S. security.

Defense and Military Contacts

The budget request contained $14.0 million for defense and military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union, a 600 percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $2.0

million. The Department asserts that this increase is necessary to

support approximately 350 contacts annually and that the program

has exhausted much of the prior year unobligated funds that allowed it to maintain a consistent level of contacts in recent years

with significantly less new funding. The committee recommends

$9.0 million for this activity, a decrease of $5.0 million from the

budget request.

The committee notes that, according to the latest financial information provided by the Department, there remains approximately

$20.0 million in prior year unobligated balances for these activities.

Moreover, the committee recalls the long-standing prohibition on

conducting peacekeeping exercises or related activities with Russia

using CTR funds, and questions whether all planned exercises are

consistent with this prohibition. This concern has been exacerbated

by the Department’s explanation that the description of some

planned activities identified to the committee as peacekeeping-related was ‘‘in error.’’ The committee expects the Department to ensure that all defense and military contacts are consistent with statutory guidance.

Elimination of Plutonium Production in Russia

The budget request contained $32.1 million for the elimination of

plutonium production in Russian nuclear reactors, a slight decrease

from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $32.2 million. The

committee recommends the budget request, subject to the restriction below.

427

Since the start of this project, CTR funds have been directed toward core conversion—a process whereby the production of weapons-grade plutonium would be eliminated, but the nuclear reactors

would continue producing lower-grade fuel to provide for the energy needs of the communities where they are located. Recently,

Russia informed the United States that it would prefer to shut

down the reactors entirely and to construct fossil fuel plants to provide for local energy needs. The Department of Defense previously

rejected this option as too costly. However, Russia now believes the

cost of the fossil fuel option would be less than core conversion. In

order to determine of validity of Russian estimates, U.S. and Russian officials met in March 2000 to discuss the issue. In the meantime, all work on the core conversion project has been suspended.

Department of Defense officials have indicated that if the fossil

fuel option turns out to be the most cost-effective approach, Russia

will link its agreement to shut down the nuclear reactors at

Krasnoyarsk and Tomsk with U.S. assistance for the construction

of fossil fuel plants. Although the committee supports the elimination of Russia’s weapons-grade plutonium production and the

shutting down of these reactors, the committee does not believe

that CTR funds should be used to build fossil fuel plants in Russia.

Therefore, if this option is chosen, the committee believes that any

U.S. assistance provided for this activity should be funded through

other means, external to the Department of Defense. Consequently,

the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1309) that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of any CTR funds for the construction of fossil fuel plants in Russia.

Fissile Material Processing and Packaging

The budget request contained $9.3 million to assist Russia in

processing the fissile components of dismantled nuclear warheads

in preparation for long-term storage. This amount is the same as

the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level. The committee recommends

the budget request.

The committee notes that the required implementing agreement

that would allow the United States to assist Russia in this endeavor has not yet been negotiated. In addition, discussions regarding

effective transparency measures have not produced any agreement.

Agreement on transparency measures is essential to ensure that

these fissile materials are the actual materials removed from dismantled nuclear warheads. Therefore, the committee recommends

a provision (sec. 1307) that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2001 CTR funds for this purpose until 15 days

after the Secretary of Defense notifies the Congress that an acceptable transparency agreement has been concluded.

Fissile Material Storage Facility

The budget request contained $57.4 million for continued construction of a fissile material storage facility in Russia, a reduction

of 8 percent from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $62.1

million. The facility, located at Mayak, Russia, would be used to

house fissile materials from dismantled nuclear weapons. The committee recommends the budget request.

428

The committee reiterates its previously expressed concern over

cost increases and schedule delays in connection with construction

of the Mayak facility. In particular, the committee notes that the

anticipated cost of this project has increased by roughly 300 percent since 1996. Moreover, the committee remains troubled by the

fact that the United States agreed last year to increase its share

of the costs of this facility by 50 percent without seeking prior Congressional consultation or approval. Consequently, the committee

recommends a provision (sec. 1304) that would establish a funding

cap of $412.6 million on the level of U.S. assistance provided for

activities associated with the Mayak facility.

Moreover, the committee is aware of plans to construct a second

storage wing of the Mayak facility to provide additional storage capacity for weapons-origin fissile materials. However, no agreement

with Russia on transparency measures has yet been reached to assure that the fissile materials stored at Mayak are in fact weaponsorigin. The committee understands that transparency negotiations

are taking place in the context of possible U.S. assistance to Russia

in the processing and packaging of fissile material removed from

nuclear warheads. Therefore, consistent with last year’s Congressional action, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1304)

that would prohibit fiscal year 2001 CTR funds from being used for

construction of a second wing at Mayak and would restrict funding

for design and planning until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense notifies the Congress that a transparency agreement with

Russia has been reached.

Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia

The budget request contained $89.7 million for nuclear weapons

storage security in Russia, a 7 percent increase from the fiscal year

2000 appropriated level of $84.0 million. The committee recommends the budget request.

The committee continues to support the objective of ensuring the

safe and secure storage of nuclear weapons in Russia. However, the

committee believes it essential that the United States be granted

appropriate access to nuclear weapons storage facilities to ensure

that assistance provided is being used as intended. Consequently,

the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1308) that would direct the Secretary of Defense to seek an agreement with Russia

that would grant the United States appropriate access to nuclear

weapons storage sites where CTR assistance is being provided to

confirm such assistance is being used as intended.

Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security

The budget request contained $14.0 million for nuclear weapons

transportation security in Russia, an 8 percent decrease from the

fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $15.2 million. The committee

recommends the budget request. However, the committee again

urges the Department to seek an agreement with Russia that does

not commit the United States to paying the costs of nuclear weapons transportation, costs previously paid by Russia.

429

Other Assessments and Administrative Support

The budget request contained $13.0 million for other program

costs, including management and administrative costs, project development, and audits and examinations, a 550 percent increase

from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $2.0 million. The

Department asserts that it requires additional new funding because of the drawdown in prior year unobligated balances. The

committee recommends the budget request.

The committee notes that this funding is used to support at least

20 audits and examinations of CTR assistance annually, which are

intended to ensure that such assistance is being used as intended.

However, the committee is concerned that the Department, which

is required to report to the Congress annually on the results of

these audits and examinations, has not provided this information

in a timely manner and, in several instances, provided information

that is incomplete or inaccurate.

The committee emphasizes that this reporting requirement is essential to ensure that the Congress can exercise its appropriate

oversight role with respect to the CTR program. According to a recent GAO study, the Department ‘‘cannot fully support its determination that assistance was used as intended’’ and places a ‘‘relatively low priority’’ on providing audit and examination information to the Congress. Consequently, the committee recommends a

provision (sec. 1310) that would require the Comptroller General of

the GAO to conduct an audit and examination of the Department’s

ability to make accurate assessments of whether CTR funds are

being used as intended.

The committee notes that section 1312 of Public Law 106–65 required the Department to include information on Russia’s arsenal

of tactical nuclear warheads in its annual reports on audits and examinations submitted to the Congress after fiscal year 1999. The

committee further notes that the Department’s 1997 and 1998

audit and examination reports did not contain this information,

even though they were submitted to the Congress in fiscal year

2000. The Department has indicated that it interprets the section

1312 requirement to apply to only those reports covering fiscal year

2000 and beyond, the first of which would not be submitted to the

Congress until January 2001. The committee notes that the language of section 1312 is clear and does not support the Department’s interpretation. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1306) that would require the Department to provide

this information not later than October 1, 2000.

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 2001 CTR funds available for obligation for three years.

430

Section 1302—Funding Allocations

This section would allocate fiscal year 2001 funding for various

CTR purposes and activities.

Section 1303—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Elimination of

Conventional Weapons

This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for conventional weapons elimination purposes.

Section 1304—Limitations on Use of Funds for Fissile Material

Storage Facility

This section would restrict the use of CTR funds for activities associated with the construction of a fissile material storage facility

in Russia and would establish a funding ceiling on the first wing

of such a facility.

Section 1305—Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of

Multiyear Plan

This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal

year 2001 CTR funds until the Secretary submits the update to the

multiyear plan required by section 1205 of Public Law 103–337.

Section 1306—Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Arms

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report on Russian nonstrategic nuclear arms not later than October

1, 2000.

Section 1307—Limitation on Use of Funds to Support Warhead

Dismantlement Processing

This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2001 CTR funds

to support warhead dismantlement processing in Russia until a

transparency agreement with Russia is signed.

Section 1308—Agreement on Nuclear Weapons Storage Sites

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to seek an

agreement with Russia allowing for U.S. access to nuclear weapons

storage sites where CTR assistance is provided.

Section 1309—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Construction of

Fossil Fuel Energy Plants

This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for the construction of fossil fuel plants in Russia.

Section 1310—Audits of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

This section would require the Comptroller General to submit to

Congress not later than March 31, 2001 a report on procedures

used by the Department of Defense to audit CTR assistance.

431

Section 1311—Limitation on Use of Funds for Prevention of

Biological Weapons Proliferation in Russia

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of CTR

funds for this purpose until the report required by section 1309 of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) is submitted to the Congress.

(432)

TITLE XIV—COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE

THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK

OVERVIEW

The committee understands that a nuclear weapon detonated at

high-altitude would generate a powerful electromagnetic pulse

(EMP), similar to a very high energy radio wave, that can potentially damage or destroy electronic systems over a wide area of the

Earth’s surface. For example, a single nuclear weapon detonated at

an altitude of 500 kilometers could produce an EMP that would

blanket the entire continental United States, potentially damaging

or destroying military forces and civilian communications, power,

transportation and other infrastructure on which modern society

depends.

The committee is aware that EMP has been the focus of significant government-funded research and testing for over 30 years.

However, the committee is also aware that most of these efforts

were conducted during the Cold War and focused on hardening

strategic systems against a massive nuclear attack from the Soviet

Union. The committee understands that far fewer resources have

been dedicated to examining the potential vulnerability of the U.S.

civilian and industrial infrastructure to an EMP attack. Moreover,

since the Cold War, U.S. military and civilian systems have become

increasingly dependent on advanced electronics that are potentially

more vulnerable than older electronics to EMP attack, a trend that

is likely to continue in the future.

In the committee’s view, the potential vulnerability of the United

States to an EMP attack may be an issue of greater moment, now

that missiles and nuclear weapons are proliferating. Some analysts

have suggested that nations having small numbers of nuclear missiles, such as China or North Korea, may consider an EMP attack

against U.S. forces regionally, to degrade the U.S. technological advantage, or against the United States’ national electronic infrastructure, as a way to get the most utility from their modest nuclear capabilities. Analysts have also suggested that Russia’s new

military doctrine, which gives unprecedented emphasis to limited

nuclear options, may assign increased importance to EMP attacks

as a way of limiting a nuclear conflict and averting a massive nuclear exchange in the event of a confrontation with the United

States.

Accordingly, the committee recommends the establishment of a

commission to assess the threat to the United States from electromagnetic pulse attacks.

433

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1401—Establishment of Commission

This section describes how the ‘‘Commission to Assess the Threat

to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack’’ is to be

selected and organized.

Section 1402—Duties of Commission

This section describes the duties of the Commission, would require the Commission to assess the EMP threat to the United

States, to make recommendations on how to better protect U.S.

military and civilian infrastructure from EMP, and would require

the Department of Defense and Federal Emergency Management

Agency to cooperate with the Commission.

Section 1403—Report

This section would require the Commission to submit a report to

Congress, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Federal

Emergency Management Agency within twelve months of the Commission’s first meeting.

Section 1404—Powers

This section would grant the Commission the power to hold hearings and secure information directly from any Federal department

or agency.

Section 1405—Commission Procedures

This section describes the procedural rules for Commission meetings, for establishing Commission panels, and for agents or individual members acting on behalf of the Commission.

Section 1406—Personnel Members

This section would describe and regulate how Commission members are to be paid and reimbursed for travel expenses; and how

Commission staff are to be appointed and paid, government employees detailed to the Commission, and temporary services acquired by the Commission.

Section 1407—Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions

This section would make postal, printing, administrative and

support services available to the Commission.

Section 1408—Funding

This section would regulate how funds are to be provided to the

Commission.

Section 1409—Termination of the Commission

This section would provide for the termination of the Commission

within 60 days after the submission of its report under Section

1403.

(434)

TITLE XV—PROVISIONS REGARDING VIEQUES

ISLAND, PUERTO RICO

OVERVIEW

The committee remains concerned about the situation at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility located on Vieques Island,

Puerto Rico. On April 19, 1999, during a routine training event,

live ordnance deployed by a Marine Corps F/A–18 accidentally

struck an observation post within the Vieques weapons range complex and killed David Sanes Rodriguez, a Navy contract employee.

From that day until May 4, 2000, protestors occupying the live impact area on Vieques prevented the Navy and Marine Corps from

conducting training on the range.

Due to this situation, the Eisenhower and George Washington

battle groups and their associated amphibious ready groups were

unable to conduct pre-deployment training on Vieques. As a result,

valuable live naval gunfire, air-to-ground, and combined arms

training normally conducted prior to deployment did not take place.

This had a substantial negative impact on the overall readiness of

these deploying units as reported in the Department of Defense

Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress for October to December

1999. The Navy stated in that report that, ‘‘Several deploying surface combatants will depart Atlantic ports in February 2000 with

reduced training readiness due to expired gunfire qualifications resulting from the continued non-availability of the Vieques training

range.’’

On January 31, 2000, the President and the Governor of Puerto

Rico concluded an agreement on the future of Vieques. This agreement would allow the Navy to resume live fire on Vieques with

inert ammunition in return for $40.0 million in economic assistance

and the conveyance of Navy land on the western end of the island

to The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. According to the agreement,

the future status of Navy training on Vieques would be determined

by a local referendum.

On May 4, 2000, after over a year of occupation, federal law enforcement and Puerto Rican officials cleared the live impact area

and Eastern Maneuver Area of protestors. However, even with the

range now cleared, training is still restricted to inert munitions.

This restriction will not allow the for the full range of live, joint

and combined training that is necessary prior to the deployment of

carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups. The committee

does not believe that training conducted solely with inert ammunition adequately provides for the readiness of our combat forces.

The committee also believes that the Department of the Navy

has not been a good steward of Vieques. The Navy has failed to implement adequately many of the provisions of the Memorandum of

Understanding of 1983 concluded between the Navy and the GovVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00458 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR616.116 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
435

ernment of Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the committee believes that

the Navy has consistently failed to take into account the concerns

of the local population regarding training on the island. These

facts, combined with the lack of economic development that normally accrues to communities that host military installations, has

created an occasionally hostile atmosphere toward the Navy presence on the island that has been central to this situation.

In recognition of this problem and in order to encourage the

Navy to be a better neighbor, the committee recommends training

restrictions on the use of the range designed to protect the citizens

of Vieques. Live fire training would be restricted to 90 days a year,

with an allowance for an additional 90 days of non-live fire training. The committee would also require the Navy take steps to ensure the safety of civilians on Vieques while also taking measures

to reduce noise in civilian areas of the island. The committee also

recommends the establishment of an advisory committee made up

of military officers and Puerto Rican citizens appointed by the Governor of Puerto Rico and the Mayor of the Municipality of Vieques.

The advisory committee would provide a forum for the people of

Vieques to express their views to the Navy and to comment on operations and the policies relating to military activities on Vieques.

All these measures are recommended by the committee in recognition of the sacrifices made by the people of Vieques toward the national security of the United States.

However, the committee ultimately believes that Vieques is vital

to the training of the Nation’s naval forces and that it is imperative

that live-fire training resume on the island as soon as possible. The

committee is concerned about the possibility that the ranges on

Vieques may be unavailable in the future and believes that battle

groups deploying overseas are not currently receiving the training

necessary to meet the challenges they may face during overseas deployments.

The committee rejects the idea that the future of military training on Vieques be determined by referendum. Allowing local communities to vote on the future of military training at local bases

would establish a precedent that could endanger access to other

critical military installations both in the United States and overseas. Therefore, the committee does not believe that the agreement

signed by the President and the Governor of Puerto Rico on January 31, 2000, adequately provides for U.S. national security by ensuring the Navy’s future access to this vital training area. The

committee believes that its recommendations provide for the fair

and equitable treatment of the people of Vieques while preserving

access to critical training ranges.

Section 1501—Conditions on Disposal of Naval Ammunition

Support Detachment, Vieques Island

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from including any portion of the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment

on the western end of Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, in a report of

excess real property pursuant to the requirements of section 2662

of title 10, United States Code, until the President certifies to Congress that military training operations have resumed using the full

range of live ordnance in use prior to April 19, 2000 and that this

436

training is conducted without interference. This section would also

require any portion of the land declared as excess by the Navy be

managed by any recipient as a conservation zone subject to the irrevocable condition that the recipient of the property, and any successor in interest, manage all lands in the same manner. This section would further require the Secretary to retain approximately

100 acres, containing the Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar and

the Mt. Pirata telecommunication facility, at the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment.

Section 1502—Retention of Eastern Portion of Vieques Island

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from declaring any lands within the Eastern Manuever Area or the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility, including the live impact area,

on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, to be excess to the needs of the

armed forces or transferring or conveying any such lands from the

jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy.

Section 1503—Limitations on Military Use of Vieques Island

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to notify

the Government of Puerto Rico at least 15 days prior to any major

training exercise on Vieques. This section would also limit the

number of training days explosive ordnance can be used to 90 days

per calendar year, and allows for an additional 90 days of training

with inert ordnance. This section would further require the Secretary of the Navy to establish an advisory committee to review

and comment on operations and policies regarding military training

on Vieques. This section would also require the Secretary of the

Navy to ensure the safety of the inhabitants of Vieques and to minimize noise levels in civilian areas to the maximum extent possible.

Finally, the section would also provide for a waiver of the advance

warning requirements, the safety and noise restrictions and training day limitations for reasons of national security.

Section 1504—Economic Assistance for Residents of Vieques Island

This section would authorize $40.0 million in economic assistance

for the citizens of Vieques for the projects outlined in the President’s Directive to the Secretary of Defense and Director, Office of

Management and Budget (Community Assistance) and the President’s Directive to the Secretary of Defense and Director, Office of

Management and Budget (Referendum) dated January 31, 2000.

However, this section would expressly prohibit any of the funds to

be used for a referendum regarding the further use of the island

for military training purposes. In addition, the section would withhold all funding until the Department of Defense can resume livefire training on the island using the full range of live ordnance in

use prior to April 19, 1999, without interference.

(437)

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 2001. As approved by the committee,

Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of

$8,433,908,000 for construction in support of the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies for fiscal year 2001.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW

The military construction authorization request for fiscal year

2001 was introduced by request as division B of H.R. 4205 on April

6, 2000.

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $4,553,427,000 for fiscal year 2001 for military construction, including $1,174,369,000 for activities associated with base

closure and realignment, and $3,480,481,000 for family housing

construction and support. The committee recommends

$4,874,647,000 for military construction, including $1,174,369,000

for activities associated with base closure and realignment, and

$3,559,261,000 for family housing construction and support for fiscal year 2001.

The committee restates its deepening concern about the condition

of the Nation’s military installations and facilities and continues to

be troubled by the continuing and persistent underinvestment by

the Administration in military facilities and infrastructure. The

budget request for the authorization of appropriations for fiscal

year 2001 for the military construction and military family housing

programs of the Department of Defense, if enacted, would represent a four percent reduction from current spending levels and

a 25 percent reduction from the funding levels authorized by Congress for fiscal year 1996.

To address the serious shortfalls in the Administration’s budget

request, the committee recommends an increase in new budget authority for these programs of $400,000,000.

In an effort to improve the quality of life for military personnel

and their families, the committee reiterates its support for the authorities provided in subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10, United

States Code. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative remains

a central component of the ultimate resolution of the military housing crisis. The committee recommends an extension of current authorities to support this program for an additional five years to

2006. The committee recognizes that implementation of this program has occurred more slowly than initially anticipated and exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00461 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR616.118 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
438

pects the secretaries of the military departments to accelerate implementation of this program during the extended pilot program

period.

A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in Division B

for fiscal year 2001 follows:

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

A tabular summary of the military construction projects included

with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the

BRAC IV account follows:

454

(455)

TITLE XXI—ARMY

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $897,938,000 for Army military construction and $1,140,381,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2001. The committee recommends authorization of $672,391,000 for

military construction and $1,152,249,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2001.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Condition of Barracks to Support Basic Training

The committee notes favorably the commitment of the Secretary

of the Army and the uniformed leadership of the Army to a resolution of the problem of substandard barracks conditions for permanent party personnel by fiscal year 2008. The committee continues

to support strongly improvement in the quality of life for unaccompanied military personnel. The committee recognizes that the program to conclude the modernization of permanent party barracks

in a timely manner, combined with the requirement to modernize

the Army’s strategic mobility infrastructure by fiscal year 2004,

limits the ability of the Army to program adequately for other military construction priorities given the funds currently allocated to

the military construction account in the current future years defense program (FYDP). The committee reiterates its view that additional funds for military construction are required to meet significant infrastructure shortfalls affecting military readiness and the

retention of military personnel. The committee is concerned that

current Army programming will not permit adequate attention to

the problem of substandard barracks conditions for recruits. The

committee notes that only one barracks construction project, based

on newly adopted Army standards for recruit barracks, is funded

within the current FYDP. The committee does not believe such a

funding profile is sufficient. The committee is especially concerned

that training installations, which may expect increases in the number of new recruits and trainees, lack sufficient barracks spaces to

accommodate that training load and that existing barracks spaces

are generally substandard. The committee urges the Secretary of

the Army to review current plans and programs to improve the

condition of barracks to support basic training and directs the Secretary to report on his findings, including any recommendations,

coincident with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Improvements to Military Family Housing

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

improvements to military family housing and facilities, the Secretary of the Army execute the following projects: $4,700,000 for

456

Whole Neighborhood Revitalization (28 units) at Fort Irwin, California, and $4,150,000 for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization (56

units) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Planning and Design

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning

and design activities for the following projects: $1,600,000 for a

power train modification facility at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, and $4,320,000 for a basic trainee barracks complex at Fort

Jackson, South Carolina.

Unspecified Minor Construction

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute

the following project: $500,000 for multimedia learning centers at

the United States Military Academy, New York.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Army construction

projects for fiscal year 2001. 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 2001.

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2001.

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 2001. 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 1999 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division

B of Public Law 105–261) to provide for an increase in the amount

authorized for the construction of a railhead facility at Fort Hood,

Texas.

(457)

TITLE XXII—NAVY

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $753,422,000 for Navy military

construction and $1,245,460,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2001. The committee recommends authorization of $887,810,000 for

military construction and $1,299,863,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2001.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities,

Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida

The committee reiterates its support for the acquisition of

prepositioned equipment facilities managed under lease by the Department of the Navy at Blount Island Command, Jacksonville,

Florida. The committee recalls that the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106–79) provided authority for

the expenditure of $5,000,000 as the first phase of this major land

acquisition. The committee recommends an additional $3,320,000

for this purpose for fiscal year 2001 and expects those funds to be

combined to acquire three parcels of real property based on current

real estate valuations. The committee notes that the budget estimates for fiscal year 2002 provided by the Secretary of the Navy

indicate that sufficient funds are programmed to acquire the remainder of the real property required by the Marine Corps. The

committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to make every effort to

complete this acquisition in a timely fashion.

Improvements to Military Family Housing

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

improvements to military family housing and facilities, the Secretary of the Navy execute the following project: $8,600,000 for

Whole House Revitalization (98 units) at Marine Corps Base, Camp

Pendleton, California.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction

projects for fiscal year 2001. 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.

458

Section 2202—Family Housing

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2001.

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2001.

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Navy’s budget for fiscal year 2001. 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 Fiscal Year

1997 Project at Marine Corps Combat Development Command,

Quantico, Virginia

This section would modify the authorized use of funds authorized

for appropriation for fiscal year 1997 for a military construction

project at Marine Corps Command Development Command,

Quantico, Virginia. This section would permit the use of previously

authorized funds to carry out a military construction project involving infrastructure development at that installation.

(459)

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $530,969,000 for Air Force military

construction and $1,049,754,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2001. The committee recommends authorization of $703,873,000 for

military construction and $1,062,263,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2001.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Rome Research Site, New York

The committee notes the authority provided by the Department

of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106–79) to permit

the Secretary of the Air Force to utilize appropriated funds and

contributions by the State of New York to support the improvement

of facilities at the Rome Research Site, New York. The committee

was concerned that such authority could be utilized in a manner

that would provide a comparative advantage over similar installations for which the authority did not apply in the event additional

base closures and realignments are authorized by Congress. The

committee notes that the terms of the memorandum of understanding entered into by Empire State Development, Griffiss Local

Development Corporation, and Air Force Materiel Command does

not constitute a commitment by the Air Force to preclude the Rome

Research Site from being considered, recommended, or selected for

closure under any current or future base closure law.

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 2001. 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

2001.

460

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2001.

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 2001. This section also

would provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force may

spend on military construction projects.

(461)

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $784,753,000 for defense agencies military construction and $44,886,000 for family housing for fiscal

year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of

$815,504,000 for military construction and $44,886,000 for family

housing.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Forward Operating Locations in Support of Counter-Drug and

Drug Interdiction Activities

The budget request contained $76,823,000 for military construction at Manta, Ecuador, and Aruba and Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles for the establishment of forward operating locations

to support the counter-drug and drug interdiction activities of the

Department of Defense. The committee supports the establishment

of forward operating locations at those sites. However, the committee notes that funds to support military construction for this

purpose was included in H.R. 3908, the Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act, as passed by the House on March 30, 2000.

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of that amount in

Military Construction, Defense-Wide.

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 2001. 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—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Defense Agencies’ budget for fiscal year 2001. This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount the Defense

Agencies may spend on military construction projects.

(462)

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $190,000,000 for the NATO infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for fiscal year

2001. The committee recommends $177,500,000.

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 $177,500,000 as

the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment program.

(463)

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES

FACILITIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $221,976,000 for fiscal year 2001

for guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 2001 of $434,560,000 to be distributed as

follows:

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $ 129,139,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 110,885,000

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 104,854,000

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 47,934,000

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 41,748,000

Total ............................................................................................. 443,200,000

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

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 project: $1,281,000 for a combined support and maintenance shop at Fort Lewis, Washington.

Planning and Design, Army Reserve

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning

and design activities for the following project: $809,000 for an advanced training barracks complex at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army Reserve

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute

the following project: $700,000 for parking and site improvements

at Fort Douglas, Utah.

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 2001. The state list contained in this report is intended to be

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

(464)

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, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal

year 2001, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to

authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated

before October 1, 2000 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

1998 Projects

This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal

year 1998 military construction authorizations until October 1,

2000, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for

military construction for fiscal year 2001, whichever is later.

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year

1997 Projects

This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal

year 1997 military construction authorizations until October 1,

2000, or the date of the enactment of the Act authorizing funds for

military construction for fiscal year 2001, whichever is later.

Section 2704—Effective Date

This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV,

and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1, 1999, or the

date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later.

(465)

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Military Housing Privatization Initiative

The committee reiterates its strong support for the development

of military housing under the authority provided by subchapter IV,

chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code. The committee acknowledges that the privatization of military family housing may,

in certain instances, have an effect on local educational agencies

and educational infrastructure requirements. The committee notes

that section 2871 of title 10, United States Code, provides general

authority for the development of facilities to support elementary or

secondary education as ancillary supporting facilities to privatized

military housing. The committee urges the secretaries of the military departments to assess more adequately the impact of the development of military housing under this authority on local education agencies and infrastructure. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense,

to assess the impact of military housing developed under the authority of subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10, United States

Code, at Fort Carson, Colorado. The committee further directs the

Secretary of the Army to submit a report on his findings, and any

recommendations, concurrent with the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2002.

Water Quality Issues Affecting Military Installations in the Area of

Kaiserslautern, Germany

The committee is aware of limited environmental contamination

at five locations on, or near, military installations supporting the

missions of the Army and the Air Force in the area of

Kaiserslautern, Germany. The committee urges the Secretary of

the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force to continue to work

cooperatively with local German authorities to resolve matters relating to environmental contamination affecting the water supply

supporting military installations and civilians in the area of

Kaiserlautern, Germany.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Revision of Limitations on Space by Pay Grade

This section would amend section 2826 of title 10, United States

Code, to require the secretary concerned to ensure that the room

patterns and floor areas of military family housing units conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00489 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR616.122 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
466

structed, acquired, or improved by the secretary shall be generally

comparable to those available in the locality of the military installation on which such military family housing units are located.

Section 2802—Leasing of Military Family Housing, United States

Southern Command, Miami, Florida

This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United States

Code, to modify the authorized terms of leasing for military family

housing to support the United States Southern Command in

Miami, Florida.

Section 2803—Alternative Authority for Acquisition and

Improvement of Military Housing

This section would amend section 2885 of title 10, United States

Code, to extend the authorities contained in subchapter 169 of title

10, United States Code, for an additional five-year period to 2006.

Section 2804—Expansion of Definition of Armory to Include

Readiness Centers

This section would amend section 18232 of title 10, United States

Code, to clarify that the term ‘‘readiness center’’ shall have the

same meaning as the term ‘‘armory’’.

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2811—Increase in Threshold for Notice and Wait

Requirements for Real Property Transactions

This section would amend section 2662 of title 10, United States

Code, to increase the threshold for notice and wait requirements

for real property transactions from $200,000 to $500,000.

Section 2812—Enhancement of Authority of Military Departments

to Lease Non-Excess Property

This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States,

to modify the permissible forms of consideration received by the

secretary concerned for the lease of non-excess real property under

the control of the secretary.

Section 2813—Conveyance Authority Regarding Utility Systems of

Military Departments

This section would amend section 2688 of title 10, United States

Code, to require the secretary concerned to comply with the competition requirements of section 2304 of title 10, United States

Code, in the conveyance of utility system infrastructure.

467

SUBTITLE C—LAND CONVEYANCES GENERALLY

Part I—Army Conveyances

Section 2831—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Rock Island Arsenal,

Illinois

This section would authorize the transfer of, and exchange of jurisdiction on, a parcel of real property with improvements consisting of approximately 23 acres at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois,

between the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Veterans’

Affairs. The parcel is to be incorporated into the Rock Island National Cemetery.

Section 2832—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Galesburg,

Illinois

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 4.65 acres in Galesburg, Illinois,

to Knox County, Illinois. The property is to be used for the development of municipal and other public purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the County.

Section 2833—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Winona,

Minnesota

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements to Winona State University Foundation. The property is to

be used for educational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary

for the conveyance would be borne by the Foundation.

Section 2834—Land Conveyance, Fort Polk, Louisiana

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 100 acres at Fort Polk, Louisiana, to the State of Louisiana. The property is to be used for the

establishment of a State-run veterans’ cemetery. The cost of any

surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Commission.

Section 2835—Land Conveyance, Fort Pickett, Virginia

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of not more than 700 acres, at Fort Pickett, Virginia, to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The property is to be used

for the development and operation of a public safety training facility. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be

borne by the Commonwealth.

Section 2836—Land Conveyance, Fort Dix, New Jersey

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately two acres and containing a

468

parking lot inadvertently constructed on the parcel, at Fort Dix,

New Jersey, to Pemberton Township, New Jersey.

Section 2837—Land Conveyance, Nike Site 43, Elrama,

Pennsylvania

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 160 acres in Elmara, Pennsylvania, to the Board of Supervisors of Union Township, Pennsylvania. The parcel is to be used for municipal and other public purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would

be borne by the Township.

Section 2838—Land Exchange, Fort Hood, Texas

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey

a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 200 acres at Fort Hood, Texas, to the City of Copperas

Cove, Texas. As consideration for the conveyance, the City would

convey to one or more parcels of real property, consisting of approximately 300 acres, to the Secretary. The cost of any surveys

necessary for the conveyances would be borne by the City.

Section 2839—Land Conveyance, Charles Melvin Price Support

Center, Illinois

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey

a parcel of real property with improvements consisting of approximately 752 acres to the Tri-City Regional Port District of Granite

City, Illinois. As consideration for the conveyance, the Secretary

shall determine if the Port District satisfies the criteria to qualify

for a public benefit conveyance. If the public interest is served, the

secretary may accept an amount less than fair market value for a

lease of the property. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Port District.

Section 2840—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Local Training

Center, Chattanooga, Tennessee

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 15 acres at the Army Reserve

Local Training Center, Chattanooga, Tennessee, to the Medal of

Honor Museum, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee. The parcel is to be

used as a museum and for other educational purposes. The cost of

any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the

Corporation.

Part II—Navy Conveyances

Section 2851—Modification of Authority for Oxnard Harbor

District, Port Hueneme, California, to Use Certain Navy Property

This section would amend section 2843 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public

Law 103–337) to clarify the restrictions on the use of real property

469

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy by the Oxnard

Harbor District, Port Hueneme, California. This section would also

clarify the forms of consideration which the District shall pay to

the Secretary for the use of the property.

Section 2852—Modification of Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air

Station, El Toro, California

This section would amend section 2811 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101–

189) to modify the permissible uses of funds received by the Secretary of the Navy.

Section 2853—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Marine Corps Air Station,

Miramar, California

This section would authorize the transfer of, and exchange of jurisdiction on, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 250 acres at Marine Corps Air Station,

Miramar, California, between the Secretary of the Navy and the

Secretary of the Interior. The parcel is to be incorporated into the

Vernal Pool Unit of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.

Section 2854—Lease of Property, Marine Corps Air Station,

Miramar, California

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to lease,

without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,

consisting of approximately 250 acres and known as the Hickman

Field, to the City of San Diego, California, for a period not to exceed five years. The lease would be subject to the condition that the

City maintain the property at no cost to the United States, make

the property available to the existing tenant at no cost, and use the

property solely for recreational purposes. The cost of any survey

necessary for the lease would be borne by the City.

Section 2855—Lease of Property, Naval Air Station, Pensacola,

Florida

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to lease

real property improvements to be designed and constructed by the

Naval Aviation Museum Foundation at the National Museum of

Naval Aviation at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, to the

Foundation for a period up to 50 years, with an option to renew

for an additional 50 years. The improvements are to be used for the

development and operation of a National Flight Academy. As a condition for the lease, the Foundation would make the property available at no cost to the Secretary under certain specified conditions.

This section would also authorize the Secretary to provide assistance to the Foundation in the form services on a reimbursable

basis. The cost of any survey necessary for the lease would be

borne by the Secretary.

470

Section 2856—Land Exchange, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San

Diego, California

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey

a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 45 acres at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California, to the San Diego Unified Port District. As consideration for

the conveyance, the Port District would convey to the Secretary a

parcel of real property contiguous to the installation and would

construct suitable replacement facilities and necessary supporting

structures as determined by the Secretary.

Section 2857—Land Exchange, Naval Air Reserve Center,

Columbus, Ohio

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey

a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 24 acres comprising the Naval Air Reserve Center at Rickenbacker International Airport, Ohio, to the Rickenbacker Port Authority of Columbus, Ohio. As consideration for the conveyance, the

Authority would convey to the Secretary a parcel of real property

consisting of approximately 15 acres. This section would require

the Secretary to utilize the property conveyed by the Authority as

the site for a joint reserve center for units associated with the

Naval Air Reserve Center at the Airport and the Naval and Marine

Corps Reserve Center currently located in Columbus, Ohio. The

cost of any survey necessary for the exchange would be borne by

the Authority.

Section 2858—Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Center, Tampa,

Florida

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey

a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 2.18 acres and comprising the Naval Reserve Center,

Tampa, Florida, to the Tampa Port Authority. As consideration for

the conveyance the Port Authority is required to provide a replacement facility and bear all reasonable costs incurred during the relocation. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would

be borne by the Port Authority.

Part III—Air Force Conveyances

Section 2861—Land Conveyance, Wright Patterson Air Force Base,

Ohio

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to

convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 100 acres at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to Greene County, Ohio. The property

is to be used for recreational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the County.

471

Section 2862—Land Conveyance, Point Arena Air Force Station,

California

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to

convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 82 acres at the Point

Arena Air Force Station, California, to Menocino County, California. The property is to be used for municipal and other public

purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance

would be borne by the County.

Section 2863—Land Conveyance, Los Angeles Air Force Base,

California

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to

convey on terms the Secretary considers appropriate, any or all

portions of four parcels of real property with improvements, totaling approximately 111 acres at Los Angeles Air Force Base, California. As consideration for the conveyance, the recipient shall provide for the design and construction, acceptable to the Secretary,

of one or more facilities to consolidate the mission and support

functions at the installation. Any such facilities would comply with

specified seismic and safety standards. This section would also authorize the Secretary to enter into a lease for the facility for a period not to exceed 10 years in the event the fair market value of

a facility provided as consideration for the conveyance exceeds the

fair market value of the conveyed property. Rental payments under

the lease would be established at the rate necessary for the lessor

to recover, by the end of the lease term, the difference between the

fair market value of the facility and the fair market value of the

conveyed property. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the recipient.

Part IV—Other Conveyances

Section 2871—Conveyance of Army and Air Force Exchange

Service Property, Farmers Branch, Texas

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to permit

the Army and Air Force Exchange Service to sell a parcel of real

property with improvements in Farmers Branch, Texas, for an

amount equal to the fair market value of the parcel. The section

would also require the payment by the purchaser to be handled in

the manner provided in section 485(c) of title 40, United States

Code. The cost of any surveys necessary for the sale would be borne

by the purchaser.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2881—Retention of Easement Authority to Leased

Parkland, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California

This section would amend section 2851 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public

Law 105–261) to exempt certain lands located within Marine Corps

Base, Camp Pendleton, California, and leased by the State of California for use as a restricted access highway from the requirements

472

of section 303 of title 49 and section 138 of title 23, United States

Code. This section would also require the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Agency to be responsible for the implementations of any

mitigation measures required by the Secretary of Transportation.

Section 2882—Extension of Demonstration Project for Purchase of

Fire, Security, Police, Public Works, and Utility Services from

Local Government Agencies

This section would amend section 816 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103–337), as

amended, to extend the period under which a demonstration project

is authorized for the purchase of fire, security, police, public works,

and utility services from local government at specified locations in

Monterey, California.

Section 2883—Establishment of World War II Memorial on Guam

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the American Battle Monuments Commission, to establish a suitable memorial on federal property near the Fena

Caves in Guam to honor those civilians killed during the occupation of Guam during World War II and to commemorate the liberation of Guam by the armed forces of the United States in 1944.

Section 2884—Naming of the Army Missile Testing Range at Kwajalein Atoll as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Defense Test Site at

Kwajalein Atoll

This section would designate the missile testing range at Kwajalein Atoll as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Defense Test Site at

Kwajalein Atoll.

Section 2885—Designation of Building at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, in

Honor of Andrew T. McNamara

This section would designate a building at Fort Belvoir, Virginia,

as the Andrew T. McNamara Building.

Section 2886—Redesignation of the Balboa Naval Hospital, San

Diego, California, in Honor of Bob Wilson, a Former Member of

the House of Representatives

This section would redesignate the Balboa Naval Hospital, San

Diego, California, as the Bob Wilson Naval Hospital.

Section 2887—Sense of Congress Regarding Importance of

Expansion of National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California

This section would express the sense of Congress that the prompt

expansion of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California,

is vital to the national security interests of the United States.

(473)

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $13,150.6 million for the national

security activities of the Department of Energy. This includes

$6,177.6 million for the programs of the National Nuclear Security

Administration. The budget request also contained $6,832.9 million

for defense environmental and other defense activities. The committee recommends $12,871.4 million, a decrease of $279.2 million.

The following table summarizes the request and the committee recommendations:

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview

The budget request contained $6,832.9 million for environmental

and other defense activities.

The committee recommends $6,601.9, a decrease of $231.0 million.

Items of Special Interest

Acceleration of the 94–1 program and restoration of infrastructure

at the Savannah River Site

The budget request contained $452.9 million for Site Project

Completion at the Savannah River Site.

In May 1994, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board submitted Recommendation 94–1 to the Secretary of Energy dealing

with the need to stabilize and to store safely large amounts of fissionable and other nuclear materials at the Savannah River Site.

The committee is aware of accomplishments in remediating this

material. However, the committee notes severe problems continue

to exist. The committee believes that an acceleration of the 94–1

Program is necessary and recommends an increase of $16.0 million

to execute the following projects: (1) development of process

flowsheets, safety documentation, and pre-operational activities to

support planned stabilization campaigns; (2) acceleration of the

rack construction and testing for the Amercium/Curium stabilization project; and (3) continued operation of the HB-Line Phase I to

process plutonium residues.

The committee notes that much of the Savannah River Site infrastructure is nearing 50 years of age and believes that Savannah

River environmental management programs require restorative improvements to support current operations, retain core competencies, and to maintain nuclear materials in a safe and secure

manner. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $24.0

million for Savannah River Site infrastructure improvements, including $16.0 million for design and procurement of site ventilation, electrical, and safety alarm systems and for repair or replacement of leaking roofs, and $8.0 million of the increase for replacement of the computer control system for the Defense Waste Processing Facility.

The committee recommends $492.9 million for Site Project Completion at the Savannah River Site, an increase of $40.0 million.

Energy Employees Compensation Initiative

The budget request contained $17.0 million for the Energy Employees Compensation Initiative to fund a program, separately

transmitted to Congress in November 1999, that would establish

three programs to compensate current and former Department of

Energy (DOE) and contractor employees who are ill due to:

(1) Workplace exposure to beryllium at various DOE nuclear

weapons production facilities;

(2) workplace exposure to plutonium and other highly radioactive materials at the Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous diffusion

facility; or

493

(3) workplace exposure to radiation and hazardous materials,

at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, site.

While the committee acknowledges that some DOE or contractor

employees may have developed illnesses as a result of being unknowingly exposed to dangerous materials or not being adequately

protected from such exposure, it questions whether the funds to

compensate these individuals should come from the national defense budget function and why a compensation program should not

be set up as an entitlement rather than financed from discretionary

appropriations.

The committee notes that the legislative proposal, the Energy

Employees’ Compensation Act was introduced and referred to committees in both the House of Representatives (H.R. 3418) and the

Senate (S. 1954) in November 1999 but was not referred to the

House Committee on Armed Services, since authorization for the

program would have to be approved by another committee. The

committee further notes that no other committee has held hearings

or taken any other action on the legislative proposal.

Additionally, the committee notes that the $17.0 million requested is just the beginning of the Department’s plans to compensate workers who were exposed to radiation while helping to

build the nation’s nuclear arsenal. The Department has recently

publicized a plan that would cost an estimated $400.0 million over

the first five years for this purpose.

The committee believes that the compensation program under

the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) provides a useful precedent in addressing compensation of the DOE and contractor employees at issue here. RECA is an entitlement program

designed to compensate uranium miners and individuals who suffered radiation exposure because they lived down-wind from nuclear test sites. The program is administered by the Department of

Justice, and entitlement funding is carried in Department of Justice budgetary accounts.

The committee believes that the Department of Energy could use

RECA as a model in establishing a program to compensate those

made ill by working at DOE facilities. Such an entitlement program would have the advantage of guaranteeing appropriate compensation once eligibility criteria are defined. Moreover, the program would not be subject to the funding vagaries of the annual

authorization process. Once such a program is established and eligibility criteria are defined, the committee will be in a position to

make a more informed judgment about how much funding is appropriate and necessary.

Even though the committee has questions about this compensation initiative, it nevertheless recommends a $2.0 million increase

for Environment, Safety, and Health to structure such a program.

The committee notes that DOE officials have recently indicated

that almost all of the $17.0 million requested would be used for administrative start-up expenses rather than to pay claims. The committee does not support this amount for administrative purposes

and believes that the $2.0 million should be adequate for these

costs until the committee’s concerns can be properly addressed.

494

Hanford tank waste remediation system privatization, phase I

The budget request contained $450.0 million for the Hanford

Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Privatization, Phase IB–

2.

The current contractor for TWRS Phase IB–1 recently submitted

a proposal to the Department of Energy (DOE) to complete the design, as well as to construct and operate, a waste treatment facility

for the radioactive waste at the Hanford site. The expected cost for

this work was $15.2 billion, which the Secretary of Energy denounced as unacceptably high. The Secretary stated that the $15.2

billion cost was proposed just 18 months after the contractor informed the Department that it could design, construct, and operate

a waste treatment facility for $6.9 billion and that he would not approve the proposal.

While the Secretary of Energy has rejected the proposal, the committee acknowledges that this waste must be extracted from the

tanks, solidified, and safely stored because the risk of leakage is

unacceptable. However, the committee believes that given the uncertain path forward for this program, the budget request is overstated. Therefore, the committee recommends $194.0 million, a decrease of $256.0 million for the TWRS.

The committee believes that the $194.0 million in new budget

authority should be combined with funds appropriated for TWRS in

prior years that remain unobligated. The committee understands

that $118.0 million in prior appropriations are currently reserved

for termination costs which would be incurred if the Phase IB–1

contract is terminated by the Department. Since DOE intends to

allow this contract to be completed in August 2000, these funds

will not be needed for termination expenses. The committee also

understands that $58.0 million of prior year carryover balances

exist in the TWRS program and that DOE intended to apply this

amount to Phase IB–2 TWRS design work in fiscal year 2001.

Therefore, the $176.0 million of prior appropriations could be combined with the $194.0 million of new budget authority to provide

DOE with $370.0 million for the planned continuation of the design

work for the waste treatment facility, for procurement of long lead

items, and to provide for possible rework required should a different contractor be selected to continue this project.

In order to make the funds held for termination liability available for other purposes, the committee has included a provision

(section 3131) that would prohibit the use of appropriated funds to

establish a reserve for contract termination costs for the Tank

Waste Remediation System. Should the need for termination liability arise, the committee stands ready to assist the Department.

Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility

The budget request contained $15.0 million for design of the

mixed oxide fuel (MOX) fabrication facility. The Department of Energy (DOE) awarded a $65.0 million contract for the design of the MOX fabrication facility in March 1999.

The committee understands that since the award of the contract,

the contractor has had to make unforeseen changes to the facility’s

planned configuration and will have to do additional environmental

work to satisfy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

495

The committee notes that recent DOE security assessments recommend the installation of earth and concrete barriers around the

MOX facility to deny or delay access by intruders and that these

requirements were not conveyed to the contractor until after the

contract award. Similarly, the DOE Final Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for the MOX facility was not available until after

the design contract award, and the NRC indicated that significant

differences between the MOX facility advance preliminary design

and the EIS will require the contractor to do additional environmental impact analyses.

Due to these unforeseen changes and a subsequent requirement for additional contingency funds, the committee recommends $23.0

million for the MOX fabrication facility, an increase of $8.0 million.

Nonproliferation and national security

The budget request contained $38.0 million for a new start design of facilities in Russia for the storage of spent fuel from civil

nuclear reactors. The committee understands that this program is

intended to encourage Russia to cease separating plutonium from

spent reactor fuel due to concerns about the potential for increased

risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons material. The committee is

concerned that the completed facility should have adequate security to protect the stored fissile material. Therefore, the committee

directs that, if this facility is constructed, the Department of Energy (DOE) extend protection to the facility through the Department’s International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting

program.

The committee is also concerned about the expenditure of funds

on nonproliferation efforts in Russia with little DOE on-site monitoring. The committee understands that the Department currently

monitors the various programs in Russia through occasional visits

by Department employees and believes that this level of monitoring

is insufficient. Therefore, the committee directs that at each Russian site where a significant DOE nonproliferation program is in

operation, the Department locate a DOE employee or contractor on

a continual basis to monitor the operations of the nonproliferation

program and that U.S. funds are efficiently applied.

Worker and community transition

The budget request contained $24.5 million for Worker and Community Transition, of which $6.0 million was designated for assistance at an identified site. The remainder was either designated for

administration of the program ($3.0 million) or intended to be held

as a contingency for site closings and workforce transitions that

were unforeseen at the time the budget was prepared ($15.5 million).

The committee understands that a portion of the Savannah River

Site is in Barnwell County, South Carolina, an area of the state experiencing chronic underemployment resulting from workforce reductions at Savannah River during the last decade.

In the 1970s, a facility to reprocess spent nuclear fuel was constructed on the Allied General Nuclear Site (AGNS) in Barnwell

County immediately adjacent to the Savannah River Site. However,

before reprocessing began, federal policy toward reprocessing was

496

reversed and the facility was closed. In an effort to mitigate the

employment problems surrounding the Savannah River Site, the

Tri-County Alliance, consisting of the counties of Barnwell,

Allendale, and Bamberg, has agreed to acquire the AGNS site for

redevelopment as a special-use industrial park. The committee understands that a major investment is required at the site to develop the necessary infrastructure for industries that would locate

there to serve the Savannah River Site and the surrounding community.

Therefore, the committee recommends $24.5 million for Worker

and Community Transition and directs that $5.0 million of the undesignated amount be expended on infrastructure development at

the AGNS site.

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The budget request contained $6,177.6 million for the National

Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends $6,269.4 million, an increase of

$91.8 million.

Items of Special Interest

Budget Structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA)

The committee notes that section 3251of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) required that, beginning with fiscal year 2001, the budget request for

the NNSA be set forth in individual, dedicated program elements.

The committee notes that the budget request does not include such

program elements and, therefore, does not comply with the requirements of current law.

The committee observes that supporting material accompanying

the budget request for Defense Programs describes in detail a

budget structure organized around directed stockpile work, campaigns, readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF), and construction. Within each of these areas, funds are identified to support discrete project activities or sets of activities. In view of the

lack of cooperation from the Department of Energy (DOE) in formulating the budget request in compliance with the requirements

of Public Law 106–65, the committee believes that it must take the

step of establishing program elements. The committee believes that

the discrete activities identified in the budget request provide the

basis for such program elements. The designation of program elements and funding levels recommended by the committee are depicted in table entries.

However, the committee does not believe that the Defense Programs activities identified in directed stockpile work, campaigns,

RTBF, and construction are appropriately aligned or portrayed. As

a first step toward realigning these activities, the committee recommends that related activities and construction projects be consolidated under their associated campaign program elements. The

realignment of funds by the committee within the individual program elements is described elsewhere in this report.

497

The committee urges the Administrator of NNSA to prepare, and

the Department to submit, future budget requests that: (1) align

major construction projects and facilities with their related campaigns, in order to enhance Congressional and managerial oversight; (2) fund infrastructure and operational readiness by facility,

in order to provide a clear picture of the business and overhead

costs at NNSA facilities; and (3) organize directed stockpile work

by warhead, in order to provide a clear picture of the status of each

warhead in the inventory and the work required to sustain it.

The committee also notes that section 3252 of Public Law 106–

65 required that, beginning with fiscal year 2001, funding requested for the NNSA be available for obligation for a limited number of years. The committee notes that the DOE has again requested that its funds be available until expended. The committee

recommends a provision (section 3128) that would define the length

of time for which funding for the NNSA would be available.

Campaigns

The budget request contained $1,049.9 million for campaigns.

The committee recommends $2057.0 million for campaigns, including an increase of $131.0 million, a transfer of $621.8 million

from readiness in technical base and facilities, and a transfer of

$254.3 million from construction.

Advanced Design and Production Technology (ADAPT)

The budget request contained $75.7 million for the ADAPT campaign, which will develop advanced manufacturing capabilities critical to improving efficiency at the nuclear weapons plants, but included no funds for the American Textile (AMTEX) partnership.

The committee understands that the budget request does not

adequately support process development, integrated product and

process and design, agile manufacturing, and enterprise integration

at the Kansas City plant. Therefore, the committee recommends an

increase of $3.0 million to support these activities.

AMTEX enhances capabilities relevant to both the stockpile

stewardship program and the textile industry by developing technologies that integrate product and process design in a concurrent

manufacturing enterprise. Consistent with its previous support for

AMTEX activities, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0

million in the ADAPT campaign to continue this effort.

In total, the committee recommends $81.7 million for ADAPT, an

increase of $6.0 million.

Advanced radiography

The budget request contained $43.0 million for the advanced radiography campaign and $35.2 million for construction of the dualaxis radiographic hydrotest facility (DARHT). The committee believes that congressional and managerial oversight of these activities would be enhanced if funds for these activities were consolidated in the advanced radiography campaign. Therefore, the committee directs this realignment. The budget request contained a

total of $78.2 million in these activities. The committee recommends the requested amount.

498

The committee understands that hydrotest capabilities are unlikely to provide test results in a timely manner to certify new and

remanufactured primaries (the fission device that triggers the fusion reaction in nuclear weapons), that development of advanced

radiography technologies has been delayed, and that the advanced

radiography and primary certification campaigns are being

rebaselined. Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of

the National Nuclear Security Administration to provide a report

to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2001, on

hydrotest and radiography requirements, the process by which they

are defined, the technologies available to meet the requirements,

the timelines on which these technologies are available, and the

funding associated with the technologies and schedules.

The committee also encourages the Administrator to examine the

relationship between the advanced radiography and campaign and

the primary certification campaign to determine if management insight would be enhanced by an appropriate realignment of these

two efforts.

Defense computing and modeling

The budget request contained $477.1 million for the Accelerated

Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) component of advanced simulation and computing in readiness in technical base and facilities

(RTBF). The budget request also contained the following amounts

for ASCI and defense computing: $249.1 million for the defense application and modeling campaign, which provides funds to develop

and run nuclear weapons computer codes on ASCI computers; $2.3

million for construction of the distributed information systems laboratory at Sandia National Laboratories; $5.0 million for construction of the terascale simulation facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; $56.0 million for construction of the strategic

computing complex at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and $6.7

million for the joint computational engineering laboratory at

Sandia National Laboratories. Each of these facilities under construction will be used to house ASCI computers. The committee believes that funding all of these activities in the defense application

and modeling campaign will provide better understanding of ASCI

costs and enhance congressional oversight and managerial control.

Therefore, the committee directs this realignment. As realigned,

the budget request contained $796.2 million for defense computing

and modeling.

ASCI is an effort to develop by 2004 a computer capable of 100

trillion operations a second. This computer will be powerful enough

to conduct three-dimensional simulations of nuclear explosions to

be used as a means of assuring the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of U.S. nuclear weapons in the absence of actual testing. The

committee understands the significance of ASCI for science-based

stockpile stewardship and is encouraged by the technical progress

demonstrated to date.

Of the $477.1 million requested for ASCI in RTBF, $55.7 million

was included for collaborations with universities and industry. The

committee notes that this represents a 38 percent increase over the

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The committee understands the value of these collaborations in attracting university talVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00522 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.128 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
499

ent to the benefit of the stewardship program, but believes that the

increase is excessive. The committee recommends $40.7 million for

university collaborations, a reduction of $15.0 million. The budget request also contained $112.8 million for the visual

interactive environment for weapon simulation (VIEWS) project, a

68 percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level.

The committee continues to be concerned about the pace of growth

in certain parts of the ASCI project and does not believe that the

Department of Energy has adequately justified an increase of this

magnitude. Therefore, the committee recommends $107.8 million

for VIEWS, a reduction of $5.0 million.

In total, the committee recommends $776.2 million for the defense computing and modeling campaign, a reduction of $20.0 million.

Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) ignition and high yield

margins

The budget request contained $120.8 million for the ICF ignition and high yield margins campaign; $100.8 million in readiness in

technical base and facilities (RTBF) for the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a key component of the ICF ignition campaign; $43.9 million for other RTBF operations related to pulse power and lasers;

and $74.1 million for NIF construction. The total request in these

various activities is $339.6 million. The committee believes that

funding all of these activities in the ICF ignition campaign will provide a better understanding of ICF costs and enhance both congressional oversight and managerial control. Therefore, the committee

directs this realignment.

The committee also encourages the Administrator of the National

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to examine the relationship of the ICF high yield campaign and the secondary readiness

campaign and to determine if management insight would be enhanced by an appropriate realignment of these two efforts.

The committee recognizes that NIF is a key element of the effort

to sustain the nuclear stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing and supports completion of the NIF project. NIF will

use a large array of lasers used to achieve a fusion reaction by focusing their energy on a small hydrogen target. Experiments with

NIF, both those that achieve a fusion reaction and subcritical experiments, will contribute important experimental data to several

stockpile stewardship campaigns and will allow scientists to confirm computer models on the behavior of nuclear weapons explosions.

However, the committee understands that the NIF project is now

$750.0 million to $1.0 billion over budget and behind schedule by

four years. The cost growth and delay stem from the greater-thanexpected complexity of assembling and integrating 192 high energy

lasers in a clean, confined space.

The committee is concerned that the NIF project management

failed to indicate in a clear and timely way the magnitude of the

technical difficulties as they emerged. The committee is also concerned that project oversight by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, independent review teams, the University of California as

the contractor with oversight responsibilities, and the Department

500

of Energy failed to detect or report the technical difficulties. For example, the committee understands that independent reviews examined the program’s performance related to schedule and budget,

without examining the underlying engineering plans. The General

Accounting Office and the Department now both confirm that, in

fact, there was no detailed engineering plan for the assembly and

integration of the laser components. These failures also highlight

the lack of appropriate technical expertise within the Department

to allow for effective oversight and the urgent need to address this

problem.

The committee, therefore, directs that no more than 35 percent

of the funds authorized for appropriation for the NIF program may

be obligated until the Administrator certifies to the congressional

defense committees that program management flaws resident in

the laboratory and contractor have been corrected and that NNSA

oversight and management of the program is performed by NNSA

personnel with appropriate technical and management expertise.

The committee notes that the Secretary of Energy has recently recommended a realignment of $95.0 million from various campaigns to NIF. In light of the significance of the NIF project to

stockpile stewardship, the committee recommends an increase of

$95.0 million to the ICF and High Yield Margins campaign for NIF

construction.

However, the committee believes that the sources for the additional NIF funds identified in the Secretary’s recommendation will

detract from activities that are key to sustaining the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile and that lower

priority funding should be identified for realignment. In the absence of credible sources for additional NIF funding, the committee

believes that the designation of specific sources to offset the increase to NIF construction is premature. The committee will coordinate closely with the Administrator of the NNSA to assure that

that appropriate offsets for this increase are identified in a timely

manner.

The ICF campaign budget request also included $32.1 million for

the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics

(LLE). The committee believes that LLE’s Omega laser continues

to make important contributions to the ICF program, particularly

in light of the delays and technical challenges facing the NIF

project, and directs that the Department fund this facility at the

requested level.

Laser development

The budget request contained $120.8 million for the inertial confinement fusion (ICF) ignition and high yield margins campaign

but included no funds for laser research and development jointly

funded by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA).

The committee notes that the high energy laser master plan

mandated by section 251 of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) recommended that DOD

and the Department of Energy conclude a memorandum of agreement to conduct a joint high energy laser research program beneficial to both the NNSA and DOD. The committee recommends a

501

provision, described elsewhere in this report, that would require

the NNSA and DOD to conclude such an agreement wherein the

costs of peer-reviewed research conducted under the auspices of the

agreement would be evenly shared between them.

The committee believes that joint research on high energy lasers

can help to meet critical national security challenges, including the

need for effective ballistic missile defenses, while simultaneously

benefitting stockpile stewardship activities of the NNSA.

Therefore, the recommends an increase of $10.0 million to the

ICF ignition and high yield margins campaign budget request for

joint DOD–NNSA research on high energy lasers.

Pit manufacturing readiness

The budget request contained $108.0 for the pit manufacturing

readiness campaign.

The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) lacks a robust capability for the replacement of

plutonium pits. The Report of the Panel to Assess the Reliability,

Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile expressed concern over ‘‘the high degree of uncertainly in the current

understanding of the useful life of plutonium pits.’’ The Panel, citing estimates that construction of new plutonium facilities could

take 7 to 15 years, urged that conceptual design activities of a pit

production facility begin on an expedited basis.

The committee also notes that the pit production facility at Los

Alamos National Laboratory is designed for a maximum capacity of

about 50 pits per year. The committee recognizes that the rate at

which pits may need replacement remains unclear, due to the uncertainties related to pit lifetime and the ultimate size of the stockpile, but the committee understands that this rate is unlikely to

allow for replacing stockpile pits in a timely manner. Accordingly,

the committee believes conceptual design of a pit production facility

should begin promptly as a hedge against the risk that the need

for expanded pit production will develop more rapidly than is now

anticipated. Given the uncertain demand for pit production, the

committee also believes that a scalable design is desirable so that

the design can be readily adapted as demand is more precisely defined.

Therefore, the committee recommends $123.0 million for pit

manufacturing readiness, an increase of $15.0 million for the initiation of conceptual design work on a pit manufacturing facility.

Noting that a science-oriented laboratory is not the best institution

for pit production and that industry is better suited to this task,

the committee urges the Administrator of the NNSA to maximize

industry involvement in the design and manufacture of plutonium

pits.

The committee understands that funds appropriated in fiscal

year 1999 for pit production readiness were diverted for other uses,

have not yet been restored, and may result in a delay of up to two

years in the production of the first certifiable pit. The committee

strongly urges the Department to initiate a reprogramming to restore these funds as soon as possible.

502

Tritium readiness

The budget request contained $77.0 million in the tritium readi- ness campaign, including $58.0 million for commercial light water

reactor (CLWR) tritium production and $19.0 million for accelerator production of tritium (APT). It also contained $75.0 million

for construction of the tritium extraction facility. The committee believes that congressional and managerial oversight of these activities would be enhanced if funding for these activities were consolidated in the tritium readiness campaign. Therefore, the committee

directs this realignment. As realigned, the budget request contained a total of $152.0 million in these activities.

The committee notes that section 3134 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) required the Department of Energy to complete preliminary design

and engineering development of APT and codified the December

1998 tritium production decision by the Secretary of Energy that

designated CLWR technology as the primary tritium production

technology but committed to completion of the APT preliminary design. The budget request, however, suspends APT backup design

activities and, in so doing, both violates current law and contradicts the Secretary’s tritium production decision.

The committee believes that the uncertainty inherent in the

CLWR license amendment process requires the precaution of continuing APT design work at a reasonable level. Therefore, the committee recommends $177.0 million in the tritium readiness campaign, an increase of $25.0 million.

Construction projects

The budget request contained $414.2 million for construction and

infrastructure improvements. The committee recommends the

alignment of most construction projects with their associated campaigns. The committee recommends that the following projects be

realigned: the distributed information systems laboratory (01–D–

101, $2.3 million), the terascale simulation facility (00–D–103, $5.0

million), the strategic computing complex (00–D–105, $56.0 million), and the joint computational engineering laboratory (00–D–

107, $6.7 million) to the defense applications and modeling campaign; the tritium extraction facility (98–D–125, $75.0 million) to

the tritium readiness campaign; the dual-axis radiographic

hydrotest facility (97–D–102, $35.2 million) to the advanced radiography campaign; and the national ignition facility (96–D–111, $74.1

million) to the inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield

margins campaign.

The budget request contained $159.8 million for the remaining

construction projects. The committee recommends the budget request. The committee believes that many of these projects should

also migrate to an associated campaign and encourages the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to do so

in subsequent budget requests.

Defense programs requirements process

The committee understands that the nuclear weapons requirements process involves project officer groups responsible for the

health of each weapons type, the nuclear weapons requirements

503

working group, the nuclear weapons council standing and safety

committee, and the nuclear weapons council. The membership of

each of these groups includes officers and personnel of the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) and each

deals with system or technical requirements at various levels of detail. The committee notes that DOE’s 1999 Stockpile Stewardship

Program 30-Day Review concluded that coordination between DOD

and DOE is inadequate to generate and prioritize nuclear weapons

requirements. The review further contended that the Office of Defense Programs (DP) lacks a formal process for assessing these requirements, developing plans to address them, and prioritizing

workloads. The committee believes that concerns expressed by the

review are legitimate.

The committee also notes that DP has pursued a science-based

stockpile stewardship program to sustain the viability of U.S. nuclear weapons in the absence of underground nuclear testing. DP

has been developing and acquiring a range of science-based tools

for this purpose, and the committee understands that DP must also

define and prioritize requirements for these tools. The committee

notes that DP has a long history of poor program management, in

part attributable to poor program definition and frequently changing program baselines. The committee believes that this history

gives rise to legitimate concern that DP also lacks a sufficiently formal and rigorous approach to defining the technical requirements

of these science-based tools and prioritizing competing technology

programs.

Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in consultation

with the Secretary of Defense, to submit to the congressional defense committees by February 15, 2000, a report on the steps being

taken to improve requirements processes related to nuclear weapons. The report should include an assessment of coordination between the NNSA and DOD together with actions required to more

fully coordinate this process, as well as an assessment of DP’s internal processes for developing plans to address nuclear weapons

requirements and prioritizing resulting workloads together with

any actions required to improve DP’s processes. The report should

further assess DP’s procedures for defining the technical requirements for science-based stewardship tools and prioritizing competing technology programs and steps required to improve these

procedures.

Department of Energy Reorganization Issues

The committee notes that title 32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) required

the establishment of the National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA) by March 1, 2000, and the committee is pleased that the

NNSA has been formally established by the Department of Energy

(DOE). The committee is also pleased that a nominee for Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration has been

forwarded to the Senate by the President.

However, the committee remains concerned about the slow

progress of the Department toward full compliance with the law.

The Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy ReorganizaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00527 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.130 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
504

tion expressed, in its report to the committee on February 11, 2000,

a number of concerns with the Department’s January 2000 implementation plan. These concerns included the Department’s placement of DOE officials to serve concurrently in key NNSA positions,

the continuation of confused lines of authority within the NNSA,

the failure to provide any information on the use of authorities to

restructure the NNSA workforce, an overemphasis in the plan on

continued DOE control over the NNSA, and the retention of current DOE budget and planning practices.

The committee remains particularly concerned about the placement of DOE officials to serve concurrently in key NNSA positions,

a practice known as ‘‘dual-hatting.’’ The Secretary of Energy testified to the committee that he would not change this practice, even

after an NNSA Administrator is confirmed by the Senate.

The committee notes that the Department, in its written legal

opinion in support of this practice, maintains that Congress was

explicit and detailed throughout title 32 of Public Law 106-65, but

did not explicitly prohibit dual-hatting.

The committee asserts that dual-hatting DOE officials to any positions in NNSA violates a clearly implied prohibition in current

law and notes that the entire purpose, structure and legislative history of title 32 of Public Law 106–65 reflect an intent to insulate

NNSA and its contractors from the rest of DOE. This intent is apparent in several sections, including: section 3213(a), which established that the Secretary or Deputy Secretary may provide direction to NNSA only through the NNSA Administrator; section

3212(d), which stated that the Administrator may make policies

specific to NNSA, subject only to the disapproval of the Secretary;

section 3212(c), which established the Administrator as the chief

procurement executive for NNSA; sections 3212(b) and 3218, that

provide the NNSA Administrator with staff to perform all of the

normal administrative functions in running an agency, including

budget, personnel, legislative affairs, public affairs, procurement,

counterintelligence; section 3217 which established the position of

General Counsel within the Administration; and sections 3213(a)

and 3213(b), which specifically prohibited DOE officers and employees, other than the Secretary acting through the Administrator,

from exercising authority, direction, or control over NNSA employees or NNSA contractor employees. The committee believes that

these provisions, in combination, provide compelling evidence of

congressional intent to insulate the NNSA from direct control by

DOE staff and to prohibit dual-hatting within the NNSA.

The legislative history also clearly indicates that Congress, in

mandating the establishment of the NNSA, was attempting to rectify the longstanding bureaucratic confusion and overlap that has

plagued DOE. The committee remains concerned that the DOE implementation plan fails to correct these confused lines of authority.

The Department as currently organized requires three NNSA facilities to report through non-NNSA operations offices. The committee

believes that this arrangement is not compliant with current law.

The implementation plan also makes no changes in the role or

function of operations offices. The committee believes that the roles

and functions of operations offices should be revised to clarify headquarters authorities and streamline NNSA management. Finally,

505

the committee notes that dual-hatting senior DOE officials to

NNSA positions, particularly those that involve overseeing NNSA

field operations, will undermine the authority of the Administrator,

perpetuate confused lines of authority, and ultimately will make it

more difficult to rectify problems in the weapons complex.

The committee also observes that section 3241 of Public Law

106–65 authorized the Administrator of the NNSA to establish up

to 300 excepted service positions to fill science, engineering, and

technical positions with qualified personnel. The committee notes

the Department’s lack of appropriate technical expertise to manage

complex projects and activities. Thus, the committee was disappointed that a proposal to use this authority was not forwarded

as part of the Secretary’s January 2000 implementation plan. The

committee continues to believe that this authority will be an important tool for the Administrator to reshape the NNSA workforce.

Accordingly, the committee expects the Secretary and the Administrator of the NNSA to reform lines of authority and the roles and

functions of operations offices within the NNSA, and to develop

management structures that incorporate the use of personnel hired

through excepted service authority.

Directed stockpile work

The budget request contained $836.6 million for directed stockpile work. The committee recommends $856.6 million, an increase of $20.0

million.

Stockpile evaluation

The budget request contained $151.7 million for stockpile evaluation.

The committee notes that the budget request does not adequately

support radiographic inspection of nuclear weapons components

and assemblies, vacuum chamber inspection activities, testing in

the accelerated aging unit, and other stockpile evaluation activities

at the Pantex plant. The committee recommends an increase of

$5.0 million to support these activities.

The committee also notes that the budget request does not adequately support quality evaluation and certification activities and

joint test assemblies at the Y–12 plant. The committee recommends

an increase of $6.0 million for stockpile evaluation at the Y–12

plant.

In total, the committee recommends $162.7 million, an increase

of $11.0 million for stockpile evaluation.

Stockpile maintenance

The budget request contained $258.0 million for stockpile maintenance.

The committee notes that the budget request does not adequately

support life extension and repairs for the B–61 warhead and other

directed stockpile work at the Kansas City plant. The committee

recommends an increase of $5.0 million to support these activities.

The committee also notes that the budget request does not adequately support life extension activities for the B–61 and W-76

warheads and other directed stockpile work at the Y–12. The comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00529 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.131 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
506

mittee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to support these activities.

In total, the committee recommends $267.0 million, an increase

of $9.0 million for stockpile maintenance.

Program direction for defense programs

The budget request contained $224.1 million for program direction for the Office of Defense Programs (DP).

The committee notes federal staffing levels planned for National

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) operations offices is the

same as the authorized staffing level for fiscal year 2000. The committee also notes that the size of the operations offices and the confusing lines of authority within the Office of Defense Programs

were criticized in many independent reports over two decades, most

recently by the June 1999 report by the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The committee believes that the Administrator of the NNSA should clarify lines of authority and adjust the

personnel levels at the operations offices accordingly. Consequently,

the committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million, which corresponds to a five percent reduction in federal staffing at the

NNSA operations offices.

The committee also notes that of the funds requested for pro- gram direction, $2.2 million would support automatic data processing equipment (ADPE) upgrades at the Oak Ridge and Oakland

Operations Offices. These operations offices are part of the Office

of Science of the Department of Energy. Title 32 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–

65) included Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Y–

12 plant as part of the NNSA and required that these facilities report to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs. The committee believes that an organizational structure that entails DP facilities reporting through the Office of Science is both inefficient

and inappropriate and does not believe that DP should fund computer upgrades for the Office of Science. Therefore the committee

recommends an additional reduction of $2.2 million to program direction.

The committee recommends $216.9 million, a decrease of $7.2

million for program direction for the Office of Defense Programs.

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)

The budget request contained $1,953.6 million in RTBF. The

committee recommends $1,366.8 million, including an increase of

$35.0 million and a transfer of $621.8 million to campaigns.

The committee understands that the facility costs budgeted in

RTBF were not calculated consistently. While the nuclear weapons

production plants included all salaries under RTBF, the nuclear

weapons laboratories allocated salaries to various ongoing program

activities. The committee believes that this inconsistency hinders

congressional understanding of overhead costs and project costs

and expects the Administrator of the NNSA to develop the NNSA

budget for submission by DOE with RTBF funding calculated consistently among all the facilities.

Further, the committee does not believe that projects and activities that present complex scientific and engineering challenges

507

should be funded in RTBF. Consequently, as described elsewhere

in this report, the committee recommends funding for the advanced

simulation and computing component of RTBF through the defense

computing and modeling campaign, and that inertial confinement

fusion (ICF) and national ignition facility operations be funded

through the ICF and high yield margins campaign.

Operations of facilities

The budget request contained $1,313.4 million for operations of

facilities, including $29.1 million for infrastructure costs at the

Pantex plant, $39.8 million for infrastructure costs at the Kansas

City plant, and $67.3 million for infrastructure costs at the Y–12

plant.

The committee understands that the budget request for infrastructure costs at the nuclear weapons plants represent reductions

of 25 percent, 6 percent, and 27 percent at the Y–12, Kansas City,

and Pantex plants respectively. The committee is concerned that

such reductions are inconsistent with the problems highlighted by

the Stockpile Stewardship Program 30-Day Review conducted by

the Department of Energy. This review cited studies showing that

the historical rate of reinvestment in nuclear weapons facilities is

far below industry standards and that the aging infrastructure was

not designed to meet current mission requirements or safety standards.

The committee believes that the budget request places insufficient priority on restoring and modernizing infrastructure at the

plants, and recommends $49.1 million for infrastructure improvements at Pantex plant, an increase of $20.0 million; $56.8 million

for infrastructure improvements and capital equipment at the Kansas City plant, an increase of $17.0 million; and $82.3 million for

infrastructure improvements at the Y–12 plant, an increase of

$15.0 million.

As described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends

realigning $100.8 million from operations of facilities for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and $43.9 million in other RTBF

funds to the inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield

margins campaign.

Overall, the committee recommends $1,220.7 million for operations of facilities, a reduction of $92.7 million.

Special projects

The budget request contained $17.0 million for educational activities, including funding for mathematics and science education

for local schools near the national weapons laboratories, the Los Alamos County School District, and the Northern New Mexico Educational Enrichment Foundation.

The committee understands the importance of primary and secondary education in mathematics and science but believes that

funding of these activities in the Defense Programs account provides no direct benefit to the core national security mission of the

National Nuclear Security Administration. Consequently, the committee recommends no funds for these activities, a reduction of

$17.0 million.

508

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 2001.

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management

This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy environmental restoration and waste management activities for fiscal

year 2001.

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities

This section would authorize funds for other defense activities of

the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2001.

Section 3104—Defense Facilities Closure Projects

This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy defense facilities closure projects for fiscal year 2001.

Section 3105—Defense Environmental Management Privatization

This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy defense environmental management privatization activities for fiscal

year 2001.

Section 3106—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy defense nuclear waste disposal activities for fiscal year 2001.

SUBTITLE B—RECURRING GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 3121—Reprogramming

This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in excess

of 110 percent of the amount authorized for the program, or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for the program

until the Secretary of Energy has notified the congressional defense

committees and a period of 60 days has elapsed after the date on

which the notification is received.

Section 3122—Limits on General Plant Projects

This section would limit the initiation of general plant projects

if the current estimated cost for any 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

509

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 the 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 permit the Secretary of Energy to perform

planning and design for construction activities utilizing available

funds for any Department of Energy national security program construction project 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—Availability of Funds

This section would require that funds authorized for the various

activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration and environmental management activities of the Department of Energy

would be available for obligation for three years, and that funding

authorized for program direction would be available for obligation

for one year.

Section 3128—Authority Relating to 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 3131—Funding for Termination Costs for Tank Waste

Remediation System Environmental Project, Richland, Washington

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from using

appropriated funds to establish a reserve for the payment of termination costs of contracts relating to the tank waste remediation

510

system at Richland, Washington and identifies alternatives to pay

for these costs should the need arise to do so.

Section 3132—Enhanced Cooperation Between National Nuclear

Security Administration and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

This section would establish the basis for expanded cooperation

between the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and the National Nuclear Security Administration.

The committee continues to believe that ballistic missile defense

remains one of the highest defense priorities and that the national

laboratories represent a repository of expertise of potentially great

value in meeting technology challenges in the ballistic missile defense program.

Section 3133—Required Contents of Future-Years Nuclear Security

Program to be Submitted with Fiscal Year 2002 Budget and Limitation on Obligation of Certain Funds Pending Submission of

That Program

This section would make certain findings that the budget submission for fiscal year 2001 to Congress does not comply with requirements imposed by sections 3251 and 3253 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65);

would establish requirements for the content of the future-years

nuclear security program to be submitted annually by the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

pursuant to section 3253 of Public Law 106–65; and would prohibit

the obligation of more than 50 percent of funds authorized for appropriation for program direction within NNSA until 30 days after

the Administrator provides Congress with the required futureyears nuclear security program.

Section 3134—Limitation on Obligation of Certain Funds

This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized to be appropriated for the National Nuclear Security Administration for infrastructure upgrades or maintenance in the readiness of technical

base and facilities or construction accounts to be used for any other

purpose.

(511)

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

The budget request contained $18.5 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB).

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2000 appropriation for

DNFSB was $17.0 million and does not believe there is ample justification to warrant increase of $1.5 million. The Board cites an increased number of Department of Energy facilities to oversee as

the basis for their increased budget request. However, most of

these new facilities will be in the design, not construction, phase

during fiscal year 2001.

Consequently, the committee recommends $17.0 million for the

DNFSB, a decrease of $1.5 million.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION

Section 3201—Authorization

This section would authorize $17.0 million for the operation of

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

(512)

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3301—Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds

This section would authorize $70.5 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2001. The

provision would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after a notification to Congress.

Section 3302—Use of Excess Titanium Sponge in the National Defense Stockpile to Manufacture Department of Defense Equipment

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer

excess titanium sponge contained in the National Defense Stockpile

for use in manufacturing equipment to be used by the military

services. This transfer authority would be on a non-reimbursable

basis, except that the military service requesting the titanium

would be responsible for all transportation and related costs. This

new transfer authority would not conflict with transfer authorities

for titanium contained in section 3305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106).

(513)

TITLE XXXIV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Merchant Marine Academy

The budget request contained $37.2 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). The committee is deeply troubled that the health and safety hazards to the cadets and staff still

continue due to the appalling condition of physical plant and infrastructure at the institution. Although the budget request includes

an increase of $3.0 million for repairs and capital improvements,

this amount is insufficient to begin to buy down the backlog of deferred maintenance and facilities replacement. The committee is

concerned that a facilities master plan that would establish and

prioritize necessary repairs and improvements is not complete.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $13.9 million

to complete development of a facilities master plan and to address

the most critical health and safety related repair and capital replacement projects at the USMMA.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001

This section would authorize a total of $148.3 million for fiscal

year 2001, an increase of $61.9 million above the budget request,

for the Maritime Administration. Of the funds authorized, $94.2

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, of loan guarantees authorized by Title

XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C.

1271 et seq.), and $4.2 million would be for administrative expenses related to providing these loan guarantees.

Section 3402—Extension of Period For Disposal of Obsolete Vessels

From the National Reserve Fleet

This section would amend the National Maritime Heritage Act of

1994 to extend by five years, until September 20, 2006, the date

by which obsolete vessels from the National Defense Reserve Fleet

vessels must be disposed and require the use if overseas scrapping

facilities to meet this requirement. In addition, this section would

require the Secretary of Transportation to submit to the Congress

a plan describing how the required disposals will be completed by

the revised date.

Section 3403—Authority to Convey National Defense Reserve Fleet

Vessel, GLACIER

This section would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

convey, at no cost to the government, a surplus National Defense

Reserve Fleet vessel, to the Glacier Society for use as a museum.

(514)

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, March 6, 2000.

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

2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for

other purposes.’’

This legislative proposal is part of the Department of Defense

Legislative Program for the Second Session of the 106th Congress

and is necessary to carry out the President’s budget plans for fiscal

year 2001. 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.

The bill proposes several important initiatives needed for the efficient operation of the Department of Defense. It would contribute

to the smooth management of the Department by providing many

improvements to the authorities under which we operate.

The Department currently is developing several other legislative

proposals, including an initiative regarding the basic allowance for

housing for military personnel. We will submit these initiatives in

the near future.

Sincerely,

DOUGLAS A. DWORKIN,

Acting General Counsel.

Enclosures.

515

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,

Washington, DC, February 28, 2000.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed is proposed legislation to authorize

military construction and related activities of the Department of

Defense. It is styled as Division B—Military Construction Authorizations, with the expectation that it will be included in the National Defense authorizations for fiscal year 2001 with that designation. Enactment of this legislation is necessary to carry out the

President’s budget plan with regard to military housing and property for fiscal year 2001. This legislation is part of the Legislative

Program of the Department of Defense for the Second Session of

the 106th Congress.

If enacted, this legislation would make several improvements to

the efficiency of managing military construction, base housing, and

the use of defense lands. These improvements would include extension of authority to conduct our military privatization initiatives,

the revision of the limitations on space in housing by grade, the enhancement of the Military Leasing Act, and several other general

and specific authorities in the management of our military housing

and property.

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,

DOUGLAS A. DWORKIN, Acting General Counsel.

Enclosures.

COMMITTEE POSITION

On May 10, 2000 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum

being present, approved H.R. 4205, as amended, by a vote of 56 to

1.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: According to information provided by

Armed Services staff, H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, includes several provisions that affect

laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

Those provisions are found at section 738 of the bill (improvements

516

regarding VA–DOD sharing agreements for health services), section 535 of the bill (addition of certain information to markers on

graves at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific), and section 2831 of the bill (transfer of jurisdiction of land to VA at Rock

Island Arsenal). In order to expedite consideration of H.R. 4205,

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs waives the right it would have

under the House Rules to seek a referral of the measure to the

Committee for consideration of these provisions.

Thank you for your courtesy in bringing these matters to the VA

Committee’s attention.

Sincerely,

BOB STUMP, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2000.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in H.R.

4205, the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act.

H.R. 4205 as reported by the Committee on Armed Services contains many provisions over which the Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure has jurisdiction and as such would be entitled

to a sequential referral. As in previous bills, these generally include all sections that affect the pay, benefits and personnel of the

United States Coast Guard, including Section 615, providing for

Physicians Assistants for the Coast Guard.

In addition to matters related to pay, benefits and personnel of

the Coast Guard, we would also be entitled to a sequential referral

of Title XIV, creating a Commission to assess the threat to the

United States from electromagnetic pulse attack, Section 2839, regarding a land conveyance for the Charles Melvin Price Support

Center in Illinois, and Section 2881, relating to easement authority

to leased parkland at the Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton,

California.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4205 and the

need for this legislation to move expeditiously. While we have a

valid claim to jurisdiction over the provisions identified above, I do

not intend to request a sequential referral. 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 by included in the Committee

Report and as part of the record during consideration of this bill

by the House. Our Committee would request to be included as conferees on these provisions, as well.

Thank you for your cooperation in this manner.

Sincerely,

BUD SHUSTER, Chairman.

517

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.

Hon. BUD SHUSTER,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of May 12, 2000

regarding H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2001.

I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to

request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration

of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will

be included in the Committee report on the bill.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

FLOYD D. SPENCE, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for an opportunity to review the

text of H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, for provisions which are within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. These provisions include those dealing with oceanography, environmental review, benefits for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Corps, historic preservation, public lands, and territories of the

United States.

Because of the continued cooperation and consideration you have

afforded me and my staff in developing these provisions, I will not

seek a sequential referral of H.R. 4205 based on their inclusion in

the bill. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right to seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Resources on these provisions, should a conference on

H.R. 4205 or a similar measure become necessary.

Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and Phil

Grone of your staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 4205 enacted

soon as a very suitable monument to your years of distinguished

service as Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG, Chairman.

518

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that on Wednesday, May 10,

2000, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably reported

H.R. 4250, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2001. 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 232, Sense of Congress concerning commitment to deployment of National Missile Defense system; (2) Section 233, Reports on ballistic missile threat posed by North Korea; (3) Section

908, Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation; (4)

Section 1201, Support of United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect and monitor Iraqi weapons activities; (5) Section 1203, Situation in the Balkans; and (6) Title XIII, Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the Former Soviet Union.

With respect to Section 1204, Limitation on number of military

personnel in Colombia, it is my understanding that the Parliamentarians continue to review our jurisdictional claim on this provision. Because of our Committee’s strong interest in this provision,

which we believe is at the heart of our Committee’s jurisdiction regarding decisions governing intervention abroad, we will continue

to seek jurisdiction over this provision as we move toward conference committee on H.R. 4250.

Pursuant to Chairman Dreier’s announcement that the Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule for H.R.

4250 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.

Sincerely,

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2000.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing concerning H.R. 4025, the

‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001,’’ which

contains several items of jurisdictional interest to the Committee

on Ways and Means.

519

Specifically, draft section 651, ‘‘participation in the Thrift Savings Plan,’’ would permit the military to participate in the Thrift

Savings Plan. I understand that the Congressional Budget Office

(CBO) is expected to score secondary revenue losses of approximately $321 million over 5 years due to this provision. Normally,

the Committee on Ways and Means would have a budgetary interest in such legislation. However, I am informed that the statement

of managers to accompany the Conference Report for H. Con. Res.

290, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001

states that ‘‘the revenue levels in the Conference Agreement would

accommodate the revenue effects from legislation that would permit members of the Armed Forces to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan.’’

Draft section 724 would directly amend the Medicare law contained in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the

Tricare Senior Prime Demonstration Project for an additional three

years.

Finally, a new draft section would authorize, in consultation with

the Commissioner of Customs, a report on the Tethered Aerostat

Radar System, used, in part, by the Customs Service to conduct

counter-drug detection and interdiction.

Normally, the Committee on Ways and Means would meet to

consider such legislation. However, in order to expedite consideration of H.R. 4205, I will not object to the inclusion of these items,

and, for this reason, it will not be necessary for the Committee on

Ways and Means to meet to consider the legislation.

However, this is only being done with the clear understanding

that you have agreed to accept no additional changes on these or

any other matters of concern to this Committee during further consideration of this legislation, including during consideration on the

House floor and during a conference with the Senate. Finally, this

action is being done with the understanding that it will not prejudice the jurisdictional prerogatives of the Committee on Ways and

Means on these provisions or any other similar legislation and will

not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future.

Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of

letters on this matter in your Committee Report on the legislation.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. With

best personal regards,

Sincerely,

BILL ARCHER, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On May 10, 2000, the Committee on

Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. H.R.

4205, as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services,

520

contains a number of provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. They include:

Section 601, relating to the compensation of uniformed officers of the Public Health Service;

Section 723, relating to Medicare subvention;

Section 724, extending a pilot program;

Section 725, extending a pilot program;

Section 736, relating to biomedical research; and,

Title XIV, creating a commission to study issues related to

electromagnetic pulse.

Because of the importance of this matter, I recognize your desire

to bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner

and will waive consideration of the bill by the Commerce Committee. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 4205. In

addition, the Committee on Commerce reserves its authority to

seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within the

Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask for your

commitment to support any request by the Committee on Commerce for conferees on H.R. 4205 or related legislation.

I request that you include this letter as a part of your committee’s report on H.R. 4205 and as part of the Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

TOM BLILEY, Chairman.

(521)

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 2001 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 12, 2000.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE, 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. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

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. 4205 would authorize appropriations totaling

$310 billion for fiscal year 2001 and an estimated $9 billion for

2000 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 2000 and 2001 would result in additional outlays of $313 billion over the 2000–2005 period. In addition, the bill

contains provisions that would raise the costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2002–2005 period by about $8 billion, assuming appropriation of the necessary sums.

The bill contains provisions that would affect direct spending,

primarily through demonstration projects in the defense health

program. We estimate that the direct spending resulting from provisions of H.R. 4205 would total about $165 million over the 2001–

2005 period and $151 million over the 2001–2010 period. The bill

522

would reduce revenues by about $380 million over the 2001–2005

period and $1.1 billion over the 2001–2010 period as the result of

a provision that would allow military personnel to participate in

the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Because it would affect direct

spending and receipts, the bill would be subject to pay-as-you-go

procedures.

The bill contains private-sector and intergovernmental mandates;

however, the costs of those mandates would not exceed the thresholds specified in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 4205 is shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 4205 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law for Defense

Programs:

Budget Authority 1 ........................... 289,218 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................... 282,839 99,278 36,513 15,296 6,707 3,379

Proposed Changes:

Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations:

Estimated Authorization

Level 2 ................................. 9,205 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays 2 ................ 6,953 136 1,470 453 134 28

Authorization of Regular Appropriations:

Authorization Level ................. 0 310,182 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................. 0 199,797 65,795 24,055 9,210 4,525

Subtotal-Proposed Changes:

Estimated Authorization Level 9,205 310,182 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................. 6,953 199,933 67,265 24,508 9,344 4,553

Spending Under H.R. 4205 for Defense

Programs:

Estimated Authorization Level 1, 2 .. 298,423 310,182 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays 1 ......................... 289,792 299,211 103,778 39,804 16,051 7,932

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority ..................... 0 27 39 83 21 ¥5

Estimated Outlays .................................... 0 27 39 83 21 ¥5

CHANGES IN REVENUES

Change in Income Tax Receipts .............. 0 ¥10 ¥61 ¥82 ¥105 ¥125

1 The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.

2 The amounts shown here for the 2000 supplemental are the total amounts in the 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act as

passed by the House. The outlay estimate includes $4,897 million designated as emergency funding. Excluding emergency funds would lower total outlays in 2001 to $294,314 million.

Note.—Costs of the bill would fall within budget function 050 (national defense), except for certain items noted in the text.

Authorizations of Appropriations

The bill would authorize specific appropriations totaling $310 billion in 2001 (see Table 2) and such sums as may be necessary for

supplemental appropriations in 2000. It would also authorize certain payments, which are due to be made in fiscal year 2001, to be

paid instead in 2000. Most of those costs would fall within budget

function 050 (national defense). H.R. 4205 would also authorize appropriations of $94 million for the Maritime Administration (function 400) and $70 million for the Armed Forces Retirement Home

(function 700).

523

The estimate assumes that the amounts authorized for 2001 will

be appropriated by October 1, 2000, and that the authorization of

supplemental appropriations would amount to $9 billion, the

amount of funding passed by the House in the 2000 Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations Act. (All but $167 million of the supplemental funding is designated as an emergency.) 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 2001

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 2001, these provisions would

raise estimated costs by $8 billion over the 2002–2005 period. The

following sections describe the provisions identified in Table 3 and

provide information about CBO’s cost estimates.

Multiyear Procurement Programs. 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. Funding would continue to be provided on an annual basis for these

multiyear contracts, but potential termination costs would be covered by an initial appropriation.

H.R. 4205 would authorize DoD to enter into new multiyear contracts for three weapons systems: Blackhawk (UH–60L) helicopters, Knighthawk (CH–60S) helicopters, and Bradley fighting

vehicles. The Blackhawk and Knighthawk helicopters would be

purchased under one contract administered by the Army and covering five years of production beginning in 2002. The contract for

the Bradley fighting vehicles would cover three years starting in

2001. H.R. 4205 would also extend the authorization of multiyear

procurement of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer by two years

through 2005.

TABLE 2.—SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2001 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]

Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Military Personnel:

Authorization Level ....................................... 75,802 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 70,192 4,017 834 303 76

Operation and Maintenance:

Authorization Level ....................................... 109,709 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 1,220 20,976 4,101 1,972 703

Procurement:

Authorization Level ....................................... 62,300 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 14,333 19,883 14,162 5,494 3,222

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:

Authorization Level ....................................... 39,309 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 21,513 14,105 2,599 730 192

Military Construction and Family Housing:

Authorization Level ....................................... 8,434 0 0 0 0

524

TABLE 2.—SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES—

Continued

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]

Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 2,515 3,050 1,687 686 290

Atomic Energy Defense Activities:

Authorization Level ....................................... 12,888 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 8,646 3,589 654 0 0

Other Accounts:

Authorization Level ....................................... 1,667 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 1,032 228 138 85 62

General Transfer Authority:

Authorization Level ....................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 280 ¥60 ¥120 ¥60 ¥20

Total:

Authorization Level ....................................... 310,109 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 199,731 65,788 24,055 9,210 4,525

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R.

4205 AS ORDERED REPORTED

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]

Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Multiyear Procurement:

Blackhawk and Knighthawk ......................... 0 ¥12 ¥9 ¥20 ¥45

Bradley Fighting Vehicle .............................. ¥8 ¥29 ¥42 0 0

Arleigh Burke Destroyer ................................ 153 0 0 ¥192 ¥93

Military Endstrengths:

Department of Defense ................................ ¥113 ¥233 ¥241 ¥249 ¥257

Coast Guard Reserve ................................... 73 0 0 0 0

Grade Structure ............................................ 11 22 23 24 25

Compensation and Benefits (DOD):

Expiring Bonuses and Allowances ............... 358 257 136 105 71

Increases in Special Pays and Bonuses ...... 0 216 204 196 197

Housing Allowances ..................................... 315 648 952 1,272 1,608

Subsistence Allowances ............................... 5 62 114 170 228

Travel and Transportation Allowances ......... 48 49 50 50 51

Involuntary Separation Pay .......................... 30 31 32 34 35

Retention Bonus for Critical Skills .............. 12 7 4 4 2

TSP Contributions ......................................... 1 5 11 18 26

Other Compensation Provisions ................... 9 10 10 10 10

Military Health Care:

Tricare Pharmacy Benefit ............................. 94 320 481 536 595

Tricare Prime Remote ................................... 50 52 54 55 57

Copayments Under Tricare Prime ................ 38 39 39 39 40

Reduction of Catastrophic Cap ................... 30 30 31 31 31

Reimbursement for Travel Expenses ............ 15 23 32 33 34

Chiropractic Care ......................................... 3 10 16 22 29

Patient Safety ............................................... 20 10 10 5 5

Other Health Care Provisions ....................... 7 5 11 6 5

Other Provisions:

Commissary Surcharge ................................ 90 90 90 90 90

Acquisition Workforce Reductions ................ ¥7 ¥63 ¥65 ¥68 ¥70

Tuition Reimbursement (Civilian) ................ 0 6 6 6 6

Bill Total:

Estimated Authorization Level ..................... 1,234 1,555 1,949 2,177 2,680

Notes:—For every item in this table except one, the 2001 impacts are included in the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated

in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Only the authorization of endstrength for the Coast Guard Reserve is additive to the

amounts in Table 2.

CBO estimates that savings from buying the Blackhawk and

Knighthawk helicopters under a multiyear contract would total $86

525

million or an average of about $22 million a year over the 2002–

2005 period. Funding requirements would total just under $2.2 billion instead of the almost $2.3 billion needed under annual contracts. Similarly, CBO estimates that the Army would save $79

million, or about $26 million a year, through 2003 under a

multiyear contract for Bradley fighting vehicles, which would cost

about $0.9 billion over that period under current law. CBO estimates that extending the Arleigh Burke destroyer multiyear contract would save the Navy an additional $132 million between 2001

and 2005. Those estimates are based on actual savings from

multiyear procurement of similar systems and the assumption that

annual production will be at the levels planned by the Administration for each of these programs.

Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve

endstrengths for 2001 and would lower the minimum endstrength

authorization in permanent law. The authorized endstrengths for

active-duty personnel and personnel in the selected reserve would

total about 1,382,000 and 866,000, respectively. The bill would specifically authorize appropriations of $75.8 billion for military pay

and allowances in 2001. The reduction in authorized personnel

would decrease costs for salaries and other expenses by $113 million in the first year and about $250 million annually in subsequent years, compared to the authorized strengths for 2000.

Also, the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in 2001 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost about $73

million and would fall under budget function 400, transportation.

Section 414 would change the grade structure of active duty personnel in support of the reserves. This change would not increase

the overall strength, but would result in more promotions. The provision would cost $11 million in 2001 and about $25 million a year

in subsequent years.

Compensation and Benefits. H.R. 4205 contains several provisions that would affect military compensation and benefits.

Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 3.7 percent at

a total cost of about $1.5 billion in 2001. Because this pay raise

would be the same as the one projected under current law and assumed in its baseline projections, CBO estimates no incremental

costs.

Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would extend

for one year DoD’s authority to pay certain bonuses and allowances

to current personnel. Under current law, these authorities are

scheduled to expire in December 2000, or three months into fiscal

year 2001. The bill would extend most of those authorities through

December 2001. CBO estimates that the cost of these extensions

would be as follows:

Payment of reenlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would

cost $193 million in 2001 and $111 million in 2002; enlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would cost $65 million in 2001 and

$29 million in 2002. (The bill would extend the authority to pay enlistment bonuses only through September 2001);

Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would cost

$48 million in 2001 and $55 million in 2002;

Special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel

would cost $44 million in 2001 and $47 million in 2002; and

526

Authorities to make special payments to nurse officer candidates,

registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists would cost $8 million in

2001 and $3 million in 2002.

Extension of other authorities, including temporary early retirement authority, special separation benefit, voluntary separation incentive, and certain other contingent benefits would cost $12 million in 2002. (The bill would extend the authorities for three

months past their current expiration date of October 1, 2001.)

Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller costs

in subsequent years because payments are made in installments.

Increases in Special Pays and Bonuses. Sections 616 through 618

would revise certain eligibility criteria and pay for personnel with

special skills. Those provisions would raise maximum pay rates for

servicemembers performing career sea duty and certain enlisted

personnel performing special duty, including recruiters. In addition, the bill would establish a common enlistment bonus among

the services for certain personnel on active duty, by ending the separate authority for the Army and by revising the existing department-wide enlistment bonus. Under section 618, the minimum enlistment period for enlistment bonuses would decrease from four to

two years and the critical skill requirement would be eliminated.

Authority to pay the enlistment bonuses would expire December

31, 2001. These changes would have no cost in 2001 and cost $216

million in 2002, when the changes would become effective. Costs in

subsequent years would total about $200 million annually.

Housing Allowances. Several sections would increase housing allowances for servicemembers within the United States. The combination of these provisions would cost $315 million in 2001 and

$4.8 billion over the 2001–2005 period.

Section 604 would revise the calculation of Basic Allowance for

Housing (BAH) within the United States by no longer requiring

that housing allowances be limited to 85 percent of the cost of adequate housing in the United States. DoD plans to gradually increase BAH over 5 years to reach 100 percent of that cost by 2005.

Based on that plan, CBO estimates that higher BAH payments

would cost $274 million in 2001 and $4.4 billion over the 2001–

2005 period.

Section 605 would revise the basis of BAH for enlisted members

with dependents in pay grades E–1 through E–4. BAH rates for enlisted members in these grades are currently based on the cost of

a two-bedroom apartment. Section 605 would increase the minimum housing standard to the amount halfway between the current standard and the cost of a two-bedroom townhouse. This

change would be effective July 1, 2001. CBO estimates that increasing the minimum housing standard for these enlisted members would cost $10 million in 2001 and $188 million over the

2001–2005 period.

Section 606 would allow the Secretary of Defense to pay BAH to

certain enlisted members without dependents in pay grade E–4,

who are assigned to sea duty and who sleep aboard ship when it

is in port and quarters on base are unavailable. Based on the

Navy’s plan to implement this authority, and an effective date of

October 1, 2001, CBO estimates that paying BAH to these enlisted

527

members would cost $45 million starting in 2002 and total $186

million over the 2002–2005 period.

Section 610 would earmark $30 million of the amount authorized

to be appropriated in 2001 for military pay and allowances to further increase BAH within the United States.

Subsistence Allowances. Sections 602, 603, and 609 would increase subsistence allowances for certain active-duty

servicemembers and officers prior to being commissioned. CBO estimates that enactment of these provisions would cost $5 million in

2001 and $579 million over the 2001–2005 period.

Compared to current law, section 602 would allow a speedier

elimination of the gap between the Basic Allowance for Subsistence

(BAS) paid to enlisted members who eat off-base and the value of

subsistence provided to enlisted members who eat in DoD dining

facilities. Current law limits the annual growth of regular BAS to

1 percent and allows for a partial allowance to be paid to those receiving an in-kind benefit. Because the partial allowance grows at

a faster rate, the gap between the total benefits would eventually

close. CBO estimates that the cost to equalize payments to both

groups in 2001 and eliminate the 1 percent growth cap would be

$35 million in 2002 and would grow to $166 million by 2005.

Section 603 would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide

a new allowance, through fiscal year 2006, for servicemembers who

meet certain eligibility criteria of the Food Stamp program. CBO

estimates that, if the Secretary chooses to offer it, this allowance

would increase personnel costs by $5 million in fiscal year 2001

and by a total of $59 million over the 2001–2005 period.

To receive the allowance, a servicemember would apply to DoD,

providing proof that his or her household income meets the gross

income test for the Food Stamp program. The value of the allowance would be the amount needed to make the household ineligible

for food stamps, up to a maximum of $500 per month. In determining eligibility and the size of the allowance, DoD would count

the value of all housing assistance as income, even if that assistance is delivered in-kind.

Under current law, CBO estimates that about 5,500

servicemembers will participate in the Food Stamp program in

2001. This estimate is based on a recent DoD survey of

servicemembers receiving food stamps, adjusted for projected pay

raises. Not all of these Food Stamp participants would be eligible

for the new allowance when the value of in-kind housing is counted

as income. Using data on the distribution of servicemembers by pay

grade and family size, CBO expects that about 3,300 current Food

Stamp recipients would be eligible for the allowance and that another 800 servicemembers would apply, at an average household

cost of $315 per month. CBO assumes that the allowance would be

available beginning April 1, 2001, and participation would phase in

over the remainder of the fiscal year. Once the allowance is fully

phased in, the costs are projected to decrease each year as fewer

servicemembers would be eligible for the allowance. The number of

eligible members would decline because pay rates are projected to

rise faster than the poverty threshold used to determine Food

Stamp eligibility.

528

If this allowance is instituted, it would make an estimated 1,100

servicemembers ineligible for food stamps and reduce costs of the

Food Stamp program by an estimated $22 million over the 2001–

2005 period. Because the decision to provide the allowance would

depend, in part, on future appropriation action, CBO has not

shown direct spending savings for this provision.

Section 609 would increase the subsistence allowance paid to

members in precommissioning programs, effective October 1, 2001.

These members currently receive a monthly allowance of $200. Section 609 would establish a minimum monthly rate of $250 and

allow the Secretary of Defense to pay as much as $600. CBO estimates that this increase would cost $12 million in 2002 and $50

million by 2005, when the allowance would approach the $600

limit.

Travel and Transportation Allowances. Section 632 would allow

the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members who change duty

stations for the fees of mandatory pet quarantine, but limit the

compensation amount to $275 per change. CBO estimates that

these payments would cost $1 million a year. Section 633 would increase dislocation allowances for enlisted members with dependents in pay grades E–1 through E–4 by requiring that the Secretary of Defense not differentiate between grades E–1 through E–

5 when determining dislocation allowances for enlisted members

with dependents. CBO estimates that paying the resulting higher

dislocation allowances would cost $6 million in 2001 and $33 million over the 2001–2005 period. Under section 634, the Secretary

could reimburse recruiters and other military and civilian employees assigned to certain duties for parking expenses. CBO estimates

that that the cost of paying these parking fees would be $41 million

in 2001 and $210 million over the 2001–2005 period.

Involuntary Separation Pay. Section 517 would reclassify as involuntary the discharges of reserve officers who are twice passed

over for promotion. This would allow these members to receive involuntary separation pay. Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that approximately 550 reserve officers a year would become eligible for separation pay under this provision. CBO estimates that enactment of section 517 would cost $30 million in 2001

and $162 million over the 2001–2005 period.

New Retention Bonus for Critical Skills. Section 619 would authorize a new retention bonus for military personnel with critical

skills who extend their period of duty by at least one additional

year. This new bonus could be paid in addition to the current selected reenlistment bonus available to certain enlisted members

and certain other compensation provided to officers. The authority

to offer this bonus would expire on December 31, 2001. CBO estimates that this new retention bonus would cost $12 million in

2001. Smaller costs would be incurred in subsequent years because

payments are made in installments.

TSP Contributions. Under section 651, the Secretary of Defense

could make contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for military personnel in designated occupational specialties who commit

to serve on active duty in that specialty for a period of six years.

Based on DoD’s use of similar authority to award bonuses for enlistment or reenlistment, CBO estimates that the discretionary

529

costs for the agency contributions to TSP would total $1 million in

2001 and $26 million by 2005, based on an effective date of July

15, 2001.

Other Compensation Provisions. Section 641 would raise reserve

retirement pay by increasing the number of days that can be counted in the retirement pay calculation. The military retirement system is financed in part by an annual payment from appropriated

funds to the military retirement trust fund, based on an estimate

of the system’s accruing liabilities. If the bill is enacted, the yearly

contribution to the military retirement trust fund (a DoD outlay in

budget function 050) would increase to reflect the added liability

from the increase in retirement pay. The payment into the trust

fund is discretionary because it depends on whether and how much

funding is made available each year for military personnel. Using

information from DoD, CBO estimates that implementing this bill

would increase such payments by $4 million in 2001, $23 million

over the 2001–2005 period, and $50 million over the 2001–2010 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts. This provision would also increase outlays from the retirement trust fund.

Those costs are discussed under the heading of direct spending.

CBO estimates that increases in allowances paid to officers for purchasing uniforms and equipment would cost $5 million a year

under section 608.

Military Health Care. Title VII contains several provisions that

would affect DoD health care and benefits. Tricare is the name of

DoD’s three-part health care program: Tricare Prime is a managed

care option; Tricare Extra is a preferred provider program; and

Tricare Standard is a fee-for-service program of other participating

providers.

Tricare Pharmacy Benefit. Section 721 would allow military beneficiaries age 65 and over to use DoD’s National Mail Order Pharmacy (NMOP) and retail networks, and would allow Tricare to pay

75 percent of all pharmacy claims after each beneficiary meets an

annual $150 deductible. CBO estimates that this provision would

affect about 360,000 individuals who do not currently use DoD for

pharmacy benefits, and about 450,000 beneficiaries who are eligible

for the NMOP and retail networks but do not have access to the

Tricare insurance for reimbursement. Because the program would

not take effect until April 1, 2001, the cost in fiscal year 2001 is

comparatively low. CBO estimates that providing the Tricare pharmacy benefit to seniors would cost $94 million in 2001 and a little

more than $2 billion over the 2001–2005 period.

Tricare Prime Remote. Under current law, members of the armed

forces on active duty who live far enough away from a military

treatment facility (MTF) are eligible to participate in what DoD

calls Tricare Prime Remote. This program allows such personnel to

receive care without facing the co-insurance and deductibles that

they would otherwise face if they used Tricare Standard. To implement the program, DoD either establishes a network of providers

for the active-duty personnel, or it waives the copayments and

deductibles when claims are filed under Tricare Standard. In many

cases, where the cost of setting up networks is more costly than the

cost of waiving such payments, DoD just waives the deductibles

and co-insurance.

530

Section 711 would grant the Tricare Prime Remote benefit to dependents of members of the armed forces on active duty and to

other members of the uniformed services (e.g., uniformed members

of the Public Health Service) and their dependents. Using data

from DoD, CBO estimates that roughly 71,000 people in remote locations already use Tricare Standard or Extra. DoD’s only additional cost for those beneficiaries would come from waiving the coinsurance and deductibles. CBO expects that almost 4,000 people

who do not currently use Tricare insurance would enroll in Tricare

Prime Remote under the bill because of the lower out-of-pocket

costs. Those beneficiaries would cost DoD significantly more per

person. CBO estimates that establishing Tricare Prime Remote for

the 75,000 new beneficiaries would cost $50 million in 2001 and

$268 million over the 2001–2005 period.

Copayments Under Tricare Prime. Under current law, beneficiaries who use MTFs do not need to make any copayments, but

beneficiaries enrolled in Tricare Prime, the military health care

system’s managed care option, are required to make copayments

whenever they visit a civilian doctor. In 1999, dependents of activeduty personnel who are enrolled in Tricare Prime saw civilian doctors about 2.4 million times. Section 712 would eliminate the requirement for those copayments. (Beneficiaries who use Tricare

Standard or Extra would still have to pay the applicable co-insurance amounts for each civilian visit.)

CBO estimates that this change would cost $38 million in 2001 and $195 million over the 2001–2005 period. Reimbursing Tricare

insurance providers for lost revenue would compose about 70 percent of DoD’s cost. The remaining 30 percent of the estimated cost

results because the lack of cost sharing would likely increase the

number of visits to civilian doctors.

Reduction of Catastrophic Cap. Under current law, beneficiaries

who use Tricare Standard or Extra must pay deductibles and coinsurance up to a cap of $7,500 each year. DoD is responsible for

any costs over $7,500. Section 718 would lower this cap from

$7,500 to $3,000 per family. CBO estimates that lowering the cap

would cost $30 million in 2001 and $153 million over the 2001–

2005 period. Using data from the Medical Expense Panel Survey,

conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, CBO

estimates that about 3 percent of the population has out-of-pocket

costs greater than $3,000. Applying this to the DoD population that

uses Tricare Standard or Extra yields roughly 14,000 people that

would be affected by this provision. Assuming a uniform distribution of expenditures across the range from the new cap ($3,000) to

the existing cap ($7,500), CBO estimates that DoD’s costs would

rise by an average of just under $2,250 per person.

Reimbursement for Travel Expenses. Under current law, when

somebody using the military health system is referred to a new

doctor or hospital, the costs of traveling to the new location are

paid by the individual. Section 717 would require the Secretary of

Defense to reimburse reasonable travel expenses for anybody who

had to travel more than 100 miles because of a medical referral.

CBO estimates that this provision would apply about 50,000 times

each year and that in about one-third of those cases, additional expenses would be incurred for individuals who must accompany the

531

patient. CBO also expects that reimbursements would average

about $650 per occurrence, although those costs would rise with inflation. CBO estimates that implementing this proposal would cost

$15 million in 2001 and $137 million over the 2001–2005 period.

Chiropractic Care. Section 737 would require DoD to continue

providing chiropractic care in 2001 at MTFs where such care is

currently provided. The bill would require a five-year phase-in period beginning in 2002 for DoD to provide chiropractic care to all

members of the uniformed services. The costs are initially low because of the phase-in period. CBO estimates that the provision

would cost $3 million in 2001 and $80 million over the 2001–2005

period.

Patient Safety. Section 733 would require DoD to set up a centralized process for tracking and reporting mistakes in the provision of health care that endangers patient safety. Simple reporting

is part of DoD’s current effort to improve services, but more complex reporting would likely require substantial investments in information technology. Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that this provision would cost the department about $50 million over the 2001–2005 period, primarily for the purchase of computer equipment and software support.

Other Health Care Provisions. Title VII also contains several proposals that would cost relatively little over the 2001–2005 period,

including some temporary authorities and demonstration projects.

CBO estimates that implementing all of these additional health

care provisions would cost $7 million in 2001 and $34 million over

the 2001–2005 period.

The Congress authorized a demonstration program, called

Tricare Senior Supplement, at two sites during a period ending December 2002 where Tricare acts as second-payer to Medicare for

those beneficiaries who have enrolled in the program. Enrollment

for the demonstration program began in March of 2000. Enrollees

must pay a fee and are no longer eligible to use MTFs. Section 724

would extend the demonstration program through the end of calendar year 2003. CBO estimates that this provision would cost $5

million over the 2003–2004 period. Those costs would be discretionary, but extending this demonstration program would also raise

Medicare costs because better insurance tends to increase the use

of health care. CBO estimates that the Medicare costs of Tricare

Senior Supplement would be about $1 million over the 2003–2004

period.

Other health care provisions that would have discretionary budgetary effects are as follows:

Section 715 would prohibit Tricare insurers from requiring prior

authorization for specialty medical care if the provider of that specialty care is part of the Tricare network. CBO estimates that this

provision would cost $5 million a year.

Section 701 would extend for two years the authority to employ

physicians on a contract basis under certain conditions, including

at entrance processing stations. CBO estimates that this provision

would save $6 million over the two years.

Section 702 would allow all recipients of the Medal of Honor and

their dependents to have access to the military health system and

would cost less than $500,000 a year.

532

Section 703 would allow DoD to pay for domiciliary and custodial

care for certain Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. CBO estimates that

the cost of this proposal would be less than $500,000 a year.

Section 704 would authorize a two-year demonstration program

allowing all DoD beneficiaries to use mental health facilities without the need for prior authorization and supervision. CBO estimates that this would cost $6 million over the two years.

Section 705 would authorize a two-year teleradiology demonstra- tion project. CBO estimates the cost would be $4 million, assuming

that the sites require new equipment.

Section 720 would allow beneficiaries enrolled in the Tricare retiree dental program to withdraw under special circumstances.

CBO estimates that this would cost less than $500,000 a year.

Commissary Surcharge. Subtitle C of title III would make several

changes to laws governing DoD’s commissaries, and CBO estimates

that their combined cost would be about $90 million a year. The

commissary system is supported through a mix of appropriated and

nonappropriated funding. One source of nonappropriated funds, a

surcharge on grocery bills, funds a combination of operating expenses and construction costs. The bill would limit DoD to using

the collections from the surcharge for only construction or improvement of commissary stores. Funding from that source that now

goes for other purposes would have to be made up with discretionary appropriations. CBO estimates those costs to be about $90

million a year, based on information from DoD.

Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce. The bill would limit

the size of the acquisition workforce by requiring a reduction of at

least 13,000 military and civilian personnel during fiscal year 2001.

Because the total number of military personnel is determined by

endstrength requirements, CBO assumes that the provision would

lead to their transfer to other activities rather than separation

from the services. Separations of civilian personnel, who comprise

about 80 percent of the acquisition workforce, would account for

the remaining reductions. Because these civilian reductions would

exceed those expected under current law, CBO estimates savings of

$7 million in 2001, $63 million in 2002, and similar amounts in

subsequent years. Savings would be relatively small during the

first year because the cost of separation payments would offset

most of the initial savings in salaries.

Tuition Reimbursement for Civilians. Section 1103 would extend

for five years a program to reimburse certain civilians in the acquisition workforce for tuition expenses. Based on recent funding levels for that program, CBO estimates that section 1103 would cost

about $6 million a year starting in 2002.

Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI). Section 2803

would extend from 2001 to 2006 special authorities to finance the

construction and renovation of military family housing. It would

authorize DoD to continue to use direct loans, loan guarantees,

long-term leases, rental guarantees, barter, direct government investment, and other financial arrangements to encourage privatesector participation in building military housing. Funding for those

activities is contained in the Family Housing Improvement Fund

and would consist of direct appropriations to the fund, transfers

from other accounts, receipts from property sales and rents, reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00556 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.143 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
533

turns on any capital, and other income from operations or transactions connected with the program. The amounts in the fund

would be available to acquire housing using the various techniques

mentioned above, but the total value of budget authority for all

contracts and investments undertaken would be limited to $1 billion.

The bill would not explicitly authorize appropriations for the

fund, and based on how the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has treated recent use of the authority, CBO does not estimate any budgetary impact from extending the authorities. However, CBO believes 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 matters of credit reform

that have relatively little cost in terms of recorded obligations and

outlays. In contrast, CBO considers those initiatives as having the

characteristics of lease-purchases, which call for recording higher

levels of obligations and outlays. The budgetary effect of the Administration’s approach (compared to CBO’s) is to allow DoD to obligate significantly more federal resources than the $1 billion allocated for such projects.

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. For a direct loan or loan guarantee, obligations should equal

the estimated present value of federal transactions with the public,

excluding receipts from other federal budget accounts that depend

on the availability of future appropriations.

Actual Accounting for Current DoD Projects. To date, DoD has

signed contracts for four projects and will soon finalize 12 others.

The common thread among the projects so far is that regular appropriations directly finance only a small portion of the construction costs; most costs initially are paid by developers, who borrow

funds from private markets. The developers will repay the loans

from the government and the private sector using rent received

from servicemembers who pay their housing costs with their allowances, which are provided as part of appropriations for military

personnel. If rents exceed the servicemembers’ housing allowances,

DoD can make up the difference. The four projects underway are

as follows:

Lackland Air Force Base (AFB), Texas: In exchange for the construction of 420 housing units, the Air Force provided the contractor with a long-term lease of federal land, a direct loan of $11

534

million, and a guarantee of a private-sector loan ($30 million)

against base closure, downsizing, and substantial redeployment of

units based at Lackland. The Administration recorded an obligation of $6 million for the transaction.

Fort Carson, Colorado: For construction of 840 units and renovation of 1,800 others, the Army provided a long-term lease of federal

land, title to existing housing, and a $220 million loan guarantee

against base closure, downsizing, and substantial redeployment.

The Administration recorded an obligation of $10 million for the

transaction.

Naval Station Everett, Washington: For construction of 185 units

and a share of proceeds and equity, the Navy provided an equity

investment of $6 million and funds the difference between the rent

and the member’s housing allowance. Occupants have the right to

purchase the units at below-market prices during the last five

years of the 10-year partnership. The recorded obligation totaled $9

million from the equity investment ($6 million) and the differential

lease payments ($3 million).

Corpus Christi, Texas: In exchange for 404 units of off-base housing and a share of proceeds and equity, the Navy provided an equity investment of $10 million and funds the difference between

the rent and the member’s housing allowance. The recorded obligation amounted to $19 million from the equity investment ($10 million) and the differential lease payments ($9 million).

Thus, for these four projects DoD obtained about $320 million

worth of housing at the expense of $44 million in obligational authority.

MHPI Under Government-wide Accounting Principles. The principles guiding the accounting for programs like the MHPI are defined in the conference report to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997

(H. Rept. 105–217, pages 1007–1012). CBO believes that the four

listed projects meet the criteria stated in the scorekeeping guidelines for a lease-purchase with substantial government risk. Although current MHPI projects employ tools like direct loans, they

are more fundamentally projects that achieve the practical effects

of government ownership of the properties. Thus, up-front scoring

of obligations and outlays is more appropriate than the methods of

credit reform.

In CBO’s view, those guidelines require the up-front accounting

of obligations and outlays for those four projects and for other similar projects this bill would make possible. First, the construction is

occurring on federal land for at least two of the four projects. Second, the private-sector market for the housing will be sharply constrained. On-base housing will probably be restricted to military

personnel for security and other such reasons. Off-base housing

must first be offered to servicemembers over civilians, and since demand for on-base housing exceeds supply, the practical effect would

likely be the same as for a federally constructed facility. Third, although DoD is not providing an open-ended guarantee of thirdparty financing, it is essentially committing itself to providing tenants. Finally, DoD is providing the developers with significant portions of their up-front equity, including direct loans and cash investments.

535

In sum, the lease-purchase criteria clearly apply to the two

projects on government property (Lackland AFB and Fort Carson).

The proper treatment of the other two projects is less clear, but on

balance, CBO believes that they too are the equivalent of lease-purchases with substantial government risk because the housing units

will be built or renovated for governmental purposes and would be

based on a significant financial commitment by the government.

On that basis, the true obligations and outlays from current

projects are higher than were recorded, as would be the obligations

and outlays from future projects if they are recorded the same way.

Table 4 shows how CBO believes these projects should be recorded in the budget, compared to the approach used by the Administration.

TABLE 4.—ILLUSTRATIVE SCORING OF MHPI AUTHORITIES FOR FOUR PROJECTS

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Administration Approach to Scoring:

Estimated Obligation ........................................................... 44 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 24 7 4 1 1 1

CBO Approach to Scoring:

Estimated Obligation ........................................................... 320 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 100 160 50 1 1 1

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office based on information from the Department of Defense.

Note: This table illustrates the approach that the Administration uses for recording obligations and outlays for four MHPI projects compared

to the approach that CBO believes would be in keeping with government-wide accounting principles. The four projects are family housing initiatives at Lackland AFB, Ft. Carson, Naval Station Everett, and Corpus Christi. For illustrative purposes, we assume the obligations for the four projects occur in 2000 even though actual obligations occurred in other years.

Direct Spending

The bill contains provisions that would affect direct spending primarily through changes to defense health programs. We estimate

that the direct spending from provisions of H.R. 4205 would total

about $165 million over the 2001–2005 period.

Demonstration of Medicare Subvention. DoD provides health care

to almost 350,000 retirees and survivors who are over age 64 and

eligible for Medicare. This health care is provided at MTFs on a

space-available basis and includes some services that Medicare

does not cover, primarily prescription drugs. Under current law,

DoD cannot bill Medicare for the cost of providing health care to

those beneficiaries over age 64 except in a demonstration project.

The Congress authorized a demonstration project at up to six

sites beginning in January 1998 and ending in December 2000.

Under that demonstration, DoD provides care to Medicare-eligible

beneficiaries and is reimbursed under certain conditions by the

Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which administers

Medicare. The most important condition is the requirement that

DoD maintain a level of effort; any additional care is reimbursable

by HCFA up to a cap set in law. This care and reimbursement procedure is known as Medicare subvention. To date, however, HCFA

has not reimbursed DoD for any care provided under this program.

Section 725 would extend the demonstration project for three

more years, through the end of 2003. In the current demonstration

project, enrolled beneficiaries use substantially more care than civilians enrolled in Medicare managed care plans. Because these enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00559 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.144 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
536

rollees have a high priority for care in MTFs, Medicare-eligible

beneficiaries who now receive space-available care at MTFs and

choose not to enroll in the subvention program would not be able

to use the MTFs as frequently as they otherwise would. Instead,

they would obtain more of their care in the private sector, thus

raising costs for the Medicare program because Medicare would be

paying for some services that would otherwise be provided at

MTFs. CBO estimates that these provisions would cost $20 million

in 2001 and $95 million over the 2001–2005 period (see Table 5).

FEHB Demonstration Program. Under current law, military retirees under the age of 65 are eligible to either enroll in DoD’s

managed care program (Tricare Prime) or use one of its insurance

programs (Tricare Standard or Extra). Those who use Tricare

Standard or Extra may also seek care at an MTF on a space-available basis. Once retirees turn age 65, they are no longer eligible

to use Tricare, though they may continue to seek care at an MTF

when space is available. The same eligibility rules apply to survivors, who are primarily widows and widowers.

Section 723 would extend a current demonstration project by

three years (through December 2005), increase the number of eligible sites, and allow new or extended enrollment in all sites. The

demonstration allows up to 66,000 people to enroll in FEHB at up

to 10 sites, though only about 2,000 people are currently enrolled.

Because there would be more sites and increased familiarity with

the program, CBO estimates that the program would eventually

cover a total of about 13,000 people—10,000 in existing sites and

3,000 in new sites under H.R. 4205. Expanding coverage to new

sites would cost $18 million over 2001 and 2002, and extending the

demonstration project for one more year would cost an additional

$63 million over the 2003–2005 period. The government’s contribution toward FEHB premiums for beneficiaries under H.R. 4205

would be direct spending because the bill would add an entitlement

benefit.

TABLE 5.—ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4205

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars—

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

DIRECT SPENDING

Cost Increases in Medicare

Spending Under Current Law:

Estimated Budget Authority ........................ 195,113 211,518 217,077 234,887 250,997 274,149

Estimated Outlays ....................................... 195,113 211,518 217,077 234,887 250,997 274,149

Proposed Changes:

Medicare Subvention:

Estimated Budget Authority ............... 0 20 30 35 10 0

Estimated Outlays .............................. 0 20 30 35 10 0

FEHB Demonstration Project:

Estimated Budget Authority ............... 0 1 1 4 1 0

Estimated Outlays .............................. 0 1 1 4 1 0

Tricare Senior Supplement:

Estimated Budget Authority ............... 0 0 0 1 0 0

Estimated Outlays .............................. 0 0 0 1 0 0

Subtotal-Proposed Changes:

Estimated Budget Authority ...... 0 21 31 40 11 0

Estimated Outlays ..................... 0 21 31 40 11 0

537

TABLE 5.—ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4205—

Continued

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars—

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Spending Under H.R. 4205:

Estimated Budget Authority ........................ 195,113 211,539 217,108 234,927 251,008 274,149

Estimated Outlays ....................................... 195,113 211,539 217,108 234,927 251,008 274,149

Costs of Premium Payments Under FEHB

Spending Under Current Law:

Estimated Budget Authority ........................ 5,012 5,456 5,906 6,352 6,826 7,338

Estimated Outlays ....................................... 5,012 5,456 5,906 6,352 6,826 7,338

Proposed Changes:

Estimated Budget Authority ........................ 0 7 11 48 15 0

Estimated Outlays ....................................... 0 7 11 48 15 0

Spending Under H.R. 4205:

Estimated Budget Authority ........................ 5,012 5,463 5,917 6,400 6,841 7,338

Estimated Outlays ....................................... 5,012 5,463 5,917 6,400 6,841 7,338

Total Changes in Direct Spending—Health Care

Provisions

Estimated Budget Authority ................................. 0 28 42 88 26 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................ 0 28 42 88 26 0

In addition, extending the demonstration would tend to raise

Medicare costs because better insurance coverage often leads to

greater use of health care services. That increase would cost an estimated $7 million over the 2001–2005 period.

Tricare Senior Supplement. This program involves Tricare Standard and Extra in a demonstration project for retirees over age 64

and their dependents. The costs to DoD for those programs are

treated as discretionary, but expanding them to cover beneficiaries

of Medicare would raise direct spending by $1 million in 2003 (and

by less than $500,000 in 2004). Other costs of Tricare Senior Supplement are discussed above with other spending subject to appropriation.

Retirement of Reserve Technicians. The reserves employ a number of civilian federal workers to perform administrative and maintenance tasks. These employees, known as military technicians, are

usually required to be members of the reserve units for which they

work. Under current law, employees who lose their membership in

the reserves and were hired before February 10, 1996, have to retire as soon as they become eligible for an unreduced annuity

under one of the civilian retirement programs. Section 518 of the

bill would allow these employees to remain in their positions until

they become eligible for an unreduced annuity or reach age 60,

whichever is later. Technicians who have already been forced to retire and are under age 60 would be able to apply for reinstatement.

Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that about 500

technicians would be affected by this provision. This includes 400

technicians who, under current law, would retire during the 2001–

2005 period, and 100 technicians who have already retired but

would be reinstated to their old positions. By allowing these technicians to delay their retirement, CBO estimates this bill would reduce spending on federal retirement benefits (function 600, income

security) by $17 million over the 2001–2005 period. Since many

technicians would be covered by the Federal Employees Health

Benefits Program (function 550, health) after their retirement, this

538

provision would also reduce direct spending in that program by $3

million over the same period.

Retroactive Housing Allowances. Section 604 would authorize retroactive BAH payments to compensate members who received

lower BAH during January and February of 2000 compared to the

BAH rate they received prior to December 31, 1999. CBO estimates

that these retroactive payments would cost $1 million in 2001.

Property Transactions. Title XXVIII contains a variety of provisions that would authorize DoD to convey or lease land to nonfederal entities. These transactions would affect both large and

small properties, ranging from about 700 acres at Fort Pickett, Virginia to about two acres at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

Conveyances. Some property that would be conveyed under title

XXVIII has been—or soon will be—declared excess by DoD and

transferred to the General Services Administration (GSA) for disposal. In some instances, GSA is likely to give the property to state

or local governments, and in those cases conveyances would not affect receipts. In other instances, such as the conveyances of about

5 acres containing an Army Reserve Center in Galesburg, Illinois

and about 100 acres at Fort Polk, Louisiana, the property would

likely be sold under current law. Based on information from DoD,

forgone receipts from these conveyances would total less than

$500,000.

CBO has not received any information from the Administration

on other parcels specified in the bill, some of which are large and

potentially worth $1 million or more. Because CBO has no basis for

knowing whether these parcels have been or will be declared excess

and sold under current law, CBO cannot estimate the extent of any

forgone receipts.

Leases. Section 2851 would allow the Navy to receive in-kind consideration for the lease of property at Port Hueneme, California.

Under current law, the Navy will receive cash for that lease. CBO

estimates that this provision would lower receipts by less than

$500,000 annually.

Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an insignificant budgetary impact:

Section 506 would allow retirees receiving Voluntary Separation

Incentive (VSI) payments concurrently with retired or retainer pay

to give up the VSI payment. Currently, retirement pay is reduced

by the amount of VSI payments. The formula for the offset causes

retirement pay to be reduced by future VSI payments. Terminating

participation in the program would accelerate outlays for military

retirement. Based on information from DOD, CBO expects few people would be affected by this provision.

Section 641 would increase reserve retirement pay by giving

more credit toward annuities for time spent in training. While CBO

estimates this provision would have a substantial effect when today’s reservists reach 60 years of age and would begin to collect retirement benefits under this new rule, it would affect few people

during the next 10 years.

Section 642 would increase participation in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) by requiring certain reservists

to obtain spousal consent to waive participation. Spousal consent is

already required for reservists over 60 years of age. This provision

539

would make that requirement effective when the reservist is first

notified that he or she has completed the years of service required

for retirement eligibility. CBO estimates the provision would create

a negligible increase in payments to annuitants.

Revenues

Section 651 would allow members of the uniformed services on

active duty and members of the Ready Reserve in any pay status

to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Contributions

would be capped at 5.0 percent of basic pay. In addition,

servicemembers would be able to contribute income they receive in

the form of special or incentive pay to the extent allowable under

the Internal Revenue Code. This provision would become effective

July 15, 2001, or earlier if certain legislative conditions are met.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the revenue loss

caused by deferred income tax payments would total $10 million in

2001 and $1.1 billion over the 2001–2010 period.

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 would result from

H.R. 4205 are shown in Table 6. For the purposes of enforcing payas-you-go procedures, only the effects in the current year, the budget year, and the succeeding four years are counted.

TABLE 6.—ESTIMATED IMPACT OF H.R. 4205 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars—

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Changes in outlays ................................................................................................................................. 0 27 39 83 21 ¥5 ¥4 ¥4 ¥3 ¥

Changes in receipts ................................................................................................................................ 0 ¥10 ¥61 ¥82 ¥105 ¥125 ¥135 ¥144 ¥153 ¥16

541

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact

The bill contains both intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, including one preemption of state law. None of the mandates

would impose significant costs; therefore, the thresholds established by UMRA ($55 million for intergovernmental mandates and

$109 million for private sector mandates in 2000, adjusted annually for inflation) would not be exceeded.

The bill would give the Secretary of Defense the authority to require recipients of military equipment either to ensure that the

equipment is demilitarized or to return the equipment to DoD for

demilitarization. The Secretary of Defense could also repossess the

equipment under some circumstances. In all of those cases, the requirements would be considered intergovernmental and private-sector mandates because, if the equipment is not returned to DoD for

demilitarization, the recipient would have to bear the costs of demilitarizing the equipment. However, this provision would be rarely used because, in most cases, DoD demilitarizes equipment prior

to transferring ownership. Consequently, the costs of this mandate

would be minimal.

The bill would extend and expand a demonstration project that

involves intergovernmental and private sector mandates. Specifically, it would require insurers, under certain circumstances, to

issue medigap policies to Medicare enrollees who choose to drop

coverage from DoD’s Federal Employees Health Benefits demonstration program. The bill would also prohibit insurers from discriminating in the pricing of such policies based on an individual’s

health status or use of care, or from using coverage exclusions for

preexisting conditions as long as any lapse in coverage was no

more than 63 days. Those requirements would be intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. However,

because only a small number of people could be affected by these

provisions, the direct costs of the mandates would be small.

In addition, the bill contains a mandate affecting only state governments. It would give legal effect to military testamentary instruments regardless of the provisions of state law. (A testamentary instrument is a document intended to take effect after the

death of the person who executes it.) This provision would preempt

state laws governing the execution of such documents; however, it

would impose no costs on those governments.

The bill also would convey lands to state and local entities, provide support for cooperative efforts between the Civil Air Patrol

and state and local governments, and authorize funding for assistance to local school districts and agencies.

Estimate Prepared By.—Federal Costs: Military Construction and

Other Defense—Kent Christensen, Military and Civilian Personnel—Dawn Regan, Civilian Retirement—Eric Rollins, Food

Stamps—Valerie Baxter, Stockpile Sales and Atomic Energy Defense Activities—Raymond Hall, Military Retirement—Sarah Jennings, Health Programs—Sam Papenfuss, Medicare Subvention—

Tom Bradley, Multiyear Procurement—Jo Ann Vines, Maritime Administration—Deborah Reis. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal

Governments: Leo Lex. Impact on the Private Sector: William

Thomas.

542

Estimate Approved By: Robert A. Sunshine, 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. 4205.

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. 4205. The record

of these votes is attached to this report.

The committee ordered H.R. 4205 reported to the House with a

favorable recommendation by a vote of 56–1, a quorum being

present.

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

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 italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1995

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

Subtitle A—Authorization of

Appropriations

* * * * * * *

SEC. 116. BUNKER DEFEAT MUNITION ACQUISITION PROGRAM.

The Secretary of the Army, in acquiring munitions under the

bunker defeat munition weapons acquisition program—

(1) may acquire only those munitions that are designated as

‘‘type classified, limited procurement for contingency operations’’; and

(2) may not acquire more than ø6,000¿ 8,500 such munitions.

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 816. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON PURCHASE OF FIRE, SECURITY, POLICE, PUBLIC WORKS, AND UTILITY SERVICES

FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

552

(c) DURATION OF PROJECT.—The authority to purchase or receive

services under the demonstration project shall expire on September

30, ø2000¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XIII—MATTERS RELATING TO

ALLIES AND OTHER NATIONS

Subtitle A—Matters Relating to NATO

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 1306. GEORGE C. MARSHALL EUROPEAN CENTER FOR SECURITY

STUDIES.

ø(a) USE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.—Funds received by the United

States Government from the Federal Republic of Germany as its

fair share of the costs of the George C. Marshall European Center

for Security Studies shall be credited to appropriations available to

the Department of Defense for the George C. Marshall European

Center for Security Studies. Funds so credited shall be merged

with the appropriations to which credited and shall be available for

the Center for the same purposes and the same period as the appropriations with which merged.

ø(b) WAIVER OF CHARGES.—(1) The Secretary of Defense may

waive reimbursement of the costs of conferences, seminars, courses

of instruction, or similar educational activities of the George C.

Marshall European Center for Security Studies for military officers

and civilian officials of cooperation partner states of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council or the Partnership for Peace if the Secretary determines that attendance by such personnel without reimbursement is in the national security interest of the United

States.¿

* * * * * * *

ARMAMENT RETOOLING AND MANUFACTURING

SUPPORT ACT OF 1992

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle H—Armament Retooling and Manufacturing

Support Initiative

* * * * * * *

SEC. 193. ARMAMENT RETOOLING AND MANUFACTURING SUPPORT

INITIATIVE.

(a) AUTHORITY FOR INITIATIVE.—During fiscal years 1993 through

ø2001¿ 2002, the Secretary of the Army may carry out a program

553

to be known as the ‘‘Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Initiative’’ (hereinafter in this subtitle referred to as the

‘‘ARMS Initiative’’).

* * * * * * *

(d) INCLUSION OF MANUFACTURING ARSENALS.—For purposes of

this Act, a manufacturing arsenal of the Department of the Army

shall be treated as a Government-owned, contractor-operated manufacturing facility of the Department of the Army.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 194. FACILITIES CONTRACTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of each Government-owned, contractor-operated ammunition manufacturing facility of the Department of the Army that is made available for the ARMS Initiative,

the Secretary of the Army may, by contract, authorize the facility

contractor—

ø(1) to use the facility for one or more years consistent with

the purposes of the ARMS Initiative; and¿

(1) to use the facility for any period of time that the Secretary

determines is appropriate for the accomplishment of, and consistent with, the needs of the Department of the Army and the

purposes of the ARMS Initiative; and

(2) to enter into multiyear subcontracts for the commercial

use of the facility consistent with such purposes.

* * * * * * *

(c) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT NON-MONETARY CONSIDERATION FOR

USE OF FACILITIES.—The Secretary may accept non-monetary consideration in lieu of rental payments for use of a facility under a

contract entered into under this section.

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—General Military Law

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL

MILITARY POWERS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 2—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

* * * * * * *

§ 117. Readiness reporting system: establishment; reporting

to congressional committees

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CAPABILITIES.—The readiness reporting system shall measure

such factors relating to readiness as the Secretary prescribes, exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00577 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR616.149 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
554

cept that the system shall include the capability to do each of the

following:

(1) Measure, on a monthly basis, the capability of units (both

as elements of their respective armed force and as elements of

joint forces) to conduct their assigned wartime missions.

* * * * * * *

(7) Measure, on a quarterly basis, the extent to which units

of the armed forces remove serviceable parts, supplies, or equipment from one vehicle, vessel, or aircraft in order to render a

different vehicle, vessel, or aircraft operational.

* * * * * * *

(e) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—(1) The Secretary shall each month submit to 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 a report in writing containing

the results of the most recent joint readiness review or monthly review conducted under subsection (d), including the current information derived from the readiness reporting system. øEach such report¿

(2) The monthly report submitted under paragraph (1) that covers

the first quarter of the then current fiscal year shall also include a

description of the funding proposed in the President’s budget for the

next fiscal year, and for the subsequent fiscal years covered by the

most recent future-years defense program submitted under section

221 of this title, to address each deficiency in readiness identified

during the joint readiness review conducted for the first quarter of

the current fiscal year.

(3) Each report under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form and may, as the Secretary determines necessary,

also be submitted in classified form.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 4—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Sec.

131. Office of the Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

144. Director of Mission-Essential Software Management.

* * * * * * *

§ 144. Director of Mission-Essential Software Management

(a) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,

and Logistics shall designate within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics a Director of Mission-Essential Software Management.

(b) The Director of Mission-Essential Software Management shall

provide effective oversight of, and shall seek to improve mechanisms

for, the management, development, and maintenance of mission-essential software for major defense acquisition programs described in

subsection (c).

(c) For purposes of this section, mission-essential software for

major defense acquisition programs is software—

555

(1) that is an integral part of software-intensive major defense

acquisition programs; and

(2) that is physically part of, dedicated to, or essential to the

mission performance of a weapons system.

(d) The Director of Mission-Essential Software Management shall

be responsible for—

(1) reviewing the policies and practices of the military departments and Defense Agencies for developing software described

in subsection (c);

(2) reviewing planning and progress in the management of

such software; and

(3) recommending goals and plans to improve management

with respect to such software.

* * * * * * *

§ 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

shall be set forth in accordance with the following program

elements:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(13) Airborne Laser program.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 7—BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES

* * * * * * *

Sec.

171. Armed Forces Policy Council.

* * * * * * *

184. Regional Centers for Security Studies.

* * * * * * *

§ 184. Regional Centers for Security Studies

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of

Defense may operate in the Department of Defense regional centers

for security studies, each of which is established for a specified geographic region of the world. Any such regional center shall serve as

a forum for bilateral and multilateral communication and military

and civilian exchanges with nations in the region for which the center is established. A regional center may, as the Secretary considers

appropriate, use professional military education, civilian defense

education, and related academic and other activities to pursue such

communication and exchanges.

(2) After the date of the enactment of this section, a regional center for security studies as described in paragraph (1) may not be established in the Department of Defense until at least 90 days after

the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a

notification of the intent of the Secretary to establish the center. The

556

notification shall contain a description of the mission and functions

of the proposed center and a justification for the proposed center.

(b) EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION OF FACULTY.—Section 1595

of this title provides authority for the Secretary of Defense to employ

certain civilian personnel at certain Department of Defense regional

center for security studies without regard to certain provisions of

title 5.

(c) ACCEPTANCE OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND DONATIONS.—Section

2611 of this title provides authority for the Secretary of Defense to

accept foreign gifts and donations in order to defray the costs of, or

enhance the operations of, certain Department of Defense regional

centers for security studies.

(d) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives an annual report on the status, objectives, and operations of

the Department of Defense regional centers for security studies.

Each such report shall include information on international participation in the programs of the centers and on foreign gifts and donations accepted under section 2611 of this title.

(e) PROVISIONS RELATING SPECIFICALLY TO MARSHALL CENTER.— (1) The Secretary of Defense may waive reimbursement of the costs

of conferences, seminars, courses of instruction, or similar educational activities of the George C. Marshall European Center for

Security Studies for military officers and civilian officials of cooperation partner states of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council

or the Partnership for Peace if the Secretary determines that attendance by such personnel without reimbursement is in the national security interest of the United States. Costs for which reimbursement

is waived pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid from appropriations available for the Center.

(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary

of Defense may authorize participation by a European or Eurasian

nation in Marshall Center programs if the Secretary determines,

after consultation with the Secretary of State, that such participation is in the national interest of the United States.

(B) Not later than January 31 of each year, the Secretary shall

submit to Congress a report setting forth the names of the foreign

nations permitted to participate in programs of the Marshall Center

during the preceding year under paragraph (1). Each such report

shall be prepared by the Secretary with the assistance of the Director of the Marshall Center.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 9—DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS

* * * * * * *

§ 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

identificationø, as a budgetary line item¿, of the amounts required

557

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.

* * * * * * *

PART II—ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL

MILITARY POWERS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 23—MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS

* * * * * * *

§ 483. Reports on transfers from high-priority readiness appropriations

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—In each report under subsection

(a) or (b), the Secretary of Defense shall include for each covered

budget activity the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(2) A detailed explanation of the transfers into, and out of,

funds available for that activity during the period covered by

the report, including identification of the sources from which

funds were transferred into that activity and identification of

the recipients of the funds transferred out of that activity. (d) COVERED BUDGET ACTIVITY DEFINED.—In this section, the

term ‘‘covered budget activity’’ means each of the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) The Air Operations and Combat Related Operations

budget activity groups (known as ‘‘subactivities’’) within the

Operating Forces budget activity of the annual Operation and

Maintenance, Air Force, appropriation that are designated as

follows:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(G) Combat Enforcement Forces.

(H) Combat Communications.

* * * * * * *

ø(e) TERMINATION.—The requirements specified in subsections (a)

and (b) shall terminate upon the submission of the annual report

under subsection (a) covering fiscal year 2000.¿

* * * * * * *

558

CHAPTER 31—ENLISTMENTS

* * * * * * *

§ 517. Authorized daily average: members in pay grades

E–8 and E–9

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President may suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525, or 526 of

this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the operation of any

provision of this section. Any such suspension shall, if not sooner

ended, end in the manner specified in section 527 for a suspension

under that section.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 36—PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVEDUTY LIST

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—SELECTION BOARDS

* * * * * * *

§ 612. Composition of selection boards

(a)(1) Members of selection boards shall be appointed by the Secretary of the military department concerned in accordance with

this section. A selection board shall consist of five or more officers

øwho are on the active-duty list¿ of the same armed force as the

officers under consideration by the board. Each member of a selection board (except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)) shall

be an officer on the active-duty list. Each member of a selection

board must be serving in a grade higher than the grade of the officers under consideration by the board, except that no member of

a board may be serving in a grade below major or lieutenant commander.

* * * * * * *

(3) When reserve officers of an armed force are to be considered

by a selection board, the membership of the board shall include at

least one reserve officer øof that armed force, with the exact number of reserve officers to be¿ of that armed force on active duty

(whether or not on the active-duty list). The actual number of reserve officers shall be determined by the Secretary of the military

department concerned, in øhis discretion, except that¿ the Secretary’s discretion. Notwithstanding the first sentence of this paragraph, in the case of a board which is considering officers in the

grade of colonel or brigadier general or, in the case of officers of

the Navy, captain or rear admiral (lower half), no reserve officer

need be included if there are no reserve officers of that armed force

on active duty in the next higher grade who are eligible to serve

on the board.

* * * * * * *

559

SUBCHAPTER III—FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR

PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT FOR YEARS OF SERVICE

* * * * * * *

§ 628. Special selection boards

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) REPORTS OF BOARDS.—(1) * * *

(2) The provisions of sections 617(b) and 618 of this title apply

to the report and proceedings of a special selection board convened

under this section in the same manner as they apply to the report

and proceedings of a selection board convened under section 611(a)

of this title. However, in the case of a board convened under this

section to consider a warrant officer or former warrant officer, the

provisions of sections 576(d) and 576(f ) of this title (rather than

the provisions of øsection¿ sections 617(b) and 618 of this title)

apply to the report and proceedings of the board in the same manner as they apply to the report and proceedings of a selection board

convened under section 573 of this title.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY AND

SELECTIVE EARLY RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 638a. Modification to rules for continuation on active

duty; enhanced authority for selective early retirement and early discharges

(a) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a

military department, during the period beginning on October 1,

1990, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001, to

take any of the actions set forth in subsection (b) with respect to

officers of an armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER V—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO

PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 641. Applicability of chapter

Officers in the following categories are not subject to this chapter

(other than section 640 and, in the case of warrant officers, section

628):

(1) Reserve officers—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) on the reserve active-status list who are on active

duty under section 12301(d) of this title, other than as provided in subparagraph (C), under a call or order to active

duty specifying a period of three years or less;

ø(D)¿ (E) on active duty to pursue special work;

560

ø(E)¿ (F) ordered to active duty under section 12304 of

this title;

ø(F)¿ (G) on active duty under section 10(b)(2) of the

Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 460(b)(2))

for the administration of the Selective Service System; or

ø(G)¿ (H) on full-time National Guard duty.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 39—ACTIVE DUTY

* * * * * * *

§ 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major

regional contingencies

(a) * * *

(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members of

the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty at

the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the following:

(1) For the Army, 480,000.

(2) For the Navy, ø371,781¿ 372,000.

(3) For the Marine Corps, ø172,148¿ 172,600.

(4) For the Air Force, ø360,877¿ 357,000.

* * * * * * *

(e) For a fiscal year for which the active duty end strength authorized by law pursuant to section 115(a)(1)(A) of this title for any

of the armed forces is identical to or greater than the number applicable to that armed force under subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may reduce that number by not more than 0.5 percent.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 40—LEAVE

* * * * * * *

§ 702. Cadets and midshipmen

(a) * * *

(b) INVOLUNTARY LEAVE WITHOUT PAY FOR SUSPENDED

ACADEMY CADETS AND MIDSHIPMEN.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(2) A cadet or midshipman placed on involuntary leave under

paragraph (1) is not entitled to any pay under øsection 230(c)¿ section 203(c) of title 37 for the period of the leave.

* * * * * * *

§ 706. Administration of leave required to be taken pending

review of certain court-martial convictions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c)ø(1)¿ A member required to take leave under section 876a of

this title is not entitled to any right or benefit under chapter 43

of title 38 solely because of employment during the period of such

leave.

561

ø(2) Section 974 of this title does not apply to a member required

to take leave under section 876a of this title during the period of

such leave.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 47—UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW

OF COURTS-MARTIAL

* * * * * * *

§ 874. Art. 74. Remission and suspension

(a) The Secretary concerned and, when designated by him, any

Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Judge Advocate General, or

commanding officer may remit or suspend any part or amount of

the unexecuted part of any sentence, including all uncollected forfeitures other than a sentence approved by the President. However,

in the case of a sentence of confinement for life without eligibility

for parole, after the sentence is ordered executed, the authority of the

Secretary concerned under the preceding sentence (1) may not be

delegated, and (2) may be exercised only after the service of a period

of confinement of not less than 20 years.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 53—MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

Sec.

1031. Administration of oath.

* * * * * * *

1044d. Military testamentary instruments: requirement for recognition by States.

* * * * * * *

§ 1034. Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory

personnel actions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF PRO- HIBITED PERSONNEL ACTIONS.—(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3)(A) An Inspector General receiving an allegation as described

in paragraph (1) shall expeditiously determine, in accordance with

regulations prescribed under subsection (h), whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation of the allegation.

* * * * * * *

(i) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ includes any Delegate or

Resident Commissioner to Congress.

(2) The term ‘‘Inspector General’’ means any of the following:

(A) The Inspector General of the Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

562

ø(C) The Inspector General of the Army, in the case of

a member of the Army.

ø(D) The Naval Inspector General, in the case of a member of the Navy.

ø(E) The Inspector General of the Air Force, in the case

of a member of the Air Force.

ø(F) The Deputy Naval Inspector General for Marine

Corps Matters, in the case of a member of the Marine

Corps.

ø(G) An officer of the armed forces assigned or detailed

under regulations of the Secretary concerned to serve as

an Inspector General at any command level in one of the

armed forces.¿

(C) Any officer of the armed forces or employee of the Department of Defense who is assigned or detailed to serve as

an Inspector General at any level in the Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

§ 1044. Legal assistance

(a) Subject to the availability of legal staff resources, the Secretary concerned may provide legal assistance in connection with

their personal civil legal affairs to the following persons:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Members of a reserve component not covered by paragraph

(1) or (2), but only during a period, following a release from active duty under a call or order to active duty for more than 29

days under a mobilization authority (as determined by the Secretary of Defense), that is not in excess of twice the length of

time served on active duty.

ø(4)¿ (5) Dependents of members and former members described in paragraphs (1), (2), øand (3)¿ (3), and (4).

* * * * * * *

§ 1044d. Military testamentary instruments: requirement for

recognition by States

(a) TESTAMENTARY INSTRUMENTS TO BE GIVEN LEGAL EFFECT.—

A military testamentary instrument—

(1) is exempt from any requirement of form, formality, or recording before probate that is provided for testamentary instruments under the laws of a State; and

(2) has the same legal effect as a testamentary instrument

prepared and executed in accordance with the laws of the State

in which it is presented for probate.

(b) MILITARY TESTAMENTARY INSTRUMENTS.—For purposes of this

section, a military testamentary instrument is an instrument that is

prepared with testamentary intent in accordance with regulations

prescribed under this section and that—

(1) is executed in accordance with subsection (c) by (or on behalf of) a person, as a testator, who is eligible for military legal

assistance;

563

(2) makes a disposition of property of the testator; and

(3) takes effect upon the death of the testator.

(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR EXECUTION OF MILITARY TESTAMENTARY

INSTRUMENTS.—An instrument is valid as a military testamentary

instrument only if—

(1) the instrument is executed by the testator (or, if the testator is unable to execute the instrument personally, the instrument is executed in the presence of, by the direction of, and on

behalf of the testator);

(2) the instrument is executed in the presence of a military

legal assistance counsel acting as presiding attorney;

(3) the instrument is executed in the presence of at least two

disinterested witnesses (in addition to the presiding attorney),

each of whom attests to witnessing the testator’s execution of the

instrument by signing it; and

(4) the instrument is executed in accordance with such additional requirements as may be provided in regulations prescribed under this section.

(d) SELF-PROVING MILITARY TESTAMENTARY INSTRUMENTS.—(1)

If the document setting forth a military testamentary instrument

meets the requirements of paragraph (2), then the signature of a

person on the document as the testator, an attesting witness, a notary, or the presiding attorney, together with a written representation of the person’s status as such and the person’s military grade

(if any) or other title, is prima facie evidence of the following:

(A) That the signature is genuine.

(B) That the signatory had the represented status and title at

the time of the execution of the will.

(C) That the signature was executed in compliance with the

procedures required under the regulations prescribed under

subsection (f).

(2) A document setting forth a military testamentary instrument

meets the requirements of this paragraph if it includes (or has attached to it), in a form and content required under the regulations

prescribed under subsection (f), each of the following:

(A) A certificate, executed by the testator, that includes the

testator’s acknowledgment of the testamentary instrument.

(B) An affidavit, executed by each witness signing the testamentary instrument, that attests to the circumstances under

which the testamentary instrument was executed.

(C) A notarization, including a certificate of any administration of an oath required under the regulations, that is signed

by the notary or other official administering the oath.

(e) STATEMENT TO BE INCLUDED.—(1) Under regulations prescribed under this section, each military testamentary instrument

shall contain a statement that sets forth the provisions of subsection

(a).

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to make inapplicable the

provisions of subsection (a) to a testamentary instrument that does

not include a statement described in that paragraph.

(f) REGULATIONS.—Regulations for the purposes of this section

shall be prescribed jointly by the Secretary of Defense and by the

Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when

it is not operating as a service in the Department of the Navy.

564

(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘person eligible for military legal assistance’’

means a person who is eligible for legal assistance under section 1044 of this title.

(2) The term ‘‘military legal assistance counsel’’ means—

(A) a judge advocate (as defined in section 801(13) of this

title); or

(B) a civilian attorney serving as a legal assistance officer under the provisions of section 1044 of this title.

(3) The term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands, and each possession of the United

States.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 55—MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE

Sec.

1071. Purpose of this chapter.

* * * * * * *

1074h. Medical and dental care: medal of honor recipients; dependents.

1074i. Reimbursement for certain travel expenses.

* * * * * * *

ø1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles.¿

1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles; reduction of catastrophic

cap.

* * * * * * *

1095f. TRICARE program: referrals for specialty health care.

* * * * * * *

1110. Policies and procedures for immunization program.

* * * * * * *

§ 1074. Medical and dental care for members and certain

former members

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c)(1) Funds appropriated to a military department, the Department of Transportation (with respect to the Coast Guard when it is

not operating as a service in the Navy), or the Department of Health

and Human Services (with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public Health Service) may be

used to provide medical and dental care to persons entitled to such

care by law or regulations, including the provision of such care

(other than elective private treatment) in private facilities for members of the øarmed forces¿ uniformed services. If a private facility

or health care provider providing care under this subsection is a

health care provider under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, the Secretary of Defense, after

consultation with the other administering Secretaries, may by regulation require the private facility or health care provider to provide such care in accordance with the same payment rules (subject

to any modifications considered appropriate by the Secretary) as

apply under that program.

565

(2)(A) Subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense considers necessary, coverage for medical care for members of the

øarmed forces¿ uniformed services under this subsection, 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.

* * * * * * *

(C) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the other administering Secretaries in the administration of this paragraph.

(3)(A) øThe Secretary of Defense may not require a member of

the armed forces described in subparagraph (B)¿ A member of the

uniformed services described in subparagraph (B) may not be required to receive routine primary medical care at a military medical treatment facility.

(B) A member referred to in subparagraph (A) is a member of the

øarmed forces¿ uniformed services on active duty who is entitled to

medical care under this subsection and who—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 1074g. Pharmacy benefits program

(a) PHARMACY BENEFITS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) The Secretary, øas part of the regulations established¿ in the

regulations prescribed under subsection (g), may establish cost

sharing requirements (which may be established as a percentage or

fixed dollar amount) under the pharmacy benefits program for generic, formulary, and nonformulary agents. For nonformulary

agents, cost sharing shall be consistent with common industry

practice and not in excess of amounts generally comparable to 20

percent for beneficiaries covered by section 1079 of this title or 25

percent for beneficiaries covered by section 1086 of this title.

(7) The Secretary shall establish procedures for eligible covered

beneficiaries to receive pharmaceutical agents ønot included on the

uniform formulary, but,¿ that are not included on the uniform formulary but that are considered to be clinically necessary. Such procedures shall include peer review procedures under which the Secretary may determine that there is a clinical justification for the

use of a pharmaceutical agent that is not on the uniform formulary, in which case the pharmaceutical agent shall be provided

under the same terms and conditions as an agent on the uniform

formulary. Such procedures shall also include an expeditious appeals process for an eligible covered beneficiary, or a network or

uniformed provider on behalf of the beneficiary, to establish clinical

justification for the use of a pharmaceutical agent that is not on

the uniform formulary.

* * * * * * *

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE.—(1) The Secretary of Defense

shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, establish a Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee for the

purpose of developing the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical

566

agents required by subsection (a), reviewing such formulary on a

periodic basis, and making additional recommendations regarding

the formulary as the committee determines necessary and appropriate. The committee shall include representatives of pharmacies

of the uniformed services facilities, contractors responsible for the

TRICARE retail pharmacy program, contractors responsible for the

national mail-order pharmacy program, providers in facilities of the

uniformed services, and TRICARE network providers. Committee

members shall have expertise in treating the medical needs of the

populations served through such entities and in the range of pharmaceutical and biological medicines available for treating such populations. The committee shall function under procedures established by the Secretary under the regulations required by subsection (g).

* * * * * * *

(d) PROCEDURES.—(1) * * *

(2) øNot later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of

this section, the Secretary shall utilize¿ Effective not later than

April 5, 2000, the Secretary shall use a modification to the bid price

adjustment methodology in the current managed care support contracts to ensure equitable and timely reimbursement to the

TRICARE managed care support contractors for pharmaceutical

products delivered in the nonmilitary environments. The methodology shall take into account the ‘‘at-risk’’ nature of the contracts

as well as managed care support contractor pharmacy costs attributable to changes to pharmacy service or formulary management at

military medical treatment facilities, and other military activities

and policies that affect costs of pharmacy benefits provided through

the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services. The methodology shall also account for military treatment facility costs attributable to the delivery of pharmaceutical products

in the military facility environment which were prescribed by a

network provider.

* * * * * * *

(e) PHARMACY DATA TRANSACTION SERVICE.—øNot later than

April 1, 2000, the¿ The Secretary of Defense shall implement the

use of the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service in all fixed facilities

of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, in

the TRICARE retail pharmacy program, and in the national mailorder pharmacy program.

(f) DEFINITIONS.—øAs used in this section—¿ In this section:

(1) øthe¿ The term ‘‘eligible covered beneficiary’’ means a

covered beneficiary for whom eligibility to receive pharmacy

benefits through the means described in subsection (a)(2)(E) is

established under this chapter or another provision of lawø;

and¿.

(2) øthe¿ The term ‘‘pharmaceutical agent’’ means drugs, biological products, and medical devices under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration.

567

(g) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall, after consultation with the other administering Secretaries, øpromulgate¿

prescribe regulations to carry out this section.

* * * * * * *

§ 1074h. Medical and dental care: medal of honor recipients;

dependents

(a) MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS.—A former member of the

armed forces who is a Medal of Honor recipient and who is not otherwise entitled to medical and dental benefits under this chapter

may, upon request, be given medical and dental care provided by

the administering Secretaries in the same manner as if entitled to

retired pay.

(b) DEPENDENTS.—A person who is a dependent of a Medal of

Honor recipient and who is not otherwise entitled to medical and

dental benefits under this chapter may, upon request, be given medical and dental care provided by the administering Secretaries in

the same manner as if the Medal of Honor recipient were, or (if deceased) was at the time of death, entitled to retired pay.

(c) DEFINITIONS—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘Medal of Honor recipient’’ means a member or

former member of the armed forces who has been awarded a

medal of honor under section 3741, 6241, or 8741 of this title

or section 491 of title 14.

(2) The term ‘‘dependent’’ has the meaning given that term in

subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 1072(2) of this

title.

§ 1074i. Reimbursement for certain travel expenses

In any case in which a covered beneficiary is referred by a primary care physician to a specialty care provider who provides services more than 100 miles from the location in which the primary

care provider provides services to the covered beneficiary, the Secretary shall provide reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses

for the covered beneficiary.

* * * * * * *

§ 1076c. Dental insurance plan: certain retirees and their

surviving spouses and other dependents

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) DISENROLLMENT PROCESS FOR TRICARE RETIREE DENTAL

PROGRAM.—With respect to the provision of dental care to a retired

member of the uniformed services or the dependent of such a member under the TRICARE program, the Secretary of Defense—

(A) shall require that any TRICARE dental insurance contract allow for a period of up to 30 days, beginning on the date

of the submission of an application for enrollment by the member or dependent, during which the member or dependent may

disenroll;

(B) shall provide for limited circumstances under which

disenrollment shall be permitted during the 24-month initial

568

enrollment period, without jeopardizing the fiscal integrity of

the dental program.

(2) The circumstances described in paragraph (1)(B) shall

include—

(A) a case in which a retired member or dependent who is

also a Federal employee is assigned to a location overseas

which prevents utilization of dental benefits in the United

States;

(B) a case in which such a member or dependent provides

medical documentation with regard to a diagnosis of a serious

or terminal illness which precludes the member or dependent

from obtaining dental care;

(C) a case in which severe financial hardship would result;

and

(D) any other instances which the Secretary considers appropriate.

(3) A retired member or dependent described in paragraph (1)—

(A) shall make any initial requests for disenrollment under

this subsection to the TRICARE dental insurance contractor;

and

(B) may appeal a decision by the contractor, or policies with

respect to the provision of dental care to retirees and their dependents under the TRICARE program, to the TRICARE Management Activity.

(4) In a case of an appeal described in paragraph (3)(B) the contractor shall refer all relevant information collected by the contractor to the TRICARE Management Activity.

ø(i)¿ (j) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘eligible dependent’’ means a dependent described in subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of

this title.

(2) The term ‘‘eligible child dependent’’ means a dependent

described in subparagraph (D) or (I) of section 1072(2) of this

title.

(3) The term ‘‘retired pay’’ includes retainer pay.

* * * * * * *

§ 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children:

plans

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(17)(A) The Secretary of Defense may establish a program for

the individual case management of a person covered by this

section or section 1086 of this title who has extraordinary medical or psychological disorders and, under such a program, may

waive benefit limitations contained in paragraphs (5) and (13)

of this subsection or section 1077(b)(1) of this title and authorize the payment for comprehensive home health care services,

supplies, and equipment if the Secretary determines that such

a waiver is cost-effective and appropriate.

569

(B) The total amount expended under subparagraph (A) for

a fiscal year may not exceed $100,000,000.

* * * * * * *

(h)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) To assure access to care for all covered beneficiaries, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall designate specific rates for reimbursement for services

in certain localities if the Secretary determines that without payment of such rates access to health care services would be severely

impaired. Such a determination shall be based on consideration of

the number of providers in a locality who provide the services, the

number of such providers who are CHAMPUS participating providers, the number of covered beneficiaries under CHAMPUS in the

locality, the availability of military providers in the location or a

nearby location, and any other factors determined to be relevant by

the Secretary.

* * * * * * *

(p)(1) 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, 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.

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall enter into arrangements with

contractors under the TRICARE program or with other appropriate

contractors for the timely and efficient processing of claims under

this subsection.

(3) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the other administering Secretaries in the administration of this subsection.

* * * * * * *

§ 1091. Personal services contracts

(a) AUTHORITY.—(1) * * *

(2) The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation

with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may also enter into personal services contracts to

carry out other health care responsibilities of the Secretary (such

as the provision of medical screening examinations at Military Entrance Processing Stations) at locations outside medical treatment

facilities, as determined necessary pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary may not enter into a contract under this paragraph after øDecember 31, 2000¿ December

31, 2002.

* * * * * * *

570

ø§ 1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles¿

§ 1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles; reduction of catastrophic cap

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) REDUCTION OF CATASTROPHIC CAP.—The Secretary shall reduce the catastrophic cap for covered beneficiaries under TRICARE

Standard and TRICARE Extra to $3,000.

* * * * * * *

§ 1095f. TRICARE program: referrals for specialty health

care

The Secretary of Defense shall provide that no contract for managed care support under the TRICARE program shall require a

managed care support contractor to require a primary care provider

or specialty care provider to obtain prior authorization before referring a patient to a specialty care provider that is part of the network

of health care providers or institutions of the contractor.

* * * * * * *

§ 1097a. TRICARE Prime: automatic enrollments; payment

options

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) NO COPAYMENT FOR IMMEDIATE FAMILY.—No copayment shall

be charged a member for care provided under TRICARE Prime to

a dependent of a member of the uniformed services described in subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title.

ø(e)¿ (f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘TRICARE Prime’’ means the managed care option of the TRICARE program.

(2) The term ‘‘catchment area’’, with respect to a facility of

a uniformed service, means the service area of the facility, as

designated under regulations prescribed by the administering

Secretaries.

* * * * * * *

§ 1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees

Health Benefits program: demonstration project

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) AREA OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.—The Secretary of Defense

and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall jointly identify and select the geographic areas in which the demonstration project will be conducted. The Secretary and the Director shall

establish at least six, øbut not more than ten,¿ such demonstration

areas. øIn establishing the areas, the Secretary and Director shall

include—

ø(1) an area that includes the catchment area of one or more

military medical treatment facilities;

571

ø(2) an area that is not located in the catchment area of a

military medical treatment facility;

ø(3) an area in which there is a Medicare Subvention Demonstration project area under section 1896 of title XVIII of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg); and

ø(4) not more than one area for each TRICARE region.¿

In establishing the areas, the Secretary and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall include an area that includes

the catchment area of one or more military medical treatment facilities, an area that is not located in the catchment area of a military

medical treatment facility, an area in which there is a Medicare

Subvention Demonstration project area under section 1896 of title

XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg), and one area

for each TRICARE region.

(d) DURATION OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.—(1) The Secretary of

Defense shall conduct the demonstration project during øthree¿

four contract years under the Federal Employees Health Benefits

program.

(2) Eligible beneficiaries shall, as provided under the agreement

pursuant to subsection (a), be permitted to enroll in the demonstration project during an open enrollment period for the year 2000

(conducted in the fall of 1999). The demonstration project shall terminate on øDecember 31, 2002¿ December 31, 2003.

* * * * * * *

(f ) TERM OF ENROLLMENT IN PROJECT.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the period of enrollment of an eligible beneficiary who enrolls in the demonstration project during the open

enrollment period for the year 2000 shall be øthree] four years unless the beneficiary disenrolls before the termination of the project.

* * * * * * *

(k) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.—Not later than øDecember

31, 2002¿ December 31, 2003, the Comptroller General shall submit

to Congress a report addressing the same matters required to be

addressed under subsection ( j)(2). The report shall describe any

limitations with respect to the data contained in the report as a result of the size and design of the demonstration project.

(l) APPLICATION OF MEDIGAP PROTECTIONS TO DEMONSTRATION

PROJECT ENROLLEES.—(1)***

(2) In applying paragraph (1)—

(A) any reference in clause (v) or (vi) of section 1882(s)(3)(B)

of such Act to 12 months is deemed a reference to ø36¿ 48

months; and

(B) the notification required under section 1882(s)(3)(D) of

such Act shall be provided in a manner specified by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Director of the Office

of Personnel Management.

* * * * * * *

(m) EXPANSION OF COVERAGE FOR RETIREES OVER AGE 65.—(1)

Eligible beneficiaries referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall be permitted to enroll, or to extend a previous enrollment entered into

under subsection (d)(2), during a period of open enrollment for the

year 2003 (conducted in the fall of 2002).

572

(2) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (f), the period

of enrollment, or extension of enrollment, of an eligible beneficiary

under paragraph (1) shall be one year unless the beneficiary

disenrolls before the termination of the demonstration project.

§ 1109. Organ and tissue donor program

(a) * * *

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.—ø(1)¿ The Secretaries of the military departments

shall ensure that—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 1110. Policies and procedures for immunization program

(a) SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES FOR TRACKING SEPARATIONS.—(1)

The Secretary of each military department shall establish a system

for tracking, recording, and reporting separations of members of the

armed forces that result from procedures initiated as a result of a

refusal to participate in the anthrax vaccine immunization program.

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall consolidate the information recorded under the system described in paragraph (1) and shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate on an annual basis a report on such information. Such reports shall include a description of—

(A) the number of personnel separated, categorized by military department, rank, and active-duty or reserve status; and

(B) any other information determined appropriate by the Secretary.

(b) EMERGENCY ESSENTIAL CIVILIAN PERSONNEL.—The Secretary

of Defense shall—

(1) prescribe regulations for the purpose of ensuring that any

civilian employee of the Department of Defense who is determined to be an emergency essential employee and who is required to participate in the anthrax vaccination program is notified of the requirement to participate in the program and the

consequences of a decision not to participate; and

(2) ensure that any individual who is being considered for a

position as such an employee is notified of the obligation to participate in the program before being offered employment in such

position.

(c) PROCEDURES FOR MEDICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXEMPTIONS.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish uniform procedures under which members of the armed forces may be exempted

from participating in the anthrax vaccination program for either

administrative or medical reasons.

(2) The Secretaries of the military departments shall provide for

notification of all members of the armed forces of the procedures described in paragraph (1).

(d) SYSTEM FOR MONITORING ADVERSE REACTIONS.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a system for monitoring adverse reactions of members of the armed forces to the anthrax vaccine which

shall include the following:

573

(A) Independent review of Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting

System reports.

(B) Periodic surveys of personnel to whom the vaccine is administered.

(C) A continuing longitudinal study of a pre-identified group

of members of the armed forces (including men and women and

members from all services).

(D) Active surveillance of a sample of members to whom the

anthrax vaccine has been administered that is sufficient to

identify, at the earliest opportunity, any patterns of adverse reactions, the discovery of which might be delayed by reliance

solely on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

(2) The Secretary may extend or expand any ongoing or planned

study or analysis of trends in adverse reactions of members of the

armed forces to the anthrax vaccine in order to meet any of the requirements in paragraph (1).

(3) The Secretary shall establish guidelines under which members

of the armed forces who are determined by an independent expert

panel to be experiencing unexplained adverse reactions may obtain

access to a Department of Defense Center of Excellence treatment facility for expedited treatment and follow up.

(e) VACCINE DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan, including milestones, for

modernizing all vaccines used or anticipated to be used as part of

the protection strategy for members of the armed forces.

(2) The Secretary—

(A) shall, to the maximum extent possible, be the sole purchaser of a vaccine to immunize members of the armed forces

and employees of all Federal agencies;

(B) shall, to the maximum extent possible, procure such a

vaccine from more than one manufacturer; and

(C) in any case in which the Secretary determines that sole

source procurement of such a vaccine is necessary, may not

enter into a contract to purchase such vaccine until 30 days

after providing notification to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate that the

Secretary intends to enter into a sole source contract for the vaccine.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 58—BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS

BEING SEPARATED OR RECENTLY SEPARATED

* * * * * * *

§ 1145. Health benefits

(a) TRANSITIONAL HEALTH CARE.—(1) For the applicable time period described in paragraph (2), a member of the armed forces who

is involuntarily separated from active duty during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001 (and the dependents of the member), shall be entitled to receive—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

574

(c) HEALTH CARE FOR CERTAIN SEPARATED MEMBERS NOT OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE.—(1) Consistent with the authority of the Secretary

concerned to designate certain classes of persons as eligible to receive health care at a military medical facility, the Secretary concerned should consider authorizing, on an individual basis in cases

of hardship, the provision of that care for a member who is separated from the armed forces during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31,

2001, and is ineligible for transitional health care under subsection

(a) or does not obtain a conversion health policy (or a dependent

of the member).

* * * * * * *

(e) COAST GUARD.—The provisions of this section shall apply to

members of the Coast Guard (and their dependents) involuntarily

separated from active duty during the period beginning on October

1, 1994, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001.

The Secretary of Transportation shall implement this section for

the Coast Guard.

§ 1146. Commissary and exchange benefits

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to allow a

member of the armed forces who is involuntarily separated from

active duty during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and

ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001, to continue to

use commissary and exchange stores during the two-year period beginning on the date of the involuntary separation of the member

in the same manner as a member on active duty. The Secretary of

Transportation shall implement this provision for Coast Guard

members involuntarily separated during the period beginning on

October 1, 1994, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31,

2001.

§ 1147. Use of military family housing

(a) TRANSITION FOR INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED MEMBERS.—(1)

The Secretary of a military department may, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, permit individuals

who are involuntarily separated during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31,

2001, to continue for not more than 180 days after the date of such

separation to reside (along with other members of the individual’s

household) in military family housing provided or leased by the Department of Defense to such individual as a member of the armed

forces.

(2) The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe regulations to

permit members of the Coast Guard who are involuntarily separated thereof ‘‘during the period beginning on October 1, 1994, and

ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001, to continue for

not more than 180 days after the date of such separation to reside

(along with others of the member’s household) in military family

housing provided or leased by the Coast Guard to the individual as

a member of the armed forces.

* * * * * * *

575

§ 1150. Affiliation with Guard and Reserve units: waiver of

certain limitations

(a) PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN PERSONS.—A person who is separated from the armed forces during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31,

2001, and who applies to become a member of a National Guard

or Reserve unit within one year after the date of such separation

shall be given preference over other equally qualified applicants for

existing or projected vacancies within the unit to which the member applies.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 59—SEPARATION

* * * * * * *

§ 1174. Separation pay upon involuntary discharge or release from active duty

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) OTHER MEMBERS.—(1)***

* * * * * * *

(4) The discharge or release from active duty of an officer under

a law or regulation requiring that an officer who has failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade for the second time, or

who declines continuation on active duty after such a failure, be discharged or released from active duty shall be considered to be involuntary for purposes of paragraph (1)(A).

§ 1174a. Special separation benefits programs

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) TERMINATION OF PROGRAM.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary concerned may not conduct a program pursuant to this section after øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31,

2001.

* * * * * * *

§ 1175. Voluntary separation incentive

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) After øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001, the Secretary

may not approve a request.

(e)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3)(A) A member who has received the voluntary separation incentive and who qualifies for retired or retainer pay under this title

shall have deducted from each payment of such retired or retainer

576

pay so much of such pay as is based on the service for which he

received the voluntary separation incentive until the total amount

deducted equals the total amount of voluntary separation incentive

received. If the member elected to have a reduction in voluntary

separation incentive for any period pursuant to paragraph (2), the

deduction required under the preceding sentence shall be reduced

accordingly.

(B) If a member is receiving simultaneous voluntary separation

incentive payments and retired or retainer pay, the member may

elect to terminate the receipt of voluntary separation incentive payments. Any such election is permanent and irrevocable. The rate of

monthly recoupment from retired or retainer pay of voluntary separation incentive payments received after such an election shall be reduced by a percentage that is equal to a fraction with a denominator equal to the number of months that the voluntary separation

incentive payments were scheduled to be paid and a numerator

equal to the number of months that would not be paid as a result

of the member’s decision to terminate the voluntary separation incentive.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 69—RETIRED GRADE

* * * * * * *

§ 1370. Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions

(a) RULE FOR RETIREMENT IN HIGHEST GRADE HELD SATISFACTORILY.—(1) * * *

(2)(A) In order to be eligible for voluntary retirement under any

provision of this title in a grade above major or lieutenant commander, a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or

Marine Corps must have served on active duty in that grade for

not less than three years, except that the Secretary of Defense may

authorize the Secretary of a military department to reduce such period to a period not less than two years in the case of retirements

effective during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001.

(d) RESERVE OFFICERS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a

military department to reduce the 3-year period required by paragraph (3)(A) to a period not less than 2 years in the case of retirements effective during the period beginning on October 17, 1998,

and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001. The number of reserve commissioned officers of an armed force in the same

grade for whom a reduction is made during any fiscal year in the

period of service-in-grade otherwise required under this paragraph

may not exceed the number equal to 2 percent of the strength authorized for that fiscal year for reserve commissioned officers of

that armed force in an active status in that grade.

* * * * * * *

577

CHAPTER 73—ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR

RETAINER PAY

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN

* * * * * * *

§ 1448. Application of Plan

(a) GENERAL RULES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN.— (1) * * *

(2) PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLAN.—The Plan applies to the following persons, who shall be participants in the Plan:

(A) * * *

ø(B) RESERVE-COMPONENT ANNUITY PARTICIPANTS.—A

person who (i) is eligible to participate in the Plan under

paragraph (1)(B), (ii) is married or has a dependent child

when he is notified under section 12731(d) of this title that

he has completed the years of service required for eligibility for reserve-component retired pay, and (iii) elects to

participate in the Plan (and makes a designation under

subsection (e)) before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date he receives such notification.¿

(B) RESERVE-COMPONENT ANNUITY PARTICIPANTS.—A person who (i) is eligible to participate in the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), and (ii) is married or has a dependent child

when he is notified under section 12731(d) of this title that

he has completed the years of service required for eligibility

for reserve-component retired pay, unless the person elects

(with his spouse’s concurrence, if required under paragraph

(3)) not to participate in the Plan before the end of the 90-

day period beginning on the date on which he receives that

notification.

A person ødescribed in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B)

who does not elect to participate in the Plan before the end of

the 90-day period referred to in that clause¿ who elects under

subparagraph (B) not to participate in the Plan remains eligible, upon reaching 60 years of age and otherwise becoming entitled to retired pay, to participate in the Plan in accordance

with eligibility under paragraph (1)(A).

(3) ELECTIONS.—

(A) * * *

(B) SPOUSAL CONSENT FOR CERTAIN ELECTIONS RESPECTING RESERVE-COMPONENT ANNUITY.—A married person

øwho elects to provide¿ who is eligible to provide a reservecomponent annuity may not without the concurrence of the

person’s spouse elect—

(i) not to participate in the Plan;

(ii) to designate under subsection (e)(2) the effective

date for commencement of annuity payments under the

Plan in the event that the member dies before becoming

60 years of age to be the 60th anniversary of the member’s birth (rather than the day after the date of the

member’s death);

578

ø(i)¿ (iii) to provide an annuity for the person’s

spouse at less than the maximum level; or

ø(ii)¿ (iv) to provide an annuity for a dependent

child but not for the person’s spouse.

(4) IRREVOCABILITY OF ELECTIONS.— (A) STANDARD ANNUITY.—An election under paragraph

(2)(A) ønot to participate in the Plan¿ is irrevocable if not

revoked before the date on which the person first becomes

entitled to retired pay.

(B) RESERVE-COMPONENT ANNUITY.—An election under

paragraph (2)(B) øto participate in the Plan¿ is irrevocable

if not revoked before the end of the 90-day period referred

to in that paragraph.

* * * * * * *

(b) INSURABLE INTEREST AND FORMER SPOUSE COVERAGE.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) FORMER SPOUSE COVERAGE BY PERSONS ALREADY PARTICIPATING IN PLAN.—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) EFFECTIVE DATE OF ELECTION.—An election under

this paragraph is effective as of—

(i) * * *

(ii) in the case of a person required (as described in

section 1450(f )(3)(B) of this title) to make the election

by reason of a court order or filing the date of which

is after October 16, 1998,ø,¿ the first day of the first

month which begins after the date of that court order

or filing.

* * * * * * *

(e) DESIGNATION FOR COMMENCEMENT OF RESERVE-COMPONENT

ANNUITY.—In any case in which a person electing to participate in

the Plan is required to make a designation under this subsection,

the person ømaking such election¿ shall designate whether, in the

event he dies before becoming 60 years of age, the annuity provided

shall become effective on—

(1) the day after the date of his death; or

(2) the 60th anniversary of his birth.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 77—POSTHUMOUS COMMISSIONS AND

WARRANTS

* * * * * * *

§ 1521. Posthumous commissions

(a) The President may issue, or have issued, an appropriate commission in the name of a member of the armed forces who, after

September 8, 1939—

579

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) was officially recommended for appointment or promotion

to a commissioned grade øand the recommendation for whose

appointment or promotion was approved by the Secretary concerned¿ but was unable to accept the promotion or appointment because of death in line of duty.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 80—MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION

REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER DUTIES

Sec.

1561. Complaints of sexual harassment: investigation by commanding officers.

* * * * * * *

1563. Consideration of proposals for posthumous and honorary promotions and appointments: procedures for review and recommendation.

1564. Military criminal investigations: probable cause required for entry of names of

subjects into official investigative reports.

1565. DNA identification information: collection from violent and sexual offenders;

use.

* * * * * * *

§ 1563. Consideration of proposals for posthumous and honorary promotions and appointments: procedures for

review and recommendation

(a) REVIEW BY SECRETARY CONCERNED.—Upon request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for

the posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment of a member

or former member of the armed forces, or any other person considered qualified, that is not otherwise authorized by law. Based upon

such review, the Secretary shall make a determination as to the

merits of approving the posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment and the other determinations necessary to comply with

subsection (b).

(b) NOTICE OF RESULTS OF REVIEW.—Upon making a determination under subsection (a) as to the merits of approving the posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment, the Secretary concerned shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and to the requesting Member of Congress notice in writing

of one of the following:

(1) The posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment

does not warrant approval on the merits.

(2) The posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment

warrants approval and authorization by law for the promotion

or appointment is recommended.

(3) The posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment

warrants approval on the merits and has been recommended to

the President as an exception to policy.

(4) The posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment

warrants approval on the merits and authorization by law for

the promotion or appointment is required but is not recommended.

580

A notice under paragraph (1) or (4) shall be accompanied by a statement of the reasons for the decision of the Secretary.

(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Member of Congress’’

means—

(1) a Senator; or

(2) a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress.

§ 1564. Military criminal investigations: probable cause required for entry of names of subjects into official investigative reports

(a) PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIRED FOR ‘‘TITLING’’.—The Secretary of

Defense shall require that an employee of a military criminal investigative organization or a member of the armed forces assigned to

a military criminal investigative organization, in connection with

the investigation of a reported crime, may not designate any person,

by name or by any other identifying information, as a suspect in the

case in any official investigative report, or in a central index for potential retrieval and analysis by law enforcement organizations, unless there is probable cause to believe that that person committed the

crime.

(b) STANDARD FOR REMOVAL OF ‘‘TITLING’’ INFORMATION FROM

RECORDS.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a uniform

standard applicable throughout the Department of Defense for removal from an official investigative report of a reported crime, and

from any applicable central index, of the name of a person (and any

other identifying information about that person) that was entered in

the report or index to designate that person as a suspect in the case

when it is subsequently determined that there is not probable cause

to believe that that person committed the crime.

(c) CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ORGANIZATION DEFINED.—In this

section, the term ‘‘criminal investigative organization’’ means any of

the following:

(1) The Defense Criminal Investigative Service (or any successor to that service).

(2) The Army Criminal Investigation Command (or any successor to that command).

(3) The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (or any successor to that service).

(4) The Air Force Office of Special Investigations (or any successor to that office).

§ 1565. DNA identification information: collection from violent and sexual offenders; use

(a) COLLECTION OF DNA SAMPLES.—The Secretary concerned

shall collect a DNA sample from each member of the armed forces

under the Secretary’s jurisdiction who is, or has been, convicted of

a qualifying military offense (as determined under subsection (e)).

(b) ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES.—The Secretary concerned shall furnish each DNA sample collected under subsection (a) to the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a DNA

analysis on each such DNA sample.

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

581

(1) The term ‘‘DNA sample’’ means a tissue, fluid, or other

bodily sample of an individual on which a DNA analysis can

be carried out.

(2) The term ‘‘DNA analysis’’ means analysis of the

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) identification information in a

bodily sample.

(d) USE IN CODIS.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall furnish the

results of each DNA analysis carried out under subsection (b) to the

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for use in the Combined DNA Index System (in this section referred to as ‘‘CODIS’’) of

the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(2) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall establish procedures providing that if a DNA sample has been collected from a person pursuant to subsection (a), and the Secretary receives notice that each

conviction of that person of a qualifying military offense has been

overturned, the Secretary shall promptly transmit a notice of that

fact to the Director in accordance with section 210304(d) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

(e) QUALIFYING MILITARY OFFENSES.—(1) Subject to paragraph

(2), the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall determine those violent or sexual offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that shall be considered for purposes

of this section as qualifying military offenses.

(2) An offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is

equivalent to a serious violent felony (as that term is defined in section 3559(c)(2)(F) of title 18), as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General, shall be considered for purposes of this section as a qualifying military offense.

(f) WAIVER.—The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement

of subsection (a) for a member if CODIS contains a DNA analysis

with respect to that member.

(g) REGULATIONS.—This section shall be carried out under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the

Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General. Those regulations shall apply, to the extent practicable, uniformly throughout the

armed forces.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 83—CIVILIAN DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE

EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—DEFENSE–WIDE INTELLIGENCE

PERSONNEL POLICY

* * * * * * *

§ 1601. Civilian intelligence personnel: general authority to

establish excepted positions, appoint personnel,

and fix rates of pay

(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may—

(1) establish, as positions in the excepted service, such defense intelligence positions øin the intelligence components of

582

the Department of Defense and the military departments¿ in

the Department of Defense as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the intelligence functions øof those components and departments¿ of the Department, including—

(A) Intelligence Senior Level positions designated under

section 1607 of this title; and

(B) positions in the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service;

* * * * * * *

§ 1611. Postemployment assistance: certain terminated intelligence employees

(a) AUTHORITY.—Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense may, in the case of any individual who is a qualified former

intelligence employee, use appropriated funds—

(1) to assist that individual in finding and qualifying for employment other than in an øintelligence component of the Department of Defense¿ defense intelligence position;

* * * * * * *

(b) QUALIFIED FORMER INTELLIGENCE EMPLOYEES.—For purposes

of this section, a qualified former intelligence employee is an individual who was employed as a civilian employee of the Department

of Defense in a øsensitive position in an intelligence component of

the Department of Defense¿ sensitive defense intelligence position— (1) who has been found to be ineligible for continued access

to information designated as ‘‘Sensitive Compartmented Information’’ and employment øwith the intelligence component¿ in

a defense intelligence position; or

(2) whose employment øwith the intelligence component¿ in

a defense intelligence position has been terminated.

* * * * * * *

(d) DURATION OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance may not be provided

under this section in the case of any individual after the end of the

five-year period beginning on the date of the termination of the employment of the individual with øan intelligence component of the

Department of Defense¿ in a defense intelligence position.

* * * * * * *

ø(f) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘intelligence component of the Department of Defense’’ includes the National Reconnaissance Office and any intelligence component of a military department.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 1614. Definitions

In this subchapter:

(1) The term ‘‘defense intelligence position’’ means a civilian

position as an intelligence officer or intelligence employee øof

an intelligence component of the Department of Defense or of

a military department¿ of the Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

583

PART III—TRAINING AND EDUCATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 102—JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING

CORPS

* * * * * * *

§ 2033. Contingent funding increase

If for any fiscal year the amount øappropriated for¿ appropriated

directly to the Secretary of Defense for the National Guard Challenge Program under section 509 of title 32 is in excess of

$62,500,000, the Secretary of Defense shall (notwithstanding any

other provision of law) make the amount in excess of $62,500,000

available for the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program

under section 2031 of this title, and such excess amount may not

be used for any other purpose.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 105—ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION

PROGRAM

* * * * * * *

§ 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates

(a) BONUS AUTHORIZED.—(1) A person described in subsection (b)

who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and ending on øDecember 31, 2000¿ December 31, 2001, 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 108—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOLS

Sec.

2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: academic degrees.

* * * * * * *

2166. Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation.

* * * * * * *

§ 2164. Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

584

(c) ELIGIBILITY OF DEPENDENTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND

OTHER PERSONS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3)(A) The Secretary may authorize the dependent of an American

Red Cross employee described in subparagraph (B) to enroll in an

education program provided by the Secretary pursuant to subsection

(a) if the American Red Cross agrees to reimburse the Secretary for

the educational services so provided.

(B) An employee referred to in subparagraph (A) is an American

Red Cross employee who—

(i) resides in Puerto Rico; and

(ii) performs, on a full-time basis, emergency services on behalf of members of the armed forces.

(C) Amounts received under this paragraph as reimbursement for

educational services shall be treated in the same manner as

amounts received under subsection (g).

* * * * * * *

§ 2165. National Defense University: component institutions

(a) * * *

(b) COMPONENT INSTITUTIONS.—The National Defense University

consists of the following institutions:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The øArmed Forces Staff College¿ Joint Forces Staff College.

* * * * * * *

§ 2166. Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation

(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may operate an education and training facility known as the ‘‘Defense Institute for

Hemispheric Security Cooperation’’. The Secretary of Defense may

designate the Secretary of the Army as the Department of Defense

executive agent for carrying out the responsibilities of the Secretary

of Defense under this section.

(b) PURPOSE.—(1) The Institute shall be operated for the purpose

of providing education and training to military, law enforcement,

and civilian personnel of nations of the Western Hemisphere in defense and security matters.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), defense and security matters

include—

(A) professional military education;

(B) leadership development;

(C) counter-drug operations;

(D) peace support operations; and

(E) disaster relief.

(c) CURRICULUM.—The education and training programs provided

by the Institute shall include (for each person attending the Institute

under subsection (b)) instruction totaling not less than eight hours

relating to each of the following subjects:

(1) Human rights.

585

(2) The rule of law.

(3) Due process.

(4) Civilian control of the military.

(5) The role of the military in a democratic society.

(d) BOARD OF VISITORS.—(1) There is a Board of Visitors for the

Institute. The Board shall be composed of members appointed by the

Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of the Army as the Secretary’s

designee). In selecting members of the Board, the Secretary shall

consider recommendations by—

(A) the Speaker and the minority leader of the House of Representatives;

(B) the majority leader and the minority leader of the Senate;

(C) the Secretary of State;

(D) the commander of the unified command with geographic

responsibility for Latin America; and

(E) representatives from academic institutions, religious institutions, and human rights organizations.

(2) Members shall serve for two years and shall meet at least annually.

(3)(A) The Board shall inquire into—

(i) the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters relating to the Institute that the Board decides to consider; and

(ii) any other matters relating to the Institute that the Secretary considers appropriate.

(B) The Board shall review the curriculum of the Institute to ensure that the curriculum—

(i) complies with applicable United States law and

regulations;

(ii) is consistent with United States policy goals toward Latin

America and the Caribbean; and

(iii) adheres to current United States doctrine.

(4)(A) Not later than 60 days after its annual meeting, the Board

shall submit to the Secretary a written report of its action and of

its views and recommendations pertaining to the Institute.

(B) Within 30 days of receipt of the Board’s report for any year,

the Secretary shall transmit the report, with the Secretary’s comments, to Congress.

(5) While performing duties as a member of or adviser to the

Board, each member of the Board and each adviser shall be reimbursed for travel expenses under Government travel regulations.

Board members shall not be compensated by reason of service on the

Board.

(e) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—The fixed costs of operating and maintaining the Institute may be paid from funds available for operation

and maintenance.

(f) TUITION.—Tuition fees charged for persons who attend the Institute may not include the fixed costs of operating and maintaining

the Institute.

* * * * * * *

586

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND

PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 131—PLANNING AND COORDINATION

* * * * * * *

§ 2218. National Defense Sealift Fund

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(k) CONTRACTS FOR INCORPORATION OF DEFENSE FEATURES IN

COMMERCIAL VESSELS.—(1) The head of an agency may enter into

a contract with a company submitting an offer for that company to

install and maintain defense features for national defense purposes

in one or more commercial vessels owned or controlled by that company in accordance with the purpose for which funds in the National Defense Sealift Fund are available under subsection

(c)(1)(C). The head of the agency may enter into such a contract

only after the head of the agency makes a determination of the economic soundness of the offer. As consideration for a contract with

the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department

under this subsection, the company entering into the contract shall

agree with the Secretary to make any vessel covered by the contract

available to the Secretary, fully crewed and ready for sea, at any

time at any port determined by the Secretary, and for whatever duration the Secretary determines necessary.

(2) The head of an agency may make advance payments to the

contractor under a contract under paragraph (1) in a lump sum, in

annual payments, or in a combination thereof for costs associated

with the installation and maintenance of the defense features on

a vessel covered by the contract, as follows:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) Payments of such sums as the Government would otherwise expend, if the vessel were placed in the Ready Reserve

Fleet, for maintaining the vessel in the status designated as

‘ROS–4 status’ in the Ready Reserve Fleet for 25 years.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 136—PROVISIONS RELATING TO SPECIFIC

PROGRAMS

Sec.

2281. Global Positioning System.

2282. B–2 bomber: annual report on operational status.

* * * * * * *

§ 2282. B–2 bomber: annual report on operational status

Not later than March 1 of each year, 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

587

report on the operational status of the B–2 bomber. Each such report shall include the following:

(1) An assessment as to whether the B–2 aircraft has a high

probability of being able to perform its intended missions.

(2) Identification of all planned or ongoing development of

technologies to enhance B–2 aircraft capabilities for which

funds are programmed in the future years defense program and

an assessment as to whether those technologies—

(A) are consistent with the Air Force bomber roadmap in

effect at the time of the report;

(B) are consistent with the recommendations of the report

of the Long-Range Air Power panel established by section

8131 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,

1998 (Public Law 105–56); and

(C) will be sufficient to assure that the B–2 aircraft will

have a high probability of being able to perform its intended missions in the future.

(3) Definition of any additional technology development required to assure that the B–2 aircraft will retain a high probability of being able to perform its intended missions and an estimate of the funding required to develop those additional

technologies.

(4) An assessment as to whether the technologies identified

pursuant to paragraph (2) are adequately funded in the budget

request for the next fiscal year and whether funds have been

identified throughout the future years defense program to continue those technology developments at an adequate level.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 137—PROCUREMENT GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

Sec.

[2301. Repealed.]

* * * * * * *

ø2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property.¿

2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property or services.

* * * * * * *

§ 2306. Kinds of contracts

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(3) In the event funds are not made available for the continuation of such a contract into a subsequent fiscal year, the contract

shall be canceled or terminated, and the costs of cancellation or termination may be paid from—

ø(A) appropriations originally available for the performance

of the contract concerned;

ø(B) appropriations currently available for procurement of

the type of services concerned, and not otherwise obligated; or

ø(C) funds appropriated for those payments.¿

588

(3) Additional provisions regarding mulityear contracts for the

purchase of services are provided in section 2306b of this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property or

services

(a) IN GENERAL.—To the extent that funds are otherwise available for obligation, the head of an agency may enter into multiyear

contracts øfor the purchase of property¿ whenever the head of that

agency finds each of the following:

(1) * * *

(2) That the minimum need for the property or services to be

purchased is expected to remain substantially unchanged during the contemplated contract period in terms of production

rate, procurement rate, and total quantities.

* * * * * * *

(4) øThat¿ In the case of a contract for the purchase of property, that there is a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the technical risks associated with such property or services are not excessive.

* * * * * * *

(f) CANCELLATION OR TERMINATION FOR INSUFFICIENT FUNDING.—In the event funds are not made available for the continuation of a contract made under this section into a subsequent fiscal

year, the contract shall be canceled or terminated. The costs of cancellation or termination may be paid from—

(1) appropriations originally available for the performance of

the contract concerned;

(2) appropriations currently available for procurement of the

type of property or services concerned, and not otherwise obligated; or

(3) funds appropriated for those payments.

* * * * * * *

§ 2320. Rights in technical data

(a)(1) * * *

(2) Such regulations shall include the following provisions:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) Subparagraph (B) does not apply to technical data that—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(iii) is necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training (other than detailed manufacturing or

process data); or¿

(iii) is necessary for normal operation (other than detailed manufacturing or processing data), maintenance, installation, or training when such services are to be provided by an entity other than the contractor or its subcontractor;

589

(iv) is necessary for critical operation, maintenance, installation of deployed equipment, or training, when such

services are to be provided by an entity other than the contractor or its subcontractor; or

ø(iv)¿ (v) is otherwise publicly available or has been released or disclosed by the contractor or subcontractor without restriction on further release or disclosure.

* * * * * * *

(F) A contractor or subcontractor (or a prospective contractor

or subcontractor) may not be required, as a condition of being

responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for the award of

a contract—

(i) to sell or otherwise relinquish to the United States

any rights in technical data except—

(I) rights in technical data described in clause (i),

(ii), (iv), or (v) of subparagraph (C); øor¿

(II) under the conditions described in subparagraph

(D); or

(III) under the conditions described in subsection

(a)(2)(C)(iii), reaching agreement in negotiations concerning provision of the rights involved may not be required as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation, but may be a condition for the award of a contract; or

* * * * * * *

(H) In a case described in subparagraph (C)(iii), the provision

of the rights involved shall be subject to negotiations between

the Government and the contractor or contractors involved.

(I) A description of the difference between ‘‘normal operation’’

and ‘‘critical operation’’, as such terms are used in subparagraph (C).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 141—MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT

PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

§ 2401. Requirement for authorization by law of certain contracts relating to vessels and aircraft

(a)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) The Secretary may make a contract described in subsection

(a)(1) if—

(A) * * *

(B) before a solicitation for proposals for the contract was

issued the Secretary notified the Committee on Armed Services

and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the

Committee on Armed Services and the øCommittees on Appropriations¿ Committee on Appropriations of the House of RepVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00613 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR616.163 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
590

resentatives of the Secretary’s intention to issue such a solicitation; and

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 146—CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF

CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE

FUNCTIONS

Sec.

2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.

* * * * * * *

2475. Consolidation of functions or activities and reengineering or restructuring of

organizations, functions, or activities: required studies and reports before manpower reductions.

* * * * * * *

§ 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required

studies and reports before conversion to contractor performance

(a) * * *

(b) NOTIFICATION AND ELEMENTS OF ANALYSIS.—(1) Before commencing to analyze 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 following:

(A) * * *

(D) The anticipated length and cost of the analysis, and a

certification that funds are specifically budgeted to pay for the

cost of the analysis.

* * * * * * *

(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.

ø(A)¿ (B) An indication that the examinations required

under subsection (b)(3) have been completed.

ø(B)¿ (C) The Secretary’s certification that the Government

calculation of the cost of performance of the function by Department of Defense civilian employees is based on an estimate

of the most cost effective manner for performance of the function by Department of Defense civilian employees.

ø(C)¿ (D) 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.

(E) 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

591

was terminated or otherwise adversely affected in implementing

the most efficient organization of the function or whose employment will be terminated or otherwise adversely affected by the

change to performance of the function by the private sector.

ø(D)¿ (F) The Secretary’s certification that the entire analysis is available for examination.

ø(E)¿ (G) A schedule for completing the change to performance of the function by the private sector.

* * * * * * *

§ 2475. Consolidation of functions or activities and reengineering or restructuring of organizations, functions, or activities: required studies and reports before manpower reductions

(a) REPORTING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS AS PRECONDITION

TO MANPOWER REDUCTIONS.—The Secretary of Defense may not initiate manpower reductions at organizations or activities, or within

functions, that are commercial, commercial exempt from competition, military essential, or inherently governmental until the Secretary fully complies with the reporting and analysis requirements

specified in subsections (b) and (c).

(b) NOTIFICATION AND ELEMENTS OF ANALYSIS.—Before commencing to analyze any commercial, commercial exempt from competition, military essential, or inherently governmental organization,

function, or activity for the consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering of military personnel or Department of Defense civilian

employees, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report containing the following:

(1) The organization, function, or activity to be analyzed for

possible consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering.

(2) The location or locations at which military personnel or

Department of Defense civilian employees would be affected.

(3) The number of military personnel or Department of Defense civilian employee positions potentially affected.

(4) A description of the organization, function, or activity to

be analyzed for possible consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering, including a description of all missions, duties, or

military requirements that might be affected.

(5) An examination of the cost incurred by the Department of

Defense to perform the function or to operate the organization

or activity that will be analyzed.

(6) A certification that a proposed consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering of a commercial, commercial exempt

from competition, military essential, or inherently governmental

organization, function, or activity is not a result of a decision

by an official of a military department or Defense Agency to impose predetermined constraints or limitations on the number of

military personnel or Department of Defense civilian employees.

(c) NOTIFICATION OF DECISION.—If, as a result of the completion

of an analysis carried out consistent with the requirements of subsection (b), a decision is made to consolidate, restructure, or reengineer an organization, function, or activity, the Secretary of Defense

shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of

592

Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate

a report describing that decision. The report shall contain the following:

(1) The Secretary’s certification that the consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering that was analyzed will yield savings to the Department of Defense.

(2) A projection of the savings that will be realized as a result

of the consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering, compared

with the cost incurred by the Department of Defense to perform

the function or to operate the organization or activity prior to

such proposed consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering.

(3) A description of all missions, duties, or military requirements that will be affected as a result of the decision to consolidate, restructure, or reengineer the organization, function, or activity that was analyzed.

(4) The Secretary’s certification that the consolidation, restructuring or reengineering will not result in any diminution

of military readiness.

(5) A schedule for performing the consolidation, restructuring

or reengineering.

(6) The Secretary’s certification that the entire analysis is

available for examination.

(d) DELEGATION.—The responsibility to prepare reports under

subsections (b) and (c) may be delegated to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations.

(e) COMMENCEMENT; WAIVER FOR SMALL FUNCTIONS.—(1) The

consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering of an organization,

function, or activity for which a report is required under subsection

(c) shall not begin until at least 45 days after the submission of the

report to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

(2) Subsection (c) shall not apply to a consolidation, restructuring,

or reengineering that will result in the elimination of 10 or fewer

military or Department of Defense civilian employee positions.

(f) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.—Not later than March 1 of

each year, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report reviewing decisions taken by the Secretary of Defense to consolidate, restructure, or reengineer organizations, functions, or activities

during the previous year and assessing the Secretary’s compliance

with this section. The report shall include a detailed assessment by

the Comptroller General of whether the savings projected by the Secretary to result from such decisions are likely to be realized, and

whether any decision taken by the Secretary is likely to result in a

diminution of military readiness. The report shall also include detailed audits of selected analyses performed by the Secretary.

(g) RELATION TO OTHER LAW.—Nothing in this section shall be

construed to obviate the requirements set forth in section 1597 of

this title.

* * * * * * *

593

CHAPTER 147—COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND

OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION

ACTIVITIES

Sec.

[2481. Transferred.]

* * * * * * *

ø2484. Commissary stores: expenses.¿

2484. Commissary stores: use of appropriated funds to cover operating expenses.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2484. Commissary stores: expenses

ø(a) Except to the extent authorized in regulations prescribed by

the Secretary of a military department and approved by the Secretary of Defense and except as provided in subsection (b), funds

available to the Department of Defense may not be used to pay, in

connection with the operation of any commissary store—

ø(1) the cost of purchases (including commercial transportation in the United States to the place of sale) and the cost

of maintenance of operating equipment and supplies;

ø(2) the actual or estimated cost of utilities furnished by the

United States;

ø(3) the actual or estimated cost of shrinkage, spoilage, and

pilferage of merchandise under the control of the commissary

store; or

ø(4) costs incurred in connection with obtaining the face

value amount of manufacturer or vendor cents-off discount coupons by the commissary store (or other entity acting on behalf

of the commissary store).

ø(b) Appropriated funds may be used to pay any costs described

in subsection (a) but only to the extent that appropriation accounts

used to pay such costs are reimbursed for the payment of such

costs, including, in the case of any costs incurred in connection

with discount coupons referred to in subsection (a)(4), all fees or

moneys received for handling or processing such coupons. The sales

prices in commissary stores shall be adjusted to the extent necessary to provide sufficient gross revenues from the sales of such

stores to make such reimbursements. Such adjustments shall be

made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military

department concerned and approved by the Secretary of Defense.

ø(c) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,

utilities may be furnished without cost to a commissary store outside the United States or in Alaska or Hawaii.

ø(d) Transportation outside the United States may be furnished

in connection with the operation of commissary stores outside the

United States.¿

§ 2484. Commissary stores: use of appropriated funds to cover

operating expenses

(a) OPERATION OF AGENCY AND SYSTEM.—Except as otherwise

provided in this title, the operation of the Defense Commissary

Agency and the defense commissary system may be funded using

such amounts as are appropriated for such purpose.

594

(b) OPERATING EXPENSES OF COMMISSARY STORES.—Appropriated funds may be used to cover the expenses of operating commissary stores and central product processing facilities of the defense commissary system. For purposes of this subsection, operating

expenses include the following:

(1) Salaries of employees of the United States, host nations,

and contractors supporting commissary store operations.

(2) Utilities.

(3) Communications.

(4) Operating supplies and services.

(5) Second destination transportation costs within or outside

the United States.

(6) Any cost associated with above-store level management or

other indirect support of a commissary store or a central product processing facility, including equipment maintenance and

information technology costs.

* * * * * * *

§ 2486. Commissary stores: merchandise that may be sold;

uniform surcharges and pricing

(a) * * *

(b) AUTHORIZED COMMISSARY MERCHANDISE CATEGORIES.—Merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary stores may include items

only in the following categories:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(11) Magazines and other periodicals.

ø(11)¿ (12) Such other merchandise categories as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, except that the Secretary

shall submit to Congress, not later than March 1 of each year,

a report describing—

(A) any addition of, or change in, a merchandise category

proposed to be made under this paragraph during the oneyear period beginning on that date; and

(B) those additions and changes in merchandise categories actually made during the preceding one-year

period.

(c) UNIFORM SALES PRICE SURCHARGE OR ADJUSTMENT.—An adjustment of or surcharge on sales prices in commissary stores

under øsection 2484(b) or¿ subsection (d) or section 2685(a) of this

title or for any other purpose shall be applied as a uniform percentage of the sales price of all merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary stores. Effective on November 18, 1997, the uniform percentage shall be equal to five percent and may not be changed except by a law enacted after such date.

(d) SALES PRICE ESTABLISHMENT.—(1) The Secretary of Defense

shall establish the sales price of each item of merchandise sold in,

at, or by commissary stores at the level that will recoup the actual

product cost of the item (consistent with this section and øsections

2484 and¿ section 2685 of this title).

* * * * * * *

595

(3) The sales price of merchandise and services sold in, at, or by

commissary stores shall be adjusted to cover the following:

(A) The cost of first destination commercial transportation of

the merchandise in the United States to the place of sale.

(B) The actual or estimated cost of shrinkage, spoilage, and

pilferage of merchandise under the control of commissary

stores.

* * * * * * *

(f) SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN MERCHANDISE.—ø(1)¿ Notwithstanding the general requirement that merchandise sold in, at, or

by commissary stores be commissary store inventory, the Secretary

of Defense may authorize the sale of øitems in the merchandise

categories specified in paragraph (2)¿ tobacco products as noncommissary store inventory. Subsections (c) and (d) shall not apply to

the pricing of such merchandise items.

ø(2) The merchandise categories referred to in paragraph (1) are

as follows:

ø(A) Magazines and other periodicals.

ø(B) Tobacco products.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 2488. Nonappropriated fund instrumentalities: purchase of

alcoholic beverages

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c)(1) In the case of covered alcoholic beverage purchases of distilled spirits, to determine whether a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of Defense provides the most economical method of distribution to package stores, the Secretary of Defense shall consider all components of the distribution costs incurred by the nonappropriated fund instrumentality, such as overhead costs (including costs associated with management, logistics,

administration, depreciation, and utilities), the costs of carrying inventory, and handling and distribution costs.

ø(2) If the use of a private distributor would subject covered alcoholic beverage purchases of distilled spirits to direct or indirect

State taxation, a nonappropriated fund instrumentality shall be

considered to be the most economical method of distribution regardless of the results of the determination under paragraph (1).¿

ø(3)¿ (2) The Secretary shall use the agencies performing audit

functions on behalf of the armed forces and the Inspector General

of the Department of Defense to make determinations under this

subsection.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 148—NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND

INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE REINVESTMENT, AND

DEFENSE CONVERSION

* * * * * * *

596

SUBCHAPTER V—MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE

POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of

goods other than United States goods

(a) LIMITATION ON CERTAIN PROCUREMENTS.—The Secretary of

Defense may procure any of the following items only if the manufacturer of the item satisfies the requirements of subsection (b):

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) POLYACRYLONITRILE CARBON FIBER.—Polyacrylonitrile

carbon fiber in accordance with subpart 225.71 of part 225 of

the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, as in

effect on April 1, 2000.

* * * * * * *

(c) APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN ITEMS.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(2) VALVES AND MACHINE TOOLS.—(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(C) Subsection (a)(4) and this paragraph shall cease to be

effective on October 1, 1996.¿

(C)(i) Subsection (a)(4)(B), subparagraph (B), and this clause

shall cease to be effective on October 1, 1996.

(ii) Subsection (a)(4)(A), subparagraph (A), and this clause

shall cease to be effective on October 1, 2003.

ø(3) BALL BEARINGS AND ROLLER BEARINGS.—Subsection

(a)(5) and this paragraph shall cease to be effective on October

1, 2000.¿

ø(4)¿ (3) VESSEL PROPELLERS.—Subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii) and

this paragraph shall cease to be effective on February 10, 1998.

(4) POLYACRYLONITRILE CARBON FIBER.—Subsection (a)(6)

and this paragraph shall cease to be effective on October 1,

2003.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER VI—DEFENSE EXPORT LOAN GUARANTEES

* * * * * * *

§ 2540c. Fees charged and collected

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall

charge a fee for each guarantee issued under this subchapter to reflect the additional administrative costs of the Department of Defense that are directly attributable to the administration of the program under this subchapter. Such fees shall be credited to a special

account in the Treasury. Amounts in the special account shall be

available, to the extent and in amounts provided in appropriations

597

Acts, for paying the costs of administrative expenses of the Department of Defense that are attributable to the loan guarantee program under this subchapter.

(2)(A) If for any fiscal year amounts in the special account established under paragraph (1) are not available (or are not anticipated

to be available) in a sufficient amount for administrative expenses

of the Department of Defense for that fiscal year that are directly

attributable to the administration of the program under this subchapter, the Secretary may use amounts currently available for operations and maintenance for Defense-wide activities, not to exceed

$500,000 in any fiscal year, for those expenses.

(B) The Secretary shall, from funds in the special account established under paragraph (1), replenish operations and maintenance

accounts for amounts expended under subparagraph (A) as soon as

the Secretary determines practicable.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 153—EXCHANGE OF MATERIAL AND DISPOSAL

OF OBSOLETE, SURPLUS, OR UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

Sec.

2571. Interchange of property and services.

* * * * * * *

2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority to require demilitarization after disposal.

* * * * * * *

2582. Military equipment identified on United States munitions list: annual report

of public sales.

* * * * * * *

§ 2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority

to require demilitarization after disposal

(a) AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE DEMILITARIZATION.—The Secretary of

Defense may require any person in possession of significant military

equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense—

(1) to demilitarize the equipment,

(2) to have the equipment demilitarized by a third party; or

(3) to return the equipment to the Government for demilitarization.

(b) COST AND VALIDATION OF DEMILITARIZATION.—When the demilitarization of significant military equipment is carried out by the

person in possession of the equipment pursuant to paragraph (1) or

(2) of subsection (a), the person shall be solely responsible for all demilitarization costs, and the United States shall have the right to

validate that the equipment has been demilitarized.

(c) RETURN OF EQUIPMENT TO GOVERNMENT.—When the Secretary of Defense requires the return of significant military equipment for demilitarization by the Government, the Secretary shall

bear all costs to transport and demilitarize the equipment. If the

person in possession of the significant military equipment obtained

the property in the manner authorized by law or regulation and the

Secretary determines that the cost to demilitarize and return the

property to the person is prohibitive, the Secretary shall reimburse

the person for the purchase cost of the property and for the reasonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00621 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR616.165 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
598

able transportation costs incurred by the person to purchase the

equipment.

(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STANDARDS.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe by regulation what constitutes demilitarization for each type of significant military equipment.

(e) EXCEPTION FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.—This section does

not apply when a person is in possession of significant military

equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense for the

purpose of demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Government

contract.

(f) DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT.—In this

section, the term ‘‘significant military equipment’’ means—

(1) an article for which special export controls are warranted

under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) because of its capacity for substantial military utility or capability, as identified on the United States Munitions List maintained under section 121.1 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations; and

(2) any other article designated by the Department of Defense

as requiring demilitarization before its disposal.

* * * * * * *

§ 2582. Military equipment identified on United States munitions list: annual report of public sales

(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall prepare

an annual report identifying each public sale conducted by a military department or Defense Agency of military items that are—

(1) identified on the United States Munitions List maintained

under section 121.1 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations;

and

(2) assigned a demilitarization code of ‘‘B’’ or its equivalent.

(b) ELEMENTS OF REPORT.—(1) A report under this section shall

cover all public sales described in subsection (a) that were conducted during the preceding fiscal year.

(2) The report shall specify the following for each sale:

(A) The date of the sale.

(B) The military department or Defense Agency conducting

the sale.

(C) The manner in which the sale was conducted.

(D) The military items described in subsection (a) that were

sold or offered for sale.

(E) The purchaser of each item.

(F) The stated end-use of each item sold.

(c) SUBMISSION OF REPORT.—Not later than March 31 of each

year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on

Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee

on Armed Services of the Senate the report required by this section

for the preceding fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

599

CHAPTER 155—ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND SERVICES

Sec.

2601. General gift funds.

* * * * * * *

ø2611. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance of foreign gifts and donations.¿

2611. Regional centers for security studies: acceptance of foreign gifts and donations.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2611. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance

of foreign gifts and donations

ø(a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT FOREIGN GIFTS AND DONATIONS.—(1)

Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may accept, on

behalf of the Asia-Pacific Center, foreign gifts or donations in order

to defray the costs of, or enhance the operation of, the Asia-Pacific

Center.

ø(2) In this section, the term ‘‘Asia-Pacific Center’’ means the Department of Defense organization within the United States Pacific

Command known as the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.¿

§ 2611. Regional centers for security studies: acceptance of

foreign gifts and donations

(a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT FOREIGN GIFTS AND DONATIONS.—(1)

Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may accept foreign gifts or donations in order to defray the costs of, or enhance

the operation of, one of the specified defense regional centers for security studies.

(2) For purposes of this section, a specified defense regional center

for security studies is any of the following:

(A) The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.

(B) The George C. Marshall European Center for Security

Studies.

* * * * * * *

(d) CREDITING OF FUNDS.—Funds accepted by the Secretary

under subsection (a) shall be credited to appropriations available to

the Department of Defense for øthe Asia-Pacific Center¿ the regional center intended to benefit from the gift or donation of such

funds. Funds so credited shall be merged with the appropriations

to which credited and shall be available to øthe Asia-Pacific Center¿ such regional center for the same purposes and same period

as the appropriations with which merged.

(e) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—If the total amount of funds accepted

under subsection (a) in any fiscal year with respect to a defense regional center for security studies 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.

* * * * * * *

600

CHAPTER 157—TRANSPORTATION

Sec.

2631. Supplies: preference to United States vessels.

* * * * * * *

2647. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with leave canceled due to

contingency operations.

* * * * * * *

§ 2647. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection

with leave canceled due to contingency operations

(a) AUTHORIZATION TO REIMBURSE.—The Secretary concerned

may reimburse a member of the armed forces under the jurisdiction

of the Secretary for travel and related expenses (to the extent not

otherwise reimbursable under law) incurred by the member as a result of the cancellation of previously approved leave when the leave

is canceled in connection with the member’s participation in a contingency operation and the cancellation occurs within 48 hours of

the time the leave would have commenced.

(b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to establish the criteria for the applicability of subsection (a).

(c) CONCLUSIVENESS OF SETTLEMENT.—The settlement of an application for reimbursement under subsection (a) is final and conclusive.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 159—REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL

PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF NONEXCESS PROPERTY

* * * * * * *

§ 2661. Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to

real property

(a) AVAILABILITY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS.—Appropriations for operation and maintenance of the active forces

shall be available for the following:

(1) The repair of facilities.

(2) The installation of equipment in public and private

plants.

(b) GENERAL LEASING AUTHORITY; MAINTENANCE OF DEFENSE

ACCESS ROADS.—The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of

each military department may provide for the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) PLAN TO ADDRESS MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR BACKLOG.—(1)

The Secretary of Defense shall develop, and update annually thereafter, a strategic plan to reduce the backlog in maintenance and repair needs of facilities and infrastructure under the jurisdiction of

the Department of Defense or a military department. At a minimum, the plan shall include or address the following:

(A) A comprehensive strategy for the repair and revitalization

of facilities and infrastructure, or for the demolition and replacement of unusable facilities, carried as backlog by the Secretary concerned.

601

(B) Measurable goals, over specified time frames, for achieving the objectives of the strategy.

(C) Expected funding for each military department and Defense Agency to carry out the strategy during the period covered

by the most recent future-years defense program submitted to

Congress pursuant to section 221 of this title.

(D) The cost of the current backlog in maintenance and repair

for each military department and Defense Agency, which shall

be determined using the standard costs to standard facility categories in the Department of Defense Facilities Cost Factors

Handbook, shown both in the aggregate and individually for

each major military installation.

(E) The total number of square feet of building space of each

military department and Defense Agency to be demolished or

proposed for demolition under the plan, shown both in the aggregate and individually for each major military installation.

(F) The initiatives underway to identify facility and infrastructure requirements at military installation to accommodate

new and developing weapons systems and to prepare installations to accommodate these systems.

(2) Not later than March 15, 2001, the Secretary shall submit the

strategic plan to Congress. The annual updates shall be submitted

to Congress each year at or about the time that the President’s

budget is submitted to Congress that year under section 1105(a) of

title 31.

* * * * * * *

§ 2662. Real property transactions: reports to congressional

committees

(a) GENERAL NOTICE AND WAIT REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary

of a military department, or his designee, may not enter into any

of the following listed transactions by or for the use of that department until after the expiration of 30 days from the date upon

which a report of the facts concerning the proposed transaction is

submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and

the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives:

(1) An acquisition of fee title to any real property, if the estimated price is more than ø$200,000¿ $500,000.

(2) A lease of any real property to the United States, if the

estimated annual rental is more than ø$200,000¿ $500,000.

(3) A lease or license of real property owned by the United

States, if the estimated annual fair market rental value of the

property is more than ø$200,000¿ $500,000.

(4) A transfer of real property owned by the United States

to another Federal agency or another military department or

to a State, if the estimated value is more than ø$200,000¿

$500,000.

(5) A report of excess real property owned by the United

States to a disposal agency, if the estimated value is more than

ø$200,000¿ $500,000.

* * * * * * *

(b) ANNUAL REPORTS ON CERTAIN MINOR TRANSACTIONS.—The

Secretary of each military department shall submit annually to the

602

congressional committees named in subsection (a) a report on

transactions described in subsection (a) that involve an estimated

value of more than the simplified acquisition threshold øunder section 2304(g) of this title¿ specified in section 4(11) of the Office of

Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(11)), but not more

than ø$200,000¿ $500,000.

* * * * * * *

(e) NOTICE AND WAIT REGARDING LEASES OF SPACE FOR DOD BY

GSA.—No element of the Department of Defense shall occupy any

general purpose space leased for it by the General Services Administration at an annual rental in excess of ø$200,000¿ $500,000 (excluding the cost of utilities and other operation and maintenance

services), if the effect of such occupancy is to increase the total

amount of such leased space occupied by all elements of the Department of Defense, until the expiration of thirty days from the

date upon which a report of the facts concerning the proposed occupancy is submitted to the congressional committees named in subsection (a).

* * * * * * *

§ 2667. Leases: non-excess property of military departments

(a) Whenever the Secretary of a military department considers it

advantageous to the United States, he may lease to such lessee and

upon such terms as he considers will promote the national defense

or be in the public interest, real or personal property that is—

(1) under the control of that department; and

ø(2) not for the time needed for public use; and¿

ø(3)¿ (2) not excess property, as defined by section 3 of the

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40

U.S.C. 472).

(b) A lease under subsection (a)—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) may provide, notwithstanding section 321 of the Act of

June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 303b), or any other provision of law,

for the øimprovement, maintenance, protection, repair, or restoration,¿ alteration, repair, or improvement, by the lessee, of

the property leasedø, or of the entire unit or installation where

a substantial part of it is leased,¿ as the payment of part or

all of the consideration for the lease.

(c)(1) In addition to any in-kind consideration accepted under

subsection (b)(5), in-kind consideration accepted with respect to a

lease under subsection (b) may include the following:

(A) Maintenance, protection, alteration, repair, improvement,

or restoration (including environmental restoration) of property

or facilities under the control of the Secretary concerned.

(B) Provision of facilities for use by the Secretary concerned.

(C) Facilities operation support for the Secretary concerned.

(D) Provision of such other services relating to activities that

will occur on the leased property as the Secretary concerned

considers appropriate.

603

(2) In-kind consideration under paragraph (1) may be accepted at

any property or facilities under the control of the Secretary concerned that are selected for that purpose by the Secretary concerned.

(3) The Secretary concerned may not accept in-kind consideration

during a fiscal year with respect to leases under subsection (a) until

the Comptroller General certifies to the Secretary concerned that the

total received by the Secretary concerned as money rentals for that

fiscal year under such leases is equal to the total money rentals

under such leases received by the Secretary concerned during fiscal

year 2000.

(4) In the case of a lease for which all or part of the consideration

proposed to be accepted by the Secretary concerned under this subsection is in-kind consideration with a value in excess of $500,000,

the Secretary concerned may not enter into the lease until 30 days

after the date on which a report on the facts of the lease is submitted to the congressional defense committees.

(d)(1)(A)***

ø(B) Sums deposited in a military department’s special account

pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be available to such military

department, as provided in appropriation Acts, as follows:

ø(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be available for facility

maintenance and repair or environmental restoration at the

military installation where the leased property is located.

ø(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be available for facility

maintenance and repair and for environmental restoration by

the military department concerned.¿

(B) Subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), the amounts deposited

in the special account of a military department pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be available to the Secretary of that military

department, in such amounts as provided in appropriation Acts, for

the following:

(i) Maintenance, protection, alteration, repair, improvement,

or restoration (including environmental restoration) of property

or facilities.

(ii) Lease of facilities.

(iii) Facilities operation support.

(C) At least 50 percent of the amounts deposited in the special account of a military department under subparagraph (A) by reason

of a lease shall be available for activities described in subparagraph

(B) only at the military installation where the leased property is located.

(D) The Secretary concerned may not expend under subparagraph (B) an amount in excess of $500,000 at a single installation until

30 days after the date on which a report on the facts of the proposed

expenditure is submitted to the congressional defense committees.

* * * * * * *

(3) øAs part of the request for authorizations of appropriations

submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and

the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives

for each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense¿ Not later than March

15 each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report which shall include—

(A) an accounting of the receipt and use of all money rentals

that were deposited and expended under this subsection during

604

the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the ørequest¿

report is made; and

* * * * * * *

(f)(1)***

* * * * * * *

ø(4) The Secretary concerned may accept under subsection (b)(5)

services of a lessee for an entire installation to be closed or realigned under a base closure law, or for any part of such installation, without regard to the requirement in subsection (b)(5) that a

substantial part of the installation be leased.¿

ø(5)¿ (4)(A) Notwithstanding the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the scope of any environmental impact analysis necessary to support an interim lease of

property under this subsection shall be limited to the environmental consequences of activities authorized under the proposed

lease and the cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions during the period of the proposed

lease.

* * * * * * *

ø(h) In this section, the term ‘‘base closure law’’ means each of

the following:

ø(1) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990

(part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687

note).

ø(2) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and

Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100–526; 10

U.S.C. 2687 note).

ø(3) Section 2687 of this title.¿

(h) In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘congressional defense committees’’ means:

(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee

on Appropriations of the Senate.

(B) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(2) The term ‘‘base closure law’’ means the following:

(A) Section 2687 of this title.

(B) 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).

(C) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments

and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100–

526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).

(3) The term ‘‘military installation’’ has the meaning given

such term in section 2687(e)(1) of this title.

ø(c)¿ (i) This section does not apply to oil, mineral, or phosphate

lands.

* * * * * * *

605

§ 2685. Adjustment of or surcharge on selling prices in commissary stores to provide funds for construction

and improvement of commissary store facilities

(a) ADJUSTMENT OR SURCHARGE AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding

any other provision of law, the øSecretary of a military department, under regulations established by him and approved by the

Secretary of Defense,¿ Secretary of Defense may, for the purposes

of this section, provide for an adjustment of, or surcharge on, sales

prices of goods and services sold in commissary store facilities.

ø(b) USE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES.—

The Secretary of a military department, under regulations established by him and approved by the Secretary of Defense, may use

the proceeds from the adjustments or surcharges authorized by

subsection (a) to acquire, construct, convert, expand, install, or otherwise improve commissary store facilities at defense installations

and for related environmental evaluation and construction costs,

including surveys, administration, overhead, planning, and design.¿

(b) USE FOR CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, IMPROVEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE.—(1) The Secretary of Defense may use the proceeds from the

adjustments or surcharges authorized by subsection (a) only—

(A) to acquire (including acquisition by lease), construct, convert, expand, improve, repair, maintain, and equip the physical

infrastructure of commissary stores and central product processing facilities of the defense commissary system; and

(B) to cover environmental evaluation and construction costs,

including surveys, administration, overhead, planning, and design, related to activities described in paragraph (1).

(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘‘physical infrastructure’’ includes

real property, utilities, and equipment (installed and free standing

and including computer equipment), necessary to provide a complete

and usable commissary store or central product processing facility.

(c) ADVANCE OBLIGATION.—The øSecretary of a military department, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense and¿ Secretary

of Defense, with the approval of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may obligate anticipated proceeds from the

adjustments or surcharges authorized by subsection (a) for any use

specified in subsection (b) or (d), without regard to fiscal year limitations, if the øSecretary of the military department determines¿

Secretary determines that such obligation is necessary to carry out

any use of such adjustments or surcharges specified in subsection

(b) or (d).

(d) COOPERATION WITH NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES.—(1) The øSecretary of a military department¿ Secretary of

Defense may authorize a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of

the United States to enter into a contract for construction of a

shopping mall or similar facility for a commissary store and one or

more nonappropriated fund instrumentality activities. The Secretary may use the proceeds of adjustments or surcharges authorized by subsection (a) to reimburse the nonappropriated fund instrumentality for the portion of the cost of the contract that is atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00629 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR616.168 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
606

tributable to construction of the commissary store or to pay the

contractor directly for that portion of such cost.

* * * * * * *

§ 2688. Utility systems: conveyance authority

(a) * * *

ø(b) SELECTION OF CONVEYEE.—If more than one utility or entity

referred to in subsection (a) notifies the Secretary concerned of an

interest in a conveyance under such subsection, the Secretary shall

carry out the conveyance through the use of competitive procedures.¿

(b) SELECTION OF CONVEYEE OR AWARDEE.—(1) The Secretary

concerned shall comply with the competition requirements of section

2304 of this title in conveying a utility system under this section

and in awarding any utility services contract related to the conveyance of the utility system.

(2) A conveyance or award may be made under paragraph (1)

only if the Secretary concerned determines that the conveyance or

award complies with State laws, regulations, rulings, and policies

governing the provision of utility services. Such State laws, regulations, rulings, and policies shall apply to the conveyee or awardee

notwithstanding the existence of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction as to any parcels of land served by the utility system.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 160—ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

* * * * * * *

§ 2703. Environmental restoration accounts

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(b) OBLIGATION OF AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS.—Funds authorized

for deposit in an account under subsection (a) may be obligated or

expended from the account only in order to carry out the environmental restoration functions of the Secretary of Defense and the

Secretaries of the military departments under this chapter and

under any other provision of law. Funds so authorized shall remain

available until expended.¿

(b) OBLIGATION OF AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS.—(1) Funds authorized

for deposit in an account under subsection (a) may be obligated or

expended from the account only—

(A) to carry out the environmental restoration functions of the

Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments under this chapter and under any other provision of law;

and

(B) to relocate activities from defense sites, including sites formerly used by the Department of Defense that are released from

Federal Government control, at which the Secretary is responsible for environmental restoration functions.

(2) The authority provided by paragraph (1)(B) expires September

30, 2003. Not more than five percent of the funds deposited in an

607

account under subsection (a) for a fiscal year may be used for activities under paragraph (1)(B).

(3) If relocation assistance under paragraph (1)(B) is to be provided with respect to a site formerly used by the Department of Defense, but now released from Federal Government control, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned may use only fund transfer mechanisms otherwise available

to the Secretary. The Secretary may not provide assistance under

such paragraph for permanent relocation from the affected site unless the Secretary determines that permanent relocation is the most

cost effective method of dealing with the activities located at the affected site and notifies the Congress of the determination before providing the assistance.

(4) Funds authorized for deposit in an account under subsection

(a) shall remain available until expended.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 169—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2826. Limitations on space by pay grade

ø(a) In the construction, acquisition, and improvement of military

family housing units, the following are the space limitations for the

applicable numbers of bedrooms permitted for each pay grade:

øPay grade Number of

bedrooms

Net floor area

(square feet)

O–7 and above ................................................................................................................................ 4 2,100

O–6 .................................................................................................................................................. 4 1,700

O–4 and O–5 ................................................................................................................................... 4 1,550

3 1,400

O–1 through O–3; W–1 through W–4; and E–7 through E–9 ....................................................... 5 1,550

4 1,450

3 1,350

2 950

E–1 through E–6 ............................................................................................................................. 5 1,550

4 1,350

3 1,200

2 950

ø(b) The applicable maximum net floor area prescribed by subsection (a) may be increased by 10 percent for the housing unit of

an officer holding a special command position (as designated by the

Secretary of Defense), for the housing unit of the commanding officer of a military installation, and for the senior noncommissioned

officer of a military installation.

ø(c) The maximum net floor area prescribed by subsection (a)

may be increased in any case by 5 percent if the Secretary concerned determines that the increase is in the best interest of the

Government (1) to permit award of a turnkey construction contract

to the contractor offering the most satisfactory proposal, or (2) to

608

permit purchase, lease, or conversion of housing units. An increase

in the maximum net floor area of a housing unit under subsection

(b) when combined with an increase in the maximum net floor area

of such unit under this subsection may not exceed 10 percent of the

otherwise applicable limitation prescribed by subsection (a).

ø(d) The applicable maximum net floor area prescribed by subsection (a) may be increased by 300 square feet for a family housing unit in a location where harsh climatological conditions severely restrict outdoor activity for a significant part of each year,

as determined by the Secretary concerned pursuant to regulations

prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The regulations shall apply

uniformly to the armed forces.

ø(e) In the case of the acquisition by purchase of military family

housing units for members of the armed forces in pay grades below

pay grade O–6, the applicable maximum net floor area prescribed

by subsection (a) may be increased by 20 percent if the Secretary

concerned determines that the purchase of larger units is cost effective when compared to available units within the space limitations

specified in that subsection.

ø(f)(1) The Secretary concerned may waive the provisions of subsection (a) with respect to a family housing unit leased in a foreign

country if a suitable family housing unit within the applicable maximum net floor area prescribed by such subsection cannot be obtained.

ø(2) Subsection (a) does not apply to family housing units in foreign countries constructed or acquired by the Secretary of State for

occupancy by members of the armed forces.

ø(g) The maximum net floor areas prescribed by this section

apply to family housing provided to civilian personnel based upon

civilian pay scale comparability with military pay grades, as determined by the Secretary of Defense.

ø(h) In this section, the term ‘‘net floor area’’ means the total

number of square feet of the floor space inside the exterior walls

of a structure, excluding the floor area of an unfinished basement,

an unfinished attic, a utility space, a garage, a carport, an open or

insect-screened porch, a stairwell, and any space used for a solarenergy system.

ø(i)(1) The Secretary concerned may waive the provisions of subsection (a) with respect to military family housing units constructed, acquired, or improved during the five-year period beginning on February 10, 1996.

ø(2) The total number of military family housing units constructed, acquired, or improved during any fiscal year in the period

referred to in paragraph (1) shall be the total number of such units

authorized by law for that fiscal year.¿

§ 2826. Limitations on space by pay grade

In the construction, acquisition, and improvement of military

family housing units, the Secretary concerned shall ensure that the

room patterns and floor areas are generally comparable to the room

patterns and floor areas of similar housing units in the locality concerned.

* * * * * * *

609

§ 2828. Leasing of military family housing

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(4)(A) The Secretary of the Army may lease not more than eight

housing units in the vicinity of Miami, Florida, for key and essential personnel, as designated by the Secretary, for the United

States Southern Command for which the expenditure for the rental

of such units (including the cost of utilities, maintenance, and operation, including security enhancements) exceeds the expenditure

limitations in paragraphs (2) and (3). The total amount for all

leases under this paragraph may not exceed $280,000 per year,

øand no lease on any individual housing unit may exceed $60,000

per year¿ and the lease payments shall be made out of annual appropriations for that year. A lease under this paragraph may not exceed five years.

(B) At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the Army

shall adjust the maximum amount provided for leases under subparagraph (A) for the previous fiscal year by the percentage (if any)

by which the basic allowance for housing under section 403 of title

37 for the Miami metropolitan area during the preceding fiscal year

exceeded such basic allowance for housing for the second preceding

fiscal year.

(5) At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Secretary concerned

shall adjust the maximum lease amount provided for under øparagraphs (2), (3), and (4)¿ paragraphs (2) and (3) for the previous fiscal year by the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price

Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, during the preceding fiscal year exceeds such Consumer

Price Index for the fiscal year before such preceding fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR

ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

§ 2885. Expiration of authority

The authority to enter into a contract under this subchapter

shall expire on February 10, ø2001¿ 2006.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Army

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 367—RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE

* * * * * * *

610

§ 3911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned officers

(a) * * *

(b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of the

Army, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending

on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001, to reduce the requirement under subsection (a) for at least 10 years of active service as

a commissioned officer to a period (determined by the Secretary of

the Army) of not less than eight years.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 369—RETIRED GRADE

* * * * * * *

§ 3961. General rule

(a) The retired grade of a regular commissioned officer of the

Army who retires other than for physical disability, and the retired

grade of a reserve commissioned officer of the Army who retires

other than for physical disability øor for nonregular service under

chapter 1223 of this title¿, is determined under section 1370 of this

title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 373—CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

Sec.

4021. Army War College and United States Army Command and General Staff

College: civilian faculty members.

* * * * * * *

4027. Civilian special agents of the Criminal Investigation Command: authority to

execute warrants and make arrests.

* * * * * * *

§ 4027. Civilian special agents of the Criminal Investigation

Command: authority to execute warrants and make

arrests

(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Army may authorize any

Department of the Army civilian employee described in subsection

(b) to have the same authority to execute and serve warrants and

other processes issued under the authority of the United States and

to make arrests without a warrant as may be authorized under section 1585a of this title for special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

(b) AGENTS TO HAVE AUTHORITY.—Subsection (a) applies to any

employee of the Department of the Army who is a special agent of

the Army Criminal Investigation Command (or a successor to that

command) whose duties include conducting, supervising, or coordinating investigations of criminal activity in programs and operations of the Department of the Army.

(c) GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance with

guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Army and approved by

the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General and any other apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00634 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR616.170 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
611

plicable guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, or the Attorney General.

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 407—SCHOOLS AND CAMPS

Sec.

4411. Establishment: purpose.

* * * * * * *

ø4415. United States Army School of the Americas.¿

* * * * * * *

ø§ 4415. United States Army School of the Americas

ø(a) The Secretary of the Army may operate the military education and training facility known as the United States Army

School of the Americas.

ø(b) The School of the Americas shall be operated for the purpose

of providing military education and training to military personnel

of Central and South American countries and Caribbean countries.

ø(c) The fixed costs of operating and maintaining the School of

the Americas may be paid from funds available for operation and

maintenance of the Army.

ø(d) Tuition fees charged for personnel receiving military education and training from the school may not include the fixed costs

of operating and maintaining the school.¿

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Navy and Marine Corps

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 506—HEADQUARTERS, MARINE CORPS

Sec.

5041. Headquarters, Marine Corps: function; composition.

* * * * * * *

ø5045. Chief of Staff; Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 5041. Headquarters, Marine Corps: function; composition

(a) * * *

(b) The Headquarters, Marine Corps, is composed of the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

612

ø(3) The Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps.

ø(4) The Deputy Chiefs of Staff.

ø(5) The Assistant Chiefs of Staff.¿

(3) The Deputy Commandants.

ø(6)¿ (4) Other members of the Navy and Marine Corps assigned or detailed to the Headquarters, Marine Corps.

ø(7)¿ (5) Civilian employees in the Department of the Navy

assigned or detailed to the Headquarters, Marine Corps.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 5045. Chief of Staff; Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff

øThere are in the Headquarters, Marine Corps, a Chief of Staff,

not more than five Deputy Chiefs of Staff, and not more than three

Assistant Chiefs of Staff, detailed by the Secretary of the Navy

from officers on the active-duty list of the Marine Corps.¿

§ 5045. Deputy Commandants

There are in the Headquarters Marine Corps, not more than five

Deputy Commandants, detailed by the Secretary of the Navy from

officers on the active-duty list of the Marine Corps.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 513—BUREAUS; OFFICE OF THE JUDGE

ADVOCATE GENERAL

* * * * * * *

§ 5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) GRADE.—(1)***

(2) The Chief of Naval Reserve, while so serving, øhas a grade¿

has the grade of rear admiral, without vacating the officer’s permanent grade. However, if selected in accordance with section 12505

of this title, he may be appointed in the grade of vice admiral.

* * * * * * *

§ 5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of

Commander

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c)

* * * * * * *

(2) The Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, while so serving,

øhas a grade¿ has the grade of major general, without vacating the

officer’s permanent grade. However, if selected in accordance with

section 12505 of this title, he may be appointed in the grade of lieutenant general.

* * * * * * *

613

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 555—ADMINISTRATION

Sec.

6011. Navy Regulations.

* * * * * * *

6035. Female members: congressional review period for assignment to duty on submarines or for reconfiguration of submarines.

§ 6035. Female members: congressional review period for assignment to duty on submarines or for reconfiguration of submarines

(a) No change in the Department of the Navy policy limiting service on submarines to males, as in effect on May 10, 2000, may take

effect until—

(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of the proposed change; and

(2) a period of 120 days of continuous session of Congress expires following the date on which the notice is received.

(b) No funds available to the Department of the Navy may be expended to reconfigure any existing submarine, or to design any new

submarine, to accommodate female crew members until—

(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of the proposed reconfiguration or design; and

(2) a period of 120 days of continuous session of Congress expires following the date on which the notice is received.

(c) For purposes of this section—

(1) the continuity of a session of Congress is broken only by

an adjournment of the Congress sine die; and

(2) the days on which either House of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more than three days to a

day certain are excluded in the computation of such 120-day period.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 571—VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 6323. Officers: 20 years

(a)(1)***

(2) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of the

Navy, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending

on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001, to reduce the requirement under paragraph (1) for at least 10 years of active service as

a commissioned officer to a period (determined by the Secretary) of

not less than eight years.

* * * * * * *

614

PART III—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 605—UNITED STATES NAVAL POSTGRADUATE

SCHOOL

Sec.

7041. Function.

* * * * * * *

7049. Defense industry civilians: admission to defense product development program.

* * * * * * *

§ 7049. Defense industry civilians: admission to defense product development program

(a) AUTHORITY FOR ADMISSION.—The Secretary of the Navy may

permit eligible defense industry employees to receive instruction at

the Naval Postgraduate School in accordance with this section. Any

such defense industry employee may only be enrolled in, and may

only be provided instruction in, a program leading to a masters’s

degree in a curriculum related to defense product development. No

more than 10 such defense industry employees may be enrolled at

any one time. Upon successful completion of the course of instruction in which enrolled, any such defense industry employee may be

awarded an appropriate degree under section 7048 of this title.

(b) ELIGIBLE DEFENSE INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES.—For purposes of

this section, an eligible defense industry employee is an individual

employed by a private firm that is engaged in providing to the Department of Defense significant and substantial defense-related systems, products, or services. A defense industry employee admitted

for instruction at the school remains eligible for such instruction

only so long at that person remains employed by the same firm.

(c) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.— Defense industry employees may receive instruction at the school

during any academic year only if, before the start of that academic

year, the Secretary of the Navy determines, and certifies to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on

Armed Services of the House of Representatives, that providing instruction to defense industry employees under this section during

that year—

(1) will further the military mission of the school;

(2) will enhance the ability of the Department of Defense and

defense-oriented private sector contractors engaged in the design

and development of defense systems to reduce the product and

project lead times required to bring such systems to initial operational capability; and

(3) will be done on a space-available basis and not require an

increase in the size of the faculty of the school, an increase in

the course offerings of the school, or an increase in the laboratory facilities or other infrastructure of the school.

(d) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary of the Navy shall

ensure that—

(1) the curriculum for the defense product development program in which defense industry employees may be enrolled

under this section is not readily available through other schools

615

and concentrates on defense product development functions that

are conducted by military organizations and defense contractors

working in close cooperation; and

(2) the course offerings at the school continue to be determined solely by the needs of the Department of Defense.

(e) TUITION.—The Superintendent of the school shall charge tuition for students enrolled under this section at a rate not less than

the rate charged for employees of the United States outside the Department of the Navy.

(f) STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.—While receiving instruction at the

school, students enrolled under this section, to the extent practicable, are subject to the same regulations governing academic performance, attendance, norms of behavior, and enrollment as apply

to Government civilian employees receiving instruction at the school.

(g) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts received by the school for instruction of students enrolled under this section shall be retained by the

school to defray the costs of such instruction. The source, and the

disposition, of such funds shall be specifically identified in records

of the school.

PART IV—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 643—CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

Sec.

7472. Physical examination: employees engaged in hazardous occupations.

* * * * * * *

7451. Special agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service: authority to execute warrants and make arrests.

* * * * * * *

§ 7451. Special agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative

Service: authority to execute warrants and make

arrests

(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Navy may authorize any

Department of the Navy civilian employee described in subsection

(b) to have the same authority to execute and serve warrants and

other processes issued under the authority of the United States and

to make arrests without a warrant as may be authorized under section 1585a of this title for special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.

(b) AGENTS TO HAVE AUTHORITY.—Subsection (a) applies to any

employee of the Department of the Navy who is a special agent of

the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (or any successor to that

service) whose duties include conducting, supervising, or coordinating investigations of criminal activity in programs and operations of the Department of the Navy.

(c) GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance with

guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy and approved by

the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General and any other apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00639 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR616.171 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
616

plicable guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense, or the Attorney General.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Air Force

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 867—RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE

* * * * * * *

§ 8911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned officers

(a) * * *

(b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of the

Air Force, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and

ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001, to reduce the

requirement under subsection (a) for at least 10 years of active

service as a commissioned officer to a period (determined by the

Secretary of the Air Force) of not less than eight years.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 873—CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

Sec.

9021. Air University: civilian faculty members.

* * * * * * *

9027. Civilian special agents of the Office of Special Investigations: authority to execute warrants and make arrests.

* * * * * * *

§ 9027. Civilian special agents of the Office of Special Investigations: authority to execute warrants and make

arrests

(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Air Force may authorize

any Department of the Air Force civilian employee described in subsection (b) to have the same authority to execute and serve warrants

and other processes issued under the authority of the United States

and to make arrests without a warrant as may be authorized under

section 1585a of this title for special agents of the Defense Criminal

Investigative Service.

(b) AGENTS TO HAVE AUTHORITY.—Subsection (a) applies to any

employee of the Department of the Air Force who is a special agent

of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (or a successor to

that office) whose duties include conducting, supervising, or coordinating investigations of criminal activity in programs and operations of the Department of the Air Force.

(c) GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance with

617

guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force and approved

by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General and any other

applicable guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force,

the Secretary of Defense, or the Attorney General.

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

øCHAPTER 909—CIVIL AIR PATROL

øSec.

ø9441. Status: support by Air Force; employment.

ø9442. Assistance by other agencies.

ø§ 9441. Status: support by Air Force; employment

ø(a) The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the

Air Force.

ø(b) To assist the Civil Air Patrol in the fulfillment of its objectives as set forth in section 40302 of title 36, the Secretary of the

Air Force may, under regulations prescribed by him with the approval of the Secretary of Defense—

ø(1) give, lend, or sell to the Civil Air Patrol without regard

to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of

1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.)—

ø(A) major items of equipment, including aircraft, motor

vehicles, and communication equipment; and

ø(B) necessary related supplies and training aids;

that are excess to the military departments;

ø(2) permit the use of such services and facilities of the Air

Force as he considers to be needed by the Civil Air Patrol to

carry out its mission;

ø(3) furnish such quantities of fuel and lubricants to the

Civil Air Patrol as are needed by it to carry out any mission

assigned to it by the Air Force, including unit capability testing missions and training missions;

ø(4) establish, maintain, and supply liaison offices of the Air

Force at the National, State, and Territorial headquarters, and

at not more than eight regional headquarters, of the Civil Air

Patrol;

ø(5) detail or assign any member of the Air Force or any officer or employee of the Department of the Air Force to any liaison office at the National, State, or Territorial headquarters,

and at not more than eight regional headquarters, of the Civil

Air Patrol;

ø(6) detail any member of the Air Force or any officer or employee of the Department of the Air Force to any unit or installation of the Civil Air Patrol to assist in the training program

of the Civil Air Patrol;

ø(7) in time of war, or of national emergency declared after

May 27, 1954, by Congress or the President, authorize the payment of travel expenses and allowances, in accordance with

subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, to members of the Civil

618

Air Patrol while carrying out any mission specifically assigned

by the Air Force;

ø(8) provide funds for the national headquarters of the Civil

Air Patrol, including funds for the payment of staff compensation and benefits, administrative expenses, travel, per diem

and allowances, rent and utilities, and other operational expenses;

ø(9) authorize the payment of aircraft maintenance expenses

relating to operational missions, unit capability testing missions, and training missions;

ø(10) authorize the payment of expenses of placing into serviceable condition major items of equipment (including aircraft,

motor vehicles, and communications equipment) owned by the

Civil Air Patrol;

ø(11) reimburse the Civil Air Patrol for costs incurred for the

purchase of such major items of equipment as the Secretary

considers needed by the Civil Air Patrol to carry out its missions; and

ø(12) furnish articles of the Air Force uniform to Civil Air

Patrol cadets without cost to such cadets.

ø(c) The Secretary may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol

in fulfilling the noncombat mission of the Department of the Air

Force, and for purposes of determining the civil liability of the Civil

Air Patrol (or any member thereof) with respect to any act or omission committed by the Civil Air Patrol (or any member thereof) in

fulfilling such mission, the Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be

an instrumentality of the United States.

ø(d)(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may authorize the Civil

Air Patrol to employ, as administrators and liaison officers, persons

retired from service in the Air Force whose qualifications are approved under regulations prescribed by the Secretary and who request such employment.

ø(2) A person employed pursuant to paragraph (1) may receive

the person’s retired pay and an additional amount for such employment that is not more than the difference between the person’s retired pay and the pay and allowances the person would be entitled

to receive if ordered to active duty in the grade in which the person

retired from service in the Air Force. The additional amount shall

be paid to the Civil Air Patrol by the Secretary from funds appropriated for that purpose.

ø(3) A person employed pursuant to paragraph (1) may not, while

so employed, be considered to be on active duty or inactive-duty

training for any purpose.

ø§ 9442. Assistance by other agencies

øThe Secretary of the Air Force may arrange for the use by the

Civil Air Patrol of such facilities and services under the jurisdiction

of the Secretry of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head

of any other department or agency of the United States as the Secretary of the Air Force considers to be needed by the Civil Air Patrol to carry out its mission. Any such arrangements shall be made

under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force with

the approval of the Secretary of Defense and shall be subject to the

619

agreement of the other military department or other department or

agency of the United States furnishing the facilities or services.¿

CHAPTER 909—CIVIL AIR PATROL

Sec.

9441. Status as federally chartered corporation; purposes.

9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force.

9443. Activities not performed as auxiliary of the Air Force.

9444. Activities performed as auxiliary of the Air Force.

9445. Funds appropriated for the Civil Air Patrol.

9446. Miscellaneous personnel authorities.

9447. Board of Governors.

9448. Regulations.

§ 9441. Status as federally chartered corporation; purposes

(a) STATUS.—(1) The Civil Air Patrol is a nonprofit corporation

that is federally chartered under section 40301 of title 36.

(2) Except as provided in section 9442(b)(2) of this title, the Civil

Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for

any purpose.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the Civil Air Patrol are set forth

in section 40302 of title 36.

§ 9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

(a) VOLUNTEER CIVILIAN AUXILIARY.—The Civil Air Patrol is a

volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the

Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any

branch of the Federal Government.

(b) USE BY AIR FORCE.—(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may

use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.

(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality

of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil

Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

§ 9443. Activities not performed as auxiliary of the Air Force

(a) SUPPORT FOR STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES.—The Civil Air

Patrol may, in its status as a federally chartered nonprofit corporation and not as an auxiliary of the Air Force, provide assistance requested by State or local governmental authorities to perform disaster relief missions and activities, other emergency missions and

activities, and nonemergency missions and activities. Missions and

activities carried out under this section shall be consistent with the

purposes of the Civil Air Patrol.

(b) USE OF FEDERALLY PROVIDED RESOURCES.—(1) To perform

any mission or activity authorized under subsection (a), the Civil

Air Patrol may use any equipment, supplies, and other resources

provided to it by the Air Force or by any other department or agency

of the Federal Government or acquired by or for the Civil Air Patrol

with appropriated funds, without regard to whether the Civil Air

Patrol has reimbursed the Federal Government source for the equipment, supplies, other resources, or funds, as the case may be.

(2) The use of equipment, supplies, or other resources under paragraph (1) is subject to—

620

(A) the terms and conditions of the applicable agreement entered into under chapter 63 of title 31; and

(B) the laws and regulations that govern the use by nonprofit

corporations of federally provided assets or of assets purchased

with appropriated funds, as the case may be.

(c) AUTHORITY NOT CONTINGENT ON REIMBURSEMENT.—The authority for the Civil Air Patrol to provide assistance under subsections (a) and (b) is not contingent on the Civil Air Patrol being

reimbursed for the cost of providing the assistance. If the Civil Air

Patrol requires reimbursement for the provision of assistance under

such subsections, the Civil Air Patrol may establish the reimbursement rate at a rate less than the rates charged by private sector

sources for equivalent services.

(d) LIABILITY INSURANCE.—The Secretary of the Air Force may

provide the Civil Air Patrol with funds for paying the cost of liability insurance for missions and activities carried out under this section.

§ 9444. Activities performed as auxiliary of the Air Force

(a) AIR FORCE SUPPORT FOR ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary of the

Air Force may furnish to the Civil Air Patrol in accordance with

this section any equipment, supplies, and other resources that the

Secretary determines necessary to enable the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the missions assigned by the Secretary to the Civil Air Patrol as

an auxiliary of the Air Force.

(b) FORMS OF AIR FORCE SUPPORT.—The Secretary of the Air

Force may, under subsection (a)—

(1) give, lend, or sell to the Civil Air Patrol without regard

to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949

(40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.)—

(A) major items of equipment (including aircraft, motor

vehicles, computers, and communications equipment) that

are excess to the military departments; and

(B) necessary related supplies and training aids that are

excess to the military departments;

(2) permit the use, with or without charge, of services and facilities of the Air Force;

(3) furnish supplies (including fuel, lubricants, and other

items required for vehicle and aircraft operations) or provide

funds for the acquisition of supplies;

(4) establish, maintain, and supply liaison officers of the Air

Force at the national, regional, State, and territorial headquarters of the Civil Air Patrol;

(5) detail or assign any member of the Air Force or any officer, employee, or contractor of the Department of the Air Force

to any liaison office at the national, regional, State, or territorial headquarters of the Civil Air Patrol;

(6) detail any member of the Air Force or any officer, employee, or contractor of the Department of the Air Force to any

unit or installation of the Civil Air Patrol to assist in the training programs of the Civil Air Patrol;

(7) authorize the payment of travel expenses and allowances,

at rates not to exceed those paid to employees of the United

States under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, to members

621

of the Civil Air Patrol while the members are carrying out programs or missions specifically assigned by the Air Force;

(8) provide funds for the national headquarters of the Civil

Air Patrol, including—

(A) funds for the payment of staff compensation and benefits, administrative expenses, travel, per diem and allowances, rent, utilities, other operational expenses of the national headquarters; and

(B) to the extent considered necessary by the Secretary of

the Air Force to fulfill Air Force requirements, funds for the

payment of compensation and benefits for key staff at regional, State, or territorial headquarters;

(9) authorize the payment of expenses of placing into serviceable condition, improving, and maintaining equipment (including aircraft, motor vehicles, computers, and communications

equipment) owned or leased by the Civil Air Patrol;

(10) provide funds for the lease or purchase of items of equipment that the Secretary determines necessary for the Civil Air

Patrol;

(11) support the Civil Air Patrol cadet program by

furnishing—

(A) articles of the Air Force uniform to cadets without

cost; and

(B) any other support that the Secretary of the Air Force

determines is consistent with Air Force missions and objectives; and

(12) provide support, including appropriated funds, for the

Civil Air Patrol aerospace education program to the extent that

the Secretary of the Air Force determines appropriate for furthering the fulfillment of Air Force missions and objectives.

(c) ASSISTANCE BY OTHER AGENCIES.—(1) The Secretary of the Air

Force may arrange for the use by the Civil Air Patrol of such facilities and services under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army,

the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or

agency of the United States as the Secretary of the Air Force considers to be needed by the Civil Air Patrol to carry out its mission.

(2) An arrangement for use of facilities or services of a military

department or other department or agency under this subsection

shall be subject to the agreement of the Secretary of the military department or head of the other department or agency, as the case

may be.

(3) Each arrangement under this subsection shall be made in accordance with regulations prescribed under section 9448 of this title.

§ 9445. Funds appropriated for the Civil Air Patrol

Funds appropriated for the Civil Air Patrol shall be available

only for the exclusive use of the Civil Air Patrol.

§ 9446. Miscellaneous personnel authorities

(a) USE OF RETIRED AIR FORCE PERSONNEL.—(1) Upon the request of a person retired from service in the Air Force, the Secretary

of the Air Force may enter into a personal services contract with

that person providing for the person to serve as an administrator

or liaison officer for the Civil Air Patrol. The qualifications of a perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00645 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR616.173 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
622

son to provide the services shall be determined and approved in accordance with regulations prescribed under section 9448 of this title.

(2) To the extent provided in a contract under paragraph (1), a

person providing services under the contract may accept services on

behalf of the Air Force and commit and obligate appropriated funds

as necessary to perform the services.

(3) A person, while providing services under a contract authorized

under paragraph (1), may receive the person’s retired pay and an

additional amount for such services that is not less than the amount

equal to the excess of—

(A) the pay and allowances that the person would be entitled

to receive if ordered to active duty in the grade in which the

person retired from service in the Air Force, over

(B) the amount of the person’s retired pay.

(4) A person, while providing services under a contract authorized

under paragraph (1), may not be considered to be on active duty or

inactive-duty training for any purpose.

(b) USE OF CIVIL AIR PATROL CHAPLAINS.—The Secretary of the

Air Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the

extent and under conditions that the Secretary determines appropriate.

§ 9447. Board of Governors

(a) GOVERNING BODY.—The Board of Governors of the Civil Air

Patrol is the governing body of the Civil Air Patrol.

(b) COMPOSITION.—The Board of Governors is composed of 11

members as follows:

(1) Four members appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force,

who may be active or retired officers of the Air Force (including

reserve components of the Air Force), employees of the United

States, or private citizens.

(2) Four members of the Civil Air Patrol, elected from among

the members of the Civil Air Patrol in the manner provided in

regulations prescribed under section 9448 of this title.

(3) Three members appointed or selected as provided in subsection (c) from among personnel of any Federal Government

agencies, public corporations, nonprofit associations, and other

organizations that have an interest and expertise in civil aviation and the Civil Air Patrol mission.

(c) APPOINTMENTS FROM INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the members of the Board of Governors referred to in subsection (b)(3) shall be appointed jointly by the Secretary of the Air Force and the National Commander of the Civil

Air Patrol.

(2) Any vacancy in the position of a member referred to in paragraph (1) that is not filled under that paragraph within 90 days

shall be filled by majority vote of the other members of the Board.

(d) CHAIRPERSON.—(1) The Chairperson of the Board of Governors shall be chosen by the members of the Board of Governors

from among the members of the Board eligible for selection under

paragraph (2) and shall serve for a term of two years.

(2) The position of Chairperson shall be held on a rotating basis,

first by a member of the Board selected from among those appointed

623

by the Secretary of the Air Force under paragraph (1) of subsection

(b) and then by a member of the Board selected from among the

members elected by the Civil Air Patrol under paragraph (2) of that

subsection. Upon the expiration of the term of a Chairperson selected from among the members referred to in one of those paragraphs, the selection of a successor to that position shall be made

from among the members who are referred to in the other paragraph.

(e) POWERS.—(1) The Board of Governors shall, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), exercise the powers granted under section 40304

of title 36.

(2) Any exercise by the Board of the power to amend the constitution or bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol or to adopt a new constitution

or bylaws shall be subject to approval by a majority of the members

of the Board.

(3) Neither the Board of Governors nor any other component of

the Civil Air Patrol may modify or terminate any requirement or

authority set forth in this section.

(f) PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY.—(1)

The Board of Governors shall, subject to paragraph (2), take such

action as is necessary to eliminate or limit the personal liability of

a member of the Board of Governors to the Civil Air Patrol or to

any of its members for monetary damages for a breach of fiduciary

duty while serving as a member of the Board.

(2) The Board may not eliminate or limit the liability of a member of the Board of Governors to the Civil Air Patrol or to any of

its members for monetary damages for any of the following:

(A) A breach of the member’s duty of loyalty to the Civil Air

Patrol or its members.

(B) Any act or omission that is not in good faith or that involves intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law.

(C) Participation in any transaction from which the member

directly or indirectly derives an improper personal benefit.

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as rendering section 207 or 208 of title 18 inapplicable in any respect to a member

of the Board of Governors who is a member of the Air Force on active duty, an officer on a retired list of the Air Force, or an employee

of the United States.

(g) PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY.—(1)

Except as provided in paragraph (2), no member of the Board of

Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol shall be personally liable

for damages for any injury or death or loss or damage of property

resulting from a tortious act or omission of an employee or member

of the Civil Air Patrol.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member of the Board of

Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol for a tortious act or omission in which the member or officer, as the case may be, was personally involved, whether in breach of a civil duty or in commission of

a criminal offense.

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to restrict the applicability of common law protections and rights that a member of

the Board of Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol may have.

(4) The protections provided under this subsection are in addition

to the protections provided under subsection (f).

624

§ 9448. Regulations

(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Air Force shall prescribe

regulations for the administration of this chapter.

(b) REQUIRED REGULATIONS.—The regulations shall include the

following:

(1) Regulations governing the conduct of the activities of the

Civil Air Patrol when it is performing its duties as a volunteer

civilian auxiliary of the Air Force under section 9442 of this

title.

(2) Regulations for providing support by the Air Force and for

arranging assistance by other agencies under section 9444 of

this title.

(3) Regulations governing the qualifications of retired Air

Force personnel to serve as an administrator or liaison officer

for the Civil Air Patrol under a personal services contract entered into under section 9446(a) of this title.

(4) Procedures and requirements for the election of members

of the Board of Governors under section 9447(b)(2) of this title.

(c) APPROVAL BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—The regulations required by subsection (b)(2) shall be subject to the approval of the

Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Reserve Components

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND

ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1007—ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE

COMPONENTS

* * * * * * *

§ 10218. Army and Air Force Reserve technicians: conditions

for retention; mandatory retirement under civil

service laws

(a) SEPARATION AND RETIREMENT OF MILITARY TECHNICIANS

(DUAL STATUS).—(1) An individual employed by the Army Reserve

or the Air Force Reserve as a military technician (dual status) who

after øthe date of the enactment of this section¿ October 5, 1999,

loses dual status is subject to paragraph (2) or (3), as the case may

be.

(2) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is eligible at the

time dual status is lost for an unreduced annuity and is age 60 or

older at that time, the technician shall be separated not later than

30 days after the date on which dual status is lost.

(3)(A) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is not eligible at

the time dual status is lost for an unreduced annuity or is under

625

age 60 at that time, the technician shall be offered the opportunity

to—

(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a position as

a military technician (dual status); or

(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a technician

position.

(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician, the

technician—

(i) shall not be permitted, after øthe end of the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection¿

October 5, 2000, to apply for any voluntary personnel action;

and

(ii) shall be separated or retired—

(I) in the case of a technician first hired as a military

technician (dual status) on or before February 10, 1996,

not later than 30 days after becoming eligible for an unreduced annuity and becoming 60 years of age; and

* * * * * * *

(b) NON-DUAL STATUS TECHNICIANS.—(1) An individual who on

øthe date of the enactment of this section¿ October 5, 1999, is employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual

status technician and who on that date is eligible for an unreduced

annuity and is age 60 or older shall be separated not later than

øsix months after the date of the enactment of this section¿ April

5, 2000. (2)(A) An individual who on øthe date of the enactment of this

section¿ October 5, 1999, is employed by the Army Reserve or the

Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician and who on that

date is not eligible for an unreduced annuity or is under age 60

shall be offered the opportunity to—

(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a position as

a military technician (dual status); or

(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a technician

position.

(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician, the

technician—

(i) shall not be permitted, after øthe end of the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection¿

October 5, 2000, to apply for any voluntary personnel action;

and

(ii) shall be separated or retired—

(I) in the case of a technician first hired as a technician

on or before February 10, 1996, and who on øthe date of

the enactment of this section¿ October 5, 1999, is a nondual status technician, not later than 30 days after becoming eligible for an unreduced annuity and becoming 60

years of age; and

(II) in the case of a technician first hired as a technician

after February 10, 1996, and who on øthe date of the enactment of this section¿ October 5, 1999, is a non-dual status technician, not later than one year after the date on

which dual status is lost.

626

(3) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force

Reserve as a non-dual status technician who is ineligible for appointment to a military technician (dual status) position, or who

decides not to apply for appointment to such a position, or who,

øwithin six months of the date of the enactment of this section¿

during the period beginning on October 5, 1999, and ending on

April 5, 2000, is not appointed to such a position, shall for reduction-in-force purposes be in a separate competitive category from

employees who are military technicians (dual status).

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1205—APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS

* * * * * * *

§ 12005. Strength in grade: commissioned officers in grades

below brigadier general or rear admiral (lower

half) in an active status

(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the authorized strength of the

Army and the Air Force in reserve commissioned officers in an active status in each grade named in paragraph (2) is as prescribed

by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, respectively. A vacancy in any grade may be filled by an authorized

appointment in any lower grade. Medical officers and dental officers shall be excluded in computing and determining the authorized

strengths under this subsection.

* * * * * * *

§ 12011. Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty

or on full-time National Guard duty for administration of the reserves or the National Guard

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President may suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525, or 526 of

this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the operation of any

provision of this section. Any such suspension shall, if not sooner

ended, end in the manner specified in section 527 for a suspension

under that section.

(d) Upon a determination by the Secretary of Defense that such

action is in the national interest, the Secretary may increase the

number of officers serving in any grade for a fiscal year pursuant

to subsection (a) by not more than the percent authorized by the Secretary under section 115(c)(2) of this title.

627

§ 12012. Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on

active duty or on full-time National Guard duty for

administration of the reserves or the National

Guard

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President may suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525, or 526 of

this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the operation of any

provision of this section. Any such suspension shall, if not sooner

ended, end in the manner specified in section 527 for a suspension

under that section.

(d) Upon a determination by the Secretary of Defense that such

action is in the national interest, the Secretary may increase the

number of enlisted members serving in any grade for a fiscal year

pursuant to subsection (a) by not more than the percent authorized

by the Secretary under section 115(c)(2) of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1213—SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS,

ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES

* * * * * * *

§ 12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty

(a) * * *

(b) SERVICE CREDIT.—A member ordered to funeral honors duty

under this section shall be required to perform a minimum of two

hours of such duty in order to receive—

(1) service credit under section 12732(a)(2)(E) of this title;

and

(2) if authorized by the Secretary concerned, the allowance

under section 435 of title 37 or compensation at the rate prescribed in section 206 of title 37.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1215—MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND

PENALTIES

* * * * * * *

§ 12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans

Performance by a Reserve of funeral honors functions at the funeral of a veteran (as defined in section 1491(h) of this title) may

not be considered to be a period of drill or training, but may be performed as funeral honors duty under section 12503 of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1223—RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR

SERVICE

* * * * * * *

628

§ 12731. Age and service requirements

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) In the case of a person who completes the service requirements of subsection (a)(2) during the period beginning on October

5, 1994, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001,

the provisions of subsection (a)(3) shall be applied by substituting

‘‘the last six years’’ for ‘‘the last eight years’’.

§ 12731a. Temporary special retirement qualification authority

(a) RETIREMENT WITH AT LEAST 15 YEARS OF SERVICE.—For the

purposes of section 12731 of this title, the Secretary concerned

may—

(1) during the period described in subsection (b), determine

to treat a member of the Selected Reserve of a reserve component of the armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary

as having met the service requirements of subsection (a)(2) of

that section and provide the member with the notification required by subsection (d) of that section if the member—

(A) as of øOctober 1, 1991¿ December 31, 2001, has completed at least 15, and less than 20, years of service computed under section 12732 of this title; or

(B) after that date and before øOctober 1, 2001¿ December 31, 2001, completes 15 years of service computed under

that section; and

* * * * * * *

§ 12733. Computation of retired pay: computation of years of

service

For the purpose of computing the retired pay of a person under

this chapter, the person’s years of service and any fraction of such

a year are computed by dividing 360 into the sum of the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) One day for each point credited to the person under

clause (B), (C), or (D) of section 12732(a)(2) of this title, øbut

not more than 60 days in any one year of service before the

year of service that includes September 23, 1996, and not more

than 75 days in any subsequent year of service.¿ but not more

than—

(A) 60 days in any one year of service before the year of

service that includes September 23, 1996;

(B) 75 days in the year of service that includes September

23, 1996, and in any subsequent year of service before the

year of service that includes the date of the enactment of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001;

and

629

(C) 90 days in the year of service that includes the date

of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2001 and in any subsequent year of service.

* * * * * * *

PART III—PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF

OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS

LIST

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1409—CONTINUATION OF OFFICERS ON THE

RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS LIST AND SELECTIVE

EARLY REMOVAL

* * * * * * *

§ 14701. Selection of officers for continuation on the reserve

active-status list

(a) CONSIDERATION FOR CONTINUATION.—(1) øUpon application, a

reserve officer¿ A reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or

Marine Corps who is required to be removed from the reserve active-status list under section 14505, 14506, or 14507 of this title

may, subject to the needs of the service and to section 14509 of this

title, be considered for continuation on the reserve active-status list

by a selection board convened under section 14101(b) of this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 14703. Authority to retain chaplains and officers in medical specialties until specified age

(a) RETENTION.—Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 1407

of this title and except for officers referred to in sections 14503,

14504, 14505, and 14506 of this title and under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) the Secretary of the Air Force may, with the officer’s consent, retain in an active status any reserve officer who is designated as a medical officer, dental officer, øveterinary officer,

Air Force nurse, or chaplain or who is designated as a biomedical sciences officer and is qualified for service as a veterinarian, optometrist, or podiatrist.¿ Air Force nurse, Medical

Service Corps officer, biomedical sciences officer, or chaplain.

* * * * * * *

PART IV—TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

630

CHAPTER 1606—EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR

MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE

* * * * * * *

§ 16133. Time limitation for use of entitlement

(a) * * *

(b)(1) In the case of a person—

(A) who is separated from the Selected Reserve because of a

disability which was not the result of the individual’s own willful misconduct incurred on or after the date on which such person became entitled to educational assistance under this chapter; or

(B) who, on or after the date on which such person became

entitled to educational assistance under this chapter ceases to

be a member of the Selected Reserve during the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿

December 31, 2001, by reason of the inactivation of the person’s

unit of assignment or by reason of involuntarily ceasing to be

designated as a member of the Selected Reserve pursuant to

section 10143(a) of this title,

the period for using entitlement prescribed by subsection (a) shall

be determined without regard to clause (2) of such subsection.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1609—EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions officers serving in Selected Reserve with

wartime critical medical skill shortages

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only in the

case of a person first appointed as a commissioned officer before

øJanuary 1, 2001¿ January 1, 2002.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1611—OTHER EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS

Sec.

ø16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: officer candidates pursuing

degrees.¿

16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: college tuition assistance program.

631

ø§ 16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: officer candidates pursuing degrees¿

§ 16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: college tuition assistance program

(a) AUTHORITY FOR øFINANCIAL¿ COLLEGE TUITION ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM.—The Secretary of the Navy may provide financial assistance to øan eligible enlisted¿ a member of the Marine Corps Reserve for expenses of the member while the member is pursuing on

a full-time basis at an institution of higher education a program of

education approved by the Secretary that leads to—

(1) a baccalaureate degree in less than five academic years;

or

(2) a doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws degree in not

more than øthree¿ four academic years.

(b) ELIGIBILITY.—(1) To be eligible for financial assistance under

this section, øan enlisted¿ a member of the Marine Corps Reserve

must—

(A) be øan officer candidate in¿ a member of the Marine

Corps Platoon Leaders Class program and have successfully

completed one six-week (or longer) increment of military training required under that program;

ø(B) meet the applicable age requirement specified in paragraph (2);¿

ø(C)¿ (B) be enrolled on a full-time basis in a program of

education referred to in subsection (a) at any institution of

higher education; and

ø(D)¿ (C) enter into a written agreement with the Secretary

described in paragraph ø(3)¿ (2).

ø(2)(A) In the case of a member pursuing a baccalaureate degree,

the member meets the age requirements of this paragraph if the

member will be under 27 years of age on June 30 of the calendar

year in which the member is projected to be eligible for appointment as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps through the

Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program, except that if the

member has served on active duty, the member may, on such date,

be any age under 30 years that exceeds 27 years by a number of

months that is not more than the number of months that the member served on active duty.

ø(B) In the case of a member pursuing a doctor of jurisprudence

or bachelor of laws degree, the member meets the age requirements

of this paragraph if the member will be under 31 years of age on

June 30 of the calendar year in which the member is projected to

be eligible for appointment as a commissioned officer in the Marine

Corps through the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program,

except that if the member has served on active duty, the member

may, on such date, be any age under 35 years that exceeds 31

years by a number of months that is not more than the number

of months that the member served on active duty.¿

ø(3)¿ (2) A written agreement referred to in paragraph (1)(D) is

an agreement between the member and the Secretary in which the

member agrees—

632

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) FAILURE TO COMPLETE PROGRAM.—(1) øA member¿ An enlisted member who receives financial assistance under this section

may be ordered to active duty in the Marine Corps by the Secretary to serve in an appropriate enlisted grade for such period as

the Secretary prescribes, but not for more than four years, if the

member—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

PART V—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND

PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1803—FACILITIES FOR RESERVE

COMPONENTS

* * * * * * *

§ 18232. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) The term ‘‘State’’ means any of the States of the United

States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States

and includes political subdivisions and military units thereof

and tax-supported agencies therein.

(2) The term ‘‘facility’’ includes any (A) interest in land, (B)

øarmory or other structure¿ armory, readiness center, or other

structure, and (C) storage or other facility normally needed for

the administration and training of any unit of the reserve components of the armed forces.

(3) øThe term ‘‘armory’’ means¿ The terms ‘‘armory’’ and

‘‘readiness center’’ mean a structure that houses one or more

units of a reserve component and is used for training and administering those units. It includes a structure that is appurtenant to such a structure and houses equipment used for that

training and administration.

* * * * * * *

§ 18236. Contributions to States; other use permitted by

States

(a) * * *

(b) A contribution made for an armory or readiness center under

paragraph (4) or (5) of section 18233(a) of this title may not exceed

the sum of—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

633

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEARS 1990 AND 1991

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

PART A—FUNDING AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 112. ANNUAL REPORT ON B–2 BOMBER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

ø(a) ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—Not later than March 1

of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a report that sets

forth the finding of the Secretary (as of January 1 of such year) on

each of the following matters:

ø(1) Whether the performance milestones for the B–2 aircraft

for the previous fiscal year for both developmental test and

evaluation and operational test and evaluation (as contained in

the Requirements Correlation Matrix found in the user-defined

Operational Requirements Document (as contained in Attachment B to a letter from the Secretary of Defense to Congress

dated October 14, 1993)) have been met.

ø(2) Whether the B–2 aircraft has a high probability of being

able to perform its intended missions.

ø(3) Whether any proposed modification to the performance

matrix referred to in paragraph (1) will be provided in writing

in advance to the committees.

ø(4) Whether the cost reduction initiatives established for

the B–2 program can be achieved (together with details of the

savings to be realized).

ø(5) Whether the quality assurance practices and fiscal management controls of the prime contractor and major subcontractors associated with the B–2 program meet or exceed

accepted United States Government standards.

ø(b) FIRST REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit the first annual

report under subsection (a) not later than March 1, 1996.¿

* * * * * * *

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

* * * * * * *

634

PART D—PROVISIONS RELATING TO SMALL AND SMALL

DISADVANTAGED BUSINESSES

* * * * * * *

SEC. 834. TEST PROGRAM FOR NEGOTIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLANS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) TEST PROGRAM PERIOD.—The test program authorized by subsection (a) shall begin on October 1, 1990, unless Congress adopts

a resolution disapproving the test program. The test program shall

terminate on September 30, 2000.ø.¿

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

PART B—LAND TRANSACTIONS

SEC. 2811. LAND CONVEYANCE AT MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, EL

TORO, CALIFORNIA, AND CONSTRUCTION OF FAMILY

HOUSING AT MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsections (b) through (d), the Secretary of the Navy may—

(1) convey to the County of Orange, California, or its designee, or both, all right, title, and interest of the United States

in and to approximately 77 acres of real property, including

improvements thereon, consisting of three severable parcels at

Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, California; and

(2) accept monetary consideration for such property and expend it for the construction øof additional military family housing units at Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California¿ and

repair of roads, and the development of Aerial Port of Embarkation facilities, at Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, California.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE

CHAPTER 1—ORGANIZATION

§ 115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function

(a) * * *

(b) SERVICE CREDIT.—A member ordered to funeral honors duty

under this section shall be required to perform a minimum of two

hours of such duty in order to receive—

(1) service credit under section 12732(a)(2)(E) of title 10; and

(2) if authorized by the Secretary concerned, the allowance

under section 435 of title 37 or compensation at the rate prescribed in section 206 of title 37.

* * * * * * *

635

CHAPTER 5—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

§ 508. Assistance for certain youth and charitable organizations

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) AUTHORIZED SERVICES.—The services authorized to be provided under subsection (a) are as follows:

(1) * * *

(2) Air transportation in support of Special Olympics or any

other youth or charitable organization designated by the Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

(d) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.—The organizations eligible to receive services under this section are as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(14) Reach For Tomorrow.

ø(14)¿ (15) Any other youth or charitable organization designated by the Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

§ 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities

for civilian youth

(a) * * *

(b) CONDUCT OF THE PROGRAM.—(1) The Secretary of Defense

shall provide for the conduct of the National Guard Challenge Program in such States as the Secretary considers to be appropriateø, except that Federal expenditures under the program may not exceed $62,500,000 for any fiscal year¿.

(2) The Secretary shall carry out the National Guard Challenge

Program using funds appropriated directly to the Secretary for the

program and nondefense Federal funds made available or transferred to the Secretary by other Federal agencies to support the program. However, the amount of funds appropriated directly to the

Secretary of Defense and expended for the program in a fiscal year

may not exceed $62,500,000.

* * * * * * *

(m) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to carry out the National Guard Challenge Program. The

regulations shall address at a minimum the following:

(1) The terms to be included in the program agreements required by subsection (d).

(2) The qualifications for persons to participate in the program, as required by subsection (e).

(3) The benefits authorized for program participants, as required by subsection (f).

(4) The status of National Guard personnel assigned to duty

in support of the program.

636

(5) The conditions for the use of National Guard facilities

and equipment to carry out the program, as required by subsection (h).

(6) The status of program participants, as described in subsection (i).

(7) The procedures to be used by the Secretary when communicating with States about the program.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1993

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Defense-Wide Programs

* * * * * * *

SEC. 142. MH–47E/MH–60K HELICOPTER MODIFICATION PROGRAMS.

(a) REQUIRED TESTING.—Notwithstanding the requirements of

subsections (a) (2) and (b) of section 2366 of title 10, United States

Code, and the requirements of subsection (a) of section 2399 of

such title—

(1) operational test and evaluation øand survivability testing¿ of the MH–60K helicopter under the MH–60K helicopter

modification program shall be completed prior to full materiel

release of the MH–60K helicopters for operational use; and

(2) operational test and evaluation øand survivability testing¿ of the MH–47E helicopter under the MH–47E helicopter

modification program shall be completed prior to full materiel

release of the MH–47E helicopters for operational use.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XLIV—PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT,

EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

Subtitle A—Active Forces Transition Enhancements

* * * * * * *

SEC. 4403. TEMPORARY EARLY RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) ACTIVE FORCE DRAWDOWN PERIOD.—For purposes of this section, the active force drawdown period is the period beginning on

637

the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on øOctober 1,

2001¿ December 31, 2001.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Guard and Reserve Transition Initiatives

SEC. 4411. FORCE REDUCTION TRANSITION PERIOD DEFINED.

In this subtitle, the term ‘‘force reduction transition period’’

means the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and ending on

øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 4416. FORCE REDUCTION PERIOD RETIREMENTS.

(a) * * *

(b) TEMPORARY SPECIAL AUTHORITY.—During the period referred

to in subsection (c), the Secretary concerned may grant a member

of the Selected Reserve under the age of 60 years the annual payments provided for under this section if—

(1) as of October 1, 1991, that member has completed at

least 20 years of service computed under section 1332 of title

10, United States Code, or after that date and before øOctober

1, 2001¿ December 31, 2001, such member completes 20 years

of service computed under that section or section 12732;

* * * * * * *

TITLE XLIV—PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT,

EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F—Job Training and Employment and Educational

Opportunities

* * * * * * *

SEC. 4463. PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL LEAVE RELATING TO CONTINUING PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) EXPIRATION.—The authority to grant a leave of absence under

subsection (a) shall expire on øSeptember 30, 2001] December 31,

2001.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE

CHAPTER 3—BASIC PAY

* * * * * * *

638

§ 205. Computation: service creditable

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the periods of service of a

commissioned officer appointed under section ø12209¿ 12203 of

title 10 after receiving financial assistance under section 16401 of

such title that are counted under this section may not include a period of service after January 1, 2000, that the officer performed

concurrently as øa member¿ an enlisted member of the Marine

Corps Platoon Leaders Class program and the Marine Corps Reserve, except that service after that date that the officer performed

before commissioning (concurrently with the period of service as a

member of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program) as an

enlisted member on active duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve may be so counted.

* * * * * * *

§ 209. Members of precommissioning programs

(a) SENIOR ROTC MEMBERS IN ADVANCED TRAINING.—(1) Except

when on active duty, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers’

Training Corps who is selected for advanced training under section

2104 of title 10 is entitled to a øsubsistence allowance of $200 a

month¿ monthly subsistence allowance at a rate prescribed under

paragraph (2) beginning on the day he starts advanced training

and ending upon the completion of his instruction under that section, but in no event shall any member receive such pay for more

than 30 months.

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe by regulation the

monthly rates for subsistence allowances provided under this section. The rate may not be less than $250 per month, but may not

exceed $600 per month. øSubsistence¿

(3) A subsistence allowance under this section may not be considered financial assistance requiring additional service within the

meaning of the third sentence of section 6(d)(1) of the Military Selective Act (50 U.S.C App. 456(d)(1)).

(b) SENIOR ROTC MEMBERS APPOINTED IN RESERVES.—Except

when on active duty, a cadet or midshipman appointed under section 2107 of title 10 is entitled to a monthly subsistence allowance

øin the amount provided in subsection (a)¿ at a rate prescribed

under subsection (a)(2). A member enrolled in the first two years

of a four-year program is entitled to receive subsistence for a maximum of twenty months. A member enrolled in the advanced course

is entitled to subsistence as prescribed for a member enrolled

under section 2104 of title 10 as prescribed in subsection (a).

(c) PAY WHILE ATTENDING TRAINING OR PRACTICE CRUISE.—Each

cadet or midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training

Corps, while he is attending training or practice cruises under

chapter 103 of title 10 if the training or cruise is of at least four

weeks duration and must be completed before the cadet or midshipman is commissioned, and each applicant for membership in

the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, while he is attending

field training or practice cruises to satisfy the requirements of section 2104(b)(6)(B) of title 10 for admission to advanced training, is

639

entitled, while so attending, to pay at the rate prescribed for cadets

and midshipmen at the United States Military, Naval, and Air

Force Academies under section 203(c) of this title.

(d) MEMBERS OF MARINE CORPS OFFICER CANDIDATE PROGRAM.— Except when serving on active duty, a member who is enrolled in

a Marine Corps officer candidate program which requires a baccalaureate degree as a prerequisite to being commissioned as an officer and who is not enrolled in a program established under chapter

103 of title 10 or an academy established under chapter 403, 603,

or 903 of title 10 may be paid a subsistence allowance at øthe same

rate as that prescribed by subsection (a),¿ the monthly rate prescribed under subsection (a)(2) for a member of the Senior Reserve

Officers’ Training Corps who is selected for advanced training

under section 2104 of title 10.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5—SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Sec.

301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty.

* * * * * * *

309. Special pay: enlistment bonus.

* * * * * * *

323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified in critical military skill.

* * * * * * *

§ 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 øDecember 31, 2000,¿ December 31, 2001, 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.

* * * * * * *

(j) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘aviation service’’ means service performed by

an officer (except a flight surgeon or other medical officer)

while holding an aeronautical rating or designation or while in

training to receive an aeronautical rating or designation.

(2) The term ‘‘operational flying duty’’ has the meaning given

such term in øsection 301a(a)(6)(A)¿ section 301a(a)(6)(B) of

this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 302. Special pay: medical officers of the armed forces

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) RESERVE MEDICAL OFFICERS SPECIAL PAY.—(1) A reserve

medical officer described in paragraph (2) is entitled to special pay

at the rate of $450 a month for each month of active duty, includVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00663 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.179 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
640

ing active duty in the form of annual training, active duty for training, and active duty for special work.

* * * * * * *

§ 302a. Special pay: optometrists

(a) * * *

(b) RETENTION SPECIAL PAY.—(1) Under regulations prescribed

under section 303a(a) of this title, øan officer described in paragraph (2) may be paid¿ the Secretary concerned may pay an officer

described in paragraph (2) a retention special pay of not more than $6,000 for any twelve-month period during which the officer is not

undergoing an internship or initial residency training.

* * * * * * *

§ 302c. Special pay: psychologists and nonphysician health

care providers

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) NONPHYSICIAN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.—The Secretary concerned may authorize the payment of special pay at the rates specified in subsection (b) to an officer who—

(1) is an officer in the Medical Services Corps of the Army

or Navy, a biomedical sciences officer in the Air Force, an officer in the Army Medical Specialist Corps, an officer of the

Nurse Corps of the Army or Navy, an officer of the Air Force

designated as a nurse, an officer in the Coast Guard or Coast

Guard Reserve designated as a physician assistant, or an officer in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service;

* * * * * * *

§ 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 øDecember 31, 2000¿ December 31, 2001,

executes a written agreement described in subsection (c) to accept

a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for a period

of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession bonus in an

amount determined by the Secretary concerned.

* * * * * * *

§ 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists

(a) SPECIAL PAY AUTHORIZED.—(1) An officer described in subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November 29,

1989, and ending on øDecember 31, 2000¿ December 31, 2001, 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.

* * * * * * *

641

(b) COVERED OFFICERS.—(1) * * *

(2) The Secretary of Defense may extend the special pay authorized under subsection (a) to officers of the armed forces who serve

in a nursing specialty (other than as nurse anesthetists) that—

(A) is designated by øthe Secretary¿ the Secretary of the military department concerned as critical to meet requirements

(whether such specialty is designated as critical to meet wartime or peacetime requirements); and

* * * * * * *

§ 302f. Special pay: reserve, recalled, or retained health care

officers

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) SPECIAL RULE FOR RESERVE MEDICAL OFFICER.—While a reserve medical officer receives a special pay under section 302 of

this title by reason of subsection (a), the officer shall not be entitled

to special pay under subsection (h) of that section.¿

(d) EXCEPTION.—While a reserve medical or dental officer receives

a special pay under section 302 or 302b of this title by reason of

subsection (a), the officer shall not be entitled to special pay under

section 302(h) or 302b(h) of this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 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 øDecember 31, 2000¿

December 31, 2001.

* * * * * * *

§ 305a. Special pay: career sea pay

ø(a) Under regulations prescribed by the President, a member of

a uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay is also entitled,

while on sea duty, to special pay at the applicable rate under subsection (b).

ø(b) The monthly rates for special pay under subsection (a) are

as follows:

øENLISTED MEMBERS

Pay grade

Years of sea duty

1 or

less

Over

1

Over

2

Over

3

Over

4

Over

5

Over

6

E–4 ...................................... $50 $60 $120 $150 $160 $160 $160

E–5 ...................................... 50 60 120 150 170 315 325

E–6 ...................................... 100 100 120 150 170 315 325

E–7 ...................................... 100 100 120 175 190 350 350

E–8 ...................................... 100 100 120 175 190 350 350

642

øENLISTED MEMBERS—Continued

Pay grade

Years of sea duty

1 or

less

Over

1

Over

2

Over

3

Over

4

Over

5

Over

6

E–9 ...................................... 100 100 120 175 190 350 350

Over Over Over Over Over Over Over

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

E–4 ...................................... $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160

E–5 ...................................... 350 350 350 350 350 350 350

E–6 ...................................... 350 350 365 365 365 380 395

E–7 ...................................... 375 390 400 400 410 420 450

E–8 ...................................... 375 390 400 400 410 420 450

E–9 ...................................... 375 390 400 400 410 420 450

Over Over Over

14 16 18

E–4 ...................................... $160 $160 $160

E–5 ...................................... 350 350 350

E–6 ...................................... 410 425 450

E–7 ...................................... 475 500 500

E–8 ...................................... 475 500 520

E–9 ...................................... 475 520 520

WARRANT OFFICERS

Pay grade

Years of sea duty

1 or

less

Over

1

Over

2

Over

3

Over

4

Over

5

Over

6

W–1 ..................................... $130 $135 $140 $150 $170 $175 $00

W–2 ..................................... 150 150 150 150 170 260 265

W–3 ..................................... 150 150 150 150 170 270 280

W–4 ..................................... 150 150 150 150 170 290 310

W–5 ..................................... 150 150 150 150 170 290 310

Over Over Over Over Over Over Over

7 8 9 10 11 12 14

W–1 ..................................... $250 $270 $300 $325 $325 $340 $360

W–2 ..................................... 265 270 310 340 340 375 400

W–3 ..................................... 285 290 310 350 375 400 425

W–4 ..................................... 310 310 310 350 375 400 450

W–5 ..................................... 310 310 310 350 375 400 450

Over Over Over

16 18 20

W–1 ..................................... $375 $375 $375

W–2 ..................................... 400 400 400

W–3 ..................................... 425 450 450

W–4 ..................................... 450 500 500

W–5 ..................................... 450 500 500

643

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS

Pay grade

Years of sea duty

Over

3

Over

4

Over

5

Over

6

Over

7

Over

8

Over

9

O–1 ..................................... $150 $160 $185 $190 $195 $205 $215

O–2 ..................................... 150 160 185 190 195 205 215

O–3 ..................................... 150 160 185 190 195 205 215

O–4 ..................................... 185 190 200 205 215 220 220

O–5 ..................................... 225 225 225 225 280 245 250

O–6 ..................................... 225 230 230 240 255 265 280

Over Over Over Over Over Over Over

10 11 12 14 16 18 20

O–1 ..................................... $225 $225 $240 $250 $260 $270 $280

O–2 ..................................... 225 225 240 250 260 270 280

O–3 ..................................... 225 225 240 260 270 280 290

O–4 ..................................... 225 225 240 270 280 290 300

O–5 ..................................... 260 265 265 285 300 315 340

O–6 ..................................... 290 300 310 325 340 355 380

ø(c) Under regulations prescribed by the President, a member of

a uniformed service who is entitled to career sea pay under this

section who has served 36 consecutive months of sea duty (other

than an enlisted member in a pay grade above E–4 with more than

five years of sea duty) is entitled to a career sea pay premium of

$100 a month for the thirty-seventh consecutive month and each

subsequent consecutive month of sea duty served by such member.¿

(a) AVAILABILITY OF SPECIAL PAY.—A member of a uniformed

service who is entitled to basic pay is also entitled, while on sea

duty, to career sea pay at a monthly rate prescribed by the Secretary

concerned, but not to exceed $750 per month.

(b) ELIGIBILITY FOR PREMIUM.—A member of a uniformed service

entitled to career sea pay under subsection (a) who has served 36

consecutive months of sea duty is also entitled to a career sea pay

premium for the 37th consecutive month and each subsequent consecutive month of sea duty served by the member. The monthly

amount of the premium shall be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, but may not exceed $350 per month.

(c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretaries concerned shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section. Regulations prescribed by the Secretary of a military department shall be subject to the approval of

the Secretary of Defense.

(d) DEFINITION OF SEA DUTY.—(1) In this section, the term ‘‘sea

duty’’ means duty performed by a member—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 307. Special pay: special duty assignment pay for enlisted

members

(a) An enlisted member who is entitled to basic pay and is performing duties which have been designated under subsection (b) as

extremely difficult or as involving an unusual degree of responsibility in a military skill may, in addition to other pay or allowances

644

to which he is entitled, be paid special duty assignment pay at a

monthly rate not to exceed ø$275¿ $600. In the case of a member

who is serving as a military recruiter and is eligible for special

duty assignment pay under this subsection on account of such duty,

the Secretary concerned may increase the monthly rate of special

duty assignment pay for the member to not more than $375.

* * * * * * *

§ 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 øDecember 31, 2000¿ December 31, 2001.

§ 308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus shall be paid under

this section with respect to any enlistment or extension of an initial

period of active duty in the armed forces made after øDecember 31,

2000¿ September 30, 2001.

§ 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 øDecember 31,

2000¿ December 31, 2001, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in a reserve component.

§ 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted

member who, after øDecember 31, 2000¿ December 31, 2001, enlists in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed

force.

* * * * * * *

§ 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve assigned to certain high priority units

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this section

for inactive duty performed after øDecember 31, 2000¿ December

31, 2001.

645

§ 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 øDecember 31,

2000¿ December 31, 2001.

* * * * * * *

§ 308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to an

enlistment in the Army after øDecember 31, 2000¿ September 30,

2001.

* * * * * * *

§ 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) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person for

a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an enlistment

after øDecember 31, 2000¿ December 31, 2001.

§ 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus may be paid under

this section to any person for an enlistment after øDecember 31,

2000¿ December 31, 2001.

* * * * * * *

§ 309. Special pay: enlistment bonus

(a) BONUS AUTHORIZED; BONUS AMOUNT.—A person who enlists

in an armed force for a period of at least two years may be paid

a bonus in an amount not to exceed $20,000. The bonus may be

paid in a single lump sum or in periodic installments.

(b) REPAYMENT OF BONUS.—(1) A member of the armed forces

who voluntarily, or because of the member’s misconduct, does not

complete the term of enlistment for which a bonus was paid under

this section, or a member who is not technically qualified in the

skill for which the bonus was paid, if any (other than a member

who is not qualified because of injury, illness, or other impairment

not the result of the member’s misconduct), shall refund to the

United States that percentage of the bonus that the unexpired part

of member’s enlistment is of the total enlistment period for which

the bonus was paid.

(2) An obligation to reimburse the United States imposed under

paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United States.

646

(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less

than five years after the termination of an enlistment for which a

bonus was paid under this section does not discharge the person receiving the bonus from the debt arising under paragraph (1).

(c) RELATION TO PROHIBITION ON BOUNTIES.—The enlistment

bonus authorized by this section is not a bounty for purposes of section 514(a) of title 10.

(d) REGULATIONS.—This section shall be administered under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for the armed forces

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense and by the Secretary of Transportation for the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard

is not operating as a service in the Navy.

(e) DURATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus shall be paid under this

section with respect to any enlistment in the armed forces made before October 1, 2001, or after December 31, 2001.

* * * * * * *

§ 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 øDecember 31, 2000¿ December

31, 2001, execute the required written agreement to remain in active service.

* * * * * * *

§ 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in the

case of officers who, on or before øDecember 31, 2000¿ December

31, 2001, have been accepted for training for duty in connection

with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval nuclear

propulsion plants.

§ 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) For the purposes of this section, a ‘‘nuclear service year’’ is

any fiscal year beginning before øDecember 31, 2000¿ December 31,

2001.

* * * * * * *

§ 323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified

in a critical military skill

(a) RETENTION BONUS AUTHORIZED.—An officer or enlisted member of the armed forces who is serving on active duty and is qualified in a designated critical military skill may be paid a retention

bonus as provided in this section if—

647

(1) in the case of an officer, the member executes a written

agreement to remain on active duty for at least one year; or

(2) in the case of an enlisted member, the member reenlists

or voluntarily extends the member’s enlistment for a period of

at least one year.

(b) DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL SKILLS.—(1) A designated critical

military skill referred to in subsection (a) is a military skill designated as critical by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Secretary

of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy.

(2) The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation

with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service

in the Navy, shall notify Congress, in advance, of each military skill

to be designated by the Secretary as critical for purposes of this section. The notice shall be submitted at least 90 days before any bonus

with regard to that critical skill is offered under subsection (a) and

shall include a discussion of the necessity for the bonus, the amount

and method of payment of the bonus, and the retention results that

the bonus is expected to achieve.

(c) PAYMENT METHODS.—A bonus under this section may be paid

in a single lump sum or in periodic installments.

(d) MAXIMUM BONUS AMOUNT.—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.

(e) CERTAIN MEMBERS INELIGIBLE.—A retention bonus may not be

provided under subsection (a) to a member of the armed forces

who—

(1) has completed more than 25 years of active duty; or

(2) will complete the member’s 25th year of active duty before

the end of the period of active duty for which the bonus is being

offered.

(f) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER INCENTIVES.—A retention bonus paid

under this section is in addition to any other pay and allowances

to which a member is entitled.

(g) REPAYMENT OF BONUS.—(1) If an officer who has entered into

a written agreement under subsection (a) fails to complete the total

period of active duty specified in the agreement, or an enlisted member who voluntarily or because of misconduct does not complete the

term of enlistment for which a bonus was paid under this section,

the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation with

respect to members of the Coast Guard when it is not operating as

a service in the Navy, may require the member to repay the United

States, on a pro rata basis and to the extent that the Secretary determines conditions and circumstances warrant, all sums paid

under this section.

(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United States.

(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less

than five years after the termination of a written agreement entered

into under subsection (a) does not discharge the member from a debt

arising under paragraph (2).

648

(h) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than February 15 of each year,

the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation shall

submit to Congress a report—

(1) analyzing the effect, during the preceding fiscal year, of

the provision of bonuses under this section on the retention of

members qualified in the critical military skills for which the

bonuses were offered; and

(2) describing the intentions of the Secretary regarding the

continued use of the bonus authority during the current and

next fiscal years.

(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, 2001, and no agreement under this section may be entered into after that date.

CHAPTER 7—ALLOWANCES

Sec.

401. Definitions.

402. Basic allowance for subsistence.

402a. Supplemental subsistence allowance for low-income members with dependents.

* * * * * * *

411i. Travel and transportation allowances: parking expenses.

435. Funeral honors duty: allowance.

ø435¿ 436. Per diem allowance for lengthy or numerous deployments.

* * * * * * *

§ 402. Basic allowance for subsistence

(a) * * *

(b) RATES OF ALLOWANCE BASED ON FOOD COSTS.—ø(1) The

monthly rate of basic allowance for subsistence to be in effect for

an enlisted member for a year (beginning on January 1 of that

year) shall be the amount that is halfway between the following

amounts, which are determined by the Secretary of Agriculture as

of October 1 of the preceding year:

ø(A) The amount equal to the monthly cost of a moderatecost food plan for a male in the United States who is between

20 and 50 years of age.

ø(B) The amount equal to the monthly cost of a liberal food

plan for a male in the United States who is between 20 and

50 years of age.¿

(1) The monthly rate of basic allowance for subsistence to be in effect for an enlisted member for a year (beginning on January 1 of

that year) shall be equal to the sum of—

(A) the monthly rate of basic allowance for subsistence that

was in effect for an enlisted member for the preceding year; plus

(B) the product of the monthly rate under subparagraph (A)

and the percentage increase in the monthly cost of a liberal food

plan for a male in the United States who is between 20 and 50

years of age over the preceding fiscal year, as determined by the

Secretary of Agriculture each October 1.

* * * * * * *

649

§ 402a. Supplemental subsistence allowance for low-income

members with dependents

(a) SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOWANCE AUTHORIZED.—(1) The Secretary

concerned may increase the basic allowance for subsistence to which

a member of the armed forces described in subsection (b) is otherwise entitled under section 402 of this title by an amount (in this

section referred to as the ‘‘supplemental subsistence allowance’’) designed to remove the member’s household from eligibility for benefits

under the food stamp program.

(2) The supplemental subsistence allowance may not exceed $500

per month. In establishing the amount of the supplemental subsistence allowance to be paid an eligible member under this paragraph,

the Secretary shall take into consideration the amount of the basic

allowance for housing that the member receives under section 403

of this title or would otherwise receive under such section, in the

case of a member who is not entitled to that allowance as a result

of assignment to quarters of the United States or a housing facility

under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service.

(3) In the case of a member described in subsection (b) who establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary concerned that the allotment of the member’s household under the food stamp program, calculated in the absence of the supplemental subsistence allowance,

would exceed the amount established by the Secretary concerned

under paragraph (2), the amount of the supplemental subsistence

allowance for the member shall be equal to the lesser of the following:

(A) The value of that allotment.

(B) $500.

(b) ELIGIBLE MEMBERS.—(1) Subject to subsection (d), a member

of the armed forces is eligible to receive the supplemental subsistence allowance if the Secretary concerned determines that the member’s income, together with the income of the rest of the member’s

household (if any), is within the highest income standard of eligibility, as then in effect under section 5(c) of the Food Stamp Act of

1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(c)) and without regard to paragraph (1) of such

section, for participation in the food stamp program.

(2) In determining whether a member meets the eligibility criteria

under paragraph (1), the Secretary—

(A) shall not take into consideration the amount of the supplemental subsistence allowance payable under this section; but

(B) shall take into consideration the amount of the basic allowance for housing that the member receives under section 403

of this title or would otherwise receive under such section, in the

case of a member who is not entitled to that allowance as a result of assignment to quarters of the United States or a housing

facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service.

(c) APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE.—To request the supplemental

subsistence allowance, a member shall submit an application to the

Secretary concerned in such form and containing such information

as the Secretary concerned may prescribe. A member applying for

the supplemental subsistence allowance shall furnish such evidence

regarding the member’s satisfaction of the eligibility criteria under

subsection (b) as the Secretary concerned may require.

650

(d) EFFECTIVE PERIOD.—The eligibility of a member to receive the

supplemental subsistence allowance terminates upon the occurrence

of any of the following events, even though the member continues to

meet the eligibility criteria described in subsection (b):

(1) Payment of the supplemental subsistence allowance for 12

consecutive months.

(2) Promotion of the member to a higher grade.

(3) Transfer of the member in a permanent change of station.

(e) REAPPLICATION.—Upon the termination of the effective period

of the supplemental subsistence allowance for a member, or in anticipation of the imminent termination of the allowance, a member

may reapply for the allowance under subsection (c) if the member

continues to meet, or once again meets, the eligibility criteria described in subsection (b).

(f) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—Not later than March 1 of each

year after 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress

a report specifying the number of members of the armed forces who

received, at any time during the preceding year, the supplemental

subsistence allowance. In preparing the report, the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Secretary of Transportation. No report

is required under this subsection after March 1, 2006.

(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ means the Secretary of

Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to

the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the

Navy.

(2) The terms ‘‘allotment’’ and ‘‘household’’ have the meanings

given those terms in section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977

(7 U.S.C. 2012).

(3) The term ‘‘food stamp program’’ means the program established pursuant to section 4 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7

U.S.C. 2013).

(h) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No supplemental subsistence

allowance may be made under this section after September 30,

2006.

§ 403. Basic allowance for housing

(a) * * *

(b) BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING INSIDE THE UNITED

STATES.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall determine the costs of

adequate housing in a military housing area in the United States

for all members of the uniformed services entitled to a basic allowance for housing in that area. The Secretary shall base the determination upon the costs of adequate housing for civilians with comparable income levels in the same area. In determining what constitutes adequate housing for members, the Secretary may not differentiate between members with dependents in pay grades E–1

through E–4.

ø(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the monthly amount of a basic allowance for housing for an area of the United States for a member

of a uniformed service is equal to the difference between—

ø(A) the monthly cost of adequate housing in that area, as

determined by the Secretary of Defense, for members of the

651

uniformed services serving in the same pay grade and with the

same dependency status as the member; and

ø(B) 15 percent of the national average monthly cost of adequate housing in the United States, as determined by the Secretary, for members of the uniformed services serving in the

same pay grade and with the same dependency status as the

member.¿

ø(3) The rates of basic allowance for housing shall be reduced as

necessary to comply with this paragraph. The total amount that

may be paid for a fiscal year for the basic allowance for housing

under this subsection is the product of—

ø(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such allowance for the preceding fiscal year (as adjusted under paragraph

(5)); and

ø(B) a fraction—

ø(i) the numerator of which is the index of the national

average monthly cost of housing for June of the preceding

fiscal year; and

ø(ii) the denominator of which is the index of the national average monthly cost of housing for June of the fiscal year before the preceding fiscal year.¿

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the monthly amount

of the basic allowance for housing for a member of a uniformed

service who is entitled to the allowance in a military housing area

in the United States at a rate based upon the costs of adequate

housing in the area determined under paragraph (1).

(3) The total amount that may be paid for a fiscal year for the

basic allowance for housing under this subsection may not be less

than the product of—

(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such allowance

for the preceding fiscal year; and

(B) a fraction—

(i) the numerator of which is the index of the national average monthly cost of housing for June of the preceding fiscal year; and

(ii) the denominator of which is the index of the national

average monthly cost of housing for June of the second preceding fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

ø(5) In making a determination under paragraph (3) for a fiscal

year, the amount authorized to be paid for the preceding fiscal year

for the basic allowance for housing shall be adjusted to reflect

changes during the year for which the determination is made in

the number, grade distribution, geographic distribution in the

United States, and dependency status of members of the uniformed

services entitled to the allowance from the number of such members during the preceding fiscal year.¿

(5) The Secretary shall establish a single monthly rate for members of the uniformed services with dependents in pay grades E–1

through E–4 in the same military housing area. The rate shall be

consistent with the rates paid to members in pay grades other than

pay grades E–1 through E–4 and shall be based on the following:

(A) The average cost of a two-bedroom apartment in that

military housing area.

652

(B) One-half of the difference between the average cost of a

two-bedroom townhouse in that area and the amount determined in subparagraph (A).

(6) So long as a member of a uniformed service retains uninterrupted eligibility to receive a basic allowance for housing within an

area of the United States, the monthly amount of the allowance for

the member may not be reduced as a result of changes in housing

costs in the areaø, changes in the national average monthly cost of

housing,¿ or the promotion of the member.

* * * * * * *

(f) INELIGIBILITY DURING INITIAL FIELD DUTY OR SEA DUTY.—(1)

***

(2)(A) * * *

(B) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, the

Secretary may authorize the payment of a basic allowance for housing to a member of a uniformed service without dependents who is

serving in pay grade E–4 or E–5 and is assigned to sea duty. In

prescribing regulations under this subparagraph, the Secretary

concerned shall consider the availability of quarters for members

serving in pay grade E–4 or E–5.

* * * * * * *

(m) MEMBERS PAYING CHILD SUPPORT.—(1) A member of a uniformed service with dependents may not be paid a basic allowance

for housing at the with dependents rate solely by reason of the payment of child support by the member if—

(A) * * *

(B) the member is assigned to sea duty, and elects not to occupy assigned quarters for unaccompanied personnel, unless

the member is in a pay grade above øE–4¿ E–3.

* * * * * * *

§ 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general

(a) * * *

(b)(1) * * *

(2) In prescribing such conditions and allowances, the Secretaries

concerned shall provide that a member who is performing travel

under orders away from his designated post of duty and who is authorized a per diem under clause (2) of subsection (d) shall be paid

for the meals portion of that per diem in a cash amount at a rate

that is not less than the rate established under section 1011(a) of

this title for meals sold to members. The preceding sentence shall

not apply with respect to a member on field duty or sea duty (as

defined in regulations prescribed under øsection 402(e)¿ section

403(f)(3) of this title) or a member of a unit with respect to which

the Secretary concerned has determined that unit messing is essential to the accomplishment of the unit’s training and readiness.

* * * * * * *

(c)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the Secretaries

concerned and as provided in paragraph (2), a member who—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

653

(C) is involuntarily separated from active duty during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember

30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001,

* * * * * * *

(f)(1)***

(2)(A)***

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty during

the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001.

* * * * * * *

§ 404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary

lodging expenses

ø(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned,

a member of a uniformed service who is ordered to make a change

of permanent station—

ø(1) from any duty station to a duty station in the United

States (other than Hawaii or Alaska);

ø(2) from a duty station in the United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska) to a duty station outside the United States or

in Hawaii or Alaska; or

ø(3) in the case of an enlisted member who is reporting to

the member’s first permanent duty station, from the member’s

home of record or initial technical school to that first permanent duty station;

shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence expenses actually incurred by the member and the member’s dependents while occupying temporary quarters incident to that change of permanent

station. In the case of a change of permanent station described in

paragraph (1) or (3), the period for which such expenses are to be

paid or reimbursed may not exceed 10 days. In the case of a change

of permanent station described in paragraph (2), the period for

which such expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may not exceed

five days and such payment or reimbursement may be provided

only for expenses incurred before leaving the United States (other

than Hawaii or Alaska).¿

(a) PAYMENT OR REIMBURSEMENT OF SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES.—

(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, a

member of a uniformed service who is ordered to make a change of

permanent station described in paragraph (2) shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence expenses of the member and the member’s dependents for the period (subject to subsection (c)) for which the

member and dependents occupy temporary quarters incident to that

change of permanent station.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies to the following:

(A) A permanent change of station from any duty station to

a duty station in the United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska).

654

(B) A permanent change of station from a duty station in the

United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska) to a duty station

outside the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska.

(C) In the case of an enlisted member who is reporting to the

member’s first permanent duty station, the change from the

member’s home of record or initial technical school to that first

permanent duty station.

(b) PAYMENT IN ADVANCE.—The Secretary concerned may make

any payment for subsistence expenses to a member under this section in advance of the member actually incurring the expenses. The

amount of an advance payment made to a member shall be computed on the basis of the Secretary’s determination of the average

number of days that members and their dependents occupy temporary quarters under the circumstances applicable to the member

and the member’s dependents.

(c) MAXIMUM PAYMENT PERIOD.—(1) In the case of a change of

permanent station described in subparagraph (A) or (C) of subsection (a)(2), the period for which subsistence expenses are to be

paid or reimbursed under this section may not exceed 10 days.

(2) In the case of a change of permanent station described in subsection (a)(2)(B)—

(A) the period for which such expenses are to be paid or reimbursed under this section may not exceed five days; and

(B) such payment or reimbursement may be provided only for

expenses incurred before leaving the United States (other than

Hawaii or Alaska).

ø(b)¿ (d) DAILY SUBSISTENCE RATES.—Regulations prescribed

under subsection (a) shall prescribe average daily subsistence rates

for purposes of this section for the member and for each dependent.

Such rates may not exceed the maximum per diem rates prescribed

under section 404(d) of this title for the area where the temporary

quarters are located.

ø(c)¿ (e) MAXIMUM DAILY PAYMENT.—A member may not be paid

or reimbursed more that $110 a day under this section.

ø§ 405. Travel and transportation allowances: per diem while

on duty outside the United States or in Hawaii or

Alaska

ø(a) Without regard to the monetary limitation of this title, the

Secretaries concerned may authorize the payment of a per diem,

considering all elements of the cost of living to members of the uniformed services under their jurisdiction and their dependents including the cost of quarters, subsistence, and other necessary incidental expenses, to such a member who is on duty outside of the

United States or in Hawaii or Alaska, whether or not he is in a

travel status. However, dependents may not be considered in determining the per diem allowance for a member in a travel status.

ø(b) Housing cost and allowance may be disregarded in prescribing a station cost of living allowance under this section.¿

655

§ 405. Travel and transportation allowances: per diem while

on duty outside the United States or in Hawaii or

Alaska

(a) PER DIEM AUTHORIZED.—Without regard to the monetary limitation of this title, the Secretary concerned may pay a per diem to

a member of the uniformed services who is on duty outside of the

United States or in Hawaii or Alaska, whether or not the member

is in a travel status. The Secretary may pay the per diem in advance of the accrual of the per diem.

(b) DETERMINATION OF PER DIEM.—In determining the per diem

to be paid under this section, the Secretary concerned shall consider

all elements of the cost of living to members of the uniformed services under the Secretary’s jurisdiction and their dependents, including the cost of quarters, subsistence, and other necessary incidental

expenses. However, dependents may not be considered in determining the per diem allowance for a member in a travel status.

(c) TREATMENT OF HOUSING COST AND ALLOWANCE.—Housing

cost and allowance may be disregarded in prescribing a station cost

of living allowance under this section.

§ 406. Travel and transportation allowances: dependents;

baggage and household effects

(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a member of a uniformed service who is ordered to make a change of permanent station is entitled to transportation in kind, reimbursement therefor,

or a monetary allowance in place of the cost of transportation, plus

a per diem, for the member’s dependents at rates prescribed by the

Secretaries concerned, but not more than the rate authorized under

section 404(d) of this title. The Secretary concerned may also reimburse the member for mandatory pet quarantine fees for household

pets, but not to exceed $275 per change of station, when the member

incurs the fees incident to such change of station.

(2)(A)***

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty during

the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001.

* * * * * * *

(g)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the Secretaries

concerned, a member who—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) is involuntarily separated from active duty during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember

30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001,

* * * * * * *

656

§ 407. Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation allowance

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE RATES.—(1) The amount of the dislocation allowance to be paid under this section to a member shall

be based on the member’s pay grade and dependency status at the

time the member becomes entitled to the allowance, except that the

Secretary concerned may not differentiate between members with dependents in pay grades E–1 through E–5 .

(2) The initial rate for the dislocation allowance, for each pay

grade and dependency status, shall be equal to the rate in effect

for that pay grade and dependency status on December 31, 1997,

as adjusted by the average percentage increase in the rates of basic

pay for calendar year 1998. Effective on the same date that the

monthly rates of basic pay for members are increased for a subsequent calendar year, the Secretary of Defense shall adjust the rates

for the dislocation allowance for that calendar year by the percentage equal to the average percentage increase in the rates of basic

pay for that calendar year, except that the Secretary concerned may

not differentiate between members with dependents in pay grades

E–1 through E–5.

* * * * * * *

§ 411i. Travel and transportation allowances: parking expenses

(a) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may

reimburse a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps

described in subsection (b) for expenses incurred by the member in

parking a privately owned vehicle being used by the member to commute to the member’s place of duty.

(b) ELIGIBLE MEMBERS.—A member referred to in subsection (a)

is a member who is—

(1) assigned to duty as a recruiter for any of the armed forces;

(2) assigned to duty with a military entrance processing facility of the armed forces; or

(3) detailed for instructional and administrative duties at any

institution where a unit of the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training

Corps is maintained.

(c) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.—The Secretary

of Defense may extend the reimbursement authority provided by

subsection (a) to civilian employees of the Department of Defense

whose employment responsibilities include performing activities related to the duties specified in subsection (b).

* * * * * * *

§ 414. Personal money allowance

(a) ALLOWANCE FOR OFFICERS SERVING IN CERTAIN RANKS OR POSITIONS.—In addition to other pay or allowances authorized by this

title, an officer who is entitled to basic pay is entitled to a personal

money allowance of—

657

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN NAVAL OFFICERS.—In addition to

other pay or allowances authorized by law, an officer who is serving in one of the following positions is entitled to the amount set

forth for that position, to be paid annually out of naval appropriations for pay, and to be spent in his discretion for the contingencies

of his position—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) ALLOWANCE FOR SENIOR ENLISTED MEMBERS.—In addition to

other pay or allowances authorized by this title, a noncommissioned

officer is entitled to a personal money allowance of $2,000 a year

while serving as the Sergeant Major of the Army, the Master Chief

Petty Officer of the Navy, the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air

Force, the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, or the Master Chief

Petty Officer of the Coast Guard.

* * * * * * *

§ 415. Uniform allowance: officers; initial allowance

(a) Subject to subsection (b), an officer of an armed force is entitled to an initial allowance of not more than ø$200¿ $400 as reimbursement for the purchase of required uniforms and equipment—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 416. Uniform allowance: officers; additional allowances

(a) In addition to the allowance provided by section 415 of this

title, a reserve officer of an armed force, an officer of the Army or

the Air Force without specification of component, or a regular officer of an armed force appointed under section 2106 or 2107 of title

10 is entitled to not more than ø$100¿ $200 as reimbursement for

additional uniforms and equipment required on that duty, for each

time that the officer enters on active duty for a period of more than

90 days.

* * * * * * *

§ 430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of

members stationed overseas

(a) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member of a uniformed service who—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) has a dependent child who is under 23 years of age attending a school in the continental United States øfor the purpose of obtaining a secondary or undergraduate college education¿ for the purpose of obtaining a formal education, may be

paid the allowance set forth in subsection (b) if he otherwise

qualifies for such allowance.

(b)(1) A member described in subsection (a) may be paid a transportation allowance for each unmarried dependent child, who is

658

under 23 years of age and is attending a school in the continental

United States øfor the purpose of obtaining a secondary or undergraduate college education¿ for the purpose of obtaining a formal

education, of one annual trip between the school being attended

and the member’s duty station outside the continental United

States and return. The allowance authorized by this section may be

transportation in kind or reimbursement therefor, as prescribed by

the Secretaries concerned. However, the transportation authorized

by this section may not be paid a member for a child attending a

school in the continental United States for the purpose of obtaining

a secondary education if the child is eligible to attend a secondary

school for dependents that is located at or in the vicinity of the

duty station of the member and is operated under the Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 921 et seq.).

(f) øIn this section, the term¿ 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))).

* * * * * * *

§ 435. Funeral honors duty: allowance

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) FULL COMPENSATION.—Except for expenses reimbursed

under subsection (c) of section 12503 of title 10 or subsection (c) of

section 115 of title 32, the allowance paid under this section is the

only monetary compensation authorized to be paid a member for

the performance of funeral honors duty pursuant to such section,

regardless of the grade in which the member is serving, and shall

constitute payment in full to the member.¿

ø§ 435.¿ § 436. Per diem allowance for lengthy or numerous

deployments

(a) PER DIEM REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the military department concerned shall pay a high-deployment per diem allowance to

a member of the armed forces under the Secretary’s jurisdiction for

each day on which the member (1) is deployed, and (2) has, as of

that day, been deployed 251 days or more out of the preceding 365

days.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 19—ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

659

§ 1012. Disbursement and accounting: pay of enlisted members of the National Guard

Amounts appropriated for the pay, under subsections (a), (b), and

(d) of section 206, section 301(f), øsection 402(b)(3)¿ section 402(e),

and section 1002 of this title, of enlisted members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the

United States for attending regular periods of duty and instruction

shall be disbursed and accounted for by the Secretary of Defense.

All such disbursements shall be made for 3-month periods for units

of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, and on pay rolls prepared and authenticated as prescribed in those regulations.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 503(c) OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991

SEC. 503. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES RELATING

TO MEMBERS INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS.—(1) The Secretary of a

military department shall exercise the authority provided by section 406 of title 37, United States Code, to provide nontemporary

storage of baggage and household effects for a period not longer

than one year in the case of individuals who are involuntarily separated during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending

on øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2001.

* * * * * * *

DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION ACT OF 1978

ADMINISTRATION OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION SYSTEM

SEC. 1403. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The Director shall—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) perform such other functions as may be required or delegated by the Secretary of Defense or the øthe¿ Assistant Secretary of Defense designated under subsection (a).

* * * * * * *

SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR DEPENDENTS IN OVERSEAS AREAS

SEC. 1407. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall establish and operate a school system for dependents in overseas areas as part of the

defense dependents’ education system.

* * * * * * *

660

(c) CONTINUATION OF ENROLLMENT FOR CERTAIN DEPENDENTS OF

MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED.—(1)

A member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty on September 30, 1990, who is involuntarily separated during the period

beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on øSeptember 30, 2001¿

December 31, 2001, and who has a dependent described in paragraph (2) who is enrolled in a school of the defense dependents’

education system (or a school for which tuition is provided under

subsection (b)) on the date of that separation shall be eligible to enroll or continue the enrollment of that dependent at that school (or

another school serving the same community) for the final year of

secondary education of that dependent in the same manner as if

the member were still on active duty.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 811 OF THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE

DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996

SEC. 811. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—With funds made available pursuant to subsection (c)—

(1) the Attorney General shall—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(F) increase personnel to support counterterrorism activities; øand¿

(2) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation may

expand the combined DNA Identification System (CODIS) to

include Federal crimes and crimes committed in the District of

Columbiaø.¿; and

(3) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall

expand the combined DNA Identification System (CODIS) to include analyses of DNA samples collected from members of the

Armed Forces convicted of a qualifying military offense in accordance with section 1563 of title 10, United States Code.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 210304 OF THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND

LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

SEC. 210304. INDEX TO FACILITATE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCHANGE

OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEX.—The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation may establish an index of—

(1) DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes;

(2) analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes;

(3) analyses of DNA samples recovered from unidentified

human remains; øand¿

(4) analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from

relatives of missing personsø.¿; and

661

(5) analyses of DNA samples collected from members of the

Armed Forces convicted of a qualifying military offense in accordance with section 1563 of title 10, United States Code.

(b) INFORMATION.—The index described in subsection (a) shall include only information on DNA identification records and DNA

analyses that are—

(1) * * *

(2) prepared by laboratories, and DNA analysts, that

undergoø, at regular intervals of not to exceed 180 days,¿ semiannual external proficiency testing by a DNA proficiency testing program meeting the standards issued under section

210303; and

* * * * * * *

(d) EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS OF MILITARY OFFENDERS.—If the

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation receives a notice

transmitted under section 1563(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code,

the Director shall promptly expunge from the index described in

subsection (a) any DNA analysis furnished under section 1563(d)(1)

of such title with respect to the person described in the notice.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1998

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances

* * * * * * *

SEC. 602. REFORM OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) TRANSITIONAL ENTITLEMENT TO ALLOWANCE.—

(1) ENLISTED MEMBERS.—

(A) TYPES OF ENTITLEMENT.—An enlisted member is entitled to the basic allowance for subsistence, on a daily

basis, øof¿ under one or more of the following circumstances:

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

662

SEC. 603. CONSOLIDATION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS,

VARIABLE HOUSING ALLOWANCE, AND OVERSEAS HOUSING ALLOWANCES.

(a) * * *

(b) TRANSITION TO BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING.—The Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a plan to incrementally manage the rate of growth of the various components of the

basic allowance for housing authorized by section 403 of title 37,

United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), during a transition period of not more than øsix years¿ eight years. During the

transition period, the Secretary may continue to use the authorities

provided under sections 403, 403a, 405(b), and 427(a) of title 37,

United States Code (as in effect on the day before the date of the

enactment of this Act), but subject to such modifications as the Secretary considers necessary, to provide allowances for members of

the uniformed services.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 731. IMPROVEMENTS IN HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND ACCESS

FOR MEMBERS ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN DUTY LOCATIONS

FAR FROM SOURCES OF CARE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR MANAGED CARE EXPANSION TO

MEMBERS ON ACTIVE DUTY AT CERTAIN REMOTE LOCATIONS.—(1) A

member of the øArmed Forces¿ uniformed services described in

subsection (c) is entitled to receive care under the Civilian Health

and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services. In connection

with such care, the Secretary of Defense shall waive the obligation

of the member to pay a deductible, copayment, or annual fee that

would otherwise be applicable under that program for care provided to the members under the program. A dependent of the member, as described in subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2)

of title 10, United States Code, who is residing with the member

shall have the same entitlement to care and to waiver of charges as

the member.

(2) A member or dependent of the member, as the case may be,

who is entitled under paragraph (1) to receive health care services

under CHAMPUS shall receive such care from a network provider

under the TRICARE program if such a provider is available in the

service area of the member.

* * * * * * *

(4) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the other administering Secretaries in the administration of this subsection.

(c) ELIGIBLE MEMBERS.—A member referred to in subsection (b)

is a member of the øArmed Forces¿ uniformed services on active

duty who—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) DUTY ASSIGNMENTS COVERED.—A duty assignment referred to

in subsection (c)(1) means any of the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

663

(3) Permanent duty as a full-time adviser to a unit of a reserve component of the øArmed Forces¿ uniformed services.

* * * * * * *

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The terms ‘‘uniformed services’’ and ‘‘administering Secretaries’’ have the meanings given those terms in section 1072 of

title 10, United States Code.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Other Matters

SEC. 1221. DEFENSE BURDENSHARING.

(a) EFFORTS TO INCREASE ALLIED BURDENSHARING.—The President shall seek to have each nation that has cooperative military

relations with the United States (including security agreements,

basing arrangements, or mutual participation in multinational

military organizations or operations) take one or more of the following actions:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for foreign assistance (to promote democratization, governmental accountability

and transparency, economic stabilization and development, defense economic conversion, respect for the rule of law and

internationally recognized human rights, and humanitarian relief efforts)ø)¿ by 10 percent or to provide such foreign assistance at an annual rate that is not less than one percent of its

gross domestic product, by September 30, 1999.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1991

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL

BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

664

PART B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAY

* * * * * * *

SEC. 614. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PAY FOR NURSE ANESTHETISTS TO

OTHER NURSING SPECIALTIES.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENT.—The Secretary of Defense

may not implement subsection (b)(2) of section 302e of title 37,

United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), unless the Secretary submits to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate

and House of Representatives a report—

ø(1) justifying the need of the departments for the authority

provided in such subsection; and

ø(2) describing the manner in which that authority will be

implemented.¿

* * * * * * *

SEC. 617. RETENTION BONUS FOR OPTOMETRISTS.

(a) * * *

ø(b) IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENT.—The Secretary of Defense may not implement subsection (b) of section 302a of title 37,

United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), unless the Secretary submits to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate

and House of Representatives a report—

ø(1) justifying the need of the military departments for the

authority provided in such subsection; and

ø(2) describing the manner in which that authority will be

implemented.¿

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2000

* * * * * * *

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Health Care Services

* * * * * * *

665

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances

SEC. 601. FISCAL YEAR 2000 INCREASE IN MILITARY BASIC PAY AND

REFORM OF BASIC PAY RATES.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) REFORM OF BASIC PAY RATES.—Effective on July 1, 2000, the

rates of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services

within each pay grade are as follows:

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS 1

Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code

Pay

Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6

O–10 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

O–9 ..... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

O–8 ..... 6,594.30 6,810.30 6,953.10 6,993.30 7,171.80

O–7 ..... 5,479.50 5,851.80 5,851.80 5,894.40 6,114.60

O–6 ..... 4,061.10 4,461.60 4,754.40 4,754.40 4,772.40

O–5 ..... 3,248.40 3,813.90 4,077.90 4,127.70 4,291.80

O–4 ..... 2,737.80 3,333.90 3,556.20 3,606.00 3,812.40

O–3 3 ... 2,544.00 2,884.20 3,112.80 3,364.80 3,525.90

O–2 3 ... 2,218.80 2,527.20 2,910.90 3,009.00 3,071.10

O–1 3 ... 1,926.30 2,004.90 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10

Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16

O–10 2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

O–9 ..... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

O–8 ..... 7,471.50 7,540.80 7,824.60 7,906.20 8,150.10

O–7 ..... 6,282.00 6,475.80 6,669.00 6,863.10 7,471.50

O–6 ..... 4,976.70 5,004.00 5,004.00 5,169.30 5,791.20

O–5 ..... 4,291.80 4,420.80 4,659.30 4,971.90 5,286.00

O–4 ..... 3,980.40 4,252.50 4,464.00 4,611.00 4,758.90

O–3 3 ... 3,702.60 3,850.20 4,040.40 4,139.10 4,139.10

O–2 3 ... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10

O–1 3 ... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10

Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26

O–10 2 $0.00 $10,655.10 $10,707.60 $10,930.20 $11,318.40

O–9 ..... 0.00 9,319.50 9,453.60 9,647.70 9,986.40

O–8 ..... 8,503.80 8,830.20 9,048.00 9,048.00 9,048.00

O–7 ..... 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 8,025.60

O–6 ..... 6,086.10 6,381.30 6,549.00 6,719.10 7,049.10

O–5 ..... 5,436.00 5,583.60 5,751.90 5,751.90 5,751.90

O–4 ..... 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70

O–3 3 ... 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10

O–2 3 ... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10

O–1 3 ... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10

1 Notwithstanding the pay rates specified in this table, the actual basic pay for commissioned officers in

grades O–7 through O–10 may not exceed the rate of pay for level III of the Executive Schedule and the actual basic pay for all other officers, including warrant officers, may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of

the Executive Schedule. 2Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is calculated to be ø$12,441.00¿

$12,488.70, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States

Code.

666

3This table does not apply to commissioned officers in the grade O–1, O–2, or O–3 who have been credited

with over 4 years of active duty service as an enlisted member or warrant officer.

* * * * * * *

ENLISTED MEMBERS 1

Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code

Pay

Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6

E–9 2 ... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

E–8 ..... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

E–7 ..... 1,765.80 1,927.80 2,001.00 2,073.00 2,147.70

E–6 ..... 1,518.90 1,678.20 1,752.60 1,824.30 1,899.30

E–5 ..... 1,332.60 1,494.00 1,566.00 1,640.40 1,714.50

E–4 ..... 1,242.90 1,373.10 1,447.20 1,520.10 1,593.90

E–3 ..... 1,171.50 1,260.60 1,334.10 1,335.90 1,335.90

E–2 ..... 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40

E–1 ..... 3 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60

Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16

E–9 2 ... $0.00 $3,015.30 $3,083.40 $3,169.80 $3,271.50

E–8 ..... 2,528.40 2,601.60 2,669.70 2,751.60 2,840.10

E–7 ..... 2,220.90 2,294.10 2,367.30 2,439.30 2,514.00

E–6 ..... 1,973.10 2,047.20 2,118.60 2,191.50 2,244.60

E–5 ..... 1,789.50 1,861.50 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20

E–4 ..... 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90

E–3 ..... 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90

E–2 ..... 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40

E–1 ..... 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60

Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26

E–9 2 ... $3,373.20 $3,473.40 $3,609.30 $3,744.00 $3,915.90

E–8 ..... 2,932.50 3,026.10 3,161.10 3,295.50 3,483.60

E–7 ..... 2,588.10 2,660.40 2,787.60 2,926.20 3,134.40

E–6 ..... 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,285.70 2,285.70 2,285.70

E–5 ..... 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20

E–4 ..... 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90

E–3 ..... 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90

E–2 ..... 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,123.20 1,127.40

E–1 ..... 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60

1 Notwithstanding the pay rates specified in this table, the actual basic pay for enlisted members may not

exceed the rate of pay for level V of the Executive Schedule. 2Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty Officer

of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief

Petty Officer of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is ø$4,701.00¿ $4,719.00, regardless of cumulative

years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code. 3 In the case of members in the grade E–1 who have served less than 4 months on active duty, basic pay is $930.30.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A—Health Care Services

* * * * * * *

SEC. 703. PROVISION OF DOMICILIARY AND CUSTODIAL CARE FOR

CERTAIN CHAMPUS BENEFICIARIES.

(a) CONTINUATION OF CARE.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) The Secretary may provide payment for domiciliary or custodial care services provided to an eligible beneficiary for which payVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00690 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR616.189 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
667

ment was discontinued by reason of section 1086(d) of title 10,

United States Code, and subsequently reestablished under other

legal authority. Such payment is authorized for the period beginning on the date of discontinuation of payment for domiciliary or

custodial care services and ending on the date of reestablishment of

payment for such services.

* * * * * * *

(e) COST LIMITATION.—The total amount paid for services for eligible beneficiaries under subsection (a) for a fiscal year (together

with the costs of administering the authority under that subsection)

shall be included in the expenditures limited by section

1079(a)(17)(B) of title 10, United States Code.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 706. HEALTH CARE AT FORMER UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS STATIONED AT CERTAIN REMOTE LOCATIONS.

(a) * * *

(b) ELIGIBILITY.—A member of the øArmed Forces¿ uniformed

services (as defined in section 1072(1) of title 10, United States

Code) is eligible for health care under subsection (a) if the member

is a member described in section 731(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85; 111 Stat.

1811; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note).

* * * * * * *

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Miscellaneous Report

Requirements and Repeals

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1035. REPORT ON ASSESSMENTS OF READINESS TO EXECUTE

THE NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY.

(a) REPORT.—øNot later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act¿ Not later than April 1 each year, the Secretary

of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of

the Senate and the House of Representatives a report in unclassified form assessing the effect of continued operations in the Balkans region on—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—øThe¿ Each report under subsection (a) shall include the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) CONSULTATION.—In preparing øthe¿ a report under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commanders of the unified commands,

668

the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the

combat support agencies and other such entities within the Department of Defense as the Secretary considers necessary.

* * * * * * *

STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL

POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy

* * * * * * *

SEC. 503. STREAMLINED SELECTIVE RETENTION PROCESS FOR REGULAR OFFICERS.

(a) REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR DUPLICATIVE BOARD.—Section

1183 of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 1182(c) of such title

is amended by striking out ‘‘send the record of its proceedings to

a board of review convened under section 1183 of this title’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘recommend to the Secretary concerned that

the officer not be retained on active duty’’.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits,

and Related Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 645. RECOVERY, CARE, AND DISPOSITION OF REMAINS OF MEDICALLY RETIRED MEMBER WHO DIES DURING HOSPITALIZATION THAT BEGINS WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

669

(b) REPEAL OF OBSOLETE TERMINOLOGY.—Paragraph (1) of such

section is amended by striking out ‘‘, or øa member¿ member of an

armed force without component,’’.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Health Care Services

SEC. 701. DEPENDENTS’ DENTAL PROGRAM.

(a) PREMIUM INCREASE.—(1) Section 1076a(b)(2) of title 10,

United States Code, is amended—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) LIMITATION ON REDUCTION OF BENEFITS.—Section 1076a of

such title is further amended by adding at the end the following

new subsection:

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Health Care Services for Medicare-Eligible Department of Defense

Beneficiaries

* * * * * * *

SEC. 722. TRICARE AS SUPPLEMENT TO MEDICARE DEMONSTRATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1)***

(2) The Secretary shall commence the demonstration project not

later than January 1, 2000, and shall terminate the demonstration

project not later than øDecember 31, 2002¿ December 31, 2003.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 723. IMPLEMENTATION OF REDESIGN OF PHARMACY SYSTEM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than øOctober 1, 1999¿ April 1, 2001,

the Secretary of Defense shall implement, with respect to eligible

individuals described in subsection (e) øwho reside in an area selected under subsection (f )¿, the redesign of the pharmacy system

under TRICARE (including the mail-order and retail pharmacy

benefit under TRICARE) to incorporate ‘‘best business practices’’ of

the private sector in providing pharmaceuticals, as developed

under the plan described in section 703.

ø(b) COLLECTION OF PREMIUMS AND OTHER CHARGES.—The Secretary of Defense may collect from eligible individuals described in

subsection (e) who participate in the redesigned pharmacy system

any premiums, deductibles, copayments, or other charges that the

Secretary would otherwise collect from individuals similar to such

individuals.¿

670

(b) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—The same coverage for pharmacy

services and the same procedures for cost sharing and reimbursement as are applicable under section 1086 of title 10, United States

Code, shall apply with respect to the program required by subsection (a).

* * * * * * *

(d) REPORTS.—The Secretary shall submit two reports on the results of the evaluation under subsection (c), together with the evaluation, to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the

Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives.

The first report shall be submitted not later than øDecember 31,

2000¿ December 31, 2001, and the second report shall be submitted

not later than øDecember 31, 2002¿ December 31, 2003. (e) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.—(1) An individual is eligible to participate under this section if the individual is a member or former

member of the uniformed services described in section 1074(b) of

title 10, United States Code, a dependent of the member described

in section 1076(a)(2)(B) or 1076(b) of that title, or a dependent of

a member of the uniformed services who died while on active duty

for a period of more than 30 days, who—

(A) * * *

(B) is entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of

title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.);

and

(C) except as provided in paragraph (2), is enrolled in the

supplemental medical insurance program under part B of such

title XVIII (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.)ø; and¿. ø(D) resides in an area selected by the Secretary under subsection (f ).¿

(2) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply in the case of an individual

who øat the time of attaining the age of 65 lived within 100 miles

of the catchment area of a military medical treatment facility¿ before April 1, 2001, has attained the age of 65 and did not enroll in

the program described in such paragraph.

ø(f ) AREAS OF IMPLEMENTATION.—(1) The Secretary shall carry

out the implementation of the redesign of the pharmacy system

under TRICARE in two separate areas selected by the Secretary.

ø(2) The areas selected by the Secretary under paragraph (1)

shall be as follows:

ø(A) One area shall be an area outside the catchment area

of a military medical treatment facility in which—

ø(i) no eligible organization has a contract in effect

under section 1876 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

1395mm) and no Medicare+Choice organization has a contract in effect under part C of title XVIII of that Act (42

U.S.C. 1395w–21); or

ø(ii) the aggregate number of enrollees with an eligible

organization with a contract in effect under section 1876

of that Act or with a Medicare+Choice organization with a

contract in effect under part C of title XVIII of that Act is

less than 2.5 percent of the total number of individuals in

the area who are entitled to hospital insurance benefits

under part A of title XVIII of that Act.

671

ø(B) The other area shall be an area outside the catchment

area of a military medical treatment facility in which—

ø(i) at least one eligible organization has a contract in

effect under section 1876 of that Act or one

Medicare+Choice organization has a contract in effect

under part C of title XVIII of that Act; and

ø(ii) the aggregate number of enrollees with an eligible

organization with a contract in effect under section 1876

of that Act or with a Medicare+Choice organization with a

contract in effect under part C of title XVIII of that Act exceeds 10 percent of the total number of individuals in the

area who are entitled to hospital insurance benefits under

part A of title XVIII of that Act.¿

* * * * * * *

SEC. 724. COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF

DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND TRICARE PHARMACY

REDESIGN.

Not later than March 31, 2003, the Comptroller General shall

submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the

Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a

report containing a comprehensive comparative analysis of the

FEHBP demonstration project conducted under section 1108 of title

10, United States Code (as added by section 721), the TRICARE

Senior Supplement under section 722, the demonstration project

conducted under section 1896 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

1395ggg), and the redesign of the TRICARE pharmacy system

under section 723. The comprehensive analysis shall incorporate

the findings of the evaluation submitted under section 723(c) and

the report submitted under subsection ( j) of such section 1108.

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, and

Limitations

* * * * * * *

SEC. 802. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSISTANCE UNDER THE PROCUREMENT

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 2415 of such title is

amended by striking out ‘‘Defense Contract øAdministrative¿ AdVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00695 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR616.190 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
672

ministration Services’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Department of

Defense contract administrative services’’.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1101. DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY EXPERIMENTAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR

TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) PERIOD OF PROGRAM.—(1) The program authorized under this

section shall terminate at the end of the 5-year period referred to

in subsection (a).

(2) After the termination of the program—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) no period of service may be extended under øsubsection

(c)(1)¿ subsection (c)(2).

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1896 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

MEDICARE SUBVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR MILITARY

RETIREES

SEC. 1896. (a)***

(b) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) DURATION.—The administering Secretaries shall conduct

the demonstration project during the ø3-year period beginning

on January 1, 1998¿ period beginning on January 1, 1998, and

ending on December 31, 2003.

* * * * * * *

(6) UTILIZATION REVIEW PROCEDURES.—The Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement procedures to review utilization of health care services by medicare-eligible military retirees

and dependents under this section in order to enable the Secretary of Defense to more effectively manage the use of military

medical treatment facilities by such retirees and dependents.

* * * * * * *

(k) EVALUATION AND REPORTS.—

(1) INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.—The Comptroller General of

the United States shall conduct an evaluation of the demonstration project, and shall submit annual reports on the

demonstration project to the administering Secretaries and to

673

the committees of jurisdiction in the Congress. The first report

shall be submitted not later than 12 months after the date on

which the demonstration project begins operation, and the

final report not later than ø31⁄2¿ 41⁄2 years after that date. The

evaluation and reports shall include an assessment, based on

the agreement entered into under subsection (b), of the following:

(A) Any savings or costs to the medicare program under

this title resulting from the demonstration project.

* * * * * * *

(P) Which interagency funding mechanisms would be

most appropriate if the project under this section is made

permanent.

(Q) The ability of the Department of Defense to operate

an effective and efficient managed care system for medicare

beneficiaries.

(R) The ability of the Department of Defense to meet the

managed care access and quality of care standards under

medicare.

(S) The adequacy of the data systems of the Department

of Defense for providing timely, necessary, and accurate information required to properly manage the demonstration

project.

SECTION 715 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

SEC. 715. TRAINING IN HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION FOR TRICARE LEAD AGENTS.

(a) PROVISION OF TRAINING.—Not later than six months after the

date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall

implement a professional educational program to provide appropriate training in health care management and administration—

(1) to each commander, deputy commander, and managed

care coordinator of a military medical treatment facility of the

Department of Defense and any other person who is selected to

serve as a lead agent to coordinate the delivery of health care

by military and civilian providers under the TRICARE program; and

(2) to appropriate members of the support staff of the treatment facility who will be responsible for daily operation of the

TRICARE program.

(b) LIMITATION ON ASSIGNMENT UNTIL COMPLETION OF TRAINING.—No person may be assigned as the commander, deputy commander, or managed care coordinator of a military medical treatment facility or as a TRICARE lead agent or senior member of the

staff of a TRICARE lead agent office until the Secretary of the military department concerned submits a certification to the Secretary

of Defense that such person has completed the training described in

subsection (a).

ø(b)¿ (c) REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than six

months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary

674

of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing the professional educational program implemented pursuant to this section.

SECTION 142 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993

SEC. 142. MH–47E/MH–60K HELICOPTER MODIFICATION PROGRAMS.

(a) REQUIRED TESTING.—Notwithstanding the requirements of

subsections (a) (2) and (b) of section 2366 of title 10, United States

Code, and the requirements of subsection (a) of section 2399 of

such title—

(1) operational test and evaluation øand survivability testing¿ of the MH–60K helicopter under the MH–60K helicopter

modification program shall be completed prior to full materiel

release of the MH–60K helicopters for operational use; and

(2) operational test and evaluation øand survivability testing¿ of the MH–47E helicopter under the MH–47E helicopter

modification program shall be completed prior to full materiel

release of the MH–47E helicopters for operational use.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1994

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL

POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Women in the Service

* * * * * * *

SEC. 542. NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN COMBAT

ASSIGNMENTS TO WHICH FEMALE MEMBERS MAY BE ASSIGNED.

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Except in a case covered by subsection (b)

or by section 6035 of title 10, United States Code, whenever the Secretary of Defense proposes to change military personnel policies in

order to make available to female members of the Armed Forces assignment to any type of combat unit, class of combat vessel, or type

of combat platform that is not open to such assignments, the Secretary shall, not less than 30 days before such change is implemented, transmit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives notice of the proposed change in

personnel policy.

* * * * * * *

675

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

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH

PROJECTS AGENCY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE

PROJECTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) PERIOD OF AUTHORITY.—The authority to carry out projects

under subsection (a) shall terminate at the end of øSeptember 30,

1999¿ September 30, 2004.

SECTION 1502 OF THE ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT

HOME ACT OF 1991

SEC. 1502. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(7) The term ‘‘chief personnel officers’’ means—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(D) the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower of the Marine Corps.¿

(D) the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps with

responsibility for personnel matters.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 403 OF TITLE 36, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 403—CIVIL AIR PATROL

Sec.

40301. Organization.

* * * * * * *

ø40303. Membership.¿

40303. Membership and governing body.

* * * * * * *

§ 40302. Purposes

The purposes of the corporation are øto—¿ as follows:

(1) To provide an organization to—

676

(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in

contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and

(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary

contribution of private citizens to the public welfareø;¿. (2) To provide aviation education and training especially to

its senior and cadet membersø;¿. (3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local

communitiesø; and¿. (4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.

(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its

noncombat programs and missions.

ø§ 40303. Membership¿

§ 40303. Membership and governing body

(a) MEMBERSHIP.—Eligibility for membership in the corporation

and the rights and privileges of members are as provided in the

constitution and bylaws of the corporation.

(b) GOVERNING BODY.—The Civil Air Patrol has a Board of Governors. The composition and responsibilities of the Board of Governors are set forth in section 9447 of title 10.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1997

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Navy Programs

* * * * * * *

SEC. 122. ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS DESTROYER PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) AUTHORITY FOR MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT øOF 18 VESSELS¿.—The Secretary of the Navy is authorized, pursuant to section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, to enter into multiyear

contracts for the procurement of a total of ø18 Arleigh Burke class

destroyers at a procurement rate of three ships in each of fiscal

years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003¿ Arleigh Burke class

destroyers in accordance with this subsection and subsection (a)(4),

677

subject to the availability of appropriations for such destroyers.

Vessels authorized under this subsection shall be acquired at a procurement rate of three ships per year in each of fiscal years 1998

through 2001 and up to three ships per year in each of fiscal years

2002 through 2005. A contract for construction of one or more vessels that is entered into in accordance with this subsection shall include a clause that limits the liability of the Government to the

contractor for any termination of the contract.

* * * * * * *

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1065. GEORGE C. MARSHALL EUROPEAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC SECURITY STUDIES.

ø(a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT FOREIGN GIFTS AND DONATIONS.—(1)

The Secretary of Defense may, on behalf of the George C. Marshall

European Center for Strategic Security Studies (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Marshall Center’’), accept foreign gifts or donations in order to defray the costs of, or enhance the operation of,

the Marshall Center.

ø(2) Funds received by the Secretary under paragraph (1) shall

be credited to appropriations available for the Department of Defense for the Marshall Center. Funds so credited shall be merged

with the appropriations to which credited and shall be available for

the Marshall Center for the same purposes and same period as the

appropriations with which merged.

ø(3) The Secretary of Defense shall notify Congress if the total

amount of money accepted under paragraph (1) exceeds $2,000,000

in any fiscal year. Any such notice shall list each of the contributors of such amounts and the amount of each contribution in such

fiscal year.

ø(4) For purposes of this subsection, a foreign gift or donation is

a gift or donation of funds, materials (including research materials), property, or services (including lecture services and faculty

services) from a foreign government, a foundation or other charitable organization in a foreign country, or an individual in a foreign country.

ø(b) MARSHALL CENTER PARTICIPATION BY FOREIGN NATIONS.—

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of

Defense may authorize participation by a European or Eurasian

nation in Marshall Center programs if the Secretary determines,

after consultation with the Secretary of State, that such participation is in the national interest of the United States.

ø(2) Not later than January 31 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the names of

the foreign nations permitted to participate in programs of the

Marshall Center during the preceding year under paragraph (1).

678

Each such report shall be prepared by the Secretary with the assistance of the Director of the Marshall Center.¿

(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Marshall Center Board

of Visitors’’ means the Board of Visitors of the George C. Marshall

European Center for Security Studies

ø(c)¿ (b) EXEMPTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF MARSHALL CENTER

BOARD OF VISITORS FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.—(1) In the case

of any person invited to serve without compensation on the Marshall Center Board of Visitors, the Secretary of Defense may waive

any requirement for financial disclosure that

SECTIONS 305 AND 306 OF H.R. 3425

(As enacted into law by section 1005(a)(5) of P.L. 106–113)

øSEC. 305. Notwithstanding section 3324 of title 31, United

States Code, and section 1006(h) of title 37, United States Code,

the basic pay and allowances that accrues to members of the Army,

Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force for the pay period ending on

September 30, 2000, shall be paid, whether by electronic transfer

of funds or otherwise, no earlier than October 1, 2000.

øSEC. 306. The pay of any Federal officer or employee that would

be payable on September 29, 2000, or September 30, 2000, for the

preceding applicable pay period (if not for this section) shall be

paid, whether by electronic transfer of funds or otherwise, on October 1, 2000.¿

SECTION 1001 OF THE ACT OF NOVEMBER 29, 1999

AN ACT Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2000, and for other purposes.

SEC. 1001. PAYGO ADJUSTMENTS. (a) Notwithstanding Rule 3 of

the Budget Scorekeeping Guidelines set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference accompanying Conference Report No. 105–217, legislation enacted in this division by

reference in the paragraphs after øparagraph 4 of subsection

1000(a)¿ paragraph (5) of section 1000(a), and the provisions of titles V, VI, and VII of the legislation enacted in this division by reference in such paragraph (5), that would have been estimated by

the Office of Management and Budget as changing direct spending

or receipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 were it included in an Act other

than an appropriations Act shall be treated as direct spending or

receipts legislation as appropriate, under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, but shall

be subject to subsection (b).

* * * * * * *

SECTIONS 8175 AND 8176 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

øSEC. 8175. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Defense shall make progress payments based on

679

progress no less than 12 days after receiving a valid billing and the

Department of Defense shall make progress payments based on

cost no less than 19 days after receiving a valid billing: Provided,

That this provision shall be effective only with respect to billings

received during the last month of the fiscal year.

øSEC. 8176. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of Defense shall make adjustments in payment procedures and policies to ensure that payments are made no earlier

than one day before the date on which the payments would otherwise be due under any other provision of law: Provided, That this

provision shall be effective only with respect to invoices received

during the last month of the fiscal year.¿

SECTION 2905 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND

REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990

SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) * * *

(b) MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4)(A) The Secretary may transfer real property and personal

property located at a military installation to be closed or realigned

under this part to the redevelopment authority with respect to the

installation for purposes of job generation on the installation. This

paragraph also applies to real property at the installation that is

initially transferred to another Federal agency as excess property

under the authority of this part, but is subsequently determined to

be excess to the needs of that agency, if—

(i) the excess property is adjacent to property that was conveyed to the redevelopment authority with respect to the installation;

(ii) the acreage of the excess property is equal to less than 10

percent of the other acreage conveyed to the redevelopment authority; and

(iii) the property has been screened for further Federal use as

provided in section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, notwithstanding subsection (e)(3) of such section.

* * * * * * *

(G) The provisions of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42

U.S.C. 9620(h)) shall apply to any transfer of real property under

this paragraph.

(H)(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(G) The provisions of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42

U.S.C. 9620(h)) shall apply to any transfer of real property under

this paragraph.¿

* * * * * * *

680

SECTION 686 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 686. Assignment of members of the armed forces to housing

units

(a) * * *

(b) EFFECT OF CERTAIN ASSIGNMENTS ON ENTITLEMENT TO HOUS- ING ALLOWANCES.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), housing referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered as quarters of

the United States or a housing facility under the jurisdiction of a

uniformed service for purposes of øsection 403(b)¿ section 403(e) of

title 37.

(2) A member of the armed forces who is assigned in accordance

with subsection (a) to a housing unit not owned or leased by the

United States shall be entitled to øa basic allowance for quarters

under section 403 of title 37, and, if in a high housing cost area,

a variable housing allowance under section 403a of that title¿ a

basic allowance for housing under section 403 of title 37.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 405 OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR,

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION,

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

SEC. 405. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) REFERENCES TO JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT SUBSEQUENT

TO REPEAL.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR

1993.—(A) * * *

(B) SECTION 4461.—Section 4461(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (10 U.S.C.

1143 note) is amended by striking ‘‘The Job Training Partnership øAct of title¿ Act or title’’ and inserting ‘‘Title’’.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 224 OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954

SEC. 224. COMMUNICATION OF RESTRICTED DATA.—Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access to, control over, or

being entrusted with any document, writing, sketch, photograph,

plan, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information involving

or incorporating Restricted Data—

a. * * *

b. communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the

foregoing, with reason to believe such data will be utilized to

injure the United States or to secure an advantage to any forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00704 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR616.194 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
681

eign nation, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not

more than ø$500,000¿ $50,000 or imprisonment for not more

than ten years, or both.

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

PART III—EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

Subpart B—Employment and Retention

CHAPTER 31—AUTHORITY FOR EMPLOYMENT

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES

OF TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE

ORDER

3161. Temporary organizations established by law or Executive order.

SUBCHAPTER IV—EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION FOR

EMPLOYEES OF TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS IN THE

EXECUTIVE BRANCH ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER

§ 3161. Temporary organizations established by law or Executive order

(a) DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY ORGANIZATION.—For the purposes

of this subchapter, the term ‘‘temporary organization’’ means an organization such as a commission, committee, or board that is established by law in the legislative or executive branches, or by Executive order in the executive branch, for a specific period, which shall

not exceed 5 years, for the purpose of performing specific projects or

studies.

(b) HIRING AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 51, the head of a temporary organization may employ such numbers and types of employees as required to perform the functions required of the temporary organization. Employees may be appointed

for a period of 5 years or the life of the temporary organization,

whichever is less.

(c) STATUS OF POSITIONS AND APPOINTMENTS.—Positions of employment in a temporary organization are excepted from the competitive service.

(d) COMPENSATION.—(1) The basic pay of an employee of a temporary organization may be set without regard to the provisions of

chapter 51 or subchapter III of chapter 53, except that—

(A) basic pay for an executive level position (such as a chairperson, member, or executive or staff director), and, in exceptional cases, for senior staff shall be capped at the maximum

rate of basic pay established for the Senior Executive Service

under subchapter VIII of chapter 53; and

682

(B) basic pay for other staff may not exceed the maximum

rate of basic pay for GS–15 of the General Schedule.

(2) An employee whose rate of basic pay is set under paragraph

(1) shall be entitled to locality-based comparability payments, as

provided under section 5304.

(e) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—An employee of a temporary organization,

whether employed on a full-time or part-time basis, may be entitled

to travel and transportation allowances, including per diem allowances, authorized for employees under subchapter I of chapter 57,

while traveling away from the regular place of business of the employee in the performance of services for the temporary organization,

career-conditional appointment, or the equivalent, who transfers to

or converts to an appointment in a temporary organization with the

consent of the head of the agency (or the designee of the agency

head) in which the employee was serving is entitled to be returned

to a position of like seniority, status, and pay (without grade or pay

retention) as the former position in the agency from which employed

immediately preceding employment with the temporary organization

if—

(1) the employee is being separated from the temporary organization for reasons other than misconduct, neglect of duty, or

malfeasance; and

(2) the employee applies for return rights not later than 30

days before the end of the employment in the temporary organization, or the termination of the temporary organization, whichever is earlier.

(g) PROCUREMENT OF TEMPORARY AND INTERMITTENT SERVICES.—The head of the temporary organization may procure temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b).

(h) ACCEPTANCE OF VOLUNTEER SERVICES.—(1) The head of a

temporary organization may accept volunteer services relating to the

duties of the temporary organization without regard to section 1342

of title 31, including service as advisers, experts, members, or in

other capacities determined appropriate by the head of the temporary organization. The head of the temporary organization—

(A) shall assure that all persons accepted as volunteers are

notified of the scope of the voluntary services accepted;

(B) shall supervise volunteers to the same extent as employees

receiving compensation for similar services; and

(C) shall ensure that volunteers have appropriate credentials

or are otherwise qualified to perform in the capacities for which

they are accepted.

(2) A person providing volunteer services under this subsection shall be considered an employee of the Federal Government for the purposes of chapters 73 and 81, chapter 171 of title

28, chapter 11 of title 18, and part 2635 of title 5 of the Code

of Federal regulations.

(i) DETAILEES.—Upon request of the head of the temporary organization, the head of any department or agency of the United States

may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, any personnel of the department or agency to the temporary organization to assist in carrying out its duties.

* * * * * * *

683

CHAPTER 35—RETENTION PREFERENCE,

RESTORATION, AND REEMPLOYMENT

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—RETENTION PREFERENCE

* * * * * * *

§ 3502. Order of retention

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(5) No authority under paragraph (1) may be exercised after

øSeptember 30, 2001¿ September 30, 2005.

* * * * * * *

Subpart C—Employee Performance

CHAPTER 41—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

§ 4107. Restriction on degree training

(a) Except as provided in øsubsection (b)¿ subsections (b) and (c)

of this section, this chapter does not authorize the selection and assignment of an employee for training, or the payment or reimbursement of the costs of training, for—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) The regulations prescribed under section 4118 of this title

shall include provisions under which the head of an agency may

provide training, or payment or reimbursement for the costs of any

training, not otherwise allowable under øsubsection (a)¿ subsections (a) or (c) of this section, if necessary to assist in the recruitment or retention of employees in occupations in which the

Government has or anticipates a shortage of qualified personnel,

especially in occupations involving critical skills (as defined under

such regulations).

* * * * * * *

(c) With respect to an employee of the Department of Defense—

(1) this chapter does not authorize, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the selection and assignment of the

employee for training, or the payment or reimbursement of the

costs of training, for—

(A) the purpose of providing an opportunity to the employee to obtain an academic degree in order to qualify for

appointment to a particular position for which the academic degree is a basic requirement; or

(B) the sole purpose of providing an opportunity to the

employee to obtain one or more academic degrees, unless

such opportunity is part of a planned, systematic, and coVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00707 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR616.195 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
684

ordinated program of professional development endorsed by

the Department of Defense; and

(2) any course of post-secondary education delivered through

classroom, electronic, or other means shall be administered or

conducted by an institution recognized under standards implemented by a national or regional accrediting body, except in a

case in which such standards do not exist or would not be appropriate.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992

SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.

(a) ASSISTANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES.—Subject to the limitations and requirements provided in this

section, the Secretary of Defense, under the guidance of the President, may provide assistance to support international nonproliferation activities.

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the Secretary

of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates at

the close of fiscal year ø2000] 2001.

SECTION 1206 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

SEC. 1206. REPORT ON ACCOUNTING FOR UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT.—Not later than ø30¿ 90

days after the date on which a report of the Secretary under subsection (a) is submitted to Congress, the Comptroller General of the

United States shall submit to Congress a report giving the Comptroller General’s assessment of the report and making any recommendations that the Comptroller General considers appropriate.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1999

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXI—ARMY

* * * * * * *

685

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 ...................... $3,550,000

*******

Texas ............................... Fort Bliss .......................................... $4,100,000

Fort Hood .......................................... ø$32,500,000¿

$45,300,000

*******

Total ........................................... ø$768,781,000¿

$781,581,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1998, for

military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing

functions of the Department of the Army in the total amount of

ø$2,098,713,000¿ $2,111,513,000 as follows:

(1) For military construction projects inside the United

States authorized by section 2101(a), ø$609,076,000¿

$622,581,000.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT

SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4)(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) The Secretary may require any additional terms and conditions in connection with a transfer under this paragraph as such

Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the

United States. This paragraph also applies to real property at the

installation that is initially transferred to another Federal agency

as excess property under the authority of this title, but is subsequently determined to be excess to the needs of that agency, if—

686

(i) the excess property is adjacent to property that was conveyed to the redevelopment authority with respect to the installation;

(ii) the acreage of the excess property is equal to less than 10

percent of the other acreage conveyed to the redevelopment authority; and

(iii) the property has been screened for further Federal use as

provided in section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, notwithstanding subsection (e)(2) of such section.

* * * * * * *

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1995

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2843. AUTHORITY FOR OXNARD HARBOR DISTRICT, PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA, TO USE CERTAIN NAVY PROPERTY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) RESTRICTIONS ON USE.—The agreement authorized under

subsection (a) shall require the District—

ø(1) to suspend operations under the agreement in the event

Navy contingency operations are conducted at the Center; and

ø(2) to use the property covered by the agreement in a manner consistent with Navy operations conducted at the Center.

ø(d) CONSIDERATION.—(1) As consideration for the use of the

property covered by the agreement under subsection (a), the District shall pay to the Navy an amount equal to the fair market

rental value of the property, as determined by the Secretary taking

into consideration the District’s use of the property.

ø(2) The Secretary may include a provision in the agreement requiring the District—

ø(A) to pay the Navy an amount (as determined by the Secretary) to cover the costs of replacing at the Center any facilities vacated by the Navy on account of the agreement or to

construct suitable replacement facilities for the Navy; and

ø(B) to pay the Navy an amount (as determined by the Secretary) for the costs of relocating Navy operations from the vacated facilities to the replacement facilities.¿

(c) RESTRICTIONS ON USE.—The District’s use of the property covered by an agreement under subsection (a) is subject to the following

conditions:

687

(1) The District shall suspend operations under the agreement

upon notification by the commanding officer of the Center that

the property is needed to support mission essential naval vessel

support requirements or Navy contingency operations, including

combat missions, natural disasters, and humanitarian missions.

(2) The District shall use the property covered by the agreement in a manner consistent with Navy operations at the Center, including cooperating with the Navy for the purpose of assisting the Navy to meet its through-put requirements at the

Center for the expeditious movement of military cargo.

(3) The commanding officer of the Center may require the

District to remove any of its personal property at the Center

that the commanding officer determines may interfere with

military operations at the Center. If the District cannot expeditiously remove the property, the commanding officer may provide for the removal of the property at District expense.

(d) CONSIDERATION.—(1) As consideration for the use of the property covered by an agreement under subsection (a), the District shall

pay to the Navy an amount that is mutually agreeable to the parties

to the agreement, taking into account the nature and extent of the

District’s use of the property.

The Secretary may accept in-kind consideration under paragraph

(1), including consideration in the form of—

(A) the District’s maintenance, preservation, improvement,

protection, repair, or restoration of all or any portion of the

property covered by the agreement;

(B) the construction of new facilities, the modification of existing facilities, or the replacement of facilities vacated by the

Navy on account of the agreement; and

(C) covering the cost of relocation of the operations of the

Navy from the vacated facilities to the replacement facilities.

(3) All cash consideration received under paragraph (1) shall be

deposited in the special account in the Treasury established for the

Navy under section 2667(d) of title 10, United States Code. The

amounts deposited in the special account pursuant to this paragraph shall be available, as provided in appropriation Acts, for general supervision, administration, overhead expenses, and Center operations and for the maintenance preservation, improvement, protection, repair, or restoration of property at the Center.

* * * * * * *

ø(f) USE OF PAYMENT.—(1) In such amounts as is provided in advance in appropriation Acts, the Secretary may use amounts paid

under subsection (d)(1) to pay for general supervision, administration, and overhead expenses and for improvement, maintenance,

repair, construction, or restoration to the port operations area (or

to roads and railways serving the area) at the Center.

ø(2) In such amounts as is provided in advance in appropriation

Acts, the Secretary may use amounts paid under subsection (d)(2)

to pay for constructing new facilities, or making modifications to

existing facilities, that are necessary to replace facilities vacated by

the Navy on account of the agreement under subsection (a) and for

relocating operations of the Navy from the vacated facilities to replacement facilities.¿

688

ø(g)¿ (f) CONSTRUCTION BY DISTRICT.—The Secretary may authorize the District to demolish existing facilities located on the

property covered by the agreement under subsection (a) and, consistent with the restriction specified in subsection (c)(2), construct

new facilities on the property for joint use by the District and the

Navy.

ø(h)¿ (g) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary

may require such additional terms and conditions in connection

with the agreement authorized under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United

States.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Other Matters

SEC. 2851. JOINT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING FOR COMMISSARIES

AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITY FACILITIES.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN LEASED LANDS.—(1) Section 303 of

title 49, and section 138 of title 23, United States Code, shall not

apply to any approval by the Secretary of Transportation of the use

by State Route 241 of parkland within Camp Pendleton that is

leased by the State of California, where the lease reserved to the

United States the right to establish rights-of-way.

(2) The Agency shall be responsible for the implementation of any

measures required by the Secretary of Transportation to mitigate

the impact of the Agency’s use of parkland within Camp Pendleton

for State Route 241. With the exception of those mitigation measures

directly related to park functions, the measures shall be located outside the boundaries of Camp Pendleton. The required mitigation

measures related to park functions shall be implemented in accordance with the terms of the lease referred to in paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *

SECTION 6 OF THE NATIONAL MARITIME HERITAGE

ACT OF 1994

SEC. 6. FUNDING.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) DISPOSALS OF VESSELS.—

(1) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of Transportation shall

dispose of all vessels described in paragraph (2)—

(A) by September 30, ø2001¿ 2006;

(B) in a manner that maximizes the return on the vessels to the United States; øand¿

(C) øin accordance with¿ subject to subparagraph (D), in

accordance with the plan of the Department of Transportation for disposal of those vessels and requirements under

689

sections 508 and 510(i) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936

(46 App. U.S.C. 1158, 1160(i))ø.¿; and

(D) to the maximum extent possible, by scrapping outside

of the United States.

* * * * * * *

(690)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN M.

SPRATT, JR.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to add my

voice to those who have taken note of this, Chairman Spence’s last

markup as chairman of our Committee. I have served in Congress

and on the Armed Services Committee since 1983. For all this

time, Floyd Spence has been my colleague in Congress and on this

committee, and I would be remiss not to note for the record my appreciation for his distinguished service.

Since he was first elected in 1970, and since he served first as

a member of the committee and then as Chairman, Floyd Spence

has been a tireless advocate for the armed forces. As Chairman, he

has always conducted himself with grace, collegiality, and good

humor, and has presided over defense authorization bills that have

consistently passed with bipartisan support—an all too rare occurrence in Congress over the past several years. I would like to commend our Chairman as we wrap up the Fiscal Year 2001 National

Defense Authorization Act, and express my admiration for the good

work he has done.

The committee’s markup of the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act was indeed a bipartisan bill, and I was

happy to support it. Nevertheless, I do have concerns with certain

elements of the bill, most of which I spoke to during our markup

session.

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM

I remain concerned with certain provisions in H.R. 4205 relating

to the CTR program. The Chemical Weapons Destruction program

request of $35 million is completely eliminated, and use of CTR

funds for construction of a fossil fuel energy facility in Russia, a

necessary component of the U.S. effort to reduce the production of

weapons-usable plutonium, is prohibited.

Progress toward construction of the chemical weapons destruction facility has been slow, and I understand that Russia may not

have put forward an effort or funds commensurate with the U.S.

level of effort, but the construction of a facility to destroy these

dangerous weapons of mass destruction is an important element of

our national security strategy. I believe there are better ways to

legislate improvements in the chemical weapons de-militarization

program than to discontinue funding entirely, and hope that this

issue can be addressed in conference with the Senate.

I am also concerned that the committee chose to include a prohibition on the use of CTR funds to construct a fossil fuel plant in

Russia. If the United States is to succeed in encouraging Russia to

slow its production of weapons-usable plutonium, we must be willing to consider the concomitant need for electricity in Russia’s nuclear cities. Their need for electricity is currently met by the nuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00714 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR616.198 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
691

clear reactors whose cores we have previously sought to convert;

shutting them down will automatically create a need for new

source of energy. For the U.S. to categorically refuse to assist with

the construction of the alternative source of energy is counterproductive to our goal of stopping plutonium production.

ARMS CONTROL PROVISIONS

I also have concerns about cuts in funding to the Arms Control

Implementation account of the Pentagon, although I appreciate the

Committee’s willingness to work with me to mitigate the funding

limitations that were to be imposed on the Arms Control Implementation programs. I still do not agree with the $11.5 million cut

to this important $219 million set of programs, but the most objectionable aspects of the original proposed language—to narrowly

target the cuts at specific treaty compliance efforts—has been

dropped.

The United States has the responsibility to fully implement all

treaties, such as the ABM Treaty and START I. Under the original

proposal, funds would have been eliminated from certain START I

compliance activities. This could have led to treaty violations. Also,

the funds to be deleted from the ABM compliance efforts would

have deprived the department of needed resources to be used in

conducting studies on ongoing weapon system development programs such as the Airborne Laser. This would needlessly delay

these programs and lead to increased costs. While I still support

the original budget request for Arms Control Implementation and

hope that this full funding level will be agreed to in conference, I

think the committee has moved in the right direction in not trying

to micro-manage these activities.

AIRBORNE LASER

I appreciate the willingness of Rep. Weldon to address some of

my concerns regarding the transfer of the Airborne Laser (ABL)

from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(BMDO). I had planned to offer an amendment in committee to

block the transfer, but given Rep. Weldon’s willingness to address

some of my concerns and to keep an open mind on the matter, I

did not offer the amendment.

The committee believes the transfer will better ensure funding

for the ABL program, but I disagree. The BMDO budget is much

smaller and less flexible than the Air Force’s. Moreover, BMDO has

many difficult technical problems to deal with in the next couple

of years in developing both a national missile defense and several

theater missile defense systems. We are already transferring one

challenging program to BMDO, SBIRS-Low. I believe it is unwise

to push another program on to BMDO at this time, especially since

the ABL deals with a number of very different technologies than

the other systems they are presently managing. Let us allow them

to remain focused on their core mission.

The Air Force still opposes the transfer. Gen. Michael Ryan, Air

Force Chief of Staff, wrote the committee on May 8th, stating that

ABL ‘‘was born in the Air Force, brought up in the Air Force, and

deserves to be fielded by the Air Force.’’ I agree with Gen. Ryan,

and although I appreciate Rep. Weldon’s good-faith efforts to reach

692

a compromise, I will continue my efforts to reverse the committee

position during the conference on the bill with the Senate.

START I WARHEAD LEVELS

Last year, the committee enacted a provision that prohibits DOD

to go below START-I force levels for strategic weapons until

START II enters into force. Part of the rationale for this prohibition was to encourage the Russian Duma to ratify START II, which

the Duma did this year, eight years after it was negotiated and

four years after Senate ratification. Rep. Tom Allen offered an

amendment in committee to strike this prohibition and give the

DOD flexibility to go below these levels or to have a different mix

of forces than the prohibition prescribes. The Allen amendment

was permissive in nature and did not mandate reductions. Gen.

Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has testified

that the Department would like the flexibility to field the most

militarily useful and cost-effective force and opposes the prohibition. Unfortunately, the committee rejected the Allen amendment.

I believe this is a mistake, and hope the committee will reconsider

the issue either on the House floor or in conference with the Senate.

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

Although the committee added $4.5 billion to the President’s

budget request for defense, several requested programs were cut.

One of these programs is the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, (‘‘FUSRAP’’). FUSRAP is a program to clean up sites

that were contaminated by the Manhattan project and other early

atomic energy-related activities by the government. The committee

did not authorize FUSRAP, presumably because it does not believe

it should be considered a defense activity. As I indicated in a statement in committee, I will keep an open mind on the proper classification of this program. However, simply not authorizing the funding is not the answer. The committee should either work through

the Budget Committees to convince the Office of Management and

budget to reclassify FUSRAP as a non-defense program, or acknowledge the liability of the U.S. Government for these contaminated sites and authorize their clean up.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

Section 232 of the Chairman’s mark is a non-binding ‘‘Sense of

the Congress’’ than urges the President to abide by H.R. 4, a bill

that states that the policy of the United States is to deploy a limited national missile defense system. I was a co-author of the original House version of this bill, and while I preferred the original

version, I supported the final bill as amended by the Senate and

signed into law by the President. I consider this ‘‘Sense of the Congress’’ to be unnecessary, as the Administration is following a rational course about deployment and is seeking to modify the ABM

Treaty in order to deploy without disrupting our relationship with

Russia, but I do not object to it. However, I believe the assertion

in this section that ‘‘An effective National Missile Defense system

is technologically feasible’’ has yet to be demonstrated.

693

First, we need to have many more tests of the system currently

being developed before we can declare it technologically feasible.

Second, this system is to counter a limited strike. It will not be

able to defend against a large strike or even the unauthorized

launch of a boatload of Russian SSBN’s. To say an effective national missile defense system is technologically feasible without

any qualification is plainly inaccurate.

JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr.

(694)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE STEVEN T.

KUYKENDALL

Thank you Mr. Chairman for producing a bill that is fair and attempts to balance the military’s many legitimate needs with the

limited funds under the jurisdiction of this committee. I especially

appreciate the efforts of this committee to address health-care

issues facing both our active duty and retired veterans. The ramifications of not having quality, accessible and affordable health

care are far reaching. In these days of economic prosperity, sustaining an all-voluntary military force is challenging. Add to that

a disgruntled population of retired veterans, who have been an important recruitment vehicle in the past, and sustaining appropriate

levels of manning becomes nearly impossible. Your willingness to

address these difficult issues, in spite of the enormous costs associated with these problems, stands as a testament to all veterans,

that this committee takes seriously veterans concerns, and recognizes the role they continue to play in their service to this country.

I applaud the leadership you have provided as this committee determines what our future armed forces should look like. Modernization is difficult when the only question is replacing old equipment

with similar new equipment. However, advances in technology and

manufacturing cause everyone in defense to revisit how we perform

R&D and procurement in a manner that keeps pace with advances

in technology. As always, we must provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with modern equipment, ensuring that they continue to succeed on today’s battlefield.

I fully support the objectives and provisions of this bill. However,

I remain concerned about the military abortion issue. Last year, I

introduced an amendment that corrects the disparity that exists

concerning access to abortion in cases of pregnancy resulting from

rape or incest. Currently, women in the military, both service members and dependents, assigned overseas are not being afforded the

same access to medical treatment as we provide in other federal

programs. These military women should have the same medical

treatment options that are available to women who reside in the

United States and in fact, receive fewer health benefits than their

male colleagues. This amendment which prevailed at subcommittee

during consideration of the FY00 Defense Bill, remained in the bill

through full committee and floor consideration. It was dropped, regrettably during the House-Senate conference. I chose not to offer

this amendment again this year because there is no reason to think

the issue would be resolved differently—neither of the committees

has changed since last May. If we are serious about closing the

gender gap that exists in the service, this is one of the many issues

we will have to resolve.

(695)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 4205, THE FISCAL YEAR 2001

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONVEYANCE FOR NON-BRAC FACILITIES

Although the bill as a whole is strong, I would like to call attention to an important measure not included in this bill. This year,

I requested that this Committee establish fair procedures for communities that, because of accidents of history, have lost military installations and now cannot take advantage of a new Department

of Defense economic development program. Statutory language I

proposed to the Committee would allow no cost economic development conveyances for military installations closed outside Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) processes, such as the Indiana

Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP), a facility in my district.

Last year, Congress gave BRAC communities a real boost by allowing them to renegotiate special economic development conveyances (EDCs). I believe it is only fair to extend that same consideration to other facilities and their home communities. All communities deserve this opportunity.

We all know losing a military installation can hurt the economy

of a community. All communities that lose military installations

should be able to reclaim the closed property at minimal expense

and use it to create jobs and industry.

In April of last year, the Clinton Administration requested that

Congress pass legislation authorizing the Department of Defense to

provide no cost EDCs to communities with BRAC installations.

There was an important condition attached. The communities have

to use their closed bases for economic development and job creation.

Although this Committee did not include the proposal in its Defense Authorization bill, the Senate did. The EDC language remained in the Conference report and passed the Congress in the

FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. The President subsequently signed it into law. Section 2821(a) of the Act allows no cost

conveyance at installations closed or realigned under the base closure laws by amending the Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990.

Communities are taking advantage of this opportunity. Kelly Air

Force Base is a BRAC facility near San Antonio, Texas. It is scheduled to close next year. In March, Secretary Cohen visited Kelly Air

Force Base to announce the government had forgiven a debt of

$103 million owed by the Greater Kelly Development Authority.

That action freed up millions of dollars the community can now use

to rebuild the industry lost when the base was ordered closed.

There are non-BRAC installations that close and are conveyed

using procedures similar to those allowed for the conveyance of

Kelly Air Force Base. These old installations hold the same potenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 14, 2000 Jkt 064304 PO 00000 Frm 00719 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR616.201 pfrm03 PsN: HR616
696

tial for economic development and job creation—and the same challenges. Reduced activity at these places has a profound effect on

local economies, but last year’s legislation does not help non-BRAC

installations.

I have such a site in my district, the Indiana Army Ammunition

Plant. Although there are 80 rent-paying tenants at INAAP, it is

not yet a profitable venture.

Section 2843 of Public Law 105–261, the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999, provides for conveyance

of 4,660 acres of the INAPP to a reuse authority.

This closure and the conveyance are outside of Base Realignment

and Closure procedures. Although my predecessor originally pursued no cost conveyance, the language of the legislation calls on the

reuse authority to pay, in one lump sum, ‘‘fair market value’’ for

the 4,660 acre parcel at INAAP at the end of a 10-year period.

A no cost conveyance for INAAP would free up much needed

funds to help the reuse authority in Clark County push ahead with

economic development and make the facility more attractive to private industry.

This is one example, but I did not propose this language specifically for my district. Facilities like the Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee fall into the same category.

I want all former military communities to be able to benefit from

the fair deal we have already given BRAC communities.

This is a good bill. It strengthens our national defense in numerous, important ways. It boosts benefits for our fighting men and

women. But I urge the Committee to help create opportunities for

communities that, because of accidents of history, lost military installations but can’t take advantage of common sense legislation

Congress has already passed. It is nothing more than a simple

matter of fairness.

BARON P. HILL.

(697)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES JOSEPH R.

PITTS AND JOHN M. SPRATT, JR.

ELECTRONIC WARFARE

Electronic warfare (EW) played a key role in the success of Operation Allied Force last year. U.S. jamming aircraft, most notably

the Navy’s EA–6B Prowler, provided continuous protection of all alliance aircraft penetrating Yugoslav airspace. As a result, only two

aircraft were lost in 12,000 sorties, and the sole U.S. loss was directly attributable to lack of EW coverage.

U.S. military supremacy in the twenty-first century promises to

be even more dependent upon control of the electromagnetic spectrum than it was in the closing decades of the last century. The

Kosovo operation made clear that America’s EW aircraft are a lowdensity/high-demand asset in need of significant enhancements if

they are to meet the demand of a new century. Unfortunately, EW

requirements have not received focused attention in the Armed

Services or the Congress. With this in mind, we formed the EW

Working Group last year to encourage awareness of and support

for EW capabilities. We have worked and consulted with the Services, Members of Congress, and the defense industry to advance the

EW mission and identify key requirements.

We are very pleased that the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act contains funding for several important EW priorities,

specifically the $23 million in upgrades for the EA–6B Prowler. The

procurement of 124 AN/ASW–41 automatic flight control systems

will provide automatic speed, attitude, and altitude control capabilities for the Prowler, which will increase mission capability, improve reliability, and reduce maintenance. The Prowler fleet is

overcommitted and aging fast, and maintenance is frequently deferred. The Defense Authorization bill will go a long way in restoring our Prowler fleet so that adequate EW airborne jamming support can be provided to our Armed Forces aircraft.

We thank Chairman Spence for his leadership and the Members

of the Armed Service Committee for their support for EW assets

and capabilities in the Authorization bill. We look forward to working with Members of the Committee in the future to assure that

America’s EW edge is preserved.

JOSEPH R. PITTS. JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr.

(698)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES UNDERWOOD,

ABERCROMBIE, ORTIZ, ALLEN AND REYES

We are disappointed that the Committee was not able to do more

in terms of reviewing the Department of Defense’s over reliance on

outsourcing, privatization and commercial activities studies. By

2005, the Department of Defense (DoD) expects to compete more

than 200,000 jobs with savings pegged at approximately $11.2 billion. These estimates are sheer mathematical conjuring. The Pentagon has long assumed these savings. Indeed the individual services often do not even account for the cost of performing the study,

which in most cases comes from the O & M accounts. These costs

can include the paying of the cost-comparison study itself as well

as associated costs for voluntary separation incentive pay, early retirement benefits, and general reductions in forces (RiFs).

The zeal with which the DoD employs to invent savings has

evolved into the mythical search for the holy grail. The DoD has

invested heavily, both in manpower and funding, in order to implement outsourcing endeavors and conduct public/private competitions, but these efforts may never realize the anticipated savings.

In the coming weeks, the DoD will be announcing their intentions to employ other means to convert work from the public sector

to the private sector. In an all but blessed initiative, the DoD has

been encouraging the military to look at alternatives to the traditional A–76 competitions, known as strategic sourcing. By their

own admissions, the DoD has utilized the A–76 process in lieu of

base closure authority to reap fiscal savings. While their arguments

may raise some interesting concerns, their premise is completely

wrong.

No doubt, the DoD has been hamstrung by declining budgets and

increased operational demands. Indeed we appreciate the challenging fiscal position that the DoD must contend with. Nevertheless, it seems ill conceived to purely exploit savings from the hides

of the civil service workforce.

The Department has been fostering the notion that they are earnestly devising better methods to perform tasks—the so-called performance-based and results-based assessments. In reality though,

there is no accurate means to account for the type of savings that

can be reaped from the re-engineering of work tasks. This means

that the only verifiable method that the DoD can employ to immediately show savings, is to contract out hundreds of positions. Systemically, this may be creating a serious problem; the military, it

seems, is risking short term savings at the expense of long term

readiness.

We are not opposed to savings or efficiency. In many instances

we recognize the colossal waste in the Pentagon as well as opportunities to improve the methods of operating and maintaining our infrastructure. However, what we are opposed to is when readiness

699

and strategic forethought take a back seat to fiscal aggressiveness.

We need to think hard when many of the military’s rising stars

earn Meritorious Service Medals or Legion of Merits because they

were able to save $300 million by laying off a thousand employees.

It is important to remember that the first duty of the military

is to plan, prepare, fight and win our nation’s wars. The military

is not a business and thus will not always have a balanced spreadsheet. The Department’s accountants cannot place a dollar figure

on readiness. That is a political and strategic decision that both the

Congress and the President must make. We hope that a more prudent and fiscally viable approach to this intractable problem can be

brokered out before the Department’s civilian workforce readiness

erodes any further.

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD.

SILVESTRE REYES.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ.

THOMAS H. ALLEN.

(700)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

We regret the Committee’s failure to repeal the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals. If enacted, women

stationed overseas would be permitted to use their own funds to obtain abortion services. No federal funds would have been used and

health care professionals who are opposed to performing abortions

as a matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required

to do so.

This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment,

only the right to receive the same legally protected medical services

that women in the United States receive. We had the opportunity

to finally put a stop to the misguided law that has endangered our

servicewomen’s lives for far too long.

The Department of Defense, American Public Health Association,

the American Medical Women’s Association, the American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Planned Parenthood

Federation of America have all indicated their support for the

amendment.

If we are to attract the best and brightest of our nation’s young

people to our Armed Forces we must act to restore this fundamental right. We cannot expect to attain our readiness and recruitment goals when potential soldiers know they will not have the

same right to access to health care when they are stationed overseas.

It is our responsibility to restore the right of freedom of choice

to women serving overseas in our nation’s Armed Forces. Members

of the military and their families already give up many freedoms

and risk their lives to defend our country. They should not have

to sacrifice their privacy, their health or their basic constitutional

rights because of a policy with no valid military purpose.

LORETTA SANCHEZ.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

LANE EVANS.

PATRICK J. KENNEDY.

THOMAS H. ALLEN.

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER.

MIKE THOMPSON.

ADAM SMITH.

ROBERT E. ANDREWS.

(701)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

VIEQUES, PUERTO RICO

In accordance with the Presidential Directives concerning

Vieques, Puerto Rico, federal and local law enforcement officers recently removed the peaceful civil demonstrators who had been

blocking the Navy’s access to the bombing range in Vieques.

As a result of this removal, the Navy has regained control and

access to the range. In fact, the U.S. Navy warplanes resumed

training on the Atlantic Fleet bombing range in Vieques using airto-ground inert ordnance.

We are disappointed that the Committee has amended this sensible framework that could disrupt the process already underway,

and further polarize all parties involved. The directives ensure the

safety of the disfranchised U.S. citizens of Vieques and provide a

sensible framework that allows the Navy to continue its training

operations.

The year-long peaceful civil disobedience on Vieques evidences

the turbulent history between the Navy and the U.S. citizens of

Vieques, as well as the overwhelming sentiments of frustration, self

worth and neglect by the American citizens of Puerto Rico.

Now that the two parties involved have come to agreement, it is

this Committee’s responsibility to implement the Presidential Directives. The directives offer the most effective resolution to the

Vieques ordeal. Namely to respond to the needs and concerns of the

American citizens who live in Vieques while meeting vital National

security needs.

The President, the Navy and the Governor of Puerto Rico have

all stood by the Presidential Directives. It is now up to the House

Armed Services Committee and Congress to guarantee further fulfillment of the Presidential Directives.

Very truly yours,

LORETTA SANCHEZ.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

IKE SKELTON.

ROBERT UNDERWOOD.

ROBERT A. BRADY.

PATRICK J. KENNEDY.

Æ