```

[House Report 106-616]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     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
                                      

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     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

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-304                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

               FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman
BOB STUMP, Arizona                   IKE SKELTON, Missouri
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio                 JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South 
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia             Carolina
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            OWEN PICKETT, Virginia
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                LANE EVANS, Illinois
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
STEVE BUYER, Indiana                 NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida            MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JAMES TALENT, Missouri               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama               ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California   TOM ALLEN, Maine
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma            VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          ADAM SMITH, Washington
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia             LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee              JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North          CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
    Carolina                         CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas                     ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania
BOB RILEY, Alabama                   ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  BARON P. HILL, Indiana
MARY BONO, California                MIKE THOMPSON, California
JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania           JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
STEVEN KUYKENDALL, California
DONALD SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
                    Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Explanation of the Committee Amendments..........................     1
Purpose..........................................................     2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill.............................     2
  Summary 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
        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
        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
        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
        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
        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
        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
      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
      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 High-Priority 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
      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 Active-Duty 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
      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
      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
      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 Long-Term 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
  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
      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
      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
      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
      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
          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
  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

                              R E P O R T

                             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.

                                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.

                    SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

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

                    RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 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 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, 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 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, near-term 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 accounts 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.
    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 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 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.

            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 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.''

                       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.

                       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 forward-deployed 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 helicopters flying nap-of-the-earth missions and 
beyond-line-of-sight 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 above-and-below an aircraft.
    The committee continues to be concerned with the growing 
laser threat to helicopter aircrews and notes the limited 
fielding of this system to force package oneaircraft 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 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 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.

                       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.
    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 
ground- and 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.

                       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 additional 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.
    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.

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.

                       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.

                       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-real-time 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) incidents. 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 Service 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-on-force, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
    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.
    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.

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.

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.

                       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.

                       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 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 
helicopters 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.

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 precision-guided munitions (PGMs) or employ the Air 
Intercept Missile (AIM)-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air 
Missile (AMRAAM). 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 aircraft'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.

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 
increase 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 Tmodels, 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 inventory 
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 
recommends $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 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 
increase 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.

                       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 fiscal 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.

                       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.

                       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 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.

                        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.

                       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.
    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.

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 critical 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.

                       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.
    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.

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, 
three-dimensional 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-no-shoot 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.

                    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.

                       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-
the-shelf 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 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 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 
low-cost 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.
    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 time-
sensitive 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 mission-ready 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 deficiency 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 system, 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 
``E-kits,'' 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 
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 identifiedan 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 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 
increase 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 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.

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 rangeof 
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 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 Predator-A 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.

                     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.

                       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.

                       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 
recommends $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.
    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 
increase of $15.5 million for this purpose.

Senior scout

    The budget request contained $5.5 million for procurement 
of intelligence 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 commercial-
off-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.
    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.

                       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 
non-encrypted 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.
    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 real-time 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.

                       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.

Chemical stockpile emergency preparedness project (CSEPP)

    The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions 
destruction 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 
destruction 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 
destruction 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 
stockpiledisposal 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 development 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 
destruction 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 conducted for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate 
reliability and long-term operations. The committee notes that 
the two hydrolysis-based 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.

  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.

                     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.

         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.
    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.

                               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.

                       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 recommends $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 
million 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 manufacturingdevelopment 
(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 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 
combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser.
    The committee notes that the combustion-driven eye-safe 
self-powered 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.

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 
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 Tri-Service 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 fiscal 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.

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 capabilities 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 
IMU-GPS.

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.
    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.
    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 
side-by-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-
by-side 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 real-time 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 $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 
soldier 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.
    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.

                       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 High-
Speed 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 ``shut-down'' 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.

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 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.

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 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'sneeds 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 
development, 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 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 advanced 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 Nimitz-class 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 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 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).
    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 provided 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 solid-state 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-off-the-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.

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 
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, long-range 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 
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 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-to-surface 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 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 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.

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).
    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 five-year, $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. 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 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 
Commercial-Off-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.

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 
long-term 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.
    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 counter-
measures 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-off-the-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 side-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.

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, 
theNavy'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.
    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 January 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.

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 ship-based 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 re-
configurable 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.

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.

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.
    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 providethe 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 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, 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 long-term 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 technologies and applications will lead to the 
development of a long-term 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 Departmentwill 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 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.

                       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, life-cycle 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 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 funded 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 
modernization, 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.
    The committee has consistently supported the Department of 
Defense's efforts to enhance aircraft crewmember protection 
systems. The committee is aware of theongoing 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 land-based 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.
    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 $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 
AMOSMunits are required for training at the NACTS and TRE and 
recommended 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 ground-based 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. Therefore, 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, 
including $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.

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.

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/infra-red (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.
    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 hyper-spectral 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 Intelligence) (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 competition 
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 ofDefense 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) 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 intended 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 Multi-link 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 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 
satellite 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 tosupport. 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, 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 SBIRS-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 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 public-private 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 concealed 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.

                       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.
    (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 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 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.
            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 increase the probability of 
successful flight tests. The committee believes that the use of 
this technology can beexpanded 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 biological 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 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.
    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 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 advancesin 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-the-earth 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 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 on-going 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.
    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 evaluation. The program is designed to establish a 
domesticcapability 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 
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.

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 
development 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;
          (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 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 
merit-based 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.
    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 fieldingof a more lean 
and efficient expeditionary force. The Navy has embraced a concept 
called Total Cost of Ownership as 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.

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.
    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.

                       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 eventually 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.
    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 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 
long-range 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 
intercontinental 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.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                OVERVIEW

    The budget request for fiscal year 2001 for operation and 
maintenance 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 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.

                       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
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

                       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 thebudget 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

                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 five-year 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 environmental 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 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 LanguageProgram. 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.
    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 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 on-base 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.

                              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 
andweapons 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 believes 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.

           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 concerning 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;
          (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 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.

                   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;
          (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 
Defense-sponsored 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;
          (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. Depot-level 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.

                          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.
    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 $______ 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 $______ million for Working 
Capital Funds of the Department of Defense.

               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 remain 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 storesshall 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.

 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 committee 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.

                 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, replacement, 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.

  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 broad-based 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 
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' out-of-pocket housing costs, and $6.0 million to 
establish a minimumdislocation allowance. This latter measure, 
targeting junior enlisted military personnel, would begin to reduce the 
substantial out-of-pocket 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 all-volunteer 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.
    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.

              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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             FY 2000                     FY 2001     Change from
                         Service                            authorized    FY 2001       committee      FY 2001
                                                             & floor      request    recommendation    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 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         FY 2001     Change from
                         Service                             FY 2000      FY 2001       committee      FY 2001
                                                            authorized    request    recommendation    request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Change from
                         Service                             FY 2000      FY 2001       Committee      FY 2001
                                                            authorized    request    recommendation    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
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             FY 2000                    Committee    Change from
                         Service                            authorized    FY 2001    recommendation    FY 2001
                                                             (floor)      request        (floor)       request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ofthe 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-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.

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Military
                                                    personnel     O&M
                                                     accounts   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)      .........      $30.5
         (1035)...................................
    Army Reserve:
        Add AGR's (300)...........................       10.0  .........
        Add Military Technicians (Dual Status)      .........       20.5
         (650)....................................
    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          30.0  .........
     Costs........................................
    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      .........        5.0
         Bonus....................................
        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  .........
        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         .........        2.0
     Military Colleges............................
    Recruiter-High School Guidance Counselor        .........        2.0
     Internet Connection..........................
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         .........        2.5
     Facility.....................................
    Modernize TRICARE Management/Increase Use of    .........      134.5
     Treatment Facilities.........................
    Reimburse travel expenses for long-distance     .........       15.0
     referrals....................................
    Reduce Catastrophic Cap for Retirees..........  .........       32.0
    TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Benefit...............  .........       94.0
    Chiropractic Services for Active Duty           .........        3.0
     Personnel....................................
    Telemedicine Radiology Demonstration..........  .........        1.5
                                                   ---------------------
          Total Recommended Additions.............      326.2      396.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          [Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Military
                                                    personnel     O&M
                                                     accunts    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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.

                  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.
    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 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 believesthat 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 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.

 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

                  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 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 isaware 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.

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.

          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 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.

   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 thetime 
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 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.

                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 Low-Income 
                      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 
estimated 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.

 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 enlistment 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.

          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 entrance 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.

                   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 sections, 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.

                    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 
Secretaryalso 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 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.

 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.

                      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 co-payments 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 $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.

 Section 715--Prohibition Against Requirement for Prior Authorization 
    for Certain Referrals; Report on Nonavailability-of-Health-Care 
                               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.

   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.

    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 full-authorized 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 theFEHBP 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.

      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 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.

    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.

  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.

 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 officials 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 andincorporation 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 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.

      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.

                        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 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 consideration, 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.

  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 
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.

                      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 long-term 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 Pacific. 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.

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.
    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 
categoriesshould be used to guide the submission and 
expeditious completion of background investigations on personnel with 
the 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;
          $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 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 Department'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 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.

  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.

           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 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.

              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 (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 status-quo 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 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, open-
ended 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 Bosnia-Herzegovina 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 open-ended.
    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 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; 
non-operational transient military personnel.

  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.''
    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 seesno 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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.
    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.
    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 weapons-origin. 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.

              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.

                   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.

 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.

 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.

                         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.

       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 
Government 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 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 
live-fire training on the island using the full range of live 
ordnance in use prior to April 19, 1999, without interference.
            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 expects 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:

    A tabular summary of the military construction projects 
included with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal 
year 2001 for the BRAC IV account follows:

                            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 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.

                            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.

                      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.

                         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.

      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.

                      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.

      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.

            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.

        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.

                    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 constructed, 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.

                 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 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 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.

  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.

     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 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.
 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:

               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
          (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.

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).
    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 
towardreprocessing was 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.
    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 
dual-axis 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.
    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 talent 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-than-expected 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 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 ofappropriate 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 
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.
            Tritium readiness
    The budget request contained $77.0 million in the tritium 
readiness 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 tocomplete 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 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 
Reorganization 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, 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 committee 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 areduction 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 
program 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 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.

                         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 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 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 future-years 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.

          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.

                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).

                  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.

                           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.

              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 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.
                                ------                                

                          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.
                                ------                                

                          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.
    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, 
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.

                              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 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          9,205           0           0           0           0           0
         \2\............................
        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).
    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
    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 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
    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 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 partialallowance 
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.
    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 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 areeligible 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.
    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 co-insurance 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 active-duty 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 co-insurance 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 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.
    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 
demonstration 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 private-sector 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, returns 
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 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 
third-party 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.
    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 enrollees 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
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 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 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 pay-as-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     2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays...................................        0       27       39       83       21       -5       -4       -4       -3       -2       -1
Changes in receipts..................................        0      -10      -61      -82     -105     -125     -135     -144     -153     -162     -171
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    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.

         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 [6,000] 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)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Duration of Project.--The authority to purchase or 
receive services under the demonstration project shall expire 
on September 30, [2000] 2002.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        TITLE XIII--MATTERS RELATING TO ALLIES AND OTHER NATIONS

                 Subtitle A--Matters Relating to NATO

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 1306. GEORGE C. MARSHALL EUROPEAN CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES.

  [(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.
  [(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 [2001] 2002, the Secretary of the Army may carry out a 
program 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--
          [(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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, except 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. [Each 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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 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--
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements

  (a) Program Elements Specified.--In the budget justification 
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of 
Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the 
budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the 
amount requested for activities of the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization 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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 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 centeris 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 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 230. Amounts for declassification of records

  The Secretary of Defense shall include in the budget 
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the 
Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted 
with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 
31) specific identification[, as a budgetary line item], of the 
amounts required to carry out programmed activities during that 
fiscal year to declassify records pursuant to Executive Order 
No. 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note) or any successor Executive order 
or to comply with any statutory requirement, or any request, to 
declassify Government records. Identification of such amounts 
in such budget justification materials shall be in a single 
display that shows the total amount for the Department of 
Defense and the amount for each military department and Defense 
Agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            PART II--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             CHAPTER 23--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                       CHAPTER 31--ENLISTMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 ACTIVE-DUTY LIST

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    SUBCHAPTER I--SELECTION BOARDS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [who 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 [of 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 [his 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 SUBCHAPTER III--FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT FOR 
                           YEARS OF SERVICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [section] 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [September 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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;
                  [(D)] (E) on active duty to pursue special 
                work;
                  [(E)] (F) ordered to active duty under 
                section 12304 of this title;
                  [(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
                  [(G)] (H) on full-time National Guard duty.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                        CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional 
                    contingencies

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members 
of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty 
at the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the 
following:
          (1) For the Army, 480,000.
          (2) For the Navy, [371,781] 372,000.
          (3) For the Marine Corps, [172,148] 172,600.
          (4) For the Air Force, [360,877] 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [section 230(c)] 
section 203(c) of title 37 for the period of the leave.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 706. Administration of leave required to be taken pending review 
                    of certain court-martial convictions

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c)[(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.
    [(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 1034. Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory 
                    personnel actions

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Inspector General Investigation of Allegations of 
Prohibited 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  [(C) The Inspector General of the Army, in 
                the case of a member of the Army.
                  [(D) The Naval Inspector General, in the case 
                of a member of the Navy.
                  [(E) The Inspector General of the Air Force, 
                in the case of a member of the Air Force.
                  [(F) The Deputy Naval Inspector General for 
                Marine Corps Matters, in the case of a member 
                of the Marine Corps.
                  [(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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
          [(4)] (5) Dependents of members and former members 
        described in paragraphs (1), (2), [and (3)] (3), and 
        (4).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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;
          (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.
  (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.
     * * * * * * *
[1095d.  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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 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 
[armed 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.
    (2)(A) Subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of 
Defense considers necessary, coverage for medical care for 
members of the [armed 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) [The 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 [armed forces] uniformed services on active duty who is 
entitled to medical care under this subsection and who--
          (i)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1074g. Pharmacy benefits program

    (a) Pharmacy Benefits.--(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (6) The Secretary, [as 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 [not 
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 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) [Not 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 productsin the military facility environment 
which were prescribed by a network provider.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Pharmacy Data Transaction Service.--[Not 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 mail-order pharmacy program.
    (f) Definitions.--[As used in this section--] In this 
section:
          (1) [the] 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 law[; and].
          (2) [the] The term ``pharmaceutical agent'' means 
        drugs, biological products, and medical devices under 
        the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug 
        Administration.
    (g) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, after 
consultation with the other administering Secretaries, 
[promulgate] prescribe regulations to carry out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 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.
    [(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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2002.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles]

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
  [(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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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, [but not more than ten,] 
such demonstration areas. [In establishing the areas, the 
Secretary and Director shall include--
          [(1) an area that includes the catchment area of one 
        or more military medical treatment facilities;
          [(2) an area that is not located in the catchment 
        area of a military medical treatment facility;
          [(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
          [(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 [three] 
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 [December 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 [three] four 
years unless the beneficiary disenrolls before the termination 
of the project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (k) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than [December 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 
describeany 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 [36] 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).
  (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.

Sec. 1109. Organ and tissue donor program

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Responsibilities of the Secretaries of the Military 
Departments.--[(1)] The Secretaries of the military departments 
shall ensure that--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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:
          (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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [September 
30, 2001] December 31, 2001 (and the dependents of the member), 
shall be entitled to receive--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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 
[September 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 [September 30, 
2001] December 31, 2001. The Secretary of Transportation shall 
implement this section for the Coast Guard.

Sec. 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 [September 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 [September 
30, 2001] December 31, 2001.

Sec. 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 [September 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 [September 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [September 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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).

Sec. 1174a. Special separation benefits programs

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Termination of Program.--(1) Except as provided in 
paragraph (2), the Secretary concerned may not conduct a 
programpursuant to this section after [September 30, 2001] 
December 31, 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1175. Voluntary separation incentive

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) After [September 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 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [September 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 [September 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        CHAPTER 73--ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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) * * *
                  [(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 [described 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 [who elects to provide] who is 
                eligible to provide a reserve-component 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);
                          [(i)] (iii) to provide an annuity for 
                        the person's spouse at less than the 
                        maximum level; or
                          [(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) [not 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) [to 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,[,] 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 [making 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) was officially recommended for appointment or 
        promotion to a commissioned grade [and 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 
Secretaryconcerned 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.
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.

Sec. 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).

Sec. 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:
          (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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [in the 
        intelligence components of the Department of Defense 
        and the military departments] in the Department of 
        Defense as the Secretary determines necessary to carry 
        out the intelligence functions [of 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;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 
        [intelligence 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 [sensitive 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 [with the 
        intelligence component] in a defense intelligence 
        position; or
          (2) whose employment [with 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 [an 
intelligence component of the Department of Defense] in a 
defense intelligence position.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1614. Definitions

  In this subchapter:
          (1) The term ``defense intelligence position'' means 
        a civilian position as an intelligence officer or 
        intelligence employee [of an intelligence component of 
        the Department of Defense or of a military department] 
        of the Department of Defense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

         CHAPTER 102--JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2033. Contingent funding increase

  If for any fiscal year the amount [appropriated 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates

  (a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection 
(b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and 
ending on [December 31, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2164. Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and 
                    secondary schools

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2165. National Defense University: component institutions

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Component Institutions.--The National Defense University 
consists of the following institutions:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) The [Armed Forces Staff College] Joint Forces 
        Staff College.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

               PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 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.]
     * * * * * * *
[2306b.   Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property.]
2306b.  Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property or services.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 2306. Kinds of contracts

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g)(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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--
          [(A) appropriations originally available for the 
        performance of the contract concerned;
          [(B) appropriations currently available for 
        procurement of the type of services concerned, and not 
        otherwise obligated; or
          [(C) funds appropriated for those payments.]
  (3) Additional provisions regarding mulityear contracts for 
the purchase of services are provided in section 2306b of this 
title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [for 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) [That] 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  [(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;
                  (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
                  [(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); [or]
                          (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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [Committees on Appropriations] 
        Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
        Representatives 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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 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.
          [(A)] (B) An indication that the examinations 
        required under subsection (b)(3) have been completed.
          [(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.
          [(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 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.
          [(D)] (F) The Secretary's certification that the 
        entire analysis is available for examination.
          [(E)] (G) A schedule for completing the change to 
        performance of the function by the private sector.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND 
                         RECREATION ACTIVITIES

Sec.
[2481.   Transferred.]
     * * * * * * *
[2484.  Commissary stores: expenses.]
2484.  Commissary stores: use of appropriated funds to cover operating 
          expenses.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2484. Commissary stores: expenses

  [(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--
          [(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;
          [(2) the actual or estimated cost of utilities 
        furnished by the United States;
          [(3) the actual or estimated cost of shrinkage, 
        spoilage, and pilferage of merchandise under the 
        control of the commissary store; or
          [(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).
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(d) Transportation outside the United States may be 
furnished in connection with the operation of commissary stores 
outside the United States.]

Sec. 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.
  (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
          [(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 one-year 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 [section 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 [sections 2484 and] section 2685 of this 
title).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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.--[(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 [items 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.
  [(2) The merchandise categories referred to in paragraph (1) 
are as follows:
          [(A) Magazines and other periodicals.
          [(B) Tobacco products.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
  [(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).]
  [(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of goods other 
                    than United States goods

  (a) Limitation on Certain Procurements.--The Secretary of 
Defense may procure any of the following items only if the 
manufacturer of the item satisfies the requirements of 
subsection (b):
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (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)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(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.
          [(3) Ball bearings and roller bearings.--Subsection 
        (a)(5) and this paragraph shall cease to be effective 
        on October 1, 2000.]
          [(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 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 reasonable 
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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             CHAPTER 155--ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND SERVICES

Sec.
2601.  General gift funds.
     * * * * * * *
[2611.  Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance of foreign 
          gifts and donations.]
2611.  Regional centers for security studies: acceptance of foreign 
          gifts and donations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2611. Asia-Pacific Center 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, 
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.
  [(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.]

Sec. 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 [the 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 [the 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [$200,000] 
        $500,000.
          (2) A lease of any real property to the United 
        States, if the estimated annual rental is more than 
        [$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 [$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 [$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 [$200,000] $500,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Annual Reports on Certain Minor Transactions.--The 
Secretary of each military department shall submit annually to 
the 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 [under 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 [$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 [$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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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
          [(2) not for the time needed for public use; and]
          [(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 [improvement, maintenance, 
        protection, repair, or restoration,] alteration, 
        repair, or improvement, by the lessee, of the property 
        leased[, 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.
  (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) * * *
  [(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:
          [(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.
          [(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) [As 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 the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
        year in which the [request] report is made; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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.]
  [(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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(h) In this section, the term ``base closure law'' means 
each of the following:
          [(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).
          [(2) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments 
        and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-
        526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
          [(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.
  [(c)] (i) This section does not apply to oil, mineral, or 
phosphate lands.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [Secretary 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.
  [(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 [Secretary 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 [Secretary 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 [Secretary 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 attributable to construction of the commissary store or 
to pay the contractor directly for that portion of such cost.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2688. Utility systems: conveyance authority

  (a) * * *
  [(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2703. Environmental restoration accounts

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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 theSecretaries 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 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2826. Limitations on space by pay grade

  [(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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Number of  Net floor area
                  [Pay grade                    bedrooms   (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              5           1,550
 through E-9.................................
                                                       4           1,450
                                                       3           1,350
                                                       2             950
E-1 through E-6..............................          5           1,550
                                                       4           1,350
                                                       3           1,200
                                                       2             950
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  [(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.
  [(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 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).
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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 solar-energy system.
  [(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.
  [(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.]

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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, [and 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 [paragraphs (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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2885. Expiration of authority

  The authority to enter into a contract under this subchapter 
shall expire on February 10, [2001] 2006.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                           Subtitle B--Army

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          PART II--PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             CHAPTER 367--RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [September 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [or 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 applicable 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.
     * * * * * * *
[4415.  United States Army School of the Americas.]
     * * * * * * *

[Sec. 4415. United States Army School of the Americas

  [(a) The Secretary of the Army may operate the military 
education and training facility known as the United States Army 
School of the Americas.
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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.
     * * * * * * *
[5045.  Chief of Staff; Deputy and Ass5045. Deputy Commandants.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5041. Headquarters, Marine Corps: function; composition

  (a)  * * *
  (b)  The  Headquarters,  Marine  Corps,  is  composed  of  
the following:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(3) The Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps.
          [(4) The Deputy Chiefs of Staff.
          [(5) The Assistant Chiefs of Staff.]
          (3) The Deputy Commandants.
          [(6)] (4) Other members of the Navy and Marine Corps 
        assigned or detailed to the Headquarters, Marine Corps.
          [(7)] (5) Civilian employees in the Department of the 
        Navy assigned or detailed to the Headquarters, Marine 
        Corps.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 5045. Chief of Staff; Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff

  [There 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.]

Sec. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Grade.--(1) * * *
  (2) The Chief of Naval Reserve, while so serving, [has 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of Commander

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (2) The Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, while so serving, 
[has 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          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.

Sec. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [September 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 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 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 applicable 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [September 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                     [CHAPTER 909--CIVIL AIR PATROL

[Sec.
[9441.  Status: support by Air Force; employment.
[9442.  Assistance by other agencies.

[Sec. 9441. Status: support by Air Force; employment

  [(a) The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary 
of the Air Force.
  [(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--
          [(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.)--
                  [(A) major items of equipment, including 
                aircraft, motor vehicles, and communication 
                equipment; and
                  [(B) necessary related supplies and training 
                aids;
        that are excess to the military departments;
          [(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;
          [(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;
          [(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;
          [(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;
          [(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;
          [(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 Air Patrol while 
        carrying out any mission specifically assigned by the 
        Air Force;
          [(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;
          [(9) authorize the payment of aircraft maintenance 
        expenses relating to operational missions, unit 
        capability testing missions, and training missions;
          [(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;
          [(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
          [(12) furnish articles of the Air Force uniform to 
        Civil Air Patrol cadets without cost to such cadets.
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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.

[Sec. 9442. Assistance by other agencies

  [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 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 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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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--
          (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.

Sec. 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 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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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 person 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.

Sec. 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 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).

Sec. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [the 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 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 [the 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 
[the 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 [six months after the date of the enactment of this 
section] April 5, 2000.
  (2)(A) An individual who on [the 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 [the 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 [the date of the enactment of this 
                section] October 5, 1999, is a non-dual 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 [the 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.
  (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, [within 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [September 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''.

Sec. 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 [October 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 [October 1, 
                2001] December 31, 2001, completes 15 years of 
                service computed under that section; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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, [but 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
                  (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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 14701. Selection of officers for continuation on the reserve 
                    active-status list

  (a) Consideration for Continuation.--(1) [Upon 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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, [veterinary 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   CHAPTER 1606--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED 
                                RESERVE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [September 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions 
                    officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime 
                    critical medical skill shortages

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only 
in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned 
officer before [January 1, 2001] January 1, 2002.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          CHAPTER 1611--OTHER EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Sec.
[16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: officer candidates 
          pursuing degrees.]
16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: college tuition 
          assistance program.

[Sec. 16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: officer 
                    candidates pursuing degrees]

Sec. 16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: college tuition 
                    assistance program

  (a) Authority for [Financial] College Tuition Assistance 
Program.--The Secretary of the Navy may provide financial 
assistance to [an 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 [three] four academic years.
  (b) Eligibility.--(1) To be eligible for financial assistance 
under this section, [an enlisted] a member of the Marine Corps 
Reserve must--
          (A) be [an 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;
          [(B) meet the applicable age requirement specified in 
        paragraph (2);]
          [(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
          [(D)] (C) enter into a written agreement with the 
        Secretary described in paragraph [(3)] (2).
  [(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.
  [(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.]
  [(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--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Failure To Complete Program.--(1) [A 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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) [armory 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) [The 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

           DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                     Part A--Funding Authorizations

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 112. ANNUAL REPORT ON B-2 BOMBER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

  [(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:
          [(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.
          [(2) Whether the B-2 aircraft has a high probability 
        of being able to perform its intended missions.
          [(3) Whether any proposed modification to the 
        performance matrix referred to in paragraph (1) will be 
        provided in writing in advance to the committees.
          [(4) Whether the cost reduction initiatives 
        established for the B-2 program can be achieved 
        (together with details of the savings to be realized).
          [(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.
  [(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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.[.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   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 [of 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

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         CHAPTER 5--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
          [(14)] (15) Any other youth or charitable 
        organization designated by the Secretary of Defense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 
appropriate[, 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.
          (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 [and 
        survivability testing] of the MH-60K helicopter under 
        the MH-60K helicoptermodification program shall be 
completed prior to full materiel release of the MH-60K helicopters for 
operational use; and
          (2) operational test and evaluation [and 
        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 the date of the enactment of this Act and ending 
on [October 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 [September 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 [October 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 [September 30, 2001] 
December 31, 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                      TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE

                          CHAPTER 3--BASIC PAY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 205. Computation: service creditable

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the periods of service of 
a commissioned officer appointed under section [12209] 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 [a 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [subsistence 
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. [Subsistence]
  (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 
[in 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 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 [the 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of 
                    active duty

    (a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in 
subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1, 
1989, and ending on [December 31, 2000,] December 31, 2001, 
executesa 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 [section 301a(a)(6)(A)] 
        section 301a(a)(6)(B) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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, including active duty in the form of annual 
training, active duty for training, and active duty for special 
work.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 302a. Special pay: optometrists

  (a)  * * *
    (b) Retention Special Pay.--(1) Under regulations 
prescribed under section 303a(a) of this title, [an 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses

    (a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a 
registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on 
November 29, 1989, and ending on [December 31, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists

    (a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in 
subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November 
29, 1989, and ending on [December 31, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (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 [the 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 302f. Special pay: reserve, recalled, or retained health care 
                    officers

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in 
                    critically short wartime specialties

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under 
this section may be entered into after [December 31, 2000] 
December 31, 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 305a. Special pay: career sea pay

  [(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).
  [(b) The monthly rates for special pay under subsection (a) 
are as follows:

                                                [ENLISTED MEMBERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Years of sea duty
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                        Pay grade                          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
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Years of sea duty
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                        Pay grade                          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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                              COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Years of sea duty
                        Pay grade                        -------------------------------------------------------
                                                          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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [(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)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 to which he is entitled, be paid special duty 
assignment pay at a monthly rate not to exceed [$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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to 
any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty 
reenlistment, in the armed forces entered into after [December 
31, 2000] December 31, 2001.

Sec. 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 
[December 31, 2000] September 30, 2001.

Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected 
                    Reserve

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under 
this section to any enlisted member who, after [December 31, 
2000] December 31, 2001, reenlists or voluntarily extends his 
enlistment in a reserve component.

Sec. 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted 
member who, after [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2001, 
enlists in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an 
armed force.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve 
                    assigned to certain high priority units

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this 
section for inactive duty performed after [December 31, 2000] 
December 31, 2001.

Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for 
a reserve obligation agreement entered into after [December 31, 
2000] December 31, 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [December 31, 2000] September 
30, 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or 
                    voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of 
                    the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person 
for a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an 
enlistment after [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2001.

Sec. 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 [December 
31, 2000] December 31, 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
  (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of 
                    active duty

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in 
the case of officers who, on or before [December 31, 2000] 
December 31, 2001, execute the required written agreement to 
remain in active service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in 
the case of officers who, on or before [December 31, 2000] 
December 31, 2001, have been accepted for training for duty in 
connection with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of 
naval nuclear propulsion plants.

Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service 
year'' is any fiscal year beginning before [December 31, 2000] 
December 31, 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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--
          (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 thissection. 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).
  (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.
[435] 436. Per diem allowance for lengthy or numerous deployments.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 402. Basic allowance for subsistence

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Rates of Allowance Based on Food Costs.--[(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:
          [(A) The amount equal to the monthly cost of a 
        moderate-cost food plan for a male in the United States 
        who is between 20 and 50 years of age.
          [(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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.
  (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.

Sec. 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.
  [(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--
          [(A) the monthly cost of adequate housing in that 
        area, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, for 
        members of the uniformed services serving in the same 
        pay grade and with the same dependency status as the 
        member; and
          [(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.]
  [(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--
          [(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such 
        allowance for the preceding fiscal year (as adjusted 
        under paragraph (5)); 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 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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.
          (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 area[, 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 
        [E-4] E-3.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [section 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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (C) is involuntarily separated from active duty 
        during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and 
        ending on [September 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 [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary lodging 
                    expenses

  [(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries 
concerned, a member of a uniformed service who is ordered to 
make a change of permanent station--
          [(1) from any duty station to a duty station in the 
        United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska);
          [(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
          [(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).
          (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).
  [(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.
  [(c)] (e) Maximum Daily Payment.--A member may not be paid or 
reimbursed more that $110 a day under this section.

[Sec. 405. Travel and transportation allowances: per diem while on duty 
                    outside the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska

  [(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.
  [(b) Housing cost and allowance may be disregarded in 
prescribing a station cost of living allowance under this 
section.]

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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 [September 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 [September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001,

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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--
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [$200] 
$400 as reimbursement for the purchase of required uniforms and 
equipment--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 [$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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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 
        [for 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 under 23 years of age and is attending a school in the 
continental United States [for 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) [In 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))).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 435. Funeral honors duty: allowance

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(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.]

[Sec. 435.] Sec. 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 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), [section 
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 [September 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 [the] 
        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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (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 [September 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; [and]
          (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 Columbia[.]; 
        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; [and]
          (4) analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed 
        from relatives of missing persons[.]; and
          (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 
        undergo[, 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, [of] under one 
                or more of the following circumstances:
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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 atransition period of not more than 
[six 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 [Armed 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 [Armed 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)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Permanent duty as a full-time adviser to a unit 
        of a reserve component of the [Armed 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)[)] 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             Part B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pay

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 614. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PAY FOR NURSE ANESTHETISTS TO OTHER 
                    NURSING SPECIALTIES.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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--
          [(1) justifying the need of the departments for the 
        authority provided in such subsection; and
          [(2) describing the manner in which that authority 
        will be implemented.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 617. RETENTION BONUS FOR OPTOMETRISTS.

  (a)  * * *
  [(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--
          [(1) justifying the need of the military departments 
        for the authority provided in such subsection; and
          [(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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          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  $10,655.1  $10,707.6  $10,930.2  $11,318.40
                                     0          0          0
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.
\2\ Subject 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 [$12,441.00] $12,488.70, regardless of
  cumulative years of service computed under section 205 of title 37,
  United States Code.
\3\ This 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.
\2\ Subject 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 [$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 payment 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 [Armed 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.--[Not 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.--[The] Each report under 
subsection (a) shall include the following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Consultation.--In preparing [the] 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, 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)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Repeal of Obsolete Terminology.--Paragraph (1) of such 
section is amended by striking out ``, or [a 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 [December 31, 2002] 
December 31, 2003.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 723. IMPLEMENTATION OF REDESIGN OF PHARMACY SYSTEM.

  (a) In General.--Not later than [October 1, 1999] April 1, 
2001, the Secretary of Defense shall implement, with respect to 
eligible individuals described in subsection (e) [who 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.
  [(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.]
  (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 [December 31, 2000] December 31, 2001, and the second 
report shall be submitted not later than [December 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.)[; 
        and].
          [(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 [at 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.
  [(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.
  [(2) The areas selected by the Secretary under paragraph (1) 
shall be as follows:
          [(A) One area shall be an area outside the catchment 
        area of a military medical treatment facility in 
        which--
                  [(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
                  [(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.
          [(B) The other area shall be an area outside the 
        catchment area of a military medical treatment facility 
        in which--
                  [(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
                  [(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 [Administrative] 
Administration 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 
        [subsection (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 [3-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 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 [3\1/2\] 4\1/2\ 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).
  [(b)] (c) Report on Implementation.--Not later than six 
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretaryof 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 [and 
        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 [and 
        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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  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 [September 
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)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  [(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.
     * * * * * * *
[40303.  Membership.]
40303.  Membership and governing body.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 40302. Purposes

  The purposes of the corporation are [to--] as follows:
          (1) To provide an organization to--
                  (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 welfare[;].
          (2) To provide aviation education and training 
        especially to its senior and cadet members[;].
          (3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local 
        communities[; 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.

[Sec. 40303. Membership]

Sec. 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 [of 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 [18 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 classdestroyers in accordance with this subsection and 
subsection (a)(4), 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.

  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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.
  [(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). 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
  [(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)

  [Sec. 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.
  [Sec. 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 
[paragraph 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

  [Sec. 8175. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Department of Defense shall make progress payments based on 
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.
  [Sec. 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)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(G) The provisions of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
(42U.S.C. 9620(h)) shall apply to any transfer of real property 
under this paragraph.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

              SECTION 686 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 686. Assignment of members of the armed forces to housing units

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Effect of Certain Assignments on Entitlement to Housing 
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 [section 
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 [a 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 [Act 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 foreign nation, shall, upon 
        conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than 
        [$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

Sec. 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
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   CHAPTER 35--RETENTION PREFERENCE, RESTORATION, AND REEMPLOYMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 SUBCHAPTER I--RETENTION PREFERENCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3502. Order of retention

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (5) No authority under paragraph (1) may be exercised after 
[September 30, 2001] September 30, 2005.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    Subpart C--Employee Performance

                         CHAPTER 41--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 4107. Restriction on degree training

  (a) Except as provided in [subsection (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 
[subsection (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 
                coordinated 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 [2000] 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 [30] 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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...............     [$32,500,000]
                                                             $45,300,000

            *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                                                       -----------------
                                  Total...............    [$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 [$2,098,713,000] $2,111,513,000 as follows:
          (1) For military construction projects inside the 
        United States authorized by section 2101(a), 
        [$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--
          (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)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Restrictions on Use.--The agreement authorized under 
subsection (a) shall require the District--
          [(1) to suspend operations under the agreement in the 
        event Navy contingency operations are conducted at the 
        Center; and
          [(2) to use the property covered by the agreement in 
        a manner consistent with Navy operations conducted at 
        the Center.
  [(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.
  [(2) The Secretary may include a provision in the agreement 
requiring the District--
          [(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
          [(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:
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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.
  [(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.]
  [(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.
  [(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, [2001] 2006;
                  (B) in a manner that maximizes the return on 
                the vessels to the United States; [and]
                  (C) [in accordance with] subject to 
                subparagraph (D), in accordance with the plan 
                of the Department of Transportation for 
                disposal of those vessels and requirements 
                under sections 508 and 510(i) of the Merchant 
                Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1158, 
                1160(i))[.]; and
                  (D) to the maximum extent possible, by 
                scrapping outside of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

         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 nuclear 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 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.
    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.

        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.

      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 potential 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.

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 low-density/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.

  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 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.

                            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.

                            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 air-to-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.

                                  

```