" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107TH CONGRESS

2d Session

REPORT

107–532

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

[TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 5010]

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

JUNE 25, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATI0NS BILL, 2003

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

80–348

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107TH CONGRESS

2d Session

REPORT

2002

107–532

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

[TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 5010]

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

JUNE 25, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

(iii)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Bill Totals ................................................................................................................. 1

Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health Benefits .... 4

Committee Budget Review Process ........................................................................ 4

Major Recommendations in the Committee Bill ................................................... 4

Committee Recommendations by Major Category ................................................ 7

Active Military Personnel ................................................................................ 7

Guard and Reserve ........................................................................................... 7

Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................ 7

Procurement ...................................................................................................... 7

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ............................................... 8

Forces to be Supported ............................................................................................ 8

Department of the Army .................................................................................. 8

Department of the Navy .................................................................................. 9

Department of the Air Force ........................................................................... 10

TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................... 11

Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations ..... 12

Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2003 ... 12

Adjustments to Military Personnel Account .................................................. 13

End Strength Adjustments ....................................................................... 13

Program Growth ........................................................................................ 13

Selective Reenlistment Bonus .................................................................. 13

Unobligated Military Personnel Balances ............................................... 14

Academy Study .......................................................................................... 14

Full-Time Support Strengths ................................................................... 15

Military Personnel, Army ................................................................................ 16

Military Personnel, Navy ................................................................................. 18

Military Personnel, Marine Corps ................................................................... 20

Military Personnel, Air Force .......................................................................... 22

Reserve Personnel, Army ................................................................................. 24

Realignment of Funds ............................................................................... 26

Reserve Personnel, Navy ................................................................................. 26

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps ................................................................... 28

Reserve Personnel, Air Force .......................................................................... 30

National Guard Personnel, Army .................................................................... 32

National Guard Personnel, Air Force ............................................................. 34

TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................. 37

Operation and Maintenance Overview ........................................................... 39

Recommendations to Address Shortfalls ................................................. 39

Military Training ....................................................................................... 40

Civilian Pay ............................................................................................... 41

Government Purchase and Travel Cards ................................................ 41

Ultralightweight Camouflage Nets .......................................................... 42

Strong and Ready Families ...................................................................... 43

Contingency Operations Questionable Expenditures ............................. 43

Study of African Americans in the Armed Services ............................... 43

Firefighting and Emergency Response at DoD Installations ................ 44

Unobligated Balances ................................................................................ 44

Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data ............................. 44

Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings ....................................... 45

0–1 Reprogramming Approval Requirement ........................................... 46

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 46

Operation and Maintenance, Army ................................................................. 46

Online Technology Training Program ..................................................... 50

Camera Assisted Monitoring System—CAMS ........................................ 50

Page

iv

TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE —Continued

Operation and Maintenance, Army —Continued

Worker Safety Demonstration Program .................................................. 50

Recruiting and Advertising ...................................................................... 50

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ................................................................. 51

Center for Defense Technology and Education for the Military Services (CDTEMS) ....................................................................................... 55

Space and Naval Warfare Information Technology Center (SITC) ....... 55

Improved Engineering Design Process .................................................... 56

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................................... 56

Depot Maintenance—Radars .................................................................... 58

Training and Support Facilities ............................................................... 58

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force .......................................................... 58

CONUS Combat Air Patrol (CAP) ........................................................... 63

Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Platform ......................................... 63

Fairchild Air Force Base Museum Property ........................................... 63

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................................... 64

Armed Forces Information Service .......................................................... 67

George AFB ................................................................................................ 68

Norton AFB ................................................................................................ 68

GAVRT Project Expansion ........................................................................ 68

Lewis Center for Educational Research .................................................. 68

Legacy ........................................................................................................ 68

DLAMP ....................................................................................................... 68

Office of the Secretary of Defense ............................................................ 68

Connecticut Consortium for Aviation Technology (CCAT) ..................... 68

Charles Melvin Price Support Center ...................................................... 68

Child Care and Family Assistance Programs ......................................... 69

Family Advocacy Programs ...................................................................... 69

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve .................................................. 69

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................................................... 71

Grissom ARB Navy Reserve Center ........................................................ 73

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ..................................... 73

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ............................................ 75

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard ..................................... 77

Joint Training and Experimentation Project .......................................... 79

Missouri Army National Guard ............................................................... 79

Massachusetts Military Reservation ....................................................... 79

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard ......................................... 79

Missouri Air National Guard ................................................................... 82

Key Field, Mississippi ............................................................................... 82

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ......................................... 82

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces .................................. 82

Environmental Restoration, Army .................................................................. 83

Environmental Restoration, Navy ................................................................... 83

Environmental Restoration, Air Force ............................................................ 83

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide .................................................... 83

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites .......................... 83

Mount Umunhum ...................................................................................... 84

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid .......................................... 84

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction ......................................................... 84

Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense .......................... 84

Defense Emergency Response Fund ............................................................... 84

TITLE III. PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 87

Estimates and Appropriations Summary ....................................................... 87

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

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 89

Army Large Scale Contract Review ......................................................... 89

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 89

UH–60L Blackhawk Flight Simulator ..................................................... 92

CH–47F Upgrade Program Restructure .................................................. 92

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 95

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .................. 99

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................................ 103

Program Executive Officer for Ammunition ............................................ 107

Cancellation of Wide Area Munition (WAM) Program ........................... 107

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 110

Up-Armored HMMWVs ............................................................................. 119

Page

v

TITLE III. PROCUREMENT—Continued

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 124

CH–60S Common Cockpit Multi-Year Procurement .............................. 128

Tactical Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) .............. 128

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 130

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps ................................. 134

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 138

CVN–77 Integrated Warfare System (IWS) ............................................ 141

SSGN Acquisition Strategy ...................................................................... 142

DDG–51 Composite Structures ................................................................ 143

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 145

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 156

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 163

F–22 Raptor ............................................................................................... 167

Incremental Funding of the C–17 ............................................................ 168

Predator B Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) ......................................... 168

Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

(HAEUAV) .............................................................................................. 169

E–8 Joint Stars .......................................................................................... 169

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 172

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ......................................................... 176

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 180

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 187

Technical Assistance Program ................................................................. 192

Advanced Seal Delivery System ............................................................... 192

Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency ................................................... 192

Patriot Advanced Capability–3 (PAC–3) ................................................. 192

National Guard and Reserve Equipment ....................................................... 196

Defense Production Act Purchases .................................................................. 196

Information Technology ................................................................................... 196

Transfers from the Defense Emergency Response Fund ....................... 198

Navy Marine Corps Intranet .................................................................... 198

Information Technology Budget Exhibits ................................................ 199

Information Technology Network Consolidation .................................... 200

GIG Bandwidth Expansion ....................................................................... 200

Integration Software Technology ............................................................. 200

Defense Integrated Military Human Resource System .......................... 200

Command and Control Systems ............................................................... 201

Army Information Systems ....................................................................... 201

Information Assurance .............................................................................. 201

Space and Naval Warfare Information Technology Center (SITC) ....... 201

Courseware for IT Managers .................................................................... 201

Army Knowledge Online ........................................................................... 202

USMC Continuity of Operations Plan ..................................................... 202

Configuration Management Information Systems .................................. 202

Reserve Component Automated System (RCAS) .................................... 202

Financial Management Modernization Pilots ......................................... 203

TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION .... 205

Estimates and Appropriation Summary ......................................................... 205

Special Interest Items ............................................................................... 207

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 207

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Road Map ........................................... 207

Future Testing Requirements .................................................................. 207

Network Centric-Warfare ......................................................................... 208

Evolutionary Acquisition and Spiral Development ................................ 209

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army .................................... 210

Crusader ..................................................................................................... 237

Comanche ................................................................................................... 240

Brilliant Anti-Armor Technology (BAT) and BAT P3I Submunition

Program .................................................................................................. 241

Army MEMS Technology Development Acceleration ............................. 241

Future Combat System Materials Technology ........................................ 241

Proposed Transfer of Patriot Advanced Capability–3 (PAC–3) and

Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) to the Army ......... 242

Pseudo folliculitis Barbe (PFB) ................................................................ 242

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy ..................................... 246

Navy Venture Organization ..................................................................... 262

Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS) ................... 262

Page

vi

TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

—Continued

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy —Continued

Nonlinear Dynamics Stochastic Resonance ............................................. 263

Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) ............................................................................................... 263

Vertical Take-Off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial VehicleRescission ............................................................................................... 264

Open/Converged Architecture for Naval Fires Network ........................ 264

Tactical Control System (TCS) and the Joint Operational Test Bed

(JOTBS) .................................................................................................. 264

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)/Quickbolt ............. 265

Bone Marrow Registry .............................................................................. 265

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force .............................. 269

Bioreactor Environmental Initiative ........................................................ 285

Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

(HAEUAV) .............................................................................................. 285

Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) ................................. 285

Transformational Wideband MILSATCOM ............................................ 286

SBIRS High ............................................................................................... 286

MILSTAR ................................................................................................... 286

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ...................... 291

Chemical and Biological Defense Program Homeland Security Initiative .......................................................................................................... 306

Historically Black and Hispanic Serving Institutions Science .............. 306

Technical Studies, Support and Analyses ............................................... 306

Portable Radiation Search Tool ................................................................ 306

Polymer Based Chemical and Biological Sensors ................................... 306

Micro Electrical Mechanical Systems (MEMS) for Rolling Element

Bearings .................................................................................................. 307

Laser Additive Manufacturing Initiative ................................................ 307

Engineered Pathogen Identification and Countermeasure Program .... 307

Blast Resistant Construction Evaluation Program ................................ 307

Active Sensors for Components Development for Advanced Tactical

Systems ................................................................................................... 307

Spin Electronics ......................................................................................... 307

USNR Information Infrastructure Continuity of Operations ................ 308

Challenge Program .................................................................................... 308

Missile Defense Overview ......................................................................... 308

Sea Based Terminal .................................................................................. 308

Sea Based Boost/Space Based Kinetic Energy ........................................ 309

Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) .................................. 309

Patriot Advanced Capability—3 (PAC–3) ................................................ 309

Theater High Altitude Area Defense ....................................................... 310

Russian-American Observation Satellites Program (RAMOS) .............. 310

SPY–1 Solid State Radar .......................................................................... 310

Missile Defense Reporting and Reprogramming Requirements ............ 310

Advanced Tactical Laser Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) ............................................................................................ 310

Underwater Systems Advanced Development ........................................ 311

Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency ................................................... 311

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 315

Information Assurance Testing ................................................................ 317

TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS ................................ 319

Defense Working Capital Funds ..................................................................... 319

National Defense Sealift Fund ........................................................................ 319

Maritime Preposition Force (Future)—MPF(F) ...................................... 319

Strategic Sealift Capacity ......................................................................... 319

T–5 Tanker Buyout ................................................................................... 320

TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS ............... 320

Defense Health Program .................................................................................. 321

Reprogramming ......................................................................................... 321

Military Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) Optimization .................... 321

Defense Health Program Underexecution ............................................... 321

Healthcare Quality Initiatives Review Panel ......................................... 322

Shared BL–3 Biocontainment Research Facility .................................... 322

American University of Beirut ................................................................. 322

North Chicago Veterans Administration Medical Center and Naval

Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois .............................................................. 322

Page

vii

TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS—Continued

Defense Health Program —Continued

Environmental Medical Unit .................................................................... 323

Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Early Detection Research ...................... 323

Army Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research .................................... 323

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army ..................................... 324

Access Road Engineering Studies ............................................................ 324

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ............................. 327

Southern Command Reconnaissance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

Counter-Drug Initiative ........................................................................ 327

National Guard State Plans ..................................................................... 327

Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft .................................................... 328

T–AGOS ..................................................................................................... 328

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 328

Office of the Inspector General ........................................................................ 328

TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES .................................................................... 331

National Foreign Intelligence Program .......................................................... 331

Introduction ............................................................................................... 331

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 331

Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund ........ 331

Intelligence Community Management Account ............................................. 332

Payment to Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund ............................................................................. 332

National Security Education Trust Fund ....................................................... 332

TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................. 333

Definition of Program, Project and Activity ................................................... 333

Center for Military Recruitment Assessment and Veterans Employment .. 334

Navy Marine Corps Intranet ........................................................................... 334

Pentagon Reconstruction ................................................................................. 334

TITLE IX. COUNTER-TERRORISM AND DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ..................................................................... 335

Counter-Terrorism and Operational Response Transfer Fund ..................... 335

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction ......................................................... 335

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ......... 337

Changes in the Application of Existing Law .................................................. 337

Appropriations Language ......................................................................... 337

General Provisions .................................................................................... 339

Appropriations Not Authorized by Law .......................................................... 342

Transfer of Funds ............................................................................................. 343

Rescissions ........................................................................................................ 344

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives ............................ 344

Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule) ............................ 344

Constitutional Authority .................................................................................. 345

Comparison with the Budget Resolution ........................................................ 345

Five-Year Outlay Projections ........................................................................... 345

Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments ................................. 346

Additional Views ............................................................................................... 359

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 107–532

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003

JUNE 25, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. LEWIS of California, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 5010]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the

Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2003.

BILL TOTALS

Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of

Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal

year 2003. This bill does not provide appropriations for military

construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with

other appropriations bills.

The President’s fiscal year 2003 budget request for activities

funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals

$366,794,095,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. This total

includes $10,000,000,000 requested as a contingency amount relating to the ongoing war on terrorism. Under the President’s budget,

these funds were proposed to be appropriated in a lump sum, and

would be made available to the extent specified in subsequent official budget requests by the President to Congress. The Committee

notes that the Administration has yet to provide any specific request or budget justification for these funds. Pending receipt of any

such request or budget amendment, the Committee has deferred

action on this $10,000,000,000 appropriation.

2

1The fiscal year 2003 budget request was adjusted to not include $3,412,561,000, the proposed

cost to cover the accrued cost related to retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System

employees and retiree health benefits for all civilian employees.

Putting aside the amounts requested for this contingency fund,

the President’s fiscal year 2003 budget request for activities funded

in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals

$356,794,095,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The

amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill

total $354,712,914,000 in new budget authority. This is

$2,081,181,000 below the budget estimate ($12,081,181,000 if the

$10,000,000,000 contingency fund is included), and $33,843,567,000

above the sums made available for the Department of Defense for

fiscal year 2002.1

3

4

ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POST-RETIREMENT

HEALTH BENEFITS

The President’s budget included a legislative proposal under the

jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government Reform to

charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal year 2003, the fully

accrued costs related to retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and retiree health benefits for all civilian

employees. The budget request also included an additional dollar

amount in each affected discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.

Without a discussion of the merits of this legislative proposal, the

Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the President’s request shown in the ‘‘Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority’’ and other tables in this report to exclude the accrual funding proposal. The Committee makes this recommendation because

the disposition of the legislative proposal is unclear at this time.

Should the proposal be adopted by Congress and enacted into law,

the Committee will make appropriate adjustments.

The Committee further notes that administration proposals requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate schedules apart from the regular appropriation requests. Should such a

proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally modifying the

President’s appropriation request for discretionary funding is then

transmitted to the Congress.

The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has worked

effectively for both Congress and past administrations, was not followed for this accrual funding proposal. In this case, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) decided to include accrual

amounts in the original discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts are based on legislation that has yet to be

considered and approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to numerous misunderstandings both inside and

outside of Congress of what was the ‘‘true’’ President’s budget request. The Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-established procedures with respect to discretionary

spending proposals that require legislative action.

COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS

During its review of the fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Subcommittee on Defense held a total of eight hearings during the period of February 2002 to June 2002. Testimony received by the

Subcommittee totaled 824 pages of transcript. Approximately half

of the hearings were held in open session. Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the security classification of the material to be discussed presented no alternative.

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE COMMITTEE BILL

Ballistic Missile Defense.—The Committee bill provides $7.4 billion for ballistic missile defense, $74 million less than the President

requested. This includes full funding for the Ground based midcourse program and the Block 2004 test bed. In addition, the Committee has provided additional funding to support near term theater missile defense, including adding $64 million for the Arrow

5

program and $95 million for the PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3.

Reductions were taken primarily from the Sea Based Terminal program, a legacy of the terminated Navy area program; the RAMOS

cooperative program, for which there is no signed agreement; and

the Airborne Laser.

Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities.—The Committee

bill fully supports intelligence-related programs including funds requested for anti-terrorism activities.

The Committee has also supported the Administration’s request

for additional research on and acquisition of unmanned aerial vehicles. The Committee has fully supported the Air Force and Navy

development efforts associated with the Global Hawk UAV, including additional funds to implement the Air Force’s plan for overall

program cost reductions. The Committee has also included funds

for the acquisition of additional Predator B systems as well as an

I–GNAT system for the Army to begin concept of operations testing

for its objective Tactical UAV system.

Military Personnel and Defense Health Program.—The Committee bill fully funds the proposed pay raise of 4.1 percent for

military personnel and targeted pay raises of up to 6.5 percent for

mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers. In addition it supports the budget request to continue to reduce service members’

out-of-pocket housing expenses from 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent in

fiscal year 2003. The Committee bill recommends a reduction of

$354 million to the budget request for the Defense Health Program

(DHP) due to reduced demand forecasts for services provided by

the DHP. The Committee bill also increases military-related medical research and other initiatives by over $600 million.

Readiness Accounts.—The Committee bill fully supports the Department’s request for training and readiness funding. It provides

full funding for proposed increases in land forces training, tank

training miles and the Air Force and Navy Flying Hour Program,

as well as ship operations. The Committee bill also supports a $1.8

billion increase in funding for base support operations and for

sustainment, modernization and restoration of real property. The

Committee bill also provides $400 million over the budget request

for individual soldier and marine equipment, unit tactical equipment, training and support facilities, renovation of barracks and

dining facilities, depot maintenance and other readiness and training items.

Strategic Mobility.—The Committee bill fully supports the Administration’s request to meet our military’s strategic mobility requirements. This includes $3.7 billion for the procurement of 12 C–

17 transports, including language directing the Air Force to fully

fund the acquisition of 15 C–17s in fiscal year 2004; approval of the

Administration’s request for multiyear authority to acquire 40 CC–

130Js and 24 KC–130Js; and finally, $89 million for the reengining

of 3 additional KC–135E tankers.

Crusader.—The Committee bill approves the Administration’s

recommendation to terminate the Crusader program and to realign

fiscal year 2003 funding to accelerate Army development of a number of precision munitions and related technologies. The Committee

bill also provides an increase of $173,000,000 over the amended

budget for the follow-on Objective Force-Indirect Fire system, in

6

order to ensure that such a system can be delivered no later than

fiscal year 2008.

Shipbuilding.—The Committee bill supports the budget request

for all major shipbuilding programs requested by the Department,

with the exception of the LHD–8, while recommending some minor

reductions due to program execution issues. The Committee bill

has also provided a net addition of $250 million to the budget request for the CVN–77 aircraft carrier program to restore

warfighting capability improvements that had been deferred by the

Navy.

Space Programs.—The Committee has recommended a number of

reductions to DoD Space programs due to fact of life schedule

delays, unwarranted cost growth and under-execution to include reductions of: $95 million to AEHF Advanced Procurement, $80 million to Wideband Communications, $100 million to the Titan heavy

lift launcher, and $70 million to the Space Based Infrared System

(SBIRS)—High program.

Chemical/Biological Programs.—The Committee bill has fully

funded the President’s budget request for the Chemical and Bio- logical Defense Program to include $420,000,000 for a homeland security initiative. This proposal would fund the establishment of a

Center for Biological Counterterrorism at the U.S. Army Medical

Research and Material Command, the establishment and deployment of a fully operational biological surveillance system in the National Capital Region and one other urban location, and an initial

operational surveillance capability in 2 additional urban areas.

In addition, the Committee has supported funding to demonstrate and provide effective protection from chemical and biological agent attack at various military installations across the nation.

The ‘‘CONUS Pilot Protection Project’’ will procure an integrated

suite of highly effective chemical and biological sensors and support

equipment to be installed and demonstrated at nine installations

during fiscal year 2003.

Defense Transformation.—The Committee has supported and accelerated the transformational objectives of the Department by:

(a) Increasing funding for Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations and Quick Reaction Special Projects to speed up the

transition of tools for the warfighter from concept and design to

operational prototypes in the field.

(b) Providing funding to expand the bandwidth capacity of the

Global Information Grid to 10 gigabytes, transforming the way information and intelligence can be gathered and shared by the national security community.

(c) Directing the Department of the Navy to examine the benefits

of adopting commercial venture capital practices for the more rapid

inclusion of cutting edge technologies in major Navy system acquisition programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY

ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL

The Committee recommends a total of $79,168,541,000 for active

military personnel, a decrease of $687,224,000 below the budget request. The Committee supports the budget request which proposed

a 4.1 percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1,

7

2003, and targeted pay raises of up to 6.5 percent for mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers. The Committee also agrees

with the authorized end strength as requested in the President’s

budget.

GUARD AND RESERVE

The Committee recommends a total of $14,256,293,000 a decrease of $135,800,000 below the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee has also included funds for the

proposed 4.1 percent pay raise. The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President’s budget for the

Selected Reserve.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for the

readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and

equipment, the infrastructure that supports combat forces, and the

quality of life of service members and their families.

The Committee recommends $114,780,366,000, a net increase of

$9,732,722,000 above the fiscal year 2002 appropriated amount.

The Committee has supported improvements in funding for tactical

flying hour programs, land forces training, ship operations, depot

maintenance, base support operations, and maintenance and repair

of real property. The Committee has added to the budget request

a number of items critical to the welfare and readiness of service

members, and also items contributing to the management efficiency

of the services. Finally, the Committee recommends reductions

from the budget request as a result of fact of life changes and management actions the Department of Defense should undertake to

improve its operations.

PROCUREMENT

The Committee recommends $70,285,272,000 for programs funded in title III procurement accounts.

Major programs funded in the bill include:

$242,561,000 for 16 UH–60 Blackhawk Helicopters.

$387,061,000 for CH–47 Cargo Helicopter Modifications.

$865,781,000 for Apache Longbow Advanced Procurement.

$223,052,000 for 1478 Javelin missiles.

$457,053,000 for Bradley Fighting Vehicle Base Sustainment.

$772,031,000 for Interim Armored Vehicles.

$376,268,000 for M1 Abrams Upgrades.

$681,373,000 for Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.

$3,076,233,000 for 44 F/A–18 E/F Fighter aircraft.

$1,025,660,000 for 11 MV–22 aircraft.

$279,155,000 for 15 MH–60S helicopters.

$267,851,000 for 5 E–2C Hawkeye Early Warning aircraft.

$585,916,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.

$664,820,000 for Tomahawk Missiles.

$250,000,000 for the CVN–77 Integrated Warfare System.

$1,490,652,000 for 1 New Attack Submarine.

$2,273,002,000 for DDG–51 Destroyers.

$596,492,000 for 1 LPD–17 Amphibious Assault Ship.

$4,090,434,000 for 23 F–22 Fighter aircraft.

8

$2,694,140,000 for 12 C–17 Airlift aircraft.

$3,665,454,000 for ammunition for all services.

$536,670,000 for Missile Defense Agency programs.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

The Committee recommends $57,754,286,000 for programs funded in Title IV Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation accounts. Major Programs funded in the bill include:

$885,508,000 for the DD–(X) development program.

$420,109,000 for V–22 development.

$3,471,168,000 for development of the Joint Strike Fighter.

$844,783,000 for Advanced EHF Military Satellite Communications.

$627,266,000 for F–22 Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing

Development.

$265,327,000 for B–2 Bomber Technology Upgrades.

$744,927,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)—

High.

$354,743,000 for Endurance Unmanned Vehicles

$6,820,786,000 for Missile Defense Agency programs.

FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

The fiscal year 2003 budget is designed to support active Army

forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve

forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced National Guard brigades (6 enhanced brigades will be aligned under

2 AC/ARNG integrated division headquarters). These forces provide

the minimum force necessary to meet enduring defense needs and

execute the National Military Strategy.

A summary of the major forces follows:

Fiscal year—

2001 2002 2003

Divisions: 1

Airborne .............................................................................................. 1 1 1

Air Assault ......................................................................................... 1 1 1

Light ................................................................................................... 2 1 2 2

Infantry ............................................................................................... 0 0 0

Mechanized ........................................................................................ 4 4 4

Armored .............................................................................................. 2 2 2

Total ............................................................................................... 10 10 10

Non-division Combat units:

Armored Cavalry Regiments .............................................................. 3 3 3

Separate Brigades ............................................................................. 1 2 1 1

Total ............................................................................................... 3 3 3

Active duty military personnel, end strength (Thousands) ........................ 480 480 480

1 Separate brigade is aligned to one of the light divisions.

2 Selected Divisions will have the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (2 brigades undergoing transformation at a location TBD) within them.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

The fiscal year 2003 budget supports battle forces totaling 308

ships at the end of fiscal year 2003, including 18 strategic subVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
9

marines, 12 aircraft carriers, 237 other battle force ships, 1,628

Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 696 Undergraduate

Training aircraft, 460 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 349 Fleet Air

Support aircraft, 408 Reserve aircraft, and 453 in the pipeline.

A summary of the major forces follows:

Fiscal Year—

2001 2002 2003

Strategic Forces ...................................................................................................... 18 18 18

Submarines .................................................................................................... 18 18 18

SLBM Launchers ..................................................................................................... 432 432 432

General Purpose ...................................................................................................... 258 257 249

Aircraft Carriers ............................................................................................. 12 12 12

Surface Combatants ...................................................................................... 108 108 102

Submarines (Attack) ...................................................................................... 55 54 54

Amphibious Warfare Ships ............................................................................ 38 38 37

Combat Logistics Ships ................................................................................. 34 34 33

Mine Warfare .................................................................................................. 11 11 11

Support Forces ........................................................................................................ 25 25 25

Mobile Logistics Ships ................................................................................... 2 2 2

Support Ships ................................................................................................ 23 23 23

Mobilization Category A (Reserve) .......................................................................... 15 15 16

Surface Combatants ...................................................................................... 8 8 11

Amphibious Ships .......................................................................................... 1 1 0

Mine Warfare .................................................................................................. 6 6 5

Total Ships, Battle Force ........................................................................... 316 315 308

Total Local Defense/Misc Force ................................................................. 177 166 165

Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces ...................................................................................... 137 140 141

Coastal Defense ...................................................................................................... 13 13 13

Mobilization Category B .......................................................................................... 10 10 10

Surface Combatants ...................................................................................... 0 0 0

Mine Warfare Ships ....................................................................................... 10 10 10

Support Ships ................................................................................................ 0 0 0

Naval Aircraft:

Primary Authorized (Plus Pipe) ...................................................................... 4,272 4,260 4,276

Authorized Pipeline ........................................................................................ 477 465 453

Tactical/ASW Aircraft ..................................................................................... 1,622 1,621 1,628

Fleet Air Training ........................................................................................... 460 474 460

Fleet Air Support ............................................................................................ 358 344 349

Training (Undergraduate) .............................................................................. 683 691 696

Reserve ........................................................................................................... 411 403 408

Naval Personnel:

Active:

Navy ...................................................................................................... 377,810 376,000 375,700

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 172,934 172,600 175,000

Reserve:

Navy ...................................................................................................... 87,913 86,300 87,800

SELRES/Drilling Reserve .............................................................. 73,341 71,489 73,228

Full-time Support ......................................................................... 14,572 14,811 14,572

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 39,810 39,558 39,558

SELRES ......................................................................................... 37,542 37,297 37,297

Full-time Support ......................................................................... 2,268 2,261 2,261

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

The fiscal year 2003 Air Force budget is designed to support active, guard, and reserve forces, including 86 combat coded fighter

and attack squadrons and 9 combat coded strategic bomber squadrons. The Minuteman, Peacekeeper and ICBM forces stand at 588

launch facilities and 533 missile boosters. The budget also supports

our critical airlift mission, including 22 active duty airlift squadrons. To accomplish the Air Force mission, the 2003 budget supports 358,800 Total Force endstrength.

A summary of the major forces follows:

10

Fiscal year—

2001 2002 2003

USAF Fighter and Attack Squadrons (Active, ANG, AFRC)* ................................... 88 88 86

Active ............................................................................................................. 46 46 45

ANG ................................................................................................................ 37 37 36

AFRC ............................................................................................................... 5 5 5

Strategic Bomber Squadrons (Active) .................................................................... 9 9 8

Strategic Bomber Squadrons (ANG & AFRC) .......................................................... 3 3 1

Flight Test Units (DT and OT units w/assigned jets) ............................................ 11 11 11

Fighter ............................................................................................................ 8 8 8

Bomber ........................................................................................................... 3 3 3

ICBM Operational Launch Facilities/Control Centers ............................................. 605 605 588

ICBM Missile Inventory ........................................................................................... 550 550 533

USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active):

Strategic Airlift Squadrons ............................................................................ 11 12 12

Tactical Airlift Squadrons .............................................................................. 10 10 10

Total Airlift Squadrons .............................................................................. 21 22 22

Total Active Inventory ................................................................................ 6,282 5,903 5,851

* Note: Number of Fighter and Bomber Squadrons reflect combat-coded (CC) units only; i.e., no training or test units.

Endstrength FY2001 Col

FY2002 PB FY2002 PB FY2003 PB

Active Duty .............................................................................................................. 353,571 358,800 359,000

Reserve Component ................................................................................................ 183,354 183,100 182,200

Air National Guard .................................................................................................. 108,485 108,400 106,600

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................................... 74,869 74,700 75,600

(11)

TITLE I

MILITARY PERSONNEL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL

APPROPRIATIONS

The President’s fiscal year 2003 budget request continues to

make military personnel its first priority through increased funding

for military pay, housing allowances and overall quality of life programs.

The budget request proposed a 4.1 percent across the board pay

raise, effective January 1, 2003 for all service members. In addition, the budget request also proposed targeted pay raises of up to

6.5 percent for mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers.

This increase is on top of the average 6.9 percent basic pay increase that went into effect in January 2002. Fiscal year 2003 will

be the fourth year the pay structure for military personnel is being

revised to address pay shortfalls in grades that are experiencing

significant retention issues, and also to improve the pay of military

personnel compared to private sector pay.

The budget request includes funding for Basic Allowance for

Housing (BAH) in order to continue to reduce the service members’

out-of-pocket housing expenses from 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent in

fiscal year 2003. The Committee supports the enhancements to

military pay and increased housing benefits for fiscal year 2003.

SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

Fiscal year 2002 .................................................................................. $82,056,651,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 94,247,858,000

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation ..................................................... 93,424,834,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥823,024,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $93,424,834,000

for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of $11,368,183,000 above the $82,056,651,000 appropriated

in fiscal year 2002. These military personnel budget total comparisons include appropriations for the active, reserve, and National

Guard accounts. The following tables include a summary of the recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of changes

from the budget request appear later in this section.

[In thousands of dollars]

Account Budget Recommendation Change from

request

Military Personnel:

Army ............................................................................................. $27,079,392 26,832,217 ¥247,175

Navy ............................................................................................. 22,074,901 21,874,395 ¥200,506

Marine Corps ................................................................................ 8,558,887 8,504,172 ¥54,715

12

[In thousands of dollars]

Account Budget Recommendation Change from

request

Air Force ....................................................................................... 22,142,585 21,957,757 ¥184,828

Subtotal, Active ....................................................................... 79,855,765 79,168,541 ¥687,244

Reserve Personnel:

Army ............................................................................................. 3,398,555 3,373,455 ¥25,100

Navy ............................................................................................. 1,927,152 1,897,352 ¥29,800

Marine Corps ................................................................................ 557,883 553,983 ¥3,900

Air Force ....................................................................................... 1,243,904 1,236,904 ¥7,000

National Guard Personnel:

Army ............................................................................................. 5,128,988 5,070,188 ¥58,800

Air Force ....................................................................................... 2,135,611 2,124,411 ¥11,200

Subtotal, Guard and Reserve .................................................. 14,392,093 14,256,293 ¥135,800

Total, Title I ............................................................................. 94,247,858 93,424,834 ¥823,024

The fiscal year 2003 budget request includes an increase of approximately 2,300 end strength for the active forces and a slight increase of 100 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year

2002 authorized levels.

The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted in

the tables below.

OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 1,387,400

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,389,700

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation ..................................................... 1,389,700

Compared with Fiscal year 2002 ............................................... +2,300

Compared with Fiscal year 2003 budget request ..................... -0-

OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH

Fiscal year 2002 estimate .................................................................. 864,658

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 864,558

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation ..................................................... 864,558

Compared with Fiscal year 2002 ............................................... ¥100

Compared with Fiscal year 2003 budget request ..................... -0-

FY 2002 estimate

Fiscal year 2003—

Budget request Recommendation Change from

request

Active Forces (end strength):

Army .............................................................. 480,000 480,000 480,000 ..........................

Navy .............................................................. 376,000 375,700 375,700 ..........................

Marine Corps ................................................. 172,600 175,000 175,000 ..........................

Air Force ........................................................ 358,800 359,000 359,000 ..........................

Total, Active Force .................................... 1,387,400 1,389,700 1,389,700 ..........................

Guard and Reserve (end strength):

Army Reserve ................................................ 205,000 205,000 205,000 ..........................

Navy Reserve ................................................. 87,000 87,800 87,800 ..........................

Marine Corps Reserve ................................... 39,558 39,558 39,558 ..........................

Air Force Reserve .......................................... 74,700 75,600 75,600 ..........................

Army National Guard .................................... 350,000 350,000 350,000 ..........................

Air National Guard ........................................ 108,400 106,600 106,600 ..........................

Total, Guard and Reserve ........................ 864,658 864,558 864,558 ..........................

13

ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT

OVERVIEW

END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommends appropriations necessary to support

the military personnel end strength levels proposed in the President’s budget request. This action is recommended without prejudice as it pertains to the question of increasing active duty personnel strength to the higher levels contained in the House-passed

Department of Defense Authorization bill.

The Committee takes this position in light of the considerable

uncertainty regarding the funding needed in fiscal year 2003 to finance the military personnel accounts, in large measure because of

ongoing operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The DoD is likely to incur additional unbudgeted personnel-related costs necessary

to prosecute the Global War on Terrorism, from actions such as the

stop-loss program and the continued mobilization of Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee also is aware of ongoing internal

Department of Defense studies focusing on realignment of military

workloads and functions, which may result in more personnel being

made available for essential missions, but could be costly to implement.

In light of these unresolved policy questions regarding end

strength levels, and the uncertainty of overall funding requirements, the Committee believes it best to await further resolution

of these issues, and for the Department of Defense to submit a supplemental appropriations request or reprogramming action as necessary to address any additional fiscal year 2003 military personnel-related funding needs once these requirements are solidified.

PROGRAM GROWTH

The Committee recommends a decrease of $186,810,000 to the

budget request for the following programs due to program growth.

A reduction to these compensation programs would maintain these

programs at last year’s level of funding.

[Dollars in thousands]

Unemployment Compensation .............................................................. ¥$27,910

Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program ............................................... ¥49,000

$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus .................................................................... ¥28,700

Critical Skills Accession Bonus ............................................................ ¥18,300

Critical Skills Retention Bonus ............................................................ ¥38,900

Enlistment Bonus Program .................................................................. ¥24,000

Total ................................................................................................. ¥186,810

SELECTIVE REENLISTMENT BONUS

The Committee recommends a decrease of $49,000,000 to reduce

the Army and Navy Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program

for initial payments based on a General Accounting Office (GAO)

review of the Services’ budget requests and the recent trends in

SRB program obligations and expenditures.

The Services rely on the SRB program to encourage enlisted

service members in critical occupations to remain in the military.

14

Following DoD’s downsizing in the early and mid 1990s, the services increasingly relied on the SRB program to help retain

servicemembers in an expanding range of occupations. Since the

program guidance for the SRB program was rescinded in 1996, and

is still not available, the Services’ administer their own programs

with limited OSD oversight.

Recently, concerns have been raised that the program has grown

beyond its original intent. It appears the program is now being applied broadly to address aggregate retention problems, rather than

targeting critical military specialties that impact readiness. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the Navy and Air Force expect to provide bonuses to 43 and 51 percent of their reenlistees, respectively.

Overall, the cost of the SRB program has increased significantly,

with the services’ budget requests rising from $247,000,000 for fis- cal year 1996 to over $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, an increase

of over 200 percent. Part of this increase is the result of the services over executing their programs. By spending more than was requested, the services incurred higher than expected commitments

to make anniversary payments in future years, which in turn has

raised the overall cost of the program.

The Committee believes that with limited OSD guidance and

oversight of this program, a reassessment of the program is warranted to ensure it is being managed efficiently. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committee by March

31, 2003 on (1) the effectiveness of the SRB program in correcting

retention shortfalls in critical occupations, (2) its replacement program guidance, and how that guidance will ensure that the program targets only critical specialties that impact readiness, (3) the

steps DoD will take to match program execution with appropriated

funding, (4) an evaluation of the process the services use to administer the program, and (5) the advantages and disadvantages of

paying bonuses as a single lump sum payment.

The Committee directs the Comptroller General to review and

assess the DoD report and to report the results of that assessment

to the Committee not later than June 1, 2003.

UNOBLIGATED MILITARY PERSONNEL BALANCES

The Committee recommends a reduction of $145,000,000 to the

budget request, as a result of a General Accounting Office review

of prior year unobligated military personnel account balances. Generally the Services’ military personnel appropriations are obligated

in the year of appropriation, with the majority of the obligated balances being disbursed within two years after being appropriated.

However, all of the funds obligated are not always expended, and

those unexpended balances are then transferred to the foreign currency account. Since the Services’ account data have shown a pattern of large unexpended balances, the Committee believes that the

fiscal year 2003 military personnel budget request is overstated

and can be reduced.

ACADEMY STUDY

The Committee is aware of recent studies that have illustrated

a number of troubling trends at the military service academies.

Most recently, studies by the Air Force Personnel Center and the

15

Air Force Academy have shown significant increases in admissions

of cadets below academic minimums and equally significant increases in admissions of recruited athletes, with those below academic minimums less likely to graduate, become pilots, have technical degrees, or become senior leaders. Data also suggests cause

for concern with admissions from the preparatory schools. The

Committee believes that the ‘‘whole person’’ admissions criteria

should not be a substitute for graduating highly qualified future

leaders.

The Committee directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) to

review DoD’s oversight of its military service academies and preparatory schools, including strategic plans and the metrics used to

track and assess academy performance and results; produce the results of internal academy and personnel center studies conducted

regarding academy admission trends, quality issues, and morale;

conduct an independent analysis of how groups of academy students differ in their admission criteria or waivers, performance and

treatment at the academy, and in their military career progression;

and, conduct a survey of student and faculty perceptions of various

aspects of student life at the academies. The report shall be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations by March 31, 2003.

FULL-TIME SUPPORT STRENGTHS

There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and

Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve

(AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel.

Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain

and administer the Reserve components. Civilian (Military) technicians directly support units, and are very important to help units

maintain readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and

Air Force.

Full-time support end strengths in all categories totaled 149,406

in fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2003 budget request is 149,877

end strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve

full-time support end strengths:

FY 2002 estimate Budget request Recommendation Change from

request

Army Reserve:

AGR ............................................................... 13,406 13,588 14,070 +482

Technicians ................................................... 7,344 7,344 7,594 +250

Navy Reserve: TAR ................................................. 14,811 14,572 14,572 ..........................

Marine Corps Reserve: AR ..................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 ..........................

Air Force Reserve:

AGR ............................................................... 1,437 1,498 1,498 ..........................

Technicians ................................................... 9,819 9,911 9,911 ..........................

Army National Guard:

AGR ............................................................... 23,698 23,768 24,562 +794

Technicians ................................................... 25,215 25,215 25,702 +487

Air National Guard:

AGR ............................................................... 11,591 11,697 11,697 ..........................

Technicians ................................................... 22,772 22,845 22,845 ..........................

Total:

AGR/TAR ........................................................ 67,204 67,384 68,660 +1,276

Technicians ................................................... 65,150 65,315 66,052 +737

16

MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $23,752,384,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 27,079,392,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 26,832,217,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥247,175,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,832,217,000

for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase

of $3,079,833,000 above the $23,752,384,000 appropriated for fiscal

year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

17

18

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

800 Basic Pay/CT–FP DERF Transfer—CINC Protective

Services Detail ............................................................................ 963

825 Retired Pay Accrual/CT–FP DERF—Transfer CINC Protective Services Detail ................................................................ 264

1100 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses ...................................... ¥24,000

1100 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses .................. ¥26,000

1200 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ...................... ¥2,900

1250 Social Security Tax/CT–FP DERF—Transfer CINC Protective Services Detail ................................................................ 73

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

2450 Unemployment Benefits ..................................................... ¥5,375

2600 Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees. .... ¥20,200

Other Adjustments:

2770 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted .................................... ¥9,300

2780 DHP Accrual Reestimate .................................................... ¥110,700

2790 Unobligated Balances ......................................................... ¥50,000

MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $19,551,484,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 22,074,901,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 21,874,395,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥200,506,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,874,395,000

for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase

of $2,322,911,000 above the $19,551,484,000 appropriated for fiscal

year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

19

20

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Navy are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers:

3400 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ...................... ¥4,500

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

3900 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonus ...................... ¥23,000

4000 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ...................... ¥17,400

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

5250 Unemployment Benefits ..................................................... ¥6,773

5420 Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees ..... ¥10,433

Other Adjustments:

5590 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted .................................... ¥3,000

5600 DHP Accrual Reestimate .................................................... ¥85,400

5610 Unobligated Balances ......................................................... ¥50,000

MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $7,345,340,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 8,558,887,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 8,504,172,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥54,715,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,504,172,000

for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an

increase of $1,158,832,000 above the $7,345,340,000 appropriated

for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

21

22

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Marine Corps are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers:

6200 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ...................... ¥900

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

6400 Basic Pay/CT–FP DERF Transfer—CINC Security Force

Personnel ..................................................................................... 600

6800 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ...................... ¥2,200

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

7900 Unemployment Benefits ..................................................... ¥9,015

8040 Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees ..... ¥2,900

Other Adjustments:

8250 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted .................................... ¥300

8260 DHP Accrual Reestimate .................................................... ¥40,000

MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $19,724,014,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 22,142,585,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 21,957,757,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥184,828,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,959,757,000

for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $2,233,743,000 above the $19,724,014,000 appropriated

for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

23

24

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Air Force are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers:

8750 Special Pays/High Deployment Per Diem Allowances ..... ¥383

8750 Special Pays/Critical Skills Accession Bonus ................... ¥18,300

8750 Special Pays/Critical Skills Retention Bonus ................... ¥38,900

8850 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ...................... ¥800

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

9350 Special Pays/High Deployment Per Diem Allowances ..... ¥1,898

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

10700 Unemployment Benefits ................................................... ¥6,747

10840 Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees ... ¥20,400

Other Adjustments:

11070 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted .................................. ¥14,600

11080 DHP Accrual Reestimate .................................................. ¥82,800

RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $2,670,197,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 3,398,555,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,373,455,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥25,100,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,373,455,000

for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase

of $703,258,000 above the $2,670,197,000 appropriated for fiscal

year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

25

26

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Unit and Individual Training:

11250 Pay Group A Training/Realignment to BA 2 .................. ¥7,500

11250 Pay Group A Training/Annual Training Participation

Rates ............................................................................................ ¥37,500

Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:

11700 Special Training/Realignment from BA 1 ....................... 7,500

11750 Administration and Support/CT–FP DERF Transfer—

Threat Force Protection Condition Bravo ................................. 31,000

11750 Administration and Support/CT–FP DERF Transfer—

Transfer to Other Procurement, Army ...................................... ¥10,000

Other Adjustments:

11980 Additional Full-Time Support .......................................... 11,500

11990 DHP Accrual Reestimate .................................................. ¥20,100

REALIGNMENT OF FUNDS

The Committee recommends that $7,500,000 of Budget Activity

one funds for ‘‘Reserve Personnel, Army’’ be realigned to Budget

Activity two programs based on a General Accounting Office review

which determined that annual training obligations contained costs

for schools and special training.

RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,654,523,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,927,152,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,897,352,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥29,800,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,897,352,000

for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of

$242,829,000 above the $1,654,523,000 appropriated for fiscal year

2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

27

28

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Navy are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

12850 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted ................................... ¥100

12860 DHP Accrual Reestimate ................................................... ¥9,700

12870 Unobligated Balances ......................................................... ¥20,000

RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $471,200,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 557,883,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 553,983,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥3,900,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $553,983,000 for

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $82,783,000 above the $471,200,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

29

30

The adjustment to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Marine Corps is shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

13740 DHP Accrual Reestimate ................................................... ¥3,900

RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,061,160,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,243,904,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,236,904,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥7,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,236,904,000

for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $175,744,000 above the $1,061,160,000 appropriated for

fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

31

32

The adjustment to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Air Force is shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

14610 DHP Accrual Reestimate ................................................... ¥7,000

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $4,041,695,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 5,128,988,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 5,070,188,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥58,800,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,070,188,000

for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $1,028,493,000 above the $4,041,695,000 appropriated for

fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

33

34

The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Unit and Individual Training:

14800 Pay Group A Training/Annual Training Participation

Rates ............................................................................................ ¥18,000

14800 Pay Group A Training/Support Costs ............................. ¥10,000

Other Adjustments:

15390 Additional Full-Time Support .......................................... 28,400

15400 DHP Accrual Reestimate .................................................. ¥34,200

15410 Unobligated Balances ....................................................... ¥25,000

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,784,654,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 2,135,611,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,124,411,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥11,200,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,124,411,000

for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is

an increase of $339,757,000 above the $1,784,654,000 appropriated

for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

35

36

The adjustment to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Air Force is shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

16120 DHP Accrual Reestimate .................................................. ¥11,200

(37)

TITLE II

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The fiscal year 2003 budget request for programs funded in Title

II of the Committee bill, Operation and Maintenance, is

$131,676,367,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of

$26,628,723,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year

2002.

The accompanying bill recommends $114,780,366,000 for fiscal

year 2003, which is an increase of $9,732,722,000 above the

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002. These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and related support activities of

the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel costs.

Included are pay for civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies, and spare parts for weapons and

equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many factors,

including force levels such as the number of aircraft squadrons,

Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel

strength and deployments, rates of operational activity, and the

quantity and complexity of equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in operation.

The table below summarizes the Committee’s recommendations.

38

39

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW

The Administration’s budget request represents an increase of

more than $26,000,000,000 over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated

level in Title II, Operation and Maintenance. However, after removing from the discussion those funds requested for supporting

the continuation of the War Against Terrorism, and inflation, the

normalized presentation shows there is very little real increase.

The requested funding would sustain flying hour programs at approximately the fiscal year 2002 level, increase Army and Marine

Corps ground forces training slightly, and increase ship depot

maintenance to over 95 percent of requirement. Requested funding

for base operations, and sustainment, restoration and modernization of real property assets supports program growth of over

$1,800,000,000 and guards against the need to potentially divert

critical mission readiness funds to support infrastructure readiness. Substantial amounts in the services’ base operating accounts

were requested to continue improvement in facilities security,

based on anti-terrorism and force protection assessments.

In Title II of the bill, the Committee has fully supported the requested anti-terrorism and force protection funding. The Committee fully supports the Administration’s requested increases in

land forces training, ship depot maintenance, sustainment of real

property, and professional development and education of military

and civilian members of the Department of Defense. The Committee also has supported fully, much needed improvements in

family support programs, addressing long standing deficiencies

that have become more acute with the prosecution of the War on

Terrorism.

The Administration requested $19,460,616,000 in the Defense

Emergency Response Fund to support efforts by the Department of

Defense to respond to, or protect against, acts or threatened acts

of terrorism against the United States. Of that amount,

$10,000,000,000 would only be available if a subsequent official

budget request, designating the amount of the request as essential

to respond or protect against acts or threatened acts of terrorism,

is transmitted by the President to the Congress. As explained elsewhere in this report, the Administration has yet to submit any specific request or budget justification for these funds. Pending receipt

of any such request or budget amendment, the Committee has deferred action on this $10,000,000,000, appropriation.

As regards the remaining $9,460,616,000 requested in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, budget justification materials

identified the specific programs, as well as line items and appropriations accounts, to which the Department planned to transfer

funds for obligation. Therefore, rather than provide funding for

these items in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, appropriations for those items and amounts approved by the Committee are

found in the appropriations accounts and line items identified by

the Department.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS SHORTFALLS

Despite the positive trend in operation and maintenance funding

requested for fiscal year 2003, testimony by the services’ leadership

40

and briefings by key staff members indicate that serious shortfalls

remain. The funding requested for fiscal year 2003 will not address

many critical funding shortfalls in areas such as facilities restoration and modernization, training enablers, aging equipment, spare

parts, communications and computers. Funding for ship depot

maintenance has been improved, but remains less than the full requirement. Army depot maintenance is rated at only 72 percent of

requirement and the Air Force assesses depot maintenance as 84

percent funded.

The Committee has provided over $400,000,000 in additional operating account funding to assist in addressing many of the Department’s shortfalls, including increases for individual soldier and marine field equipment, small all terrain vehicles, general purpose

tents, training and support facilities, barracks and dining facilities

renovation, civilian workforce safety, educational programs and distance learning, anti-corrosion programs to extend the service life of

vehicles and equipment, weapons systems depot maintenance, and

apprenticeship programs to ensure a stable depot workforce in the

future

As has been the practice in the past, the Committee has identified spending that does not directly support readiness and has

moved those funds to accounts that more directly support readiness

goals.

MILITARY TRAINING

The people of America expect our military forces to demonstrate

combat readiness in order to deter aggression by potential adversaries, and when called, to fight and win the Nation’s wars. Our

soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deserve to be armed with the

best weapons, and provided the best logistical support possible. But

achieving the fullest potential combat capability depends in large

part on tough, realistic training. The extent to which training facilities are the proper size, to permit the full spectrum of training

activities and environments, with state-of-the-art data collection

and diagnostics routinely available, directly impacts the ability of

military units to achieve and maintain readiness for combat.

In April 2002, the General Accounting Office reported on a variety of constraints to meeting training requirements faced by nonCONUS combat units. The GAO reported that units have the most

difficulty in meeting training requirements for maneuver, live fire

events, and night and low altitude flying. The report noted that

units employ workarounds to adjust training events for constraints

that are encountered, but that such workarounds can result in

practicing tactics that would be less than optimal in actual combat.

Additionally, units that are based in locations remote from larger

and better equipped training areas must deploy more often, at additional cost, and involving more time away from home station and

family, than for units with access to quality training facilities at

home station. The GAO report also noted that a fragmented approach to negotiating acceptable training parameters with civil authorities could result in one military service agreeing, without coordination, to training limitations that may be completely unacceptable to another service.

41

The Committee appreciates the work accomplished by the General Accounting Office in its study of non-CONUS training facilities

and training limitations, and believes that an expanded effort, addressing the full spectrum of military training requirements and

facilities, worldwide, is needed. The Committee bill includes a general provision that directs the Secretary of Defense to establish an

advisory committee to provide a report on the status of training facilities for activities ranging from basic training to joint and combined forces operations, to the congressional defense committees

not later than July 31, 2003. The report shall address such matters

as training facility accessibility, limitations and restrictions on

training, and the impacts of growing commercial and residential

development. The report shall detail DoD procedures to achieve efficiencies, retain access to needed training facilities, and ensure coordination between military services, regional military commands,

and international training partners. The report shall detail the coordination and cooperation between military officials and local civilian officials in balancing the requirements of quality military

training and the concerns of the communities impacted by such

training. Specific instances of non-availability of adequate training

facilities and the performance of the readiness reporting systems in

identifying such situations should be included. The report should

address the adequacy of both active and reserve component training facilities, and should address requirements, opportunities, and

impediments to expanding training facilities and improving access

to those facilities.

CIVILIAN PAY

The Committee has fully funded the budget request for a 2.6 percent pay increase for civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The Committee understands that the Department of Defense

may implement an increase in pay that is greater than 2.6 percent,

and directs that any increase above 2.6 percent will be accommodated within funds available to the DoD.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE AND TRAVEL CARDS

In its report accompanying the fiscal year 2002 defense appropriations bill, the Committee expressed serious concerns about the

management of the Department of Defense Purchase Card program. In July 2001 testimony before Congress, the General Accounting Office identified numerous internal control weaknesses in

the Purchase Card Program based on reviews in two Navy Department organizations, including: (1) policies governing the issuance of

purchase cards were ineffective, leading to proliferation of card

holders; (2) employees were not sufficiently trained on the use of

the purchase card, and employees did not follow established procedures; (3) approximately 2,600 account numbers were compromised, a partial list was found at a college library, and at least

30 accounts received fraudulent charges; (4) internal reviews and

audits were ineffective; (5) efforts to maximize rebates were ineffective; (6) easily pilfered items that were acquired using purchase

cards were often missing from organizational property records; and

(7) many items were purchased for personal use, including laptop

computers, clothing, an air conditioner and jewelry.

42

The Committee was most concerned that supervisors who were

responsible for reviewing and certifying that purchases made with

the card were for proper purposes, in many cases failed to fulfill

their responsibilities, thus allowing unnecessary and fraudulent

purchases.

In March of 2002, the General Accounting Office testified before

Congress regarding follow-up work to determine if the appropriate

corrections had been made in the administration of the Purchase

Card Program. The General Accounting Office concluded that internal controls in the Navy organizations reviewed continued to be ineffective. The GAO reported a cultural resistance to change in the

internal control environment, and that card holders and supervisors continued to rationalize questionable purchases.

The Committee notes that the Department of Defense has had

similar difficulties in managing its Travel Card Program, forcing

the banks that provide the travel cards to write off tens of millions

of dollars in bad debts by service members.

The Committee is dismayed by the slow response within the Department of Defense to such serious instances of waste, abuse and

mismanagement. Following the General Accounting Office’s March

2002 testimony, the Department of Defense announced the formation of a task force that would examine credit card management

deficiencies. The DoD effort would pursue and punish wrong doers

and identify needed administrative and possibly legislative remedies. Considering the sums of money involved and the huge number of DoD purchase/travel card-holders, this involvement by senior

management is long overdue. The Committee is hopeful that subsequent reviews of the DoD purchase and travel card programs will

indicate that proper management controls are in place and functioning.

The accompanying bill includes a general provision that reduces

the total amount available in Operation and Maintenance by

$97,000,000 to reflect savings due to improved management and

supervision of DoD purchase and travel card programs. Additionally, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March

31, 2003 which details policy and procedural changes that have

been implemented, including the Departments method of ensuring

and evaluating compliance with regulations governing the purchase

and travel card programs.

ULTRALIGHTWEIGHT CAMOUFLAGE NETS

The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act, Public Law

107–117, included a general provision to clarify the use of operation and maintenance funds to purchase ultralightweight camouflage systems as unit spares in order to hasten modernizing the inventory of camouflage screens to state-of-the-art protection standards. The authority was contingent on certification by the Secretary of the Army, that compared to the screening system that

could then be purchased with operation and maintenance funds,

the ultralightweight camouflage system is technically superior

against multi-spectral threat sensors; less costly per unit; and provides improved overall force protection. In May 2002 the Secretary

of the Army provided that certification. The accompanying bill inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
43

cludes a general provision making permanent the authority for the

use of operation and maintenance funds of the Armed Forces for

the purchase of ultralightweight camouflage net systems as unit

spares.

STRONG AND READY FAMILIES

The Committee appreciates the strong support provided to the

Armed Forces of the United States by military families. Leaders

and supervisors throughout the military recognize this fact as well

and make every effort to support military families. The military

chaplains in all branches of our armed forces strive to assist military families as those families face the challenges inherent in military life, including frequent relocations, and frequent absences of

the military member due to training or combat deployment. Chaplains have developed programs to assist military families to grow

stronger. However, military staff judge advocates have indicated

that current guidelines, regulations and laws do not establish clear

authority for the use of appropriated funds to pay for soldiers and

immediate family members meals, lodging, transportation, conference or retreat fees, training materials and supplies while participating voluntarily, in command sponsored—chaplain lead training, retreats, and conferences. The accompanying bill includes a

general provision that clarifies the legal ambiguity surrounding the

use of appropriated funds in supporting military chaplains programs for strong and ready families.

CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS QUESTIONABLE EXPENDITURES

The Committee is committed to providing the necessary funding

for contingency operations that the military forces of the United

States are directed to undertake. In order to ensure all required

funds are available to the armed forces, the Committee relies on information provided by the administration, both in estimating resources required, and in evaluating the adequacy of provided funding as operations are executed. In May 2002 the General Accounting Office reported, based on an analysis of costs claimed by selected Army and Air Force units during fiscal years 2000 and 2001,

that while most contingency operations expenditures were appropriate, over $100,000,000 were spent on questionable items that

were not incremental costs of operations, for equipment that was

already available in theater, and for frivolous items including cappuccino machines, golf memberships, and decorator furniture.

The Committee appreciates that the services are working aggressively to ensure that contingency operations cost reports are accurate and that duplicative and frivolous expenses are avoided. In

recognition of improved contingency cost allocation, the Committee

has reduced funding available in Title II as follows:

[In thousands of dollars]

Army ....................................................................................................... $50,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 50,000

STUDY OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THE ARMED SERVICES

The Committee recognizes the contributions that African Americans have made to the defense of our Nation from before revoluVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
44

tionary times to the present. The Committee believes however, that

a single exhaustive study, detailing specific aspects of African

Americans in the military has yet to be produced. The Committee

directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than June 30, 2003 to accurately depict the role of African Americans throughout the various

branches of the military. The comprehensive study should explore

such issues as recruitment, branch participation, awards and decorations, military rank, treatment of African American enlistees,

and promotions.

FIREFIGHTING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT DOD INSTALLATIONS

The Committee is concerned that the level of fire and emergency

response protection at domestic military installations may not meet

minimum safety standards for staffing, equipment and training.

Substantial shortcomings are outlined in the Department of Defense Fire and Emergency Services Strategic Plan that has been

submitted to the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Safety and

Occupational Health. The Committee believes the security of our

military bases is an essential component of both defense and homeland security, and directs the Deputy Under Secretary for Installations and Environment to assure that adequate resources are provided to implement the Strategic Plan and bring installations into

compliance with minimum fire protection standards, including Department of Defense Instruction 6055.6.

UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

The Committee has adjusted amounts available in service and

Defense-Wide operation and maintenance accounts for fiscal year

2003 to allow for the impact of amounts left unobligated in operation and maintenance accounts at the end of prior fiscal years and

the effect of such underobligations on estimated future requirements. The Committee has reduced funding for unobligated balances as follows.

[In thousands of dollars]

Army ....................................................................................................... $50,000

Navy ........................................................................................................ 82,000

Marine Corps ......................................................................................... 8,000

Air Force ................................................................................................. 33,000

Defense-Wide .......................................................................................... 25,000

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET EXECUTION DATA

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to

provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly budget execution data. Such data should be provided not later than

forty-five days past the close of each quarter of the fiscal year, and

should be provided for each O–1 budget activity, activity group,

and subactivity group for each of the active, defense-wide, reserve

and National Guard components. For each O–1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group, these reports should include

the budget request and actual obligations; the DoD distribution of

unallocated congressional adjustments to the budget request; all

adjustments made by DoD during the process of rebaselining the

Operation and Maintenance accounts; all adjustments resulting

45

from below threshold reprogrammings; and all adjustments resulting from prior approval reprogramming requests.

In addition, the Committee requires that the Department of Defense provide semiannual written notifications to the congressional

defense committees which summarize Operation and Maintenance

budget execution to include the effect of rebaselining procedures,

other below threshold reprogrammings, and prior approval

reprogrammings. The Committee further directs that the Department of Defense provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations written notification 30 days prior to executing procedures to rebaseline Operation and Maintenance accounts.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPROGRAMMINGS

The Committee directs that proposed transfers of funds between

O–1 budget activities in excess of $15,000,000 be subject to normal

prior approval reprogramming procedures. Items for which funds

have been specifically provided in any appropriation in the report

using phrases ‘‘only for’’ and ‘‘only to’’ are Congressional interest

items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD form

1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD1414 at the

stated amount, or revised amount if changed during conference or

if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. In addition, due to continuing concerns about force readiness and the diversion of Operation and Maintenance funds, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide written notification to

the congressional defense committees for the cumulative value of

any and all transfers in excess of $15,000,000 from the following

budget activities and subactivity group categories:

Operation and maintenance, Army

Land Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support

forces, Echelon above Corps forces, Land forces operation support;

Land Forces Readiness: Land forces depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Navy

Air Operations: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet air

training, Aircraft depot maintenance; Ship Operations: Mission and

other ship operations, Ship operational support and training, Intermediate maintenance, Ship depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps

Expeditionary Forces: Operational forces, Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Air Force

Air Operations: Primary combat forces, Primary combat weapons,

Air operations training, Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations:

Airlift operations, Depot maintenance, Payments to the transportation business area; Basic Skill and Advance Training: Depot

maintenance; Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance.

Further, the Department should follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 out of the

following budget subactivities:

46

Operation and maintenance, Army

Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Navy

Aircraft depot maintenance,

Ship depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps

Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Air Force

Air Operations, Depot maintenance,

Mobility Operations, Depot maintenance,

Basic Skills and Advanced Training, Depot maintenance, and Logistics Operations, Depot maintenance.

0–1 REPROGRAMMING APPROVAL REQUIREMENT

The Committee is concerned about the Department’s efforts to

undermine Congressional intent with regard to specific program reductions taken in the Committee’s report. While the Committee

does not object to the Department’s common practice of below

threshold reprogramming to address pricing increases (such as fuel,

inflation, foreign currency, etc.) and emerging requirements, the

Committee does object when the Department restores funding to

programs that have been specifically reduced by Congress as shown

in annual Committee reports. The Committee directs that all funding reductions to programs and activities in Operation and Maintenance appropriations, other than those related to pricing, are made

with prejudice and shall be so shown on DD Form 1414 for fiscal

year 2003 and subsequent fiscal years for Operation and Maintenance appropriations. Increases to such programs and activities

may be requested from the congressional defense committees subject to normal prior approval reprogramming procedures.

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation ........................................................ $22,335,074,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ..................................................... 23,961,173,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................ 23,942,768,000

Change from budget request ........................................................... ¥18,405,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,942,768,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an

increase of $1,607,694,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

47

48

49

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

250 All Terrain Military Utility Vehicles ................................... 4,100

250 Hydration on the Move System, Including Chem/Bio Sys 2,000

250 Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment

(MOLLE) ...................................................................................... 6,000

250 Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS) ............. 2,000

450 Camera Assisted Monitoring System (CAMS) .................... 8,000

550 Continuity of Operations DERF—Alt Nat Cmd Ctr .......... 44,000

550 Continuity of Operations DERF—CONUS Support ........... 2,000

550 CT/FP DERF—Physical Security Equipment ..................... 76,900

550 CT/FP DERF—Physical Security Equipment trans to

OPA .............................................................................................. ¥76,900

550 ITAM Program at Army NTC .............................................. 1,500

550 Corrosion Prevention and Control Program at Corpus

Christi Army Depot and Fort Hood ........................................... 3,000

550 Daggett Airport Fire Station ................................................ 1,000

750 Training and Support Facilities—Continue Road and Facilities Improvements at NTC, Fort Irwin ................................ 7,000

800 Airborne Barracks—Ft. Benning, Georgia .......................... 4,000

850 CT/FP DERF—Personnel ..................................................... 9,400

950 Nuclear Posture Review DERF—Info Systems Sec ........... 15,000

Budget Activity 3:

1850 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Army Lang Pgm

TIARA .......................................................................................... 19,500

1850 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Contr Linguists

TIARA .......................................................................................... 9,400

1850 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Contract Linguists Interrogation ................................................................................... 5,000

1850 Military Police Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task

Force Training (MCTFT) Joint Training .................................. 2,000

1900 Air Battle Captain Program ............................................... 2,000

2000 Defense Language Institute (DLI) LangNet ..................... 1,000

2050 DoD Monterey Bay Center Furniture and Equip ............. 1,000

2100 Restoration and Modernization of Dining Facilities ........ 4,500

2350 Online Technology Training Pilot Program ...................... 1,000

2450 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—PE0135197 ................. 2,300

Budget Activity 4:

2650 Continuity of Operations DERF—CONUS Support ......... 2,000

2650 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Battle Space Character ............................................................................................. 2,000

2650 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Sec & Invest Acts ...... 10,000

2650 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Sec and Invest Acts ... 1,000

2750 Servicewide Transportation ............................................... ¥18,000

2800 Pulse Technology—Army Battery Management Program 4,500

2850 Automatic Identification Technology/Radio Frequency

Identification (AIT/RFID) Program at Sierra Army Depot ..... 2,000

2850 Electronic Maintenance System (EMS)/Point-to-Point

Wiring and Signal Tracing ......................................................... 2,000

2850 Logistics and Technology Program .................................... 1,000

3000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Critical Infrastructure

Protection ..................................................................................... 600

3000 Administration .................................................................... ¥17,000

3050 Continuity of Operations DERF—CONUS Support ......... 5,000

3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Collaboration Planning/Enablers .............................................................................. 2,500

3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—CONUS Support ........ 500

3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Info Syst Sec Program 4,600

3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Info Syst Sec Program 1,700

3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Info Syst Sec Program 1,500

3050 Servicewide Communications ............................................. ¥22,000

3050 Army Information Systems ................................................ ¥6,000

3050 Army Enterprise Architecture ........................................... ¥6,000

3050 C4 Requirements for PACOM—Transfer to procurement ¥6,000

50

3100 Manpower Management ..................................................... ¥10,000

3150 Chaplain—Building Strong and Ready Families Program ............................................................................................. 1,000

3200 Other Service Support ........................................................ ¥10,000

3350 Worker Safety Pilot Program expansion at Fort Bragg,

NC and Watervilet, NY .............................................................. 5,000

3400 Army Chapel Renovation Matching Funds Program ....... 4,000

Undistributed:

3710 Classified Programs Undistributed DERF ........................ 5,994

3720 Memorial Events ................................................................. 800

3930 Travel of Persons ................................................................ ¥14,000

3940 TRADOC Transformation ................................................... ¥15,000

3950 FECA Surcharge ................................................................. ¥8,799

3960 Unobligated Balance ........................................................... ¥50,000

3970 CONOPS Costs .................................................................... ¥50,000

ONLINE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM

The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 only for

the Army to procure commercial off-the-shelf web-based technology

training software.

CAMERA ASSISTED MONITORING SYSTEM (CAMS)

The Committee commends the Army for use of CAMS (Camera

Assisted Monitoring System) to support security efforts within the

Army, and recommends an additional $8,000,000 for the Army Material Command only for CAMS. The Committee also believes that

the application of the proven, cost-effective CAMS technology will

enhance the capabilities of deployed forces to conduct peacekeeping

and other global contingency operations.

WORKER SAFETY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

The Committee understands that the Army has identified installations with high incidences of worker injuries that could benefit

immediately from the contractor services being provided at Ft.

Bragg and Watervliet Arsenal as part of DoD’s Worker Safety

Demonstration Program. The Committee therefore recommends an

additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army, to be

used at installations selected by the Army to provide the following

contractor services:

—a safety assessment at the selected installations to determine

the level of safety management systems in place.

—development of a training program and data system to assist

the development of a cultural change with respect to safety.

RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING

The Committee continues to support the Army’s recruiting and

advertising campaign to ensure the Army achieves its recruiting

goals. The Committee directs that no less than $9,000,000 of the

total funds provided in this Act for Army advertising efforts in Operation and Maintenance, Army be used to maintain existing production efforts directed toward certain audiences, including Hispanic recruits.

51

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $26,876,636,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 28,697,235,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 29,121,836,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. 424,601,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,121,836,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an

increase of $2,245,200,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

52

53

54

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1:

4500 Sea Sparrow Test Set Upgrade .......................................... 5,000

4600 Computer Automatic Tester and Radar Communication

Automatic Test Equipment (CAT/RADCOM) ........................... ¥10,000

4900 Continuity of Operations DERF—Various ........................ 5,000

4900 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Cryptologic Direct

Support ........................................................................................ 2,000

5050 Apprentice, Engineering Technician and CO-OP Program Naval Undersea Warfare Center Keyport ...................... 2,000

5050 Apprentice, Engineering Technician and CO-OP Program IMF Bangor ....................................................................... 700

5050 Improved Engineering Design Process .............................. 8,000

5500 Continuity of Operations DERF—Office of Navy Intelligence Data Backup ................................................................... 2,000

5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Various ....................... 2,000

5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—classified ..................... 1,000

5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Analysts ...................... 3,000

5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—SCI GCCS I3 .............. 3,800

5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—GENSER GCCS I3 .... 5,400

5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—JDIS/LOCE/CENTRIX 5,300

5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—CMMA ........................ 1,500

5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—CMMA ........................ 22,500

5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—JWICS Connectivity .. 5,500

5550 Manual Reverse Osmosis Desalinator Testing, Repair

and Replacement ......................................................................... 1,000

5550 Central Command Deployable HQ Spares & Tech Supt 4,500

5850 CT/FP DERF—Strat Security Forces & Technicians ....... 7,000

5950 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Pioneer ........................ 6,000

5950 Mark 45 Gun, 5’’ Depot Overhauls .................................... 3,000

6210 CT/FP DERF—Site Improvement ...................................... 219,200

6210 Homeland Security ............................................................. 2,500

6210 NAS North Island Facility Renovation Project ................ 3,000

6220 CT/FP DERF—Security Forces and Technicians ............. 143,096

6220 CT/FP DERF—Law Enforcement ...................................... 32,573

6220 CT/FP DERF—Management and Planning ...................... 1,712

6220 CT/FP DERF—Shipyard Security Forces and Tech ......... 28,000

6220 Homeland Security DERF—Base Support Services ......... 38,500

6220 Critical Asset Vulnerability Assessment, Navy Region

NW ............................................................................................... 1,500

6220 Northwest Environmental Resource Center ..................... 6,000

6220 Combating Terrorism Data Base Sys (CDTS) Remote

Data Repository ........................................................................... 2,000

Budget Activity 2:

6500 Ex-Oriskany Ship Disposal Project ................................... 4,000

6600 Homeland Security—Medical Operations ......................... 4,000

Budget Activity 3:

7000 ROTC Unit Operating Costs .............................................. 2,000

7200 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Pre-deploy Training ... 1,000

7200 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Imagery Training Init 1,000

7350 Center for Defense Technology and Education for the

Military Services (CDTEMS) ..................................................... 1,500

7350 CNET Distance Learning ................................................... 4,000

7350 Prototype System for Embedded Training and Performance Supt—CNET ....................................................................... 1,000

7350 Navy Learning Network Program CNET ......................... 3,000

7600 Continuing Education Distance Learning ......................... 1,860

7700 Naval Sea Cadet Corps ....................................................... 1,000

7820 CT/FP DERF—Site Improvement ...................................... 42,000

7830 CT/FP DERF—Security Forces and Tech ......................... 1,500

7830 Fire Fighter Protective Eqpt Maint Pilot, Puget Sound

Fed Fire Dept, NW Region ......................................................... 500

Budget Activity 4:

8000 CT/FP DERF—HQ Management and Planning ............... 1,600

55

8000 Administration .................................................................... ¥6,000

8250 Continuity of Opns DERF—Various/ONI Data Backup .. 7,000

8250 CT/FP DERF—HQ Management and Planning ............... 3,920

8250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Computer Network

Def ................................................................................................ 3,800

8250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Enclave Boundary ...... 1,200

8250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Intrusion Detection .... 1,140

8250 Servicewide Communications ............................................. ¥12,000

8500 Servicewide Transportation ............................................... ¥1,000

8550 Planning, Engineering and Design .................................... ¥15,000

8550 Stainless Steel Sanitary Space System ............................. 3,500

8600 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Acquisition and PM ... 11,000

8600 Acquisition and Program Management ............................. ¥16,000

8600 Space and Naval Warfare Info Tech Center (SITC) ......... 3,000

8650 Air Systems Support ........................................................... ¥16,000

8650 Configuration Management Info System (CMIS) ............... 4,000

8700 Advanced Technical Information Support ........................ 2,900

8800 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Carryon Cryptologic

Sys ................................................................................................ 500

9000 Continuity of Operations DERF—Various/Navy Criminal Investigations ....................................................................... 2,000

9000 CT/FP DERF—Intel Security & Invest Matters .............. 3,500

9000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—HUMINT .................... 3,700

9000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Counter Surveillance

and Law Enforcement ................................................................. 5,000

9220 CT/FP DERF—Site Improvement ...................................... 13,000

9230 NAS Jacksonville and NAS Mayport Anti-Corrosion Init 2,000

Undistributed:

9280 Classified Programs Undistributed DERF ........................ 13,064

9390 Travel of Persons ................................................................ ¥9,000

9400 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted .................................... ¥2,100

9410 Non-NMCI IT Savings ........................................................ ¥120,000

9420 FECA Surcharge ................................................................. ¥14,764

9440 Unobligated Balance ........................................................... ¥82,000

CENTER FOR DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION FOR THE

MILITARY SERVICES (CDTEMS)

The Committee recommends an additional $1,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy only for the Naval Postgraduate

School Center for Defense Education and Technology for the Military Services. CDTEMS is transforming education for military officers so they are significantly better prepared to meet future military challenges. The three institutes created by CDTEMS—Information Superiority and Innovation, Defense Systems Engineering

and Analysis, and Virtual Environments and Simulation—are on

the cutting edge of subsystems integration, streamlining the acquisition process, and designing requirements for total ship integration.

SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER

(SITC)

The Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, only for operational support and infrastructure needs at the SITC. The Committee directs the Department of the Navy to conduct enterprise level reengineering and

web-enabling of legacy systems, and portal integration efforts at

the SITC.

56

IMPROVED ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS

The Committee recommends an additional $8,000,000 only for

the Department of the Navy to demonstrate the Improved Engineering Design Process using the Advanced Digital Logistics Integrated Data Capture and Analysis (ADLIDCA) system.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $2,931,934,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 3,310,542,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,579,359,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +268,817,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,579,359,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $647,425,000 above the amount appropriated

for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

57

58

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

10050 Continuity of Operations DERF—Continuity of Intel ... 1,000

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Interim Small Unit

Remote Sensor (I-SURSS) .......................................................... 700

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Tactical Remote Sensor System (TRSS) ...................................................................... 1,000

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Technical Control

and Analysis Center (TCAC) ...................................................... 500

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Radio Reconnaissance Equipment Program ......................................................... 200

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Topographic Production Capability ............................................................................. 700

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—MCIA Analytic Supt 2,400

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—TEG ........................... 1,000

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—TROJAN Lite ........... 1,500

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—ISR ............................ 2,900

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—FLAMES/CESAS ..... 2,000

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Computer Network

Def ................................................................................................ 2,000

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Secure Wireless ........ 800

10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Deployed Security

Interdiction Devices .................................................................... 700

10050 Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Eqpt (MOLLE) .... 5,000

10050 Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS) ......... 2,000

10150 Depot Maintenance of Radar Systems ............................ 5,000

10200 CT/FP DERF—Physical Security Equipment ................. 228,000

10200 CT/FP DERF—CINC AT/FP Staffs ................................. 3,200

10200 CT/FP DERF—Physical Security Upgrades ................... 10,000

10200 Training and Support Facilities ....................................... 16,500

Budget Activity 4:

11800 Continuity of Operations DERF—Site R ........................ 1,000

Undistributed:

11980 Travel of Persons .............................................................. ¥10,000

11990 FECA Surcharge ............................................................... ¥1,283

12000 Unobligated Balance ......................................................... ¥8,000

DEPOT MAINTENANCE—RADARS

The Committee is aware of the continuing backlog of executable

but unfunded depot maintenance requirements for critical radar

systems. The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 in

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps only for depot level

maintenance of radar systems.

TRAINING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES

The Committee recommends an additional $16,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps of which $12,000,000 is provided only for mission critical requirements at the Marine AirGround Task Force Training Center, and $4,500,000 is provided

only for the seismic retrofit of buildings at Barstow Marine Corps

Logistics Base.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $26,026,789,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 26,772,768,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 27,587,959,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +815,191,000

59

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,587,959,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is

an increase of $1,561,170,000 above the amount appropriated for

fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

60

61

62

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

12600 CONUS Combat Air Patrol DERF—CAP ....................... 1,200,000

12600 CONUS Combat Air Patrol DERF—Changed Alert

Posture ......................................................................................... ¥678,000

12600 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles DERF—Predator O&M ...... 9,000

12600 F–16 Distributed Mission Training System .................... 10,000

12700 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Computer Network

Def ................................................................................................ 3,500

12850 CT/FP DERF—AEF Force Prot Certification Tng .......... 10,200

12850 CT/FP DERF—WMD 1st Responder ............................... 46,000

12900 CT/FP DERF—AT/FP Facilities Upgrades ..................... 99,585

12900 Wright-Patterson AFB Dormitory Renovation ............... 2,500

13000 CT/FP DERF—Geo Reach/Geo Base ............................... 25,800

13000 Nucler Posture Review DERF—Info Warfare Support .. 5,000

13000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Defense Recon Supt 68,630

13000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Defense Recon Trans ¥68,600

13100 Continuity of Ops DERF—Nat’l Abn Cmd Ctr ............... 10,000

13100 Continuity of Ops DERF—Aircraft Comms Mods .......... 3,600

13100 Continuity of Ops DERF—Helicopter Support, National Capital Region .................................................................. 700

13100 Continuity of Ops DERF—Comms Sys Operators Tng 500

13100 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Commercial Imagery 2,000

13200 CT/FP DERF—CENTCOM PSD and Forward HQ ........ 700

13200 CT/FP DERF—CINC AT/FP Staff ................................... 5,500

13200 Nuclear Posture Review DERF—Mgt HQ STRATCOM 1,250

13200 Nuclear Posture Review DERF—Info Warfare Supt ..... 4,000

13200 Nuclear Posture Review DERF—Tactical Deception ..... 1,000

13200 Nuclear Posture Review DERF—Mgt HQ STRATCOM 1,000

13200 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Critical Infrastructure Protection ............................................................................ 400

13200 Management Supt for Air Force Battle Labs ................. 5,000

13250 Continuity of Ops DERF—Combat Air Intel Sys ........... 2,300

13250 Continuity of Ops DERF—Special Purpose Comms ...... 2,000

13250 Continuity of Ops DERF—Tactical Info Program .......... 5,000

13250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—SEP classified ........... 1,200

13250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—DCGS Architecture 3,000

13250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Integrated Broadcast

Service .......................................................................................... 100

13250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—IBS Smart Pull Tech 100

13550 Continuity of Ops DERF—Recon Supt Activities ........... 10,000

Budget Activity 2:

13900 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Critical Infrastructure Protection ............................................................................ 1,800

14050 CT/FP DERF—AEF Force Protection Certification

Training ....................................................................................... 4,800

14050 CT/FP DERF—WMD 1st Responder ............................... 21,850

14050 Combined Air Crew System Tester (CAST) .................... 5,000

14100 CT/FP DERF—AT/FP Facility Upgrades ........................ 57,254

Budget Activity 3:

14500 CT/FP DERF—AT/FP Facility Upgrades ........................ 16,341

14800 CT/FP DERF—WMD 1st Responder ............................... 1,150

Budget Activity 4:

15450 Servicewide Transportation ............................................. ¥2,000

15500 CT/FP DERF—AEF Force Protection Certification Tng 2,900

15500 CT/FP DERF—WMD 1st Responder ............................... 4,600

15550 CT/FP DERF—AT/FP Facilities Upgrades ..................... 3,976

15650 Administration .................................................................. ¥7,000

15700 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Modernization,

Sustainment and Dev ................................................................. 4,900

15700 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Modernization,

Sustainment and Dev ................................................................. 1,700

15700 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Intrusion Detect Sys 1,500

15700 Servicewide Communications .......................................... ¥9,000

63

15750 Personnel Programs .......................................................... ¥5,000

15950 Other Servicewide Activities ............................................ ¥16,500

16100 William Lehman Aviation Center .................................... 750

16150 NAIC Foreign Materials Facility ..................................... 1,000

16150 Conformable Lithography System AFIT Wright-Patterson AFB ....................................................................................... 1,000

16250 Nuclear Posture Review DERF—Security and Investigative Activities ........................................................................ 2,000

16250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF—Def Security Serv ..... 5,000

Undistributed:

16410 Classified Programs DERF—Undistributed ................... 17,422

16540 Travel of Persons .............................................................. ¥15,000

16580 FECA Surcharge ............................................................... ¥8,717

16590 Aeronautical System Center Enterprise Infostructure

Prototype ...................................................................................... 6,500

16600 Threat Representation and Validation (TR&V) ............. 1,000

16610 Classified NAIC Operationalizing MASINT ................... 4,500

16620 Information Assurance Initiative for Air Force Materiel

Command ..................................................................................... 1,500

16630 Unobligated Balances ....................................................... ¥33,000

16640 CONOPS Costs .................................................................. ¥50,000

CONUS COMBAT AIR PATROL (CAP)

The protective Continental United States (CONUS) Combat Air

Patrol (CAP) initially provided twenty-four hours per day, seven

days per week patrol over Washington, DC, New York City and certain other key geographic sites. The amount estimated to continue

the CONUS CAP in the DERF account was $1,200,000,000. Adjustments in the execution of the CONUS CAP flying hour program requirements, including strip alert capabilities, have significantly reduced the cost estimate for the CONUS CAP. The revised estimate

for the CONUS CAP is $522,000,000. The Committee has provided

that amount directly in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.

COMBAT SEARCH AND RESCUE (CSAR) PLATFORM

The accompanying bill provides that of the funds made available

in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, not less than $2,000,000

shall be made available for the deployment of Air Force active duty

and Reserve CSAR air crews to the United Kingdom to participate

in an Interfly program to train, operate, evaluate and exchange

operational techniques and procedures on the EH101. The Air

Force has identified mission deficiencies with the current CSAR

platform for future requirements, which include mission reaction

time, inadequate range, insufficient cabin space, poor survivability,

insufficient situational awareness, and inadequate adverse weather

capability. Following the Interfly program, the Secretary of the Air

Force shall report to the congressional defense committees on the

suitability of this aircraft as the future CSAR platform.

FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE MUSEUM PROPERTY

The Committee is aware of the closing of the Fairchild Air Force

Base Heritage Museum and the request to transfer artifacts to the

Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture (MAC). Whenever possible,

the Committee believes that the utmost consideration should be

given to the preservation of local historical interests when the Department of Defense closes museums. Within existing statute and

regulation, the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to exercise

64

maximum discretion in order to maintain a historically significant

collection of artifacts in Spokane, Washington.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $12,773,270,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 14,169,258,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 14,850,377,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +681,119,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,850,377,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $2,077,107,000 from the amount appropriated

in fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

65

66

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

17050 TJS—Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund

(Transfer from DERF) ................................................................ +12,000

17050 TJS—JCS Exercise Program ............................................ ¥10,937

17100 SOCOM—Hydration on the Move (CamelBak) .............. +1,000

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

17400 Classified Programs .......................................................... ¥6,869

17460 DAU—DCMS/IT Organizational Composition Research +1,000

17460 DAU—Distance Learning and Performance ................... +3,500

17480 DHRA—DLAMP ................................................................ ¥19,155

17480 DHRA—JRAP .................................................................... ¥24,250

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

17750 Civil Military Program—Challenge Program ................. +2,500

17775 Classified Program (Transfer from DERF) ..................... +137,770

17775 Classified Program (Change to DERF) ........................... +143,208

17775 Classified Programs .......................................................... +100,008

17850 DFAS—Financial Operations (Transfer from DERF) .... +5,900

17850 DFAS—Financial Operations (Transfer from DERF) .... +500

17875 DHRA—Critical Infrastructure Protection (Transfer

from DERF) ................................................................................. +500

17875 DHRA—Civilian Personnel Data System ....................... ¥20,000

17900 DISA—Secure Voice Teleconferencing System (Transfer from DERF) ........................................................................... +2,500

17900 DISA—Defense Conferencing Enhancement Program

(Transfer from DERF) ................................................................ +8,900

17900 DISA—DISA Continuity of Operations (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +2,500

17900 DISA—Bandwidth Expansion (Transfer from DERF) ... +7,600

17900 DISA—Information Assurance (Transfer from DERF) .. +500

17900 DISA—On-site administrators for primary sites

(Transfer from DERF) ................................................................ +3,400

17900 DISA—IA, Intell/Coalition Encrp (CWAN) (Transfer

from DERF) ................................................................................. +5,000

17900 DISA—IA, Intell/Coalition Encrp (CFBL) (Transfer

from DERF) ................................................................................. +1,600

17900 DISA—IA Computer Network Defense (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +3,500

17900 DISA—On-site administrators for primary sites

(Transfer from DERF) ................................................................ +3,000

17900 DISA—White House Communications (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +3,000

17900 DISA—Wireless Priority Service Program ..................... ¥37,000

19725 DLA—Critical Infrastructure Protection (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +600

17925 DLA—Information Technology Network Consolidation ¥10,000

18300 DODEA—Enhanced Force Protection (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +24,200

18300 DODEA—GAVRT Project Expansion .............................. +3,000

18300 DODEA—Lewis Center for Educational Research ......... +4,050

18300 DODEA—Family Support Services ................................. +6,000

18050 DSS—Critical Infrastructure Protection (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +500

18075 DTRA—Chemical & Biological Defense Capabilities

Assessment .................................................................................. +1,000

18075 DTRA—Unconventional Nuclear Threat ........................ +40,000

18100 OEA—George AFB ............................................................ +2,500

18100 OEA—Norton AFB ............................................................ +3,000

18100 OEA—Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal ...................... +5,000

18100 OEA—Philadelphia Naval Business Center ................... +7,000

18100 OEA—Cecil Field .............................................................. +5,000

18100 OEA—Charles Melvin Price Support Center ................. +2,000

18100 OEA—East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission Pilot ................................................................................ +1,000

67

18100 OEA—CCAT ...................................................................... +4,000

18100 OEA—Hunters Point NSY ............................................... +2,000

18125 OSD—OSD Continuity of Operations (COOP) (Transfer

from DERF) ................................................................................. +18,000

18125 OSD—NCR COOP (Transfer from DERF) ...................... +10,500

18125 OSD—NICP Reserve Support (Transfer from DERF) ... +4,000

18125 OSD—NICP Reserve Support (Transfer from DERF) ... +4,000

18125 OSD—Hard and Deeply Buried Targets (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +3,050

18125 OSD—CIP—Biological Agent Security (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +2,000

18125 OSD—CIP—Nuclear Security Command and Control

(Transfer from DERF) ................................................................ +400

18125 OSD—CIP Technology & Consequence Management

(Transfer from DERF) ................................................................ +6,600

18125 OSD—Information Operations (Transfer from DERF) .. +25,000

18125 OSD—Concept Plan (Transfer from DERF) ................... +10,000

18125 OSD—Information Operations (Transfer from DERF) .. +32,000

18125 OSD—Information Operations (Transfer from DERF) .. +1,500

18125 OSD—Information Operations (Transfer from DERF) .. +6,000

18125 OSD—Horizontal Fusion Analysis (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +2,000

18125 OSD—CENTRIX (Transfer from DERF) ......................... +14,000

18125 OSD—Classified (Transfer from DERF) ......................... +9,500

18125 OSD—Classified Programs (Change to DERF) .............. +52,600

18125 OSD—Program Growth .................................................... ¥15,000

18125 OSD—Management Headquarters .................................. ¥11,100

18125 OSD—Information Technology Network Consolidation ¥10,000

18125 OSD—Legacy System Under-execution .......................... ¥1,000

18125 OSD—Legacy—CSS Alabama .......................................... +600

18125 OSD—Middle East Regional Security Issues Program .. +1,500

18125 OSD—ADUSD (MPP&R) Wearable Computers—Existing Program ................................................................................. +4,000

18125 OSD—Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) ............................................................................ +7,000

18125 OSD—Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network Feasibility Study ............................................................................... +2,500

18150 SOCOM—Combat Development Activities (Transfer to

DERF) .......................................................................................... +7,000

18150 SOCOM—Combat Development Activities—Classified

(Change to DERF) ....................................................................... +16,000

18200 TJS—Critical Infrastructure Protection (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +300

18200 TJS—CINC for Homeland Security (Transfer from

DERF) .......................................................................................... +41,000

18200 TJS—Other Combating Terrorism Initiatives (Transfer

from DERF) ................................................................................. +1,459

18200 TJS—Vulnerability Assessments, AT/FP requirements

(Transfer from DERF) ................................................................ +400

18200 TJS—Program Growth ..................................................... ¥12,000

18200 TJS—Counter Terrorism Analysis Method for Adaptive

Threats ......................................................................................... +1,000

18200 TJS—NDU XXI ................................................................. +4,000

18225 WHS—Classified Program (Transfer from DERF) ......... +28,000

18225 WHS—Information Technology Network Consolidation ¥10,000

Undistributed:

19010 Impact Aid ......................................................................... +35,000

19110 Travel Savings ................................................................... ¥11,260

19210 FECA Reduction ................................................................ ¥6,455

19220 Unobligated Balance ......................................................... ¥25,000

ARMED FORCES INFORMATION SERVICE

The Committee directs the Armed Forces Information Service to

provide to any Member of Congress or staff requesting access, the

same remote access capability (from access points without ‘‘.gov’’ or

68

‘‘.mil’’ domains) currently available to DoD employees to the webbased Current News service.

GEORGE AFB

The Committee recommends an additional $2,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for the structural improvements of leasable buildings at the former George AFB.

NORTON AFB

The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for rehabilitation and

structural repairs of leasable buildings at the former Norton AFB.

GAVRT PROJECT EXPANSION

The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for the rehabilitation of

an additional GAVRT antenna.

LEWIS CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

The Committee has included an additional $4,050,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Lewis Center for

Educational Research for staffing, curriculum development, research, coordination and logistical support to enhance DoD teacher

training.

CCAT

The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for technology and related economic/community adjustment activities to establish and

implement the Connecticut Consortium for Aviation Technology.

CHARLES MELVIN PRICE SUPPORT CENTER

The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for rehabilitation and

structural repairs and upgrades at the former Charles Melvin Price

Support Center.

LEGACY

Within available funds, the Committee strongly encourages the

Department to consider restoration of Lincoln Cottage on the

grounds of the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DC.

DLAMP

The Committee continues to be concerned about the Defense

Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP). During fiscal

year 2002, the Department has attempted to restructure the

DLAMP. However, the final outcome of the restructure is still very

unclear and the full costs of the program are currently undefined.

Additionally, the Committee is troubled that the DLAMP is paying

for a 201 room hotel and conference complex in Southbridge, Massachusetts that it is not using. The Committee has adjusted funding for DLAMP accordingly.

69

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

The Committee recommends a reduction in the number of personnel located within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).

This reduction is based on the Secretary’s own initiative to reduce

the number of headquarters personnel. While the fiscal year 2003

budget for management headquarters reflects a Defense-wide civilian personnel reduction, the Office of the Secretary of Defense was

not included in the reduction. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced funding for management headquarters civilians within the

OSD.

CHILD CARE AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends an increase of $6,000,000 above the

budget request for Child Care and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The Department is providing child care for Reservists

called to duty, and offering extended operating hours at child development centers to support personnel working longer hours. In addition, the EAP program provides family support services to all Reserve component forces. The additional funds will help support the

increased child care and family demands for those deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAMS

The Committee is aware of the recent Navy ruling against using

Operation and Maintenance funds to augment support of the Family Advocacy Programs that are centrally funded with Operation

and Maintenance, Defense-Wide appropriations. The Committee’s

intent in funding the core family programs centrally with OSD is

to ensure consistent oversight and management of the family programs. The Committee believes that the Services should be allowed

to supplement these programs with Operation and Maintenance

funds in order to tailor their programs to meet their unique requirements.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,771,246,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,880,110,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,976,710,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +96,600,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,976,710,000

for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $205,464,000 above the $1,771,246,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

70

71

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

19640 Forces Readiness Operations Support/Controlled Humidity Preservation .................................................................... 4,000

19650 Land Forces System Readiness/Homeland Security

DERF Transfer—Enhanced Secure Communications .............. 5,900

19650 Land Forces System Readiness/Homeland Security

DERF Transfer—Enhanced Secure Communications .............. 25,600

19680 Base Support/CT–FP DERF Transfer—Access Control

Program ....................................................................................... 33,800

19680 Base Support/Homeland Security DERF Transfer—Enhanced Secure Communications ................................................ 30,700

19680 Base Support/CT–FP DERF Transfer—Installation Security ............................................................................................ 2,900

19680 Base Support/DERF Transfer to Other Procurement,

Army ............................................................................................ ¥16,700

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

19990 Servicewide Communications/Homeland Security

DERF Transfer—Enhanced Secure Communications .............. 2,400

Other Adjustments:

20160 Additional Military Technicians ...................................... 8,000

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,003,690,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,159,734,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,239,309,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +79,575,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,239,309,000

for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $235,619,000 above the $1,003,690,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

72

73

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

21200 Aircraft Depot Maintenance. ............................................ 5,000

22030 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/CT–FP DERF Transfer—Physical Security Site Improvement. ............................................................................................ 68,777

22030 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/Grissom Navy Reserve Center Renovation ....................... 550

22040 Base Support/CT–FP DERF Transfer—Management

and Planning ............................................................................... 61

22040 Base Support/CT–FP DERF Transfer—Management

and Planning ............................................................................... 187

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

22350 Servicewide Communications/DERF Transfer—Continuity of Operations .................................................................. 5,000

GRISSOM ARB NAVY RESERVE CENTER

The Committee recommends an increase of $550,000 above the

budget request in operation and maintenance Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization funds only for renovation of a Navy Reserve Center building at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana, in

order to meet security and operational requirements.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $144,023,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 185,532,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 189,532,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +4,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $189,532,000 for

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $45,509,000 above the $144,023,000

appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

74

75

The adjustment to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve is shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

24200 Initial Issue ....................................................................... 4,000

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $2,024,866,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 2,135,452,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,165,604,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +30,152,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,165,604,000

for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $140,738,000 above the

$2,024,866,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

76

77

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

24970 Depot Maintenance ........................................................... 5,000

25000 Base Support/CT–FP DERF Transfer—WMD First Responders Program ....................................................................... 14,950

25050 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/CT–FP DERF Transfer—Facility Upgrades ...................... 6,202

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

25300 Administration/Command Server Consolidation ............ 4,000

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $3,768,058,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 4,049,567,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,231,967,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +182,400,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,231,967,000

for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $463,909,000 above the

$3,768,058,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

78

79

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

26360 Azure Blue Cannon Bore Cleaning System .................... 1,000

26420 Base Operations Support/CT–FP DERF Transfer—

Physical Security Equipment ..................................................... 350,000

26420 Base Operations Support/Homeland Security DERF

Transfer—Long-Haul Communications ..................................... 86,200

26420 Base Operations Support/Homeland Security DERF

Transfer—General Communications ......................................... 48,500

26420 Base Operations Support/DERF Transfer to Other Procurement, Army .......................................................................... ¥340,000

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

26680 Information Management/Interoperable Automation

Continuity of Operations ............................................................ 1,000

Other Adjustments:

26820 Angel Gate Academy ........................................................ 2,000

26830 National Emergency and Disaster Information Center 3,000

26890 Joint Training and Experimentation Program ............... 4,000

26940 Rural Access to Broadband Technology .......................... 2,500

26960 Additional Military Technicians ...................................... 11,300

26970 National Guard Global Education Project ...................... 500

26980 All Terrain Military Utility Vehicle ................................ 3,100

26990 Northeast Center for Homeland Security Feasibility

Study ............................................................................................ 1,500

27000 Courseware to Educate IT Managers .............................. 2,000

27010 Information Assurance ..................................................... 1,500

27030 WMD Response Element Advanced Laboratory Integrated Training and Indoctrination ........................................... 2,000

27050 Cold Weather Clothing ..................................................... 300

27060 Louisiana NG Terrorism Training ................................... 2,000

JOINT TRAINING AND EXPERIMENTATION PROJECT

The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 above the

budget request only to continue the California National Guard

Joint Training and Experimentation Project.

MISSOURI ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 above the

budget request only for cold weather clothing for the 135th Signal

Battalion of the Army National Guard stationed in St. Joseph, Missouri.

MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION

The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 above the

budget request only for the development of a master plan and feasibility study for the Northeast Center for Homeland Security at

the Massachusetts Military Reservation.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $3,988,961,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 4,062,445,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,113,010,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +50,565,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,113,010,000

for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $124,049,000 above the

$3,988,961,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

80

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

81

82

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

27800 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/CT–FP DERF Transfer—Facility Upgrades ...................... 38,015

27800 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/Key Field Facility Renovation ............................................ 2,000

27850 Depot Maintenance ........................................................... 5,000

Other Adjustments:

28160 National Guard State Partnership Program .................. 1,000

28170 Project Alert ...................................................................... 2,750

28250 Surveying Training Systems ............................................ 1,000

28260 Instrument Landing System at Rickenbacker ANG

Base .............................................................................................. 500

28270 Cold Weather Clothing ..................................................... 300

MISSOURI AIR NATIONAL GUARD

The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 above the

budget request only for cold weather clothing for the 139th Airlift

Wing of the Air National Guard stationed in St. Joseph, Missouri.

KEY FIELD, MISSISSIPPI

The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 above the

budget request in operation and maintenance Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization funds only for repair of the operations

and training facility at Key Field in Meridian, Mississippi.

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $50,000,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 50,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. ............................

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥50,000,000

The Committee has fully funded the Administrations request for

support of ongoing DoD operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations are no longer contingency events, and such continuing operations have been funded in the regular appropriations accounts

lines as requested by the Administration. As these operations are

now accounted for in the budget development process, contingency

funds are not needed and the Committee has reallocated

$50,000,000 from the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund to

more urgent priorities.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED

FORCES

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $9,096,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 9,614,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 9,614,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,614,000 for

the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $518,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.

83

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $389,800,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 395,900,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 395,900,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $395,900,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $6,100,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2002.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $257,517,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 256,948,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 256,948,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $256,948,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $569,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2002.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $385,437,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 389,773,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 389,773,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $389,773,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is an

increase of $4,336,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2002.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $23,492,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 23,498,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 23,498,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,498,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is

an increase of $6,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2002.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED

DEFENSE SITES

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $222,255,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 212,102,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 212,102,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $212,102,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The recommendation is a decrease of $10,153,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.

84

MOUNT UMUNHUM

The Committee encourages the Department to consider Mount

Umunhum in San Jose, California for funding under the Formally

Used Defense Site (FUDS) program

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $49,700,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 58,400,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 58,400,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,400,000 for

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is an increase of $8,700,000 from the amount appropriated in

fiscal year 2002.

FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $403,000,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 416,700,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 416,700,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction activities of the Department of Defense.

The President’s budget requested $416,700,000 for this activity

in Title II. Funding for this appropriation has been transferred

from Title IX of the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.

SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMPETITIONS,

DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $15,800,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 19,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 19,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation funds the Support for International Sporting

Competitions, Defense for logistical and security support for international sporting competitions (including pay and non-travel related allowances only for members of the Reserve Components of

the Armed Forces called or ordered to active duty in connection

with providing such support). These funds are to remain available

until expended, in order to provide support for future events.

DEFENSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation ...................................................... $3,395,600,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ................................................... 19,460,616,000

Committee recommendation .......................................................... 0

Change from budget request ......................................................... ¥19,460,616,000

For activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, the Administration requested $19,460,616,000 in the Defense Emergency Response Fund to support efforts by the Department of Defense to respond to, or protect against, acts or threatened acts of terrorism against the United States. Of that amount,

$10,000,000,000 would only be available if a subsequent official

budget request, designating the amount of the request as essential

to respond or protect against acts or threatened acts of terrorism,

85

is transmitted by the President to the Congress. As explained elsewhere in this report, the Administration has yet to submit any specific request or budget justification for these funds. Pending receipt

of any such request or budget amendment, the Committee has deferred action on this $10,000,000,000 appropriation. As regards the remaining $9,460,616,000 requested in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, budget justification materials

identified the specific programs, as well as line items and appropriations accounts, to which the Department planned to transfer

funds for obligation. Therefore, rather than provide funding for

these items in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, appropriations for those items and amounts approved by the Committee are

found in the appropriations accounts and line items identified by

the Department.

(87)

TITLE III

PROCUREMENT

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY

The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense procurement budget

request totals $67,220,034,000. The accompanying bill recommends

$70,285,272,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of

$3,065,238,000 above the fiscal year 2003 budget estimate and is

$9,420,324,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2002. The

table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee’s

recommendations.

88

89

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in

the project level tables or items in paragraphs using the phrase

‘‘only for’’ or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items

for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD 1414). Each

of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated

amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items

remain special interest items whether or not they are repeated in

a subsequent conference report.

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

ARMY LARGE SCALE CONTRACT REVIEW

Given some of the contractual problems that have occurred during large program contracts in previous years, the Committee believes that large scale contracts should be reviewed by competent

outside counsel.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,984,391,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 2,061,027,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,214,369,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +153,342,000

This appropriation finances acquisition of tactical and utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electric

warfare of in-service aircraft, ground support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, transmission gear boxes,

and sensor equipment. It also funds related training devices such

as combat flight simulators and production base support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

90

91

92

UH–60L BLACKHAWK FLIGHT SIMULATOR

The budget request contains $153,361,000 for the procurement of

12 UH–60L Blackhawk utility helicopters for the Army National

Guard (ARNG), but includes no funds for a UH–60L full motion

simulator. The Blackhawk is the Army’s primary utility helicopter

for air assault, general support and aero medical evacuation missions. The Committee is aware that the national command

authority’s rapid reaction force 18th Airborne Corps has a requirement for one additional UH–60L Blackhawk full motion simulator

and that this simulator is not planned to be budgeted for until fiscal year 2005. However, aviation units from this Corps are currently deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and

must maintain the highest levels of readiness and training as a rotational alert force. Accordingly, the Committee recommends an additional $15 million for one UH–60L Blackhawk full motion simulator for the 18th Airborne Corps.

CH–47F UPGRADE PROGRAM RESTRUCTURE

The bill provides an additional $45,000,000 to the budget request

of $382,061,000 to support the restructuring of the CH–47F helicopter upgrade program. The CH–47F Chinook helicopter will be

the main heavy lift helicopter of the Future Combat System and

the Objective Force. Upgrading the CH–47 ‘D’ model to an ‘F’

model will extend airframe life by at least 20 years, replace the

analog cockpit with a digital cockpit, modernize communications

and navigation equipment, reduce vibration, and reduce aircraft

tear down and build-up for strategic airlift by 65 percent.

Given the critical importance of this helicopter to the Army, the

Committee believes this program should receive top budgetary priority in which the entire fleet of 465 helicopters should be upgraded instead of only 72 percent of the Army fleet (337 helicopters) under the current plan. The Committee also believes the

current procurement strategy should be restructured to obtain

more cost-effective production rates for this aircraft, from the current planned rate of 36 helicopters per fiscal year to 48 per year,

which the Committee believes could save over $1,000,000 per helicopter.

The current upgrade plan also presents many operational difficulties for the Army that should be avoided. For instance, under

the current plan, the 128 CH–47 ‘D’ models that would not be upgraded would be assigned to National Guard and Reserve units for

call-up on an as needed basis. Pilots of ‘D’ models will not be qualified to fly ‘F’ models without additional, costly, and time-consuming

training. By having both active and reserve pilots qualified on one

model, mobilization of Guard and Reserve units will be seamless.

One common aircraft will also greatly reduce the Army’s logistics

burden and save considerable sums for a common set of spare

parts, and standardized system fixes that apply to the whole fleet.

In addition, all CH–47F models will have a digital as opposed to

analog cockpit, which will allow interoperability within and across

the services and enable the use of tranformational technolgies.

The additional $45,000,000 is intended to faciliate the transition

to the most economically efficient program of at least 48 helicopters

93

per year once full production is initiated. The bill provides that

these funds may only be committed if the Secretary of the Army

certifies to the congressional defense committees, not later than

June 30, 2004, that the program has been restructured to upgrade

all CH–47 aircraft in the Army fleet.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

94

95

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,079,330,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,642,296,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,112,772,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥529,524,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. Also included are major components, modifications, targets, test equipment and production base support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

96

97

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

98

99

PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT

VEHICLES, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $2,193,746,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 2,248,558,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,248,358,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥200,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel

and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles; selfpropelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modification of in-service equipment, initial spares; and production base

support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

100

101

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

102

103

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,200,465,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,159,426,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,207,560,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +48,134,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modification of in-service stock, and related production base support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial facilities and equipment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

104

105

106

107

PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR AMMUNITION

The Committee commends the Army for establishing a Program

Executive Officer (PEO) for Ammunition as part of its larger effort

to streamline its acquisition organization and processes. Ammunition represents perhaps the most critical component of an effective

Army, providing needed lethality for our soldiers in the field. However, for decades the Army’s ammunition management system was

fragmented and inefficient. Repeated studies, as well as this Committee, have recognized the need to substantively reform the ammunition management process; to manage it as a major acquisition

system with a single manager responsible for all programmatic and

fiscal control. The Committee strongly encourages the Army to continue moving forward with the expeditious implementation of a

PEO for Ammunition.

CANCELLATION OF WIDE AREA MUNITION (WAM) PROGRAM

The Committee recommends no additional funds to continue development or procurement of the Wide Area Munition and directs

that this program be cancelled. The WAM and Advanced WAM, a

smart, autonomous top attack anti-tank/anti-vehicle munition, was

developed as a Cold War weapon to counter massed Soviet armor.

It is theoretically supposed to use acoustic and seismic sensors in

its ground platform to detect vehicles, classify potential targets,

and then automatically launch an infrared detecting submunition

or ‘‘sublet’’ over the top of the selected target. Even though this

munition has been in development since 1986 and over

$330,000,000 has been expended for its development, the Army has

yet to demonstrate the ability to satisfy even minimally acceptable

operational performance requirements.

According to the Department of Defense Inspector General, the

key WAM performance parameters for range, engagement of heavy

wheeled targets, and success rate in conditions of rain and snow

have yet to be demonstrated. Key performance characteristics that

have not been met include: tactical engagement of any of the designated targets at maximum range, engagement of multiple targets

in any environment or a single target on other than level ground,

and engagement of non-tank targets (e.g., wheeled vehicles) in any

environment at any range. The self-destruct function, a key safety

and operational feature, has yet to be demonstrated. Additionally,

operational tests have been conducted with non-production representative munitions and inert warheads in contravention of Army

test policy.

The Army has also been unable to come close to achieving WAM

cost targets of $11,110 per unit. Under a low rate production contract, the Army procured over 100 WAM systems at a cost of over

$200,000 apiece under a conditional material release for the 82nd

Airborne Division. Even if the Army achieves its inventory objective of more than 33,000 munitions, it would miss the unit cost objective by a factor of five. With a dwindling target set, less than

successful acquisition milestone achievements and high unit cost,

the Committee believes the remaining $230,000,000 programmed

for WAM acquisition in the future years should be applied to upVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
108

grading the remaining 28 percent of the CH–47 helicopter fleet

that is not currently in the Army upgrade plan.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

109

110

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $4,183,736,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 5,168,453,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 6,017,380,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +848,927,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) tactical and

commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-trailers, and trailers of

all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and

the worldwide logistical systems; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and tactical communication equipment; (c) other support equipment, generators and power units, material handling

equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for user

testing, and non-system training devices. In each of these activities,

funds are also included for the modification of in-service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and production base

support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of Dollars]

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

UP-ARMORED HMMWVs

The Committee notes that the M1114 Up-armored High Mobility

Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) is a key program for

U.S. armed forces. This vehicle has repeatedly demonstrated its

ability to protect U.S. personnel in hostile environments such as

Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Accordingly, the

Committee recommends that the Army request funds for fiscal year

2004, and subsequent years, to support an annual fielding rate of

720 vehicles per year with the objective of complete fielding to

Army forces by fiscal year 2008.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

120

121

122

123

124

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $7,938,143,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 8,203,955,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 8,682,655,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +478,700,000

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft

and related support equipment and programs; flight simulators;

equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life,

eliminate safety hazards, and improve their operational effectiveness; and spare parts and ground support equipment for all end

items procured by this appropriation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

125

126

127

128

CH–60S COMMON COCKPIT MULTI-YEAR PROCUREMENT

The Committee notes that the CH–60S helicopter is being procured under two separate acquisition plans. The basic air vehicle

is being procured under a cost effective multi-year contract, while

the CH–60S cockpit avionics and other components are being procured on an annual basis. The Navy may be able to realize additional costs savings through a multi-year procurement of the aircraft cockpit equipment as well. The Committee urges the Department of the Navy to thoroughly examine the business case for

multi-year procurement of the MH–60S helicopter cockpits and if

warranted by the analysis, submit a request for multi- year procurement of said cockpits as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget request.

TACTICAL INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR)

The Committee understands that the Navy may be considering

a plan to terminate its long-standing tactical aircraft intelligence,

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) program. The Navy’s concerns about the value of the product to the overall mission planning process, as well as its ability to fund future program requirements, has generated an interest in terminating a number of tactical ISR programs after fiscal year 2003, particularly the F/A–18E/

F Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP).

The Committee would not agree with such a recommendation

and remains committed to the necessity of continuing ISR missions

conducted by tactical aircraft. The Committee believes that the

Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP), when it is deployed, will provide a unique opportunity for sharing of ISR data, a critical component of network centric warfare. The cost savings for terminating

this particular program cannot outweigh the important contributions for expanding the availability of ‘‘high demand/low density’’

ISR collection and distribution sensors and platforms.

Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to continue funding

the Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) in the fiscal year 2004

and future years budgets. Should the Navy determine that other

tactical ISR sensors do not provide sufficient value to mission planners or are of significantly high maintenance costs, the Committee

would certainly consider a termination proposal for these systems.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

129

130

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,429,592,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,832,617,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,384,617,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +552,000,000

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated support equipment, and modification on in-service missiles,

torpedoes, and guns.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

131

132

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

133

134

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE

CORPS

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $461,399,000

Fiscal Year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,015,152,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,167,130,000

Change from Budget Request ............................................................ +151,978,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization, and ammunition related material for the

Navy and Marine Corps.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

135

136

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

137

138

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $9,490,039,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 8,191,194,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 8,127,694,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥63,500,000

This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new

ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including

hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and communication systems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

139

140

141

CVN–77 INTEGRATED WARFARE SYSTEM (IWS)

The CVN–77 is to be the last Nimitz-class carrier acquired and

operated by the Navy before transitioning to the CVN(X) next generation aircraft carrier class. As originally envisioned, the CVN–77

was to be a bridge to the future as one of three transformational

carriers designed to evolve the Navy towards more modern ship designs. It was to have an integrated warfare system (IWS) featuring

a new phased array radar being developed by the DD–21 program,

enhanced self defense capabilities, advanced displays, programmable communications suites, and open system architectures to

provide an easily upgradable base for future technology insertion

and product improvement efforts. With the termination of the DD–

21 program and restructure as the DD–(X), it became apparent

that the existing development schedules for the Multi-function

radar (MFR) and Volume Search Radar (VSR) systems would no

longer meet the construction schedule requirements of the CVN–

77. The Navy had a modern technological alternative available in

the form of a derivative of the AEGIS SPY–1 Radar coupled with

the MFR, but instead chose to replace the MFR/VSR systems with

legacy rotating radar equipment originally developed over 30 years

ago and currently out of production. Additionally, in an effort to

not create prior year shipbuilding costs for the CVN–77, the Navy

chose to delete a substantial amount of the technology improvement work that was to be accomplished in the IWS. Instead of the

previously cited warfighting capability improvements that were to

be fielded on the CVN–77, the Navy has decided to launch the last

Nimitz class carrier into the 21st century with vintage radars,

basic self-defense capabilities, isolated decision centers, non-integrated displays, generation old computer processors and stovepiped communications systems. This decision not only deprives the

fleet of significant warfighting improvements that could be obtained today, but in the Committee’s belief, unnecessarily increases

the technological risk and total cost to the CVN(X) program, thus

negating any short term cost savings benefit derived from severely

limiting the CVN–77 IWS development effort. The Committee is

also concerned that under the Navy proposal, it is not apparent

where legacy radar systems would be obtained for reconditioning

and installation on the CVN–77, or what the impact would be to

other Navy shipbuilding programs that could potentially receive

these assets. It is also apparent that the Navy has not adequately

factored in the costs of maintaining out of production parts for the

legacy systems they had hoped to use on the CVN–77. Finally, the

Committee believes that the presently proposed ‘‘flexible island’’ design change would generate unnecessary costs and that it would be

actually more efficient to design a flexible island that accommodates the change of one phased array radar system to another,

rather than from a rotating to a phased array radar system.

The Navy is to be applauded for it’s recent sensitivity towards

and management of prior year shipbuilding costs. The Secretary’s

efforts to bring long needed discipline to this fiscal practice is appreciated and supported by the Committee. However, the Committee believes that in the case of the CVN–77 IWS, the most cost

effective course is to include as much warfighting capability on the

142

ship as possible today, not at a post launch availability date far beyond present budgetary horizons. The Committee therefore has

provided an additional $250,000,000 over the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the CVN–77 only to reinstate the original work content of the IWS contract. It is the Committee’s sense that the Navy

should pursue a phased array radar solution for the CVN–77,

whether it is a variant of the AEGIS SPY–1 radar or an acceleration of the MFR/VSR system to be installed on the DD–X.

The Committee also strictly prohibits the obligation of any funds

in the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the development of a

CVN–77 IWS contract data package that does not include a phased

array radar system, enhanced self defense capability, advanced display systems and an open system architecture configured to optimize future technology insertion and product improvement upgrades. Elsewhere in this report the Committee has recommended

a reduction of $25,000,000 for development of the CVN(X) contract

data package as premature, until the Navy clearly establishes a coherent risk reduction path from the CVN–77 to the CVN(X). The

Department of the Navy is directed to provide a report to the

House Appropriations Committee no later than February 15, 2003

which details the new acquisition strategy for the CVN–77 IWS to

include a detailed discussion of the reinstated program’s, cost,

schedule, and technical and contractual milestones.

SSGN ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The Committee remains strongly supportive of the effort to convert and modernize four SSBN nuclear missile submarines to perform tactical and surveillance missions. The Committee is convinced that these assets which were otherwise to be retired, will

prove to be a vital capability for the Navy in future contingencies.

One of the compelling features of this program was the relatively

straight-forward and cost-effective process of converting existing

submarines to be capable of carrying up to 150 Tomahawk missiles.

The economic and operational benefits of carrying out this conversion for 4 vice 2 boats as proposed by the Navy became apparent

to Congress during the fiscal year 2002 defense budget cycle. Accordingly, additional funding was provided to initiate a 4 boat program in fiscal year 2002. The Navy is to be commended for identifying funding in its future years defense program to ensure that a

4 boat SSGN capability becomes a reality. The Committee has concerns, however, that the Navy maybe pursuing an unnecessarily

complex acquisition strategy for the SSGN program which could affect its future affordability. The Committee believes that it is imperative that the SSGN program be managed to ensure that cost

and schedule goals are achieved.

The SSGN conversion program is comprised of standard submarine refueling and overhaul activities, but also includes elements of a new design and a first time installation of new equipment. It will also necessarily involve system integration efforts and

design/installation interfacing. The Committee urges the Navy to

optimize the proven historical capabilities of public and private

shipyards, as well as look to other successful design/build processes

and other conversion programs for SSBN such as the recent conversions to the D–5 missile, as it goes forward with an acquisition

143

strategy for the SSGN program. The Committee therefore directs

the Navy to submit a report to the Appropriations Committee no

later February 15, 2003 on the overall acquisition strategy for the

SSGN program to include consideration of a prime systems integrator for all design, manufacturing, and conversion activities for

the SSGN program and an arrangement that maximizes the utilization of available skilled workforces and infrastructure at each

public shipyard to include the minimization of crew transfers and

maximization of production learning curves.

DDG–51 COMPOSITE STRUCTURES

The Committee directs the Department of the Navy to conduct

an analysis of the cost and performance effectiveness of including

composite louvers in the baseline design for DDG–51 class ships

under the current multi-year buy beginning with ships appropriated in fiscal year 2002. If warranted by the analysis, the Committee urges the Navy to begin budget and acquisition planning to

procure and install composite louvers on present and future flights

of DDG–51 ships starting with the post-delivery availability of

ships scheduled for delivery in 2003 and 2004. The Navy is directed

to provide a report on its analysis to the House Appropriations

Committee no later than February 15, 2003.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

144

145

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $4,270,976,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 4,347,024,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,631,299,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +284,275,000

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of major

equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and

torpedoes. Such equipment ranges from the latest electronic sensors for updating naval forces to trucks, training equipment, and

spare parts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

153

154

155

156

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $995,442,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,288,383,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,369,383,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +81,000,000

This appropriation funds the procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armaments, communication equipment, tracked

and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

157

158

159

160

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

161

162

163

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $10,567,038,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 12,067,405,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 12,492,730,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +425,325,000

This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and

for modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance

operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and

other support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment

and industrial facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight training simulators to increase combat readiness

and to provide for more economical training.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

164

165

166

167

F–22 RAPTOR

Since the submission of the fiscal year 2002 President’s budget,

the total program cost of the F–22 Raptor has increased by

$5,957,000,000. The expected start date for Dedicated Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (DIOT&E) has formally slipped by

eight months even after 31 percent of the test points remaining before DIOT&E were dropped or deferred. In production, aircraft

4008 and 4009 were delivered, on average, 12 months behind

schedule.

Despite these schedule delays, the fiscal year 2003 budget request recommends increasing the production of F–22s from 13

planes in fiscal year 2002 to 23 planes in fiscal year 2003. Because

of the risk of costly retrofits, increasing the number of planes purchased before the completion of operational testing adds significant

risk, and potentially significant cost, to the program. Overlapping

operational testing and developmental testing further increases

program risk. The DoD Directive 5000 series recommends that the

number of planes purchased in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)

be held below 10 percent of the total production quantity. The Air

Force’s current proposal for the F–22 would purchase in LRIP onethird of its total production quantity.

If the F–22 program stays on its latest schedule and begins

DIOT&E in April of 2003, 17 percent of its total buy will be ordered before DIOT&E even begins. However, over the nine month

period from June of last year to March of this year, the Air Force

projected it would ‘‘burn down’’ about 3,000 flight science test

points. In execution, the Air Force actually ‘‘burned down’’ less

than half that many. At this rate of progress, the General Accounting Office estimates that the Air Force will be ready to begin

DIOT&E in March of 2004. The Air Force will have ordered 25 percent of the total F–22 production goal by then.

The Committee is willing to increase the production of F–22 aircraft as the budget proposes, provided the Secretary of Defense has

fully evaluated these risks. The bill includes a provision requiring

that, prior to ordering more than 16 additional F–22 aircraft, the

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics submits to the congressional defense committees a cost-benefit

analysis comparing the cost advantages of increasing aircraft production at this time to the potential cost of retrofiting production

aircraft once operational test and evaluation has been completed.

The bill also requires that the Under Secretary certify to the Congress that the costs of retrofits for fixes discovered during developmental and operational testing will be absorbed within the current

projected total program cost. Finally, the language directs the

Under Secretary to certify that the proposed production rate is the

lowest risk and lowest cost solution, or else to submit to the Congress a revised production plan.

The Committee is concerned that the lack of stability in the Department’s estimates of the F–22 program’s costs and schedule may

have other negative consequences for the long term cost of the program. The Committee therefore recommends fencing the funds

available for the producability improvement program in order to

168

ensure that this critical long term cost reduction effort is not cut

in order to cover additional cost growth.

The Committee approves the F–22 procurement budget request

of $4,621,068,000 in full and recommends bill language to accomplish these objectives.

INCREMENTAL FUNDING OF THE C–17

The Air Force has adopted a budgeting approach for the C–17

that delays the need to request $1,500,000,000 in budget authority

until 2007 and 2008. Instead of following the traditional method of

requesting funding equal to the cost of the planes being built, the

Air Force has matched its funding request to when payments are

due to the contractor. The Air Force calls this change ‘‘transformation’’. The proper term is incremental funding and it is inconsistent with DoD fiscal policy. Although the planes are delivered on

the same schedule and at the same cost under either approach, incremental funding allows programs to push off onto future years

costs that should be covered now.

Last year, when the Congress was considering multiyear procurement authority for the C–17, the Air Force sought bill language

specifically authorizing this new approach. The Congress approved

the multiyear, but denied the Air Force’s request for special authority. Nevertheless, the Air Force proceeded with the incremental

funding and reinterpreted the regulations as permitting this approach. For example, while the DoD Financial Management Regulations (FMR) define Advance Procurement as being for ‘‘long leadtime items’’, the Air Force believes that this can be interpreted to

apply to any component of the aircraft or even to final assembly.

While the FMR calls for advance procurement to be ‘‘relatively low’’

compared to the cost of the end item, the Air Force proposal would,

in some cases, fund half of the cost of the airplane with advanced

procurement. The Air Force position is not consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the FMR.

Therefore, the Committee has included bill language requiring

that the fiscal year 2003 C–17 Advance Procurement be used to

support the acquisition in fiscal year 2004 of 15 C–17 aircraft (the

planned production rate) and directs the Air Force to include the

funds to complete the purchase of those 15 C–17s in its 2004 budget submission.

The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to restructure the outyear funding for the C–17 program to

bring it into compliance with the proper use of advance procurement as defined in the FMR. The Committee is fully supportive of

the C–17 program and the multiyear procurement of 60 additional

airplanes and directs that these changes be implemented in a manner that would not adversely affect the cost or delivery of these

planes.

PREDATOR B UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV)

The Predator UAV continues to demonstrate its versatility in

meeting the deployed operational requirements of the warfighting

CINCs. Its reliability and combat mission successes have provided

significant opportunities in a number of military operations.

169

With the increased use of UAVs to support ongoing operations,

the roles and missions of the Predator UAV system are quickly expanding. The need for greater stand-off reconnaissance, targeting

and variable weapons delivery capability will continue to drive the

requirement for upgrades to existing systems and the development

of new systems.

The Predator B UAV, which is operational today, has the ability

to meet a large number of the future reconnaissance, targeting, and

weapons delivery requirements. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2003

budget request does not include a request for the procurement of

additional Predator B aircraft. Therefore, the Committee has provided an increase of $26,000,000 for the Air Force to acquire six additional Predator B prop jet aircraft, including spare parts, to augment the current inventory of aircraft.

The Committee believes that the Predator B UAV may well satisfy reconnaissance, targeting and weapons delivery requirements

of the Navy. Therefore, the Committee directs the Air Force and

the Navy to establish a Joint Program Office for the Predator B.

This Joint Program Office would manage the development of requirements, program management, acquisition support, testing and

training.

GLOBAL HAWK HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL

VEHICLE (HAEUAV)

The fiscal year 2003 budget request included $41,000,000 for advance procurement for the Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the Committee recommends

$32,625,000, a reduction of $8,375,000.

The Committee makes this recommendation due to the availability of funds in fiscal year 2002 for advance procurement for four

aircraft that will be procured in fiscal year 2003 although only

three aircraft were included in the 2003 budget request. When consideration is given to the appropriation for advance procurement in

fiscal year 2002 and the Committee’s recommendation for 2003, the

Air Force has sufficient funds for both the 2002 and 2003 advance

procurement requirement.

E–8 JOINT STARS

The President’s budget requests $279,268,000 for one additional

E–8C JOINT STARS. This would bring the Department’s inventory

to 17 airplanes. However, the Department has not requested any

funding for the advanced procurement of an 18th aircraft, nor has

it provided the funds that would be required to shutdown the production line. The Committee therefore directs the Department to

decide whether or not they want another JOINT STARS and to

submit a reprogramming providing the funding needed to implement that decision.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

170

171

172

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $2,989,524,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 3,575,162,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,185,439,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥389,723,000

This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, and

checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of inservice missiles, and initial spares for missile systems. It also provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program

support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

173

174

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

175

176

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $866,644,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,133,864,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,290,764,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +156,900,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for

the Air Force.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

177

178

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

179

180

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $8,085,863,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 10,523,946,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 10,622,660,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +98,714,000

This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are

vehicles, electronic and telecommunications systems for command

and control of operational forces, and ground support equipment for

weapon systems and supporting structure.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

181

182

183

184

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

185

186

187

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $2,389,490,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 2,688,515,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,457,405,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +768,890,000

This appropriation funds the Procurement, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

188

189

190

191

192

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the Department of

Defense Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business to execute the

DoD Technical Assistance Program. This program provides critical

training and technical assistance services to minority institutions

to help them more effectively compete for Department of Defense

funding opportunities.

ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM

The Special Operations Command requested $21,804,000 for procurement of the Advanced Sea, Air, Land (SEAL) Delivery System

(ASDS) and $34,730,000 in advanced procurement for a second

ASDS. The Committee recommends $23,504,000 for procurement,

of which $12,000,000 is recommended to procure Lithium Ion Polymer Batteries, and no funds for advanced procurement.

The ASDS is a manned combatant mini-submarine used for the

clandestine delivery of Special Operations Forces personnel and

weapons and will provide an important improvement over the current SEAL delivery system. The first ASDS has encountered significant cost and schedule problems and there are important unresolved issues identified last year by the Committee which continue

to require more RDT&E funding. Since the budget was submitted,

the Special Operations Command has wisely decided to restructure

this program and is delaying the procurement of the second ASDS

until the technical problems have been resolved. The Committee

recommends additional funding above the budget request for the

ASDS in the RDT&E program addressed elsewhere in this report.

DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY

Funds for the Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency have been

transferred to the National Foreign Intelligence Program in an effort to improve appropriations oversight and management efficiency. Further details are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY—3 (PAC–3)

The President’s budget request includes $471,670,000 for the procurement of 72 PAC–3 missiles in Missile Procurement, Army. The

Committee recommends moving these funds to Procurement, Defense-Wide and providing an increase of $65,000,000 only for the

procurement of 24 additional missiles in 2003, the acquisition of

long lead items for 72 missiles in 2004 or some combination of the

above. The Committee further directs that these funds are available only to support a budget request for 144 missiles in 2004.

Last year, the Administration requested funds to upgrade the facilities that produce the PAC–3 so that by 2004 the facility could

support a production rate of 12 missiles per month and by 2006 a

production rate of 20 missiles per month. The Congress supported

the Administration’s request and directed the Department to begin

producing these additional missiles as soon as possible. This year

the Department of Defense proposes to transfer the program from

the Missile Defense Agency to the Army, but with only enough

funds to buy 6 missiles per month in 2004 and increasing to only

193

12 missiles per month in 2006. At this production rate, the Army

would not be able to achieve its inventory objective until 2019.

Given the Administration’s commitment to missile defense, the

Committee is disappointed that the Department would transfer

this program to the Army with such a significant shortfall. The

Committee believes that theater missile defense is too high a priority to be transferred in this way. Therefore the Committee recommends moving procurement funding for the PAC–3 back to Procurement, Defense-Wide and directs that the Department not

transfer the PAC–3 procurement program to the Army until it has

included enough funds in the Program Objective Memorandum for

this program to support a production rate of 20 missiles per month

and a total purchase of at least 2,200 missiles.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

194

195

196

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $699,130,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... ............................

Committee recommendation .............................................................. ............................

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of tactical

aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard and Reserve.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The budget request includes $2,603,597,000 to equip National

Guard and Reserve units in Procurement accounts for each of the

Armed Services and no funding in National Guard and Reserve

Equipment. The Committee is aware of the indispensable contributions members of the Guard and the Reserves make to our national

security and has added $222,880,000 in additional funding above

the request within the regular appropriation accounts to allow

them to more adequately perform their missions. These missions

continue to grow in scope as the Department uses Guard and Reserve forces to help deal with increased foreign deployments and to

respond to terrorists threats to our homeland security. The Committee has amended bill language proposed in the budget for these

purposes to insure that not less than the amounts identified are

provided to the National Guard and Reserve components.

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $40,000,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 73,057,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 73,057,000

Change from request .......................................................................... ............................

The Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.) authorizes the use of federal funds to correct industrial resource shortfalls

and promote critical technology items which are essential to the

national defense. The Department requested $73,057,000 for Defense Production Act Purchases in fiscal year 2003. The Committee

recommends $73,057,000, the amount of the budget request.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Department requested $17,909,943,000 for Information

Technology. The Committee recommends $17,664,945,000 a decrease of $244,998,000 as explained below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Operation and Maintenance, Army:

C4 Requirements for PACOM—Transfer to procurement ........... ¥6,000

Operation and Maintenance, Navy:

CMIS ................................................................................................ 4,000

SPAWAR IT Center ........................................................................ 3,000

Non-NMCI Information Technology .............................................. ¥120,000

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:

ASC Enterprise InfoStructure Prototype ...................................... 6,500

AFMC/SC Information Assurance Initiative ................................ 1,500

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:

Civilian Personnel Data System ................................................... ¥20,000

DLA, Information Technology Network Consolidation ................ ¥10,000

DSMC/IT Organizational Composition Research ......................... 1,000

OSD, Information Technology Network Consolidation ................ ¥10,000

197

DISA, Wireless Priority Service .................................................... ¥37,000

Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network Feasibility Study .. 2,500

ADUSD (MPP&R) Wearable Computers [Note: Only for the existing program and initial deployment.] ................................... 4,000

Counter Terrorism Analysis Methods for Adaptive Threats ....... 1,000

WHS, Information Technology Network Consolidation ............... ¥10,000

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve:

Command Server Consolidation .................................................... 4,000

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:

Courseware to Educate IT Managers ........................................... 2,000

Information Assurance [Note: Only for a collaborative information assurance effort with SEI.] ................................................. 1,500

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard:

National Guard Global Education Project .................................... 500

Project Alert .................................................................................... 2,750

Interoperable Automation Continuity of Operations ................... 1,000

Other Procurement, Army:

Information Systems reduction ..................................................... ¥41,000

C4 Requirements for PACOM ....................................................... 6,000

Global Combat Support System .................................................... ¥10,000

Army Knowledge Online ................................................................ 5,000

National Guard Courseware Development ................................... 3,000

Automated Maintenance Records Technology .............................. 4,500

Other Procurement, Navy:

USNR Information Infrastructure COOP ..................................... 3,000

JEDMICS Security Solution .......................................................... 7,000

JEDMICS Type 1 Network Security Solution .............................. 7,000

USMC Continuity of Operations ................................................... 7,000

Other Procurement, Air Force:

REMIS ............................................................................................. 2,500

Point of Maintenance Initiative ..................................................... 1,500

Procurement, Defense-Wide:

OSD Information Technology Consolidation ................................ ¥2,000

WHS Information Technology Consolidation ............................... ¥2,000

Bandwidth Expansion Contract Cost Savings ............................. ¥25,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:

Global Combat Support System .................................................... ¥20,000

Armament Systems Network IA Center ....................................... 4,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy:

Deployable Joint Command and Control ...................................... ¥39,772

Web Centric Network Warfare ...................................................... 8,000

JEDMICS ........................................................................................ 3,000

SPAWAR Information Technology Center .................................... 6,000

Distance Learning IT Center ......................................................... 15,000

CAST Upgrade—CACCTUS Intelligent Tutor System ............... 4,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:

Global Combat Support System .................................................... ¥6,000

Financial Management Information Systems Development ....... ¥21,326

Enterprise Data Warehouse .......................................................... 4,000

Information Management for Crisis Response ............................. 6,000

World Infrastructure Support Environment ................................ 6,000

ILIAD ............................................................................................... 3,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide:

Center for Computer Security ....................................................... 300

National Guard Multi-Media Security Technology ...................... 2,500

Data Standards for the Integrated Digital Environment ............ 1,000

DMS Data Warehouse Solution ..................................................... 1,000

Advanced Distributed Learning Prototypes ................................. 4,000

Standard Procurement System ...................................................... ¥2,500

Financial Management System Improvement [Transfer to Defense Working Capital Fund] ..................................................... ¥60,000

Protection of Vital Data ................................................................. 8,000

Computer Science and Internet Security Degree Program ......... 750

Global Infrastructure Data Capture ............................................. 9,000

Joint Analytical Model Improvement Program ............................ ¥4,000

Global Command and Control System Review ............................ ¥8,700

Picket Fence .................................................................................... 2,000

SOF Integrated Command and Control System .......................... 4,000

198

TRANSFERS FROM THE DEFENSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND

In addition to the amounts indicated above, $3,554,800,000 has

been transferred from amounts requested in the Defense Emergency Response Fund as explained below:

[In thousands of dollars]

CINC Homeland Security ..................................................................... $215,000

White House Communications .............................................................. 3,000

Continuity of Operations—DoD ............................................................ 534,000

Virtual Pentagon .................................................................................... 214,000

Security, Communications & Information Operations ....................... 2,588,800

NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET

The Committee agrees with the Navy’s intent of transitioning to

an Enterprise Architecture with its Navy Marine Corps Intranet

(NMCI); however, the Committee is concerned over the Navy’s consideration of the significant legacy applications challenge and the

pace at which the Navy is seeking to proceed. The NMCI program

has been unstable since its inception in fiscal year 1999 because of

the Navy’s decision to circumvent the requirements of the ClingerCohen Act and other DoD acquisition guidelines. The designation

of a single command authority to oversee program management

pursuant to Public Law enacted last year has been a driving force

in getting the program back on track.

Unfortunately, while significant progress has been made in establishing the beginnings of the network, the initial rollout has

demonstrated not only the magnitude of this undertaking, but the

previously unforeseen challenges it presents. The Committee has

heard repeatedly from the Navy, the contractor, and the claimants

that failure to identify the existence of tens of thousands of legacy

applications, and how or whether they could operate on the network, has severely inhibited transitioning. If unneeded applications

are not phased out, those remaining for tactical operations and

other uses must be: (1) made secure in order to be accommodated

on the NMCI network, or (2) handled separately on a terminal outside of NMCI. The Committee is concerned that this problem has

limited the current state of the networks capabilities to such a degree that the system has significantly impacted operations. At one

test center the dependence on legacy applications which are not

currently on NMCI is so fundamental that more than fifty percent

of the workstations require more than one computer—an NMCI

terminal and a legacy terminal. It is evident at the test site that

seats have not been ‘‘cut over’’ but merely cut in half. While this

problem exists, the Navy has proceeded with additional seat orders

for additional locations, creating the potential for this crisis to grow

exponentially.

The Committee believes strongly that for NMCI to ultimately

succeed, progress must be at a more moderately measured pace

and with far greater emphasis on understanding the networks capabilities and limitations. Customer test and evaluation has been

performed by the contractor to the satisfaction of the Department

so as to permit the order of an additional 100,000 seats. However,

the Committee is greatly concerned about the relevancy of the testing to the realistic operational environment of the Navy, the independence of the testing, and the sufficiency of the NMCI

199

workstation sample tested. While the contractor testing report concludes that the system is ready for widespread deployment, excerpts from the report are indicative of this questionable conclusion

and clearly demonstrate the shortcomings of the testing. The report

states that ‘‘Some business processes were not well defined for the

testers, limiting the effectiveness of the scenario; other business

was not fully represented in the test site population, rendering an

end-to-end look impossible. Still other business processes were

straightforward but did result in complicated, extensive test procedures with numerous steps, and many business processes required

a combination of NMCI and legacy applications, making an end-toend test wholly on the NMCI system problematic at best’’. If the

NMCI cannot be adequately tested, then the very results upon

which the inadequate tests are based must be questioned. While

independent operational test and evaluation is now planned for

June 2003, it will not occur until over 75 percent or approximately

310,000 of the 411,000 NMCI seats have been ordered and at which

time an estimated 100,000 seats will have been fully transitioned

to the network. If the history of this program is any indication, significant problems are likely to be discovered when the system is

subjected to rigorous operational test and evaluation. Any solutions

will have to be deployed to a far greater population on the network,

and at greater cost, than if this testing occurred earlier in the fielding of the system.

The Committee notes that authorization has been proposed in

other legislation to extend the contract for NMCI with the contractor an additional two years to address delays in transitioning

seats to the NMCI environment. This additional time allows a

unique opportunity for the program to evaluate its current status,

initiate a comprehensive effort to address legacy applications at

sites where seats have been transitioned and undergo additional

testing. The Committee believes it would be most beneficial for the

Navy and NMCI if additional seat orders were delayed as part of

this contract extension pending independent operational test and

evaluation. Therefore, the Committee has included a general provision that prohibits the Navy from ordering additional seats above

the current 160,000 authorized by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and requires that operational test and evaluation be conducted once there has been a full transition of not less than 20,000

workstations to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet and the network

is robust enough so as to perform adequate testing. The Committee

believes that the delay in seat orders that will result will also provide the Navy and the contractor much needed time to address the

legacy application problems which will arise from the order of the

first 160,000 seats. Furthermore, the Committee expects that like

the Marine Corps, by limiting equipment refreshment and using

smart lease arrangements as systems prepare to convert to NMCI,

the Navy will achieve savings until seat orders are resumed. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced the funding request for nonNMCI information technology.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUDGET EXHIBITS

The Committee directs that in preparing the IT Capital Investment Exhibit (IT–300s) for major programs, information provided

200

in the exhibit include the following; (1) The total amount of funds,

by program element or sub activity group, appropriated and obligated for prior fiscal years; (2) A specific breakout of such information for the two preceding fiscal years, and an estimate for the current fiscal year; and (3) Funds, by program element or sub activity

group, for the budget request.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NETWORK CONSOLIDATION

The Committee believes that the Department of Defense must be

more effective in eliminating unneeded legacy systems and consolidating the large number of disparate networks that are maintained. The Committee would cite the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Washington Headquarters Service and the Defense Logistics Agency as examples of organizations that could achieve significant savings through better efforts in this regard. Accordingly,

the Committee has reduced information technology funding for

these organizations due to savings from anticipated consolidation.

GIG BANDWIDTH EXPANSION

The Committee strongly supports the proposal to expand bandwidth on the Global Information Grid to 10 gigabytes for certain

mission critical bases and installations both in the United States

and OCONUS. However, the Committee believes that with the current state of the telecommunications market the Defense Information Systems Agency will be in a strong position to contract for this

enormous undertaking at increased savings to the government and

the taxpayer than estimated at the time the request was submitted. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced the request for the

Global Information Grid bandwidth expansion in anticipation of

these contract savings.

INTEGRATION SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY

As information systems have become increasingly complex, acquisition officials should take steps to enable systems to communicate

better with each other to realize much of their untapped value. The

Committee recommends that officials should give every consideration to available integration software technology where enterprise

architecture and tools can be used to accomplish integration across

disparate systems, software applications, and databases, particularly where that technology is already incorporated in the software

applications to be integrated, instead of costly customization to integrate systems by manual software coding. The Committee recommends that acquisition strategies should include evaluation of

potential savings through the use of such tools.

DEFENSE INTEGRATED MILITARY HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEM

The Committee is extremely concerned about coordination between the Navy, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and

the Defense Human Resources Agency in the joint development

and implementation of this single integrated personnel and pay

system. The three organizations submitted three separate budget

exhibits with little or no coordination among them and with incorrect funding justification in one. While the program has received a

201

substantial increase in the Future Year Defense Plan, the Committee will find it difficult to continue to support increases in the

program until the three organizations demonstrate greater coordination and ability to meet milestone schedules.

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

The budget request included $39,772,000 for Navy Deployable

Joint Command and Control (DJC2) and $15,604,000 for the Defense Information Systems Agency’s Global Command and Control

System (GCCS). The Committee has provided no funding for Navy

DJC2, and reduced funding for GCCS by $8,700,000. The Committee is concerned about the proliferation of command and control

systems throughout the services. While existing systems serve an

essential role in our military, the continued research and development of these systems lacks coordination. Funding has been requested for DJC2 as the potential follow on to GCCS, while additional development funds are also being requested for the GCCS.

The Committee has provided no funding for DJC2, and limited

funds for GCCS only to ongoing programs until more information

is provided by the Department of Defense as to the direction and

future of these two command and control systems.

ARMY INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The budget request included $279,000,000 for Army Information

Systems, an increase of $114,000,000 over the fiscal year 2002

level, or 69 percent. The Committee notes that if fully funded, this

request would equal 224 percent growth since fiscal year 2001. In

addition, $250,000,000 has been requested and funded in this bill

for the Defense Emergency Response Fund for activities funded in

this account. The Committee has transferred $6,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance funding requested for C4 requirements for

U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) to this account and reduced funding by $41,000,000. The Committee expects that the requirements

for PACOM will be addressed within the funds made available.

INFORMATION ASSURANCE

The Committee has included $1,500,000 for a collaborative information assurance effort with the Software Engineering Institute.

SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER

(SITC)

The Committee has provided $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, and $6,000,000 in Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation, Navy, only for continuing development, integration,

fielding, and maintenance at the SITC. The Committee encourages

the Department of the Navy to fully utilize all the capabilities of

the SITC to conduct enterprise level reengineering and web-enabling of the legacy systems, and portal integration efforts.

COURSEWARE FOR IT MANAGERS

The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the development and

delivery of courses of instruction in information systems, information security, mobile computing, and geographical information sysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
202

tems. The courseware will be used to educate defense information

technology managers in collaborative working groups using an advanced distance learning system with high-end computing

workstations.

ARMY KNOWLEDGE ONLINE

The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 for Army

Knowledge Online. Funding is provided to implement the Data

Storage Infrastructure, including a synchronous replication capability that mirrors data to a remote location in real time so outages

do not impact mission critical operations required during a natural

or man-made disaster.

USMC CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLAN

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 in Other Procurement,

Marine Corps, for data storage infrastructure to provide remote

site mirroring of information to facilitate protection, recovery and

guaranteed availability of critical data sources.

CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 for the

Configuration Management Information Systems (CMIS) to support

continued assembly of the CMIS database with the additional

Type/Model/Series data required to support the Maintenance Planning effort and process. The maintenance planning activity in this

up-tempo operations environment is of critical importance to the

warfighter and is of the utmost significance in conducting safe and

successful missions.

RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATED SYSTEM PROGRAM GUIDANCE

The Committee has strongly supported the Reserve Component

Automated System (RCAS) for many years. More than ten years

ago the Committee directed that the management of existing RCAS

programs be moved from the Army to the National Guard Bureau

due to continuing management difficulties. The Committee is

pleased with the progress that RCAS has made under the auspices

of the National Guard Bureau and continues to support this direction. The Committee directs the centralized management of this

critical capability continue under the Chief of the National Guard

Bureau. The Committee notes that funding has been programmed

for fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007 to assure that this

support continues and that the long-deferred renovation of the

equipment provided by RCAS begins. The Committee fully supports

this funding in fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007 and directs that both the procurement and the operation and maintenance RCAS funds be allocated in their entirety to the Chief of the

National Guard Bureau only for the centralized system management of RCAS capabilities. Moreover, the Committee anticipates

the National Guard Bureau will extend and expand the scope of

RCAS capabilities to meet all of its information and communication

needs in the future, especially in light of the efforts to safeguard

our homeland while continuing support of the vital military missions of the Guard.

203

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PILOTS

The Committee encourages the Department of Defense to proceed

with the implementation of pilot programs on financial management modernization in order to perform real time tests and applications, and identify potential challenges and problems that need

to be factored into the design and implementation of the planned

financial management enterprise system.

(205)

TITLE IV

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense research, development, test and evaluation budget request totals $53,702,299,000.

The accompanying bill recommends $57,754,286,000. The total

amount recommended is an increase of $4,051,987,000 above the

fiscal year 2003 budget estimate and is $8,832,645,000 above the

total provided in fiscal year 2002. The table below summarizes the

budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendations.

206

207

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in

the project level tables or items in paragraphs using the phrase

‘‘only for’’ or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items

for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD 1414). Each

of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated

amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items

remain special interest items whether or not they are repeated in

a subsequent conference report.

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) ROAD MAP

The Committee is aware that there are a variety of recommendations for how best to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The

Committee is encouraged by the number of missions which the

Services have identified that could be accomplished by UAVs, suggesting that the concept of unmanned vehicles has finally caught

the imagination of the leadership within the Department of Defense.

The Committee is, however, concerned that the growing enthusiasm may well lead to a situation in which there is no clear path

toward the future of UAVs. The Committee does not believe that

transfer of missions to UAVs should be executed without thorough

review and comprehensive planning.

Therefore, the Committee directs that each Service submit a report by March 1, 2003 that provides an updated ‘‘UAV roadmap.’’

This report should address how the Service will pursue the employment of current UAVs, as well as its future plans for the development of UAVs in support of both the ISR and attack missions.

FUTURE TESTING REQUIREMENTS

The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2003 budget request for

several of the research, development, test and evaluation appropriations, includes large increases in both personnel and facilities

expenses at Department of Defense test ranges. In the same appropriations, there are budget increases to support an expansion in

modeling and simulation capabilities for applicability to testing.

Budget increases for these dual and potentially competing methods

for testing leads the Committee to believe that there is little coordination on how best to address future integrated testing requirements.

While the Committee fully supports the requirements for testing

and has repeatedly emphasized that the Services must conduct a

rigorous program of testing weapons systems in the course of development, it is possible that this can be accomplished with a better

mix of range time and modeling and simulation techniques. The

Committee believes that by more effectively addressing how best to

invest in both test ranges and modeling and simulation, the DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
208

partment could enhance and make more efficient, the testing process.

The Secretary of Defense is requested to provide a report, not

later than May 1, 2003, to the House Appropriations Committee

that would address these issues. The report should provide an

analysis of the capabilities of the test ranges (including potential

investment in new equipment) and the capabilities of modeling and

simulation techniques, recommend a more effective mix of these

two methods of testing, and propose a five-year plan of integrated

investment for both ranges and modeling and simulation techniques.

NETWORK CENTRIC-WARFARE

The Committee believes that the overall interests of the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community would be best

served by quickly moving to a network-centric environment. The

Committee believes that significant benefits would accrue from this

move including: a more effective use of the data currently being collected; a more efficient or effective use of current and planned platforms; an ability to better use and protect resources—both human

and financial; and, the unifying means required for transforming

our Forces.

Network-Centric Warfare Programs

The Services have initiated a number of programs designed to

move toward a network-centric solution for sharing of intelligence,

surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data. The overall goal of

these programs is to provide for timely exploitation and dissemination of ISR data to the tactical commanders.

The Committee has been supportive of these programs but understands that it is difficult for ‘‘network solutions’’ to compete with

the acquisition of additional platforms. The Services, while lending

voice to the need for a network-centric warfare approach, have

been able to provide only limited funding for their network-centric

projects in the fiscal year 2003 budget request. Therefore, the Committee has provided an additional $28,000,000 for specific projects

already included in the President’s budget request, to continue the

development and deployment of these projects.

The backbone of the Department’s efforts to enhance data dissemination as part of its network-centric approach is the Army Distributed Common Ground Station (DCGS). The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 for this program in the Research,

Development, Test and Evaluation, Army appropriation. The Committee directs the Army use these funds to continue planned upgrades to and deployments of the system, especially those systems

supporting the U.S. Central Command.

The Navy’s Naval Fires Network (NFN) project is funded in the

Land Attack Technology program in the Research, Development,

Test and Evaluation, Navy appropriation. The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 for this program. The Committee

directs that the Navy use these funds to continue architecture design, study and initiate a design for a Joint Fires Center, improve

training devices, support major Fleet exercises, and incorporate the

UAV Tactical Control System functionality into the NFN system.

209

The Air Force Network Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT)

project is funded in the Manned Reconnaissance program in the

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force appropriation. The Committee has provided an additional $8,000,000 for this

program. The Committee directs the Air Force to use these funds

to support NCCT efforts in connection with the multi-mission command and control aircraft (MC2A) project and continue development and deployment of the system.

Data Management

To advance a network-centric environment with all of its attendant advantages, the Committee recognizes the need for several key

capabilities, which would be implemented within the Department’s

Global Information Grid:

1. There must be a network that users trust and on which they

can depend. The inherent design and implementation of the network must significantly reduce or eliminate long-standing impediments to widespread use. Most importantly, the network must

have sufficient bandwidth to support on-demand low latency access

to data and must incorporate appropriate assurance measures.

2. Tools must be provided to support the use of data to create situational awareness and enable users to properly evaluate the information. These tools must support access to raw and processed data

and information sources, must include capabilities for creating the

most current ‘‘picture’’ for a user on-demand, and allow for collaboration with other users on-demand, and again, without regard for

time and place.

3. Key to a net-centric environment is data. Mechanisms and

processes must be in place to enable data and information collectors and creators to post and maintain data and information as authoritative sources. Users must trust the data and have the capability to pull it on demand from these authoritative sources. The

approach to data and information must allow for migration by current systems, intuitive search and retrieval methods, compatibility

with the tools described above, and appropriate security provisions.

The Committee directs the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense to develop an approach to ensure data that

can be used for all sources and users. The CIO should submit a report to the Committee by February 15, 2003, that would describe

how best to resolve the issues associated with ‘‘trusted data.’’

EVOLUTIONARY ACQUISITION AND SPIRAL DEVELOPMENT

While the Committee is supportive of the Department’s efforts in

pursuing evolutionary acquisition and spiral development, it has

found that many programs lack a clear understanding of these

terms and how they affect program management. The Services

have used the terms ‘‘evolutionary acquisition’’ and ‘‘spiral development’’ interchangeably, interpreted the terms in non-standard

ways, and have potentially applied the terms inappropriately to

systems currently under development.

According to the DoD Directive 5000 series, ‘Evolutionary Acquisition’ is the process of developing and testing an initial, military

useful capability (Block 1) while planning for subsequent development of increments of additional capability (Blocks 2, 3 and beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
210

yond). This is distinct from ‘Spiral Development’, which is an

iterative process for refining requirements within an increment or

block. Neither of these approaches provides an automatic waiver

from existing DoD regulations.

The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure that budget justification material uses these

terms correctly and that project descriptions identify when programs using this approach have been given a waiver from any DoD

5000 series requirement.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $7,106,074,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 6,820,333,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 7,447,160,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +626,827,000

This appropriation finances the research, development, test and

evaluation activities of the Department of the Army.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

CRUSADER

On May 29, 2002, the Administration proposed an amendment to

the fiscal year 2003 budget request reflecting the decision to terminate the Crusader artillery system program. The budget amendment also proposed reallocating the $475,609,000 originally proposed in the fiscal year 2003 President’s Budget for the Crusader

program to accelerate development of a next generation Objective

Force—Indirect Fire artillery system, and to accelerate development of precision cannon projectiles and rocket systems.

Despite the work of the last 8 years costing roughly $2 billion to

develop the Crusader system, the Administration has concluded

that the nature and role of artillery support should change in the

future due to a ‘‘different strategic context,’’ and that the Army

should place greater emphasis on precision and mobility. The Committee is troubled by many aspects of the process which resulted

in this decision, in particular the apparent failure to fully consult

with the senior Army military leadership as final recommendations

were being devised.

In this case, the Department has chosen to accept the risk of giving up a superior rate of fire (an increase from 3 rounds per minute

to 10-12 rounds per minute) and range (from 30 kms to 40 kms)

in return for acceleration of other technologies that offer the potential of greater accuracy and deployability. The Committee notes

that this new approach accepts more risk for American ground

forces if the planned improvements in precision munitions do not

come to fruition. However, the Committee also recognizes that the

Army’s own transformation plan centering on the Future Combat

System (FCS) of the Objective Force does not include the Crusader

system. Since the Army has moved up planned fielding of the initial variants of the FCS to the 2008 timeframe, the overlap between the planned 2008 first unit equipped (FUE) date of the Crusader and the new FCS timetable make the Crusader obsolete by

the Army’s own definition. Accordingly, with some degree of trepidation over the risk inherent in this new plan, the Committee approves the Administration’s recommendation to terminate the Crusader program.

With the acknowledged gaps in the Army’s heavy artillery firepower compared to potential adversaries and the termination of the

Crusader system, the Committee believes that the Department

must turn expeditiously to developing new indirect fire systems to

ensure that the Army will have sufficient firepower to support the

Objective Force in the 2008 timeframe. The Committee is aware

that the Crusader program achieved major technological advances

to meet the Army’s indirect fire requirements, and firmly believes

that these technologies must be retained and integrated into

emerging Objective Force platforms. Examples include a liquid

cooled cannon, ammunition autoloader mechanism, digital fire control and targeting computers, and a glass cockpit. In addition, simulation and design facilities and a cadre of highly skilled engineers

and technical personnel have been assembled during the development of the Crusader program which cannot be fully replaced if

this team is disassembled. In the Committee’s view, the technical

238

team and facilities should be retained to further develop an organic

indirect fire cannon artillery system for the Army’s Objective Force. The budget amendment provides $195,500,000 to migrate Crusader-based technologies to support Objective Force—Indirect Fire

requirements. Despite this funding, the Committee recognizes and

agrees with the prevailing view that the migration of Crusader

technologies will not succeed in the absence of a suitable platform

to support both the physical demands of the cannon, and to meet

Army Objective Force mobility requirements. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a total of $368,500,000, for Objective Force— Indirect Fire, an increase of $173,000,000 above the budget amendment, to provide for integrating cannon technologies with a suitable platform, and munitions, and to ensure that such a system can

be delivered not later than fiscal year 2008.

The bill contains a general provision, Sec. 8121, which earmarks

Army research and development funds for the foregoing purposes,

and provides that the Army shall enter into a standard acquisition

contract (that is subject to the availability of appropriated funds in

this and future years) to leverage technologies developed with the

$2,400,000,000 invested in fiscal year 2002 and prior years under

the Crusader program, the Future Scout and Cavalry System program, the Composite Armored Vehicle program, and other Army

development programs in order to develop and field a Non-Line of

Sight (NLOS) Objective Force artillery system and Resupply Vehicle variants of the Future Combat System by 2008. The Committee

strongly recommends that any contract the Army enters into for

this purpose be consistent with the following guidelines, and provide for: —Maturation of key Crusader designs and technologies to

permit timely transfer to variants of the Future Combat System; —Full development and testing of a Non-Line of Sight Objective Force artillery system and Resupply Vehicle systems, including mission equipment (such as armaments, ammunition

handling, crew compartment, survivability suite, accuracy

suite) and major assemblies (such as chassis, drive train, suspension, vehicle electronics, and software);

—Minimization of contract termination costs; and

—Full coordination and synchronization with parallel Army

Future Combat System Concept and Technology Development

efforts to ensure commonality of critical component parts and

systems for all Future Combat System platform variants.

The Committee is also aware that the Army has assembled a

program management staff responsible for developing artillery systems. The Committee expects that this office will lead the effort to

migrate Crusader technologies, and to develop the Objective Force

artillery system. The Committee expects that this office will work

in close coordination with the Army Future Combat System program manager. Accordingly, the Committee has aligned funding for

the migration of Crusader technologies to the Objective Force within the current artillery systems—demonstration/validation program

line. The Committee directs that the Army establish a new project

within this program to reflect both the termination of Crusader,

and the inception of NLOS.

239

In addition to technologies developed in the Crusader program,

the Committee supports accelerating the development of a range of

precision munitions and related technologies. For this purpose, the

Committee recommends a total of $305,109,000, of which

$280,109,000 is to accelerate systems as proposed in the fiscal year

2003 budget amendment, $15,000,000 is to accelerate the high-g

MEMS precision guidance effort as described elsewhere in this report, and $10,000,000 is to conduct an evaluation of the Future

Scout and Cavalry Vehicle prototypes. The table below summarizes

these recommendations.

(In thousands of dollars)

Netfires System Technology .................................................................. 57,000

Netfires C4ISR Technology ................................................................... 57,509

Precision Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM) ....................................... 10,800

Excalibur Artillery Projectile ................................................................ 48,300

Paladin upgrades ................................................................................... 7,500

Guided MLRS Unitary .......................................................................... 45,000

HIMARS Product Improvement ........................................................... 10,000

Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) ............... 4,000

Combat Vehicle Improvement Program (ACCE) ................................. 28,600

TUAV—Target Location Error ............................................................. 11,400

MEMS Technology Development Acceleration .................................... 15,000

Future Scout and Cavalry Vehicle demonstration .............................. 10,000

Total ............................................................................................. 305,109

The table below provides a summary of the Committee’s recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 budget amendment.

CRUSADER BUDGET AMENDMENT SUMMARY

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget amendment changesFY 2003 amended

budget request

Committee recommendedChange from request

Artillery Systems—Dem/Val PE 0603854A: Crusader termination and migration of cannon

technologies, and platform and munitions integration ............................................................ ¥246,465 5,200 373,700 368,500

Objective Force—Indirect Fires .................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 195,500

Technology Integration .................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 173,000

Armored Systems Modernization PE 0604645A ..... 310,009 369,869 174,369 ¥195,500

Netfire System Technology ............................ 57,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Netfire C4ISR Technology .............................. 57,509 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Objective Force—Indirect Fires .................... 195,500 .......................... .......................... ¥195,500

Weapons and Munitions Adv Dev PE 0603802A:

Includes Precision Guided Mortar Munition

(PGMM) .............................................................. 10,800 38,561 38,561 ..........................

Excalibur/TCM PE 0604814A: Includes Excalibur

artillery projectile development ......................... 48,300 119,188 119,188 0

Artillery Systems EMD PE 0604854A ..................... ¥221,644 29,732 29,732 0

Crusader Termination ................................... ¥229,144 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Paladin Upgrades ......................................... 7,500 .......................... .......................... ..........................

MLRS Product Improvement Program PE

0603778A: Includes Guided MLRS Unitary and

HIMARS .............................................................. 55,000 112,825 112,825 0

Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System

(AFATDS) PE 0203726A ..................................... 4,000 42,161 42,161 0

Combat Vehicle Improvement Program 0203735A:

Includes Abrams engine program (ACCE) ........ 28,600 83,065 83,065 0

Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles PE 0305204A:

Includes TUAV—Tareget Location Error ............ 11,400 57,879 57,879 0

Subtotal—Budget Amendment reductions ¥475,609 .......................... .......................... ..........................

240

CRUSADER BUDGET AMENDMENT SUMMARY—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget amendment changesFY 2003 amended

budget request

Committee recommendedChange from request

Subtotal—Budget Amendment increases 475,609 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total .......................................................... 0 858,480 1,031,480 173,000

COMANCHE PROGRAM

The Committee notes that the RAH–66 Comanche has been

under development for almost two decades at a cost of over

$6,000,000,000 to date. It has just completed its sixth major program restructuring in almost 20 years. The Committee is greatly

concerned that this program appears to be another on the growing

list of Army acquisition programs that has experienced cost growth,

schedule delays and requirements creep, without achieving any

level of operational capability. The Committee notes that the integration of communication and reconnaissance, auto-targeting and

weaponry has simply added to the delays and cost, proving to be

a far greater technical challenge than initially anticipated. The

Committee now understands that yet further modifications will be

necessary beyond Block II (engine improvement) to achieve the rate

of ascent requirements originally specified. The history of this program raises anew the question of whether the Army acquisition

process is capable of managing and delivering major new combat

systems.

The Committee is deeply concerned that the Comanche program

is not delivering its intended product after years of delay and numerous missed deadlines. The Committee’s full support for this

program is now in jeopardy unless the Army can show marked

progress over the next fiscal year. The Committee strongly encourages the Army to begin reviewing potential low cost alternatives to

supplant an intermediary solution to the reconnaissance and attack

requirements originally developed for Comanche.

BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR TECHNOLOGY (BAT) AND BAT P3I SUBMUNITION

PROGRAM

The Committee notes that the Brilliant Anti-Armor (BAT) Submunition has been under development for almost two decades at a

cost of nearly $1,900,000,000 to date. The Committee is greatly

concerned that this system appears to be another on the growing

list of precision smart munitions that under-perform against Army

requirements while costing 5 to 10 times more per round than was

predicted. First conceived as a Cold War weapon to counter massed

Soviet armor in the Fulda Gap, the BAT submunition is envisioned

to be a smart, autonomous top attack anti-armor munition, intended to provide deep attack interdiction against armored combat

vehicles. The BAT P3I is expected to deliver enhanced target acquisition capability and an improved warhead.

The results of BAT operational tests have been mixed, and two

low rate production contracts combined with a lengthy pre-planned

product improvement (P3I) have yet to provide the Army with a reliable smart submunition. The Committee notes that the addition

241

of a millimeter wave and infrared (IR) seeker has simply added to

the complexity and cost, proving to be a far greater technical challenge than initially anticipated. The Committee now understands

that yet further modifications are necessary (automatic target recognition) to achieve the level of effectiveness intended against moving or stationary armed combat vehicles, hot or cold stationary targets, surface-to-surface missile transporter erector launchers, and

multiple rocket launchers.

The current cost of a BAT submunition is over $200,000 per unit.

The current cost of a BAT P3I submunition is approaching

$400,000 per unit. The intended delivery system for the BAT and

BAT P3I submunitions is the Army Tactical Missile System

(ATACMS). The ATACMS Block II missile will carry 13 BAT submunitions, and its current per unit cost is approximately $1.5 million. Even if the Army is able to increase its inventory objectives,

BAT unit cost will still be $100,000.

Given the present and predicted unit cost, the dwindling target

set, and a technology that still requires greater maturation at the

concept level despite the investment of $1,900,000,000, the Committee has reduced the Army research and development budget request for BAT and BAT P3I from $190,293,000 to $38,100,000 to

return this system to the science and technology base for further

development. Funds shall be used only to continue seeker integration and necessary testing activities.

ARMY MEMS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACCELERATION

The Committee recommends an additional $15,000,000 to continue an initiative to accelerate joint Army-Navy efforts to drive

down the cost of precision guided munitions, including both missiles and cannon-fired projectiles, by developing a much cheaper inertial guidance system using high-g MEMS technology and producing an anti-jam, ‘‘ultra-deeply-coupled GPS/INS hardware/software system’’ to better blend the GPS and INS data. This has great

potential to lower costs of precision-guided weapons of all types and

to counter GPS jamming. The Committee notes that this is the second year of a substantial increase over the budget request for this

high value program. Given the renewed emphasis on precision

guided munitions for the Army, the Committee expects this program to be robustly funded in the fiscal year 2004 DoD budget request, and in the Future Years’ Defense Program (FYDP).

FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY

The Committee notes that the Army has committed to a significant acceleration of the Future Combat System. A critical aspect of

the program’s success will be the development of new materials

technologies to address both the weight and survivability. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that $4,000,000 of the funds

made available in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,

Army be available for the Advanced Materials Processing (AMP)

for Future Combat Systems initiative to employ new technologies

and materials for the Army.

242

PROPOSED TRANSFER OF PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY–3 (PAC–3)

AND MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS) TO THE ARMY

The President’s budget request proposed transferring the PAC–

3 and MEADS systems to the Army. On further review, the Administration has recommended keeping the research, development, test

and evaluation portions of these programs with the Missile Defense

Agency. The Committee supports that recommendation and has returned these funds to the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide account.

PSEUDOFOLLICULITIS BARBE (PFB)

The Committee is concerned about the skin disease

Pseudofolliculitis Barbe (PFB) and its disproportionate impacts on

African American military personnel. The Assistant Secretary of

Defense (Health Affairs) is directed to report to the Congress by

February 1, 2003 ourlining a plan of action to initiate research into

more effective treatments and control of this problem.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

243

244

245

246

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $11,498,506,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 12,496,065,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 13,562,218,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +1,066,153,000

This appropriation provides funds for the research, development,

test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy and

the Marine Corps.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

NAVY VENTURE ORGANIZATION

The Department of the Navy’s research and acquisition community historically has had great difficulty in transitioning innovative

technologies from government research organizations and the commercial marketplace to active development and procurement programs. Due to the constraints of internal planning and budgeting

processes, and the stifling legacy of ‘‘programs of record’’, new Navy

systems are often fielded with a high degree of technological obsolescence, as risk averse program managers frequently decline to

take calculated chances to incorporate the latest technological advances in the systems they are charged with delivering to

warfighters. This is primarily due to the fact the Navy acquisition

system as presently configured, provides significant disincentives to

those who would try to accomplish such objectives.

In the dynamic environment of today’s global economy, technological advances in all fields grow at unparalleled rates. New products appear continuously and markets form almost as quickly. In

such a climate it is imperative that the Navy create capabilities to

actively scan the marketplace and rapidly exploit newly emerging

technologies regardless of source, whether it be Navy labs, other

governmental research organizations, or the commercial market.

The Committee believes that the Navy research, development,

and acquisition community needs to take a fresh look at how these

technological innovations can be rapidly incorporated into Navy

systems in all mission areas. Processes modeled after commercial

venture capital practices or the Central Intelligence Agency’s In-QTel organization should be closely examined to see whether they

could be applicable to help the Navy more rapidly introduce innovative technologies into their system acquisition processes. The

Committee therefore directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for

Research, Development and Acquisition, and the Director of the Office of Naval Research to jointly prepare a report for the Committee

which examines whether the Navy could benefit from establishing

a pilot venture capital fund to enable program managers to take

advantage of higher risk technology developments in a rapid fashion without fear of penalty to their existing programs. As a part of

this report the Committee would expect that the Central Intelligence Agency’s In-Q-Tel organization, and other existing commercial venture business models be studied for possible approaches to

this issue. The Committee further directs that this report should

be provided no later than April 15, 2003.

ADVANCED INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEM (AIEWS)

The Committee remains supportive of the original goals of the

AIEWS program which was intended to address the Navy’s critical

operational requirement to improve surface ship self-defense capability and replace legacy systems of limited capability. Since the

termination of the AIEWS program due to cost and performance

issues, the Navy has begun to formulate an acquisition strategy

that focuses on phased upgrades to the present SLQ–32 electronic

warfare system. The Committee notes that past attempts to modernize the SLQ–32 system have been less than successful and

hopes that the Navy does not simply repeat past mistakes.

263

It is the sense of the Committee that in any future upgrade to

the SLQ–32 system, open system processing architectures and commercial off the shelf (COTS) components should be utilized to the

fullest extent possible. The Committee therefore, directs the Department of the Navy to submit an acquisition plan to the Committees on Appropriations which details modernization plans for the

SLQ–32 based upon these objectives to include strategies for periodic technology refresh and product improvement processes no later

than January 15, 2003.

NONLINEAR DYNAMICS STOCHASTIC RESONANCE

The Committee has provided $3,500,000 above the request, to

continue nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance development efforts. This effort has been funded in this manner for a number of

years to explore alternatives in support of the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission. The Committee directs the Navy to submit a

report by March 15, 2003 that describes the requirement for this

research and the specific ways in which this research has been incorporated into the ASW mission.

BROAD AREA MARITIME SURVEILLANCE (BAMS) UNMANNED AERIAL

VEHICLE (UAV)

The budget request included $152,000,000 for the Navy’s Broad

Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

(UAV) concept exploration and experimentation. As part of the Defense Emergency Response Fund, the Navy requested an additional

$28,300,000 for the continued development of the concept of operations, the development of requirements and systems for the Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Electronics Intelligence (ELINT)

missions, and the integration of necessary systems to provide for

control of the UAV from aircraft carriers, large deck amphibious

ships and Navy Command ships. The Committee has provided the

funds as requested.

The Committee believes that the efforts funded with this total

$180,300,000, support similar Navy requirements for manned reconnaissance as well as similar missions and requirements of the

other Services, especially the U.S. Air Force. The Committee directs the Navy to consider the applicability of all of its BAMS development efforts to other Navy systems and missions, and to share

development, test, and other data with the other Services as appropriate.

Despite its obvious support of the Navy’s planned BAMS concept

exploration and experimentation, the Committee is concerned

about the lack of specificity and documentation provided thus far

by the Navy. It appears the Navy continues to refine its plans for

Phase I concept exploration, which is the basis for the fiscal year

2003 budget request, as well as the Phase II follow on development

and testing program. Therefore, the Committee directs that the

Navy submit, by February 1, 2003, a detailed report on the BAMS

UAV program. At a minimum, the Committee directs that the report address the total program objective, the operational requirements documentation, the spiral development and testing milestone plan, the applicability of Department of Defense acquisition

264

regulations, the training and support requirements, and the basing

strategies for the system.

The Committee also notes that the Navy has indicated that despite its plan to spend $24,000,000 on two air vehicles that would

be delivered in 2005, the Air Force has not made a firm commitment to that delivery schedule. The Committee directs the Air

Force to ensure that the air vehicles and other support equipment

necessary for the Navy to proceed with the BAMS UAV program,

is provided in accordance with the current schedule. The Committee also directs the Navy and the Air Force to provide an explanation for the requirement to include $11,400,000 in Air Force program management and aircraft tooling costs within the

$139,400,000 that the Navy has budgeted for the acquisition of

Global Hawk.

VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AND LANDING TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL

VEHICLE—RESCISSION

In fiscal year 2002, Congress provided a total of $5,000,000 for

a Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance (MPR) Study in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy appropriation for

the VTUAV. The Committee has included a rescission of $2,000,000

from outstanding balances associated with this study.

The intent of the $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 was a study of

the concept of operations for the employment of the Global Hawk

UAV in conjunction with other assets for MPR missions.

Considerating the $180,300,000 fiscal year 2003 request for a Navy

version of the Global Hawk UAV for the MPR mission, the Committee believes that the study has been overtaken by events and

is no longer needed.

OPEN/CONVERGED ARCHITECTURE FOR NAVAL FIRES NETWORK

The Committee is aware that the Navy is exploring options for

the development of an open architecture for Naval Fires Network

(NFN) that will provide a ‘‘converged architecture’’ to allow for

multiple service participation. In addition, the Committee understands that the Navy desires to ensure interoperability with the

other Services and is awaiting the outcome of two upcoming military exercises before establishing specific interoperability requirements. The Committee supports the Navy’s approach and has provided $2,000,000 to support the design of an open architecture to

support NFN.

TACTICAL CONTROL SYSTEM (TCS) AND THE JOINT OPERATIONAL TEST

BED (JOTBS)

The Committee has provided an additional $4,500,000 for the

Tactical Control System (TCS) for modifications necessary for TCS

to receive sensor data from a variety of UAVs, including the Global

Hawk. The Committee fully supports the TCS program and believes the Navy must fully fund this requirement in the future. The Committee has also provided an additional $7,000,000 for

the Joint Operational Test Bed (JOTBS) for enhancements necessary for JOTBS to accommodate multiple UAVs. Considering the

link between JOTBS and TCS, the Committee believes that the

265

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Naval Warfare (N7/N78),

which sponsors TCS, be designated the Navy program sponsor for

JOTBS.

ADVANCED ANTI-RADIATION GUIDED MISSILE (AARGM)/QUICKBOLT

The Committee supports the Navy’s Advanced Anti-Radiation

Guided Missile budget request and believes that this weapon,

begun as a Small Business Innovative Research initiative, has the

potential to satisfy a critical military requirement for lethal suppression of enemy air defenses. The Navy requested $48,700,000

for the AARGM program. These funds may be used to maintain the

industrial base prior to acquisition milestone completion and to initiate System Development and Demonstration efforts after the acquisition milestone is accomplished. The Committee encourages the

Air Force to consider participation in this program.

BONE MARROW REGISTRY

The Committee provides $34,000,000 to be administered by the

C. W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program, also known, and referred to, within the Naval Medical Research Center, as the Bone Marrow Registry. This DoD donor center has recruited more than 300,000 DoD volunteers, and provides

more marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the

Nation. Earlier this year, the 1,000th service member donated marrow through this donor center to save a life. The Committee is

aware of the continuing success of this national and international

life saving program for military contingencies and civilian patients,

which now includes 4,600,000 potential volunteer donors, and encourages agencies involved in contingency planning to continue to

include the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program in the development and testing of their contingency plans. DD Form 1414 shall show this as a special congressional interest item, and the Committee directs that all of the

funds appropriated for this purpose be released to the C.W. Bill

Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program within

60 days of enactment of the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations Act.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.

266

267

268

269

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR

FORCE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $14,669,931,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 17,564,984,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 18,639,392,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +1,074,408,000

This appropriation finances the research, development, test and

evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

BIOREACTOR ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVE

The Committee recommends $2,500,000 only to continue a bioreactor environmental technology research and development initiative to treat military and industrial wastewaters and protect water

supplies that could be attacked by biological or chemical terrorism.

GLOBAL HAWK HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL

VEHICLE (HAEUAV)

The Committee is very pleased that the Air Force is aggressively

pursuing cost reduction initiatives in an effort to reduce the overall

cost of this system. To help the Air Force achieve a reduction in

the overall cost of Global Hawk, the Committee has provided an

additional $7,000,000 for ‘‘producability initiatives’’ such as tooling

enhancements and improvements and special test equipment.

The Committee believes a major factor in the cost of this system

is the development of short-term and longer-term sensor packages

that would be integrated into the vehicle. The Committee believes

that the development of these packages is crucial to the success of

the Global Hawk as a system. Therefore, the Committee has moved

funds from within the Global Hawk program and other research efforts into a new line called ‘‘Advanced Payload Development and

Support,’’ and has provided a total of $84,000,000 for this effort. It

is the Committee’s intent that within these funds, the development

of the High Band Subsystem (HBSS) will continue at the budget

request level of $54,000,000.

The Committee believes that the efforts funded with this total

$84,000,000, support similar Air Force requirements for manned

reconnaissance as well as similar missions and requirements of the

other Services, especially the U.S. Navy. The Committee directs the

Air Force to consider the applicability of all of its Global Hawk payload development efforts to other Air Force systems and missions,

and to share development, test, and other data with the other Services as appropriate.

The Committee believes that the Air Force has taken into consideration the total cost of the system and may be considering an option that would adopt a concept of using multiple vehicles to carry

different payload packages. This would produce the same effect as

one vehicle with multiple sensor packages without the significant

costs of integration and cooling and power upgrades necessary to

accommodate multiple sensors. This approach may provide the best

alternative for reaching the desired goal at an earlier date and at

a reduced total cost.

The Committee directs the Air Force to submit a report by May

1, 2003, that describes the total Global Hawk program objective,

the final spiral development and testing milestone plan, the applicability of DoD acquisition regulations, and the training and support requirements.

NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING (NCCT)

The Committee is supportive of the Air Force Network-Centric

Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) program and has provided an additional $8,000,000 to advance this effort in fiscal year 2003.

286

The Committee believes that the Air Force approach must be

consistent with the networking approaches of the Army and the

Navy, as well as other networking approaches of the Air Force.

Therefore, the Committee requests the Air Force submit a report

by February 1, 2003, that describes the planned development and

testing of the NCCT system, as well as its applicability and interoperability with the Army’s Distributed Common Ground System

(DCGS), the Navy’s Naval Fires Network system, and the Air

Force’s ISR Battle management system.

TRANSFORMATIONAL WIDEBAND MILSATCOM

The Air Force requested $195,000,000 for the Transformational

Wideband MILSATCOM program. The Committee recommends

$115,000,000, a decrease of $80,000,000 reflecting the anticipated

delay of the planned 4th quarter award of the system definition

(phase b) contract. The Committee is very supportive of this program, seeing it as potentially one of the most transformational programs funded in the budget. However, the current schedule is likely unexecutable given the need to carefully refine requirements

prior to award of the phase b system definition contract. DoD’s recent experience with the Advanced EHF satellite, the replacement

to MILSTAR, vividly demonstrates the challenges associated with

the requirements definition process, even in ‘‘simple cases’’ in

which we are updating an existing capability. DoD’s recent experience with SBIRS High highlights the dangers of failing to refine requirements prior to full development. Consequently, the Committee

recommends a reduction of $80,000,000, reflecting the probability

that the requirements process (as well as other elements of the normal acquisition process) will drive the planned 4th quarter 2003

award of the Transformational Wideband system definition contract into fiscal year 2004.

SBIRS HIGH

The Air Force requested $814,927,000 for the SBIRS High program. The Committee recommends $744,927,000, a reduction of

$70,000,000. In fiscal year 2002, the Air Force plans to spend

$105,000,000 on ground system development. In fiscal year 2003,

the Air Force plans to almost triple this amount with a request of

$270,000,000. The Committee believes that this increase is not executable in a single year and that significant funds would carry forward into fiscal year 2004. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of $70,000,000, which still presents the Air

Force with a significant challenge of doubling the level of effort on

ground system development.

MILSTAR

The Air Force requested $148,936,000 for MILSTAR. The Committee recommends $98,936,000, a reduction of $50,000,000. The

Committee notes that the last MILSTAR satellite is currently

scheduled for a November 2002 launch, but funding has been budgeted through September 2003. The Committee believes that the

$148,936,000 budgeted is excessive, especially given the few anomVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
287

alies experienced in our most recent MILSTAR launch in January

2002.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

288

289

290

291

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION,

DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $15,415,275,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... $16,598,863,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 17,863,462,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +1,264,599,000

This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM HOMELAND SECURITY

INITIATIVE

The budget request includes $385 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding for expansion of the Chemical

and Biological Defense program to address homeland security. The

Committee has significant concerns about the ability of the Department to execute such a large increase, particularly in areas that involve the awarding of research grants for biological counter-terrorism. It remains to be seen whether there is a large enough pool

of academicians and a sufficient research infrastructure to absorb

these resources. In addition, the President’s proposal to establish

a Department for Homeland Security, which would likely oversee

these funds, creates further uncertainties.

Despite these reservations, the Committee strongly believes in

the need to focus increased efforts in biological counter-terrorism

and has fully funded the request. The Committee directs that the

program provide quarterly reports on the execution of this funding

during fiscal year 2003. These reports should indicate amounts executed for all elements of the requested increase for the CBD homeland security initiative.

HISTORICALLY BLACK AND HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS SCIENCE

The Committee has combined funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities Science with funding the Committee has

provided for Hispanic Serving Institutions under a new program

element to be called Historically Black and Hispanic Serving Institutions Science. The Committee recommends $21,970,000 for activities under this new program, an increase of $8,000,000 above the

budget request. The Committee directs that the Department combine organizational, functional and grant awarding activities of the

two programs under one organization and expects the Department

to submit future budget requests under this new program element

and combined structure.

TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSES

The Committee recommends a reduction of $11,500,000 to the request for Technical Studies, Support and Analyses. As our nation

continues to fight the war against terrorism, these activities must

become a lower priority for the Department of Defense than they

might otherwise have been in the past. As such, these resources

are better spent on programs directly supporting the warfighter

and helping in the frontline defense of our national security.

PORTABLE RADIATION SEARCH TOOL

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for commercially available off the shelf nuclear detection technology to provide enhanced

security for United States military facilities and United States

military personnel, both domestically and abroad.

POLYMER BASED CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SENSORS

The Committee is supportive of the Department’s efforts to explore potential avenues of science and technology to assure the

rapid development and deployment of chemical and biological solidVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
307

state sensors having the fidelity of currently available laboratory

instrumentation. In support of this, the Committee recommends

$3,000,000 for the purpose of developing polymer-based chemical

and biological sensors.

MICRO ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL SYSTEMS (MEMS) FOR ROLLING

ELEMENT BEARINGS

The Committee has included $3,000,000 for Micro Electrical Mechanical Systems (MEMS) for the development of a one-chip solution for the determination of temperature, vibration, strain and angular rotation in a rolling element bearing.

LASER ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING INITIATIVE

The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Laser Additive

Manufacturing Initiative to develop a domestic supplier base for

military and commercial applications.

ENGINEERED PATHOGEN IDENTIFICATION AND COUNTERMEASURE

PROGRAM

The Committee recognizes the growing potential of a future biological attack on our armed forces or civilian population and is concerned that the time required to develop, test and deploy an antidote can take from seven to fifteen years. A previously unknown

pathogen can have devastating effects, as tragically demonstrated

by the Spanish Flu pandemic that in 1918 and 1919 killed over 20

million people worldwide. To continue efforts to counter the biological attack threat posed by engineered pathogens, the Committee

recommends $7,000,000 for the Engineered Pathogen Identification

and Countermeasure Program formally known as Bug To Drug

Identification and Countermeasures Program.

BLAST RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION PROGRAM

The Committee strongly supports the interagency program to develop, test, and apply advanced composite blast resistant technologies to United States military and civilian structures. Given

the urgency of related national security concerns, the Defense

Threat Reduction Agency should move expeditiously to complete

the ongoing computer simulation and field blast testing already underway.

ACTIVE SENSORS FOR COMPONENTS DEVELOPMENT FOR ADVANCED

TACTICAL SYSTEMS

The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the continuation of

the current OSDC3I research initiative for developing those materials necessary in the production of components for the active sensors aboard Advanced Tactical Systems.

SPIN ELECTRONICS

The Committee is aware that DARPA’s spin electronics program

has the potential to produce a whole new generation of electronic

devices, with performance far greater than what is achievable with

conventional electronics. The committee is also aware that because

spin electronics design and manufacturing are compatible with exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
308

isting semiconductor infrastructures, it promises to reach maturation well ahead of other known nanoelectronics technology approaches, which would require new infrastructures. Accordingly,

the Committee has transferred $15,000,000 from the

nanotechnology related funding requested in PE 0601103D8Z (University Research Initiatives) and added it to PE 0601101E (Defense

Research Sciences) to augment existing and planned spin electronics programs and accelerate the development of this important

new generation of electronics technology.

USNR INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS

The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the deployment of a

data storage infrastructure to modernize the information systems

of the Naval Reserve Command and provide for the remote mirroring of information at NAVRESFOR Headquarters, to the

NAVRESFOR Emergency Operations Center.

CHALLENGE PROGRAM

The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act provided

$12,500,000 for the further development and rapid insertion of innovative SBIR technologies as competitive alternatives to defense

acquisition program technologies and required a report to be submitted to the congressional defense committees identifying the

technologies selected. The Committee notes that the DoD has taken

no noticeable action on this program. The Committee directs that

the DoD Office of Technology Transition expedite the solicitation

and implementation of SBIR Phase 3 technologies for this program

and directs that a report to the congressional defense committees

be submitted by April 15, 2003, on plans for program implementation, expansion, and expected expenditure of funds. The Committee

provides an additional $15,000,000 for expansion of the program allocating not more than $500,000 for program management and

oversight.

MISSILE DEFENSE OVERVIEW

The President’s budget requested $7,430,956,000 in fiscal year

2003 for programs managed by the Missile Defense Agency, a decrease of $275,043,000 from the amount provided in fiscal year

2002. Although the President’s budget proposed to shift $740,234,000 to the Army, for reasons addressed earlier in this report, the Committee recommends retaining all of these funds in the

Missile Defense Agency. The Committee recommends

$7,357,456,000 for ballistic missile defense, a decrease of

$73,500,000 from the President’s request as detailed below.

SEA BASED TERMINAL

The President’s budget included a request for $90,000,000 for sea

based terminal defense. The Administration has yet to present a

final plan for how it would use these funds. In preliminary discussion the Department has recommended using some of these funds

to conduct limited testing with the SM–2 Block IV missile and to

extend the capabilities of the SM–3 missile. However, the Department terminated the Navy Area program because it did not believe

309

that the SM–2 Block IV missile could provide a capability that was

worth the cost. The Department has not demonstrated that this

new approach would be an improvement. With regard to the SM–

3 missile, the Department is still conducting preliminary tests to

examine its performance against medium range theater ballistic

missiles and may curtail development of this missile to pursue a

larger and faster sea based missile. Until these basic issues are resolved it is premature to begin adding requirements to the system.

Therefore, the Committee denies this request.

SEA BASED BOOST/SPACE BASED KINETIC ENERGY

In fiscal year 2002 the Department began examining several new

concepts for destroying ballistic missiles to include sea based and

space based kinetic energy solutions that would destroy a target in

the boost stage. Despite their limited development, the President’s

budget request proposes increasing funding for sea-based boost

from $30,601,000 to $89,639,000 and for space-based boost from

$23,842,000 to $54,393,000, tripling and doubling their funding respectively. More surprisingly, the Missile Defense Agency has set

aside $4,200,000,000 over the next five years to further examine

just these two concepts. In contrast, the Missile Defense Agency

was unwilling to program the extra $700,000,000 over the same period that would allow the Army to rapidly field the PAC–3, the

United States military’s only near term defense against theater

ballistic missiles. The Committee fails to understand the Department enthusiasm for starting new research projects and its lack of

enthusiasm for procuring those systems they have already developed. The Committee therefore recommends $69,639,000 for seabased boost, and $44,393,000 for space-based boost. The Committee

expects the Department to correct the imbalance between research

and procurement in its next budget submissions.

MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS)

The Administration is in the middle of a three-year multi-national effort to develop the Medium Extended Air Defense System

(MEADS). The Committee directs the Department not to enter into

any follow on agreement without the prior approval of the congressional defense committees.

PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY—3 (PAC–3)

The President’s budget requested $150,819,000 for research and

development of the PAC–3 missile. The Committee recommends

$180,819,000, an increase of $30,000,000, only for additional testing in fiscal year 2003. The Committee is concerned about the performance of the PAC–3/PAC–2 system during operational testing.

Although many of the problems were not related to the actual

PAC–3 missile that was being tested, the equipment will be fielded

as a system and needs to be successfully tested as a system. In addition, the Committee is concerned that decisions made during the

preparation for these tests unnecessarily added risk and delay to

the program, this included building only a limited number of targets, insufficient testing of the launchers before a test and failure

to have additional PAC–3 missiles in the launchers during testing.

310

Because of the high priority of fielding a near-term theater ballistic missile defense, the Committee expects the Department to

take the necessary steps, including using the targets from the terminated Navy Area program, to ensure a robust testing schedule.

These additional tests should include non-engagement tests of the

launcher, ripple fire engagements and multiple simultaneous engagements of theater ballistic missiles.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE

The Committee is concerned that the testing program for the

Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program may repeat

the mistakes of the PAC–3 program. The Committee expects the

Department to conduct extensive pre-intercept testing, to test the

THAAD system with multiple missiles in the launcher and to take

the necessary steps to ensure that enough targets and missiles will

be available to conduct additional tests as needed. The Committee

directs the Missile Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than February 28, 2003

outlining the THAAD testing program and the additional steps it

is taking to ensure a robust testing program. To support that effort

the Committee recommends fully supporting the President’s Budget request, including the request for 10 additional instrumented

test missiles.

RUSSIAN-AMERICAN OBSERVATION SATELLITES PROGRAM (RAMOS)

The budget requests $69,130,000 for the Russian-American Observation Satellites Program. The Committee understands that last

year the United States submitted a proposal to the Russian government for the implementation of this program and that the Russian

government has yet to respond. The Committee therefore denies

this request, but will reconsider this issue in conference should the

two governments sign a Memorandum of Agreement.

SPY-1 SOLID STATE RADAR

The Committee directs that the entire budget amount for the

SPY-1 Solid State Radar is provided only for S-band development.

MISSILE DEFENSE REPORTING AND REPROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS

In the Statement of Managers accompanying the Department of

Defense Appropriations Act, 2002, the House and Senate conferees

identified special interest projects in the missile defense program

and agreed to specific requirements for budget justification material and reprogrammings. The Committee is pleased with the Department’s compliance with that direction and expects the Department to continue to follow those guidelines in the future.

ADVANCED TACTICAL LASER ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY

DEMONSTRATION (ACTD)

The budget request includes $55,500,000 for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to begin a new SOCOM ACTD to demonstrate the military utility of operating an Advanced Tactical

Laser from a C–130 aircraft. The Committee recommends

$16,000,000, a reduction of $39,500,000. The budget justification

311

materials presented to the Committee for this program lacked sufficient detail to justify such a large increase for a new effort for

which the Special Operations requirements are still undefined; for

which cost, schedule and performance parameters are still being

developed; and for which insufficient funds are currently programmed in the Future Year Defense Program. The Committee has

a long history of support for Special Operations Gunship development and procurement and has provided $161,978,000 for AC–130

gunship programs addressed elsewhere in this Bill.

UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT

The budget request includes $12,151,000 to continue testing and

product improvement efforts on the first Advanced SEAL Delivery

System (ASDS). The Committee recommends $34,651,000 an increase of $22,500,000. The Committee continues to be deeply concerned that this program has been plagued by continuing acoustic

and power problems and has adjusted the funding levels to correspond with the restructured program the Special Operations

Command has developed. The additional funding provided by the

Committee includes $10,300,000 to resolve problems with batteries,

acoustics, and a valve/reservoir redesign. The Committee agrees to

provide the funding necessary to implement this restructured plan

based on assurances from the Special Operations Command that

this system remains a critical requirement for Special Operations

forces and that this plan will resolve the outstanding developmental issues.

DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY

Funds for the Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency have been

transferred to the National Foreign Intelligence Program in an effort to improve appropriations oversight and management efficiency. Further details are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

312

313

314

315

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $231,855,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 222,054,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 242,054,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +20,000,000

This appropriation funds the Operational Test and Evaluation

activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

316

317

INFORMATION ASSURANCE TESTING

The Committee directs that each Combatant Command and Service ensure that robust C4ISR functionality is included annually

within at least one of its major exercises. The Committee further

directs that an operational evaluation of interoperability and information assurance be conducted during these exercises. The operational test community with the NSA and appropriate information

warfare centers shall assist in the planning, conduct and evaluation of the interoperability and information assurance aspects of

these exercises. The Committee further directs that the Director,

Operational Test and Evaluation establish a process using OT&E

of the systems on his oversight list and exercises conducted by

Combat Commands and the Services to monitor the Department’s

on-going efforts to improve interoperability and information assurance. The results shall be included in the Director’s annual report

to Congress. The Committee has provided an additional $9,000,000

to initiate this effort. The Committee directs DoD to fully fund this

effort in future budget submissions.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

318

(319)

TITLE V

REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,312,986,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,499,656,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,832,956,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +333,300,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,832,956,000

for the Defense Working Capital Funds. The recommendation is an

increase of $519,370,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2002.

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $432,408,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 934,129,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 944,129,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +10,000,000

This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, and

supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready Reserve

Force; and acquisition of ships for the Military Sealift Command,

the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps.

MARITIME PREPOSITION FORCE (FUTURE)—MPF(F)

The Committee notes that the budget request includes initial

funding for the MPF(F) program in the five year defense profile.

The Committee believes that the MPF(F) is a key transformational

element in Marine Corps plans to develop the capability to provide

highly flexible, operational and logistics support capability from a

totally sea-based operation. This transformation will require material and personnel handling capabilities that do not exist in today’s

MPF ships, but may already be resident in the commercial marine

industry. The Committee therefore urges the Department of the

Navy to begin budgetary planning as rapidly as possible to fund a

prototype program to demonstrate the availability and adaptability

of the requisite commercial technologies necessary to accomplish

significant risk reduction for the MPF(F) program. The prototype

program should include but not be limited to an examination of the

option to use an LMSR ship asset from the Ready Reserve Fleet

as a test platform for such technologies.

STRATEGIC SEALIFT CAPACITY

The Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 to the

$25,000,000 already reserved under the National Defense Sealift

Fund appropriation account to accelerate the introduction of nextgeneration high-speed sealift ships, including ships that are comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
320

mercially viable and militarily useful, such as FastShip vessels, to

support the Navy’s global military sealift requirements. This additional amount is to be subject to the same terms and conditions as

the initial $25,000,000. The Committee reiterates its expectation

that the Navy will work with other federal agencies using interagency agreements, economy act procedures, or other mechanisms

to provide loan guarantees to enable United States shipbuilders to

construct these ships.

T–5 TANKER BUYOUT

The Committee approves the Military Sealift Command’s (MSC)

proposal to acquire five T–5 tanker ships presently being leased for

worldwide fuel resupply. Additionally, the Committee directs the

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and

Acquisition to certify to the House Appropriations Committee that

the present level of readiness and efficiency attained in the current

operations of these tankers will be maintained under any new operating contract that is awarded as a consequence of the new acquisition strategy.

(321)

TITLE VI

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $18,391,194,000

Fiscal year 2003 request .................................................................... 14,579,997,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 14,600,748,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +20,751,000

This appropriation funds the Defense Health Program of the Department of Defense.

REPROGRAMMING

The Committee continues to harbor concerns as expressed in the

fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act regarding the potential diversion of funds from the DoD military medical

treatment facilities (MTFs) to pay for contractor-provided medical

care. To limit such transfers within the Defense Health Program

operation and maintenance account, the Committee directs that the

Department of Defense shall continue to follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for transfers with a cumulative value in

excess of $25,000,000 into the Private Sector Care activity group.

In addition, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense shall provide budget execution data for all of the operation

and maintenance budget activities as well as the procurement and

research, development, test and evaluation accounts of the Defense

Health Program. Such budget execution data shall be provided

quarterly to the congressional defense committees through the DD–

COMP(M) 1002.

MILITARY MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITY (MTF) OPTIMIZATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 only for the Army Surgeon General to continue the optimization of military medical

treatment facilities (MTFs) as outlined in the report accompanying

the House version of the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense

Appropriations Act. Of this amount, the Army Surgeon General

may direct up to $10,000,000 to requirements related to maintenance and renovation of the MTFs. In addition, the Committee expects that the Army will include funds to continue this initiative

in the budget request submitted to the Congress for fiscal year

2004 and in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM UNDEREXECUTION

The Committee recognizes that recent, substantial changes in the

Defense Health Program (DHP) required DoD to prepare its fiscal

year 2002 budget estimates based on the maximum possible usage

levels. Such rates have not materialized and, as a result, the DHP

322

will not obligate all the operation and maintenance funding appropriated for fiscal year 2002. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of $354,000,000 to the fiscal year 2003 budget request, and directs the Department of Defense to use its authority to carry over up to two percent of its operation and maintenance funding from fiscal year 2002 into fiscal year 2003.

HEALTHCARE QUALITY INITIATIVES REVIEW PANEL

In the Fiscal Year 1998 Emergency Supplemental (PL 105–174),

this Committee chartered the DoD Healthcare Quality Initiatives

Review Panel (HQIRP) as a Federal Advisory Committee ‘‘to assess

whether all reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that

the Military Health Services System delivers healthcare services in

accordance with consistently high professional standards.’’ The

Committee commends both the Panel for its report and the DoD for

its implementation of some of the recommendations contained in

the report. The Committee urges DoD officials to continue implementing HQIRP recommendations with particular attention to (1)

strengthening the integration between DoD’s Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System (CCQAS) with the Department of

Veterans Affairs’ VETPRO, (2) refining the criteria used to designate Centers of Excellence (COE) in the military, and (3) developing a uniform, integrated system for evaluating cases resulting

in claims.

SHARED BL–3 BIOCONTAINMENT RESEARCH FACILITY

The Committee is concerned about the shortage of BL–3 biocontainment facilities in the U.S. that are necessary to fight the

war on terrorism. The Committee recommends provides $500,000

for the Army Health Facility Planning Agency to perform a feasibility study to examine the requirements, detailed cost, critical design features, possible construction timetable, operating procedures, and life cycle costs to establish a shared U.S. Department

of Agriculture/U.S. Army Biosafety Level–3 research facility.

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to investigate

and analyze the health care and medical research capabilities of

the American University of Beirut and, in consultation with the

University, to prepare a report for the Committee no later than December 31, 2002 on the benefits of a cooperative effort in health

care and medical research between the Department of Defense and

the American University of Beirut.

NORTH CHICAGO VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER AND

NAVAL HOSPITAL, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS

The Committee directs that any future health care facility be

jointly proposed and operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Navy and shall be reported to Congress

within 30 days of such proposal.

323

ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICAL UNIT

Congress appropriated $1,650,000 for the purpose of conducting

research on health effects of low level exposure to hazardous

chemicals. The Committee requests a report on the status of this

research from the US Army Medical Research Command by January 1, 2003.

PEER-REVIEWED BREAST CANCER EARLY DETECTION RESEARCH

The Committee recognizes that current research has questioned

the efficacy of mammography as an early breast cancer detection

tool, and has provided $10,000,000 in additional funds to investigate and develop new imaging techniques aimed at early detection of breast cancer. The Committee directs the administrators of

this program to focus these funds on the development of new imaging techniques aimed at early detection of breast cancer.

ARMY PEER-REVIEWED PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH

The Committee recognizes the important contributions that the

Army has made in the area of prostate cancer research and recommends that the U.S. Army Medical Command use the funds appropriated in the accompanying bill to continue its effort in research and to support clinical trials.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL ADJUSTMENTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................. 14,234,041 13,916,791 ¥317,250

In-House Care .............................................................................. 3,999,451 4,036,201 37,750

Madigan Army Medical Trauma Center .............................. .......................... .......................... 1,000

White River Junction-Fort Ethan Allen Community Out Patient Clinic ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 500

Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program ...................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Amputee Care Center of Excellence at Walter Reed .......... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Vaccine Healthcare Center Network at Walter Reed .......... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Shared BL–3 Biocontainment Research Facility ................ .......................... .......................... 500

Optimization ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... 25,000

Betances Health Center (Note: Only to support the restoration of health care services at Betances Community Health Center (a federally qualified health center)

lost due to the September 11 terrorist attack) ............. .......................... .......................... 500

Chiropractic Initiative ......................................................... .......................... .......................... 750

Private Sector Care ...................................................................... 7,159,674 6,805,674 ¥354,500

TRICARE cost estimates ..................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥354,500

Consolidated Health Care Support .............................................. 809,548 .......................... ..........................

Information Management ............................................................. 666,709 .......................... ..........................

Management Activities ................................................................ 221,786 .......................... ..........................

Education and Training ............................................................... 350,092 .......................... ..........................

Base Operations/Communications ............................................... 1,081,651 .......................... ..........................

Procurement .......................................................................................... 278,742 283,743 5,001

Deployable Medical Systems (DEPMEDS) (Note: Only for the

Army Reserve) .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,001

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ...................................... 67,214 400,214 333,000

Chronic Mylogenous Leukemia Research ..................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

324

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Comprehensive Breast Care Project (CBCP) (Note: Only for the

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to

continue on-going efforts among Walter Reed Army Medical

Center, an appropriate non-profit medical foundation, and a

rural primary health care center.) .......................................... .......................... .......................... 15,000

Coronary and Prostate Disease Reversal Program (Note: Only

for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

to continue on-going effort among Walter Reed Army Medical Center, an appropriate non-profit medical foundation,

and a rural primary health care center.) ............................... .......................... .......................... 6,000

HIV Research Program ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 9,000

Hyperaric Oxygen Therapy for Cerebral Palsy .............................. .......................... .......................... 1,000

Military Complementary & Alternative Medicine (Mil-Cam) ........ .......................... .......................... 2,000

Neuroscience Research (Note: Only for coordinated effort

among DOD medical treatment facilities, the Uniformed

Services University of the Health Sciences, a primary

healthcare center, with funding management accomplished

by the Uniformed Services University of the Health

Sciences.) ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 7,000

Ovarian Cancer Research Program ............................................. .......................... .......................... 10,000

Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Imaging Research ....................... .......................... .......................... 10,000

Post-Polio Syndrome (Note: Only for a coordinated effort

among the Uniformed Services University of the Health

Sciences, an appropriate non-profit medical foundation, and

a primary health care system, with funding management

accomplished by the Uniformed Services University of the

Health Sciences.) ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

Periscopic Surgery Research Project ........................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Army Peer-Reviewed Prostrate Cancer Research Program ......... .......................... .......................... 85,000

Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program ............. .......................... .......................... 150,000

Nursing Telehealth Reseach Program ......................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Veterans Collaborative Care Model Program ............................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

Global HIV/AIDS Prevention .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 10,000

Muscular Dystrophy Research ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) Research (Note: Only for Tuberous Sclerosis Complex research to better understand the

role and function of proteins produced by the TSC1 and

TSC2 tumor suppressor genes.) .............................................. .......................... .......................... 4,000

U.S. Military Cancer Institute at Uniformed Services University

of the Health Sciences. ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................. 14,234,041 13,916,791 ¥317,250

Procurement .......................................................................................... 278,742 283,743 5,001

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ...................................... 67,214 400,214 333,000

Total ............................................................................................. 14,579,997 14,600,748 20,751

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $1,105,557,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 1,490,199,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,490,199,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation funds the Chemical Agents and Munitions

Destruction activities of the Department of Army.

ACCESS ROAD ENGINEERING STUDIES

Of the funds available to the Department of Defense for research,

development, test and evaluation within the Chemical Agents and

Munitions Destruction, Army account, the Committee directs that

$5,000,000 shall be available only to continue work to improve

325

emergency access and evacuation infrastructure at Tooele Depot

and Pine Bluff Arsenal. Of these funds, $2,500,000 shall be available for each facility.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.

326

327

DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $842,581,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 848,907,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 859,907,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +11,000,000

This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and Research, Development,

Test and Evaluation for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Department of Defense requested $848,907,000 for Drug

Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends $859,907,000, an addition of $11,000,000.

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

SOUTHCOM Reconnaissance UAV Counter-drug Initiative ............. +15,100

Young Marines ....................................................................................... +1,500

National Counter-narcotics Training Center, Hammer ...................... +1,000

Indiana National Guard Counter-drug Activities ............................... +1,000

Nevada National Guard CD Raid Counter-drug Program ................. +2,000

Tennessee National Guard Counter-drug Activities ........................... +1,000

Kentucky National Guard Counter-drug Activities ............................ +1,000

Northeast Counter-drug Training Center ............................................ +8,000

Florida National Guard Counter-drug Port Initiative ........................ +2,500

Southwest Border Fence ....................................................................... +6,700

Multi-jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force Training ..................... +5,000

Southwest Anti-drug Border States Initiative .................................... +5,000

Tethered Aerostat Radar System at Morgan City, LA ....................... +4,000

C–26 Counter-drug Electro Optical Sensor Upgrades ........................ +6,200

Tethered Aerostat Radar System Procurement .................................. ¥5,000

DEA Support .......................................................................................... ¥1,300

Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft ................................................ ¥9,000

Riverine Training Deployments ............................................................ ¥1,000

TAC OPS Support .................................................................................. ¥1,800

T–AGOS .................................................................................................. ¥13,000

Classified ................................................................................................ ¥17,900

SOUTHERN COMMAND RECONNAISSANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE

(UAV) COUNTER-DRUG INITIATIVE

The Committee recommends $15,100,000 for an initiative in the

Southern Command area of responsibility to provide unarmed

UAVs for counter-drug missions. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets play a key role in the effort to halt the

cultivation, production, and transportation of drugs in the Source

zone and they are in short supply particularly with the demands

of the DoD elsewhere in the world. There are a variety of UAVs

which could provide ISR capability more economically and effectively than is present in the region today and the Committee urges

the Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern Command to act expeditiously on this initiative.

NATIONAL GUARD STATE PLANS

The budget request includes $167,722,000 for the National Guard

State Plans Programs. The Committee has provided the requested

328

amount and has provided an additional $33,400,000 in programs

where it has identified specific critical shortfalls. The Committee is

concerned that even with the additional resources it is providing,

this program may still be underfunded. In fact, according to the

DoD the current force structure of the National Guard Counterdrug State Plans program would have to be reduced by 385 personnel in fiscal year 2003 if the Congress funds it at the amount

requested in the budget. The Committee directs the Secretary of

Defense and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in consultation with the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,

to submit a report to the defense committees not later than 60 days

after enactment of this Act which reviews the extent to which the

National Guard is used to conduct the National Drug Control

Strategy. This report should identify the level of resources required

for the National Guard to meet the goals of the National Drug Control Policy from within the Department of Defense and from the

other Agencies of Federal, State, and Local Governments which

benefit from National Guard Counter-drug participation.

TRANSIT ZONE MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT

The budget request includes $9,000,000 for Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft to provide two turnkey, contractor-owned, operated, and maintained aircraft for maritime surveillance. The

Committee recommends no funding for this program. The Committee questions the advisability of using scarce DoD counter-drug

resources to enter into this new program. This program would provide only a marginal increase in additional air assets in the Transit

Zone which could be provided by existing DoD assets or the assets

of other Agencies when the mission does not require the unique capabilities of the DoD.

T–AGOS

The budget request includes $17,445,000 to operate two T–AGOS

ships to support transit zone operations. The Committee recommends $4,445,000 and further recommends that these assets be

transferred to a more useful DoD or homeland security mission.

The once valuable T–AGOS program now provides diminished

Counter-drug operational value due to the lack of Transit Zone air

threats and has outlived its usefulness as a collection asset.

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

The Committee recommendation does not reflect a reduction to

the classified program. The Committee’s recommendation reflects a

transfer of $17,900,000 from this appropriation to an appropriation

in support of classified activities. For additional information, please

refer to the classified annex that accompanies this report.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $152,021,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 157,165,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 157,165,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

329

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $157,165,000 for

the Office of the Inspector General. The recommendation is an increase of $5,144,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year

2002.

(331)

TITLE VII

RELATED AGENCIES

NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGARM

INTRODUCTION

The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those intelligence activities of the government which provide the President,

other officers of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on

U.S. national security. These concerns are stated by the National

Security Council in the form of long-range and short-range requirements for the principal users of intelligence.

The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in the

Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources for the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence

Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency,

National Imagery and Mapping Agency, intelligence services of the

Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Intelligence Community Management Staff, and the CIA Retirement and Disability

System Fund.

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence programs,

the results of the Committee’s budget review are published in a

separate, detailed and comprehensive classified annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and other organizations

are expected to fully comply with the recommendations and directions in the classified annex accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations bill.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND

DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $212,000,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 212,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 212,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. 0

This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified

beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency

Retirement Act of 1965 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88–643). This

statute authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees

and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a fund from

which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries.

332

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $212,000,000 for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund (CIARDS).

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $160,429,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 147,754,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 162,254,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +14,500,000

This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support

the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Administration requested $147,754,000 for the Intelligence

Community Management Account. The Committee recommends

$162,254,000, an increase of $14,500,000 from the amount requested and $1,825,000 above the amount appropriated under this

heading in fiscal year 2002. Of the amount appropriated under this

heading, $34,100,000 is for transfer to the Department of Justice

for operations at the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC).

Details of adjustments to this account are included in the classified

annex accompanying this report.

PAYMENT TO KAHO’OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FUND

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $67,500,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 25,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 25,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. 0

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 for

the Payment to Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and

Environmental Restoration Fund, the amount proposed in the

budget. The recommendation is $42,500,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $8,000,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... 8,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 8,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. 0

The National Security Education Trust Fund was established to

provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to pursue

higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S. institutions for

programs of study in foreign areas and languages.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the National Security

Education Trust Fund. The recommendation is the same as the request and the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.

(333)

TITLE VIII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The accompanying bill includes 122 general provisions. Most of

these provisions were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 and many have been included

in the Defense Appropriations Act of a number of years.

Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year’s provisions

or new provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed

below or in the applicable section of the report.

DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT AND ACTIVITY

For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of

1987 (Public Law 100–119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of

1990 (Public Law 101–508, the following information provides the

definitions of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for appropriations contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations

Act. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall include the

most specific level of budget items, identified in the Department of

Defense Appropriations Act, 2003, the accompanying House and

Senate Committee reports, the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee in Conference, the related classified reports, and the P–1

and R–1 budget justification documents as subsequently modified

by Congressional action.

In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the Department

of Defense and agencies shall conform to the definition for ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ set forth above with the following exceptions:

For Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance accounts

the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ is defined as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

The Department and agencies should carry forth the Presidential

sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or

alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the Department of Defense and the related agencies and no program,

project, and activity should be eliminated or be reduced to a level

of funding which would adversely affect the Department’s ability to

effectively continue any program, project, and activity.

334

CENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS

EMPLOYMENT

Section 8115 of the accompanying bill provides for a grant of

$4,000,000 to the non-profit Center for Military Recruitment Assessment and Veterans Employment for the purpose of establishing

a new center to improve the ability of military veterans to find

high quality employment opportunities in the construction industry. The Committee believes excellent employment opportunities

exist for military job seekers in the construction industry, which is

expected to have a critical workforce shortage in the years ahead.

This industry presently does not have a consistent way to communicate with, assess military training for apprenticeship placement,

or to recruit on a systematic basis military job seekers and veterans. The Committee believes establishment of a service to inform

and match military job seekers and veterans with available apprenticeships and training programs will benefit both military veterans

and the construction industry. The Committee expects that this

center will have a goal of recruiting approximately 500,000 men

and women from the military veteran community over the next five

years and that this center will be financially supported on an equal

basis by a broad segment of the construction industry.

NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET

A new general provision (Sec. 8118) has been included that prohibits the Navy from ordering additional seats above the current

160,000 authorized by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and

requires that operational test and evaluation be conducted once

there has been a full transition of not less than 20,000

workstations to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet and the network

is robust enough so as to perform adequate testing.

PENTAGON RECONSTRUCTION

A new general provision (Sec. 8120) has been included which

amends Section 305(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002

(Division B of Public Law 107–117; 115 Stat. 2300). The amendment adds to the provision the authority for the Department to

transfer $305,000,000 from the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance

Revolving Fund to the Defense Emergency Response Fund to reimburse only for the reconstruction costs of the Pentagon Reservation.

The Committee expects these funds be transferred only to the appropriate category within the Defense Emergency Response Fund

that executes Pentagon reconstruction and recovery (Category 8—

Pentagon Repair/Upgrade).

(335)

TITLE IX

COUNTER-TERRORISM AND DEFENSE AGAINST

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

COUNTER-TERRORISM AND OPERATIONAL RESPONSE

TRANSFER FUND

Fiscal year 2002 appropriation .......................................................... $478,000,000

Fiscal year 2003 budget request ....................................................... ............................

Committee recommendation .............................................................. ............................

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

Funding for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction activities

of the Department of Defense has been included in Title II, Operation and Maintenance.

(337)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly

or indirectly change the application of existing law.

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities which require annual authorization or additional

legislation, which to date has not been enacted.

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing

the application of existing law.

The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically considered

legislation.

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for

more than one year for some programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize each extended availability.

In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds

within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs

and has adjusted some existing earmarking.

Those additional changes in the fiscal year 2003 bill, which

might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows:

APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Army’’ which earmarks funds for improvements at Fort Baker, and

language has been amended which changes the amount provided

for emergency and extraordinary expenses.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Navy’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.

Language has been included in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Air

Force’’ which earmarks funds for Air Force aircrews to operate and

evaluate the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force EH–101 helicopters, and which amends language which changes the amount

provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ which earmarks funds for the Middle East Regional

Security Issues program. Language has been included which earVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
338

marks funds for expenses related to certain classified activities and

which increases the ceiling on the investment unit cost of items

purchased with operation and maintenance funds.

The appropriations account ‘‘Overseas Contingency Operations

Transfer Fund’’ has been deleted.

The appropriations account ‘‘Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction’’ was moved to title II of this bill, and language had been deleted which earmarks funds for the dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines and submarine reactor components.

Language has been included in ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Army’’ which provides that not less than $225,675,000 of funds available

shall be for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, and

which earmarks funds only to support a restructured CH–47F helicopter upgrade program.

Language has been included in ‘‘Missile Procurement, Army’’ which provides that not less than $168,580,000 of funds available

shall be for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

Language has been included in ‘‘Procurement of Weapons and

Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army’’ which provides that not less than $40,849,000 of funds available shall be for the Army National

Guard and Army Reserve.

Language has been included in ‘‘Procurement of Ammunition,

Army’’ which provides that not less than $124,716,000 of funds

available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

Language has been included in ‘‘Other Procurement, Army’’ which provides that not less than $1,129,578,000 of funds available

shall be for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, and

amends language which changes the number and price limitations

of passenger motor vehicles required for physical security of personnel and the number of vehicles for replacement only.

Language has been included in ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Navy’’ which provides that not less than $19,644,000 of funds available

shall be for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.

Language has been included in ‘‘Procurement of Ammunition,

Navy and Marine Corps’’ which provides that not less than

$18,162,000 of funds available shall be for the Navy Reserve and

Marine Corps Reserve.

Language has been included in ‘‘Other Procurement, Navy’’

which provides that not less than $19,869,000 of funds available

shall be for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve, and

amends language which changes the number and price limitations

of passenger motor vehicles required for physical security of personnel and the number of vehicles for replacement only.

Language has been included in ‘‘Procurement, Marine Corps’’

which provides that not less than $253,724,000 of funds available

shall be for the Marine Corps Reserve, and amends language which

changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement

only.

Language has been included in ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’’

which provides that not less than $312,700,000 of funds available

shall be for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve; includes

language which earmarks funds only for the producibility improvement program related to the F–22 aircraft program, and provides

funds for the advance procurement of 15 C–17 aircraft.

339

Language has been included in ‘‘Procurement of Ammunition, Air

Force’’ which provides that not less than $120,200,000 of funds

shall be available for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.

Language has been included in ‘‘Other Procurement, Air Force’’

which provides that not less than $167,600,000 of funds available

shall be for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, and

amends language which changes the number and price limitations

of passengers motor vehicles required for physical security of personnel and the number of vehicles for replacement only.

Language has been included in ‘‘Procurement, Defense-Wide’’

which amends language which changes the number of passenger

motor vehicles purchased for replacement only.

Language has been included in ‘‘Research, Development, Test

and Evaluation, Navy’’ concerning Special Operation Forces requirements for the V–22 aircraft.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation, Defense-Wide’’ which provided a waiver for the Missile

Defense Agency.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Defense Production Act Purchases’’ which provides funding for the development of affordable

production methods and a domestic supplier for military and commercial processible rigid-rod materials.

The appropriations account ‘‘National Guard and Reserve Equipment’’ has been deleted.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Defense Working Capital

Funds’’ which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles required for replacement only, and includes language for the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for the Defense Logistics Agency.

Language has been amended in ‘‘National Defense Sealift Fund’’

which changes the amount available to finance the cost of constructing additional sealift capacity.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Defense Health Program’’ which

earmarks not less than $10,000,000 for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

Language has been included in ‘‘Drug Interdiction and CounterDrug Activities, Defense’’ which allows for the transfer of funds

back to the appropriation if not necessary for the purposes provided.

Language has been included in ‘‘Intelligence Community Management Account’’ which provides document and computer exploitation of Federal, State, and local law enforcement activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, national security investigations and operations, and language has been amended that earmarks $34,100,000 for the National Drug Intelligence Center

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of general transfer authority for the Department for Defense.

Section 8008 has been amended to delete language providing

multiyear procurement authority for UH–60 and C–17 aircraft, and

adds multiyear authority for C–130 aircraft.

340

Section 8027 has been amended which deletes language allowing

the Department to incur obligations in anticipation of reimbursement from any funds available to DoD.

Section 8029 has been amended deleting language that reduces

the total amount appropriated in this Act for FFRDCs, and changes

the number of staff years that may be funded for defense studies

and analysis.

Section 8040 has been amended to delete language exempting

certain classified activities in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ from the investment item unit cost limitations.

Section 8050 has been amended to include language which rescinds $192,932,000 from the following programs:

(Rescissions)

2002 Appropriations:

Aircraft Procurement, Army: ATIRCM ......................................... $3,000,000

Missile Procurement, Army:

Stinger ...................................................................................... 5,150,000

Avenger Mods .......................................................................... 10,000,000

TOW Fire and Forget .............................................................. 13,200,000

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army:

Command and Control Vehicle (C2V) ....................................... 9,500,000

Procurement of Ammunition, Army:

RADAM .................................................................................... 19,000,000

Volcano ..................................................................................... 6,500,000

Procurement, Marine Corps: ITV .................................................. 4,682,000

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: B–2 EHF SATCOM ................ 23,500,000

Missile Procurement, Air Force:

MALD ....................................................................................... 8,900,000

JSOW–B ................................................................................... 18,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: Medical

Area Network Virtual Technologies (MANVT) ......................... 2,500,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: VTUAV ... 2,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: B–1B

DSUP ........................................................................................... 67,000,000

Section 8082 has been amended which reduces funds available

for military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts by

$615,000,000 due to favorable foreign currency fluctuations.

Section 8088 has been amended to include language which requires Chief Information Officer certification of compliance with

Clinger-Cohen Act.

Section 8095 has been amended which deletes an earmark concerning the ASIP program the cost-sharing agreement between the

Department of Defense and the Israeli Department of Defense, and

includes language which continues development of Arrow production in the United States.

Section 8097 has been amended which reduces the amount available in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ for transfer to

other activities of the Federal Government.

Section 8099 has been amended which provides $2,000,000 for

the Fisher House Foundation, Inc.

Section 8100 has been amended which reduces funds available

for operation and maintenance by $51,000,000 to reflect savings in

advisory and assistance services.

Section 8101 has been amended which allows for the transfer of

$644,899,000 to fund increases in the cost of prior year shipbuilding programs.

341

Section 8103 has been amended which reduces funds available

for operation and maintenance by $97,000,000 due to improvements in the use of Government purchase cards.

Section 8104 has been amended which makes permanent the authority to provide funds for the purchase of ultra lightweight camouflage net systems as unit spares.

Section 8105 has been amended which makes permanent the authority to transfer $20,000,000 of unobligated balances in ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army’’ to a current year

account only for the continuation of the Army Venture Capital

Funds demonstration.

Section 8109 has been included which allows for the transfer

from the Defense Cooperation Account to such appropriations or

funds of the DoD as the Secretary shall determine.

Section 8110 has been included which provides authority to make

payments into the Department of Defense Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund from the military personnel accounts.

Section 8111 has been included which provides for congressional

defense committee notification before the initiation of a new start

program.

Section 8112 has been included which reduces funds available for

operation and maintenance by $470,000,000 for Working Capital

Fund cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments.

Section 8113 has been included which reduces funds available for

operation and maintenance by $475,000,000 for excess funded carryover.

Section 8114 has been included which prohibits the obligation of

funds for the purpose of transferring the Medical Free Electron

Laser Program for the DoD to any other government agency.

Section 8115 has been included which provides for $4,000,000 in

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard’’ only for a

grant to the Center for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment.

Section 8116 has been included which allows operation and

maintenance funds to be used to assist in building and maintaining

a strong family structure.

Section 8117 has been included which creates a ‘‘Commission on

Adequacy of Armed Forces Training Facilities’’.

Section 8118 has been included which places limitations on additional NMCI contract work stations.

Section 8119 has been included which prohibits acquisition of

more than 16 F–22 aircraft until a risk assessment has been provided to the congressional defense committees.

Section 8120 has been included that allows for the transfer of

funds from the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund

to the Defense Emergency Response Fund.

Section 8121 has been included which allows for the termination

of Crusader Artillery System and the transition to other artillery

systems.

Section 8122 has been included which prohibits the transfer of

funds to any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United

States Government established after the date of the enactment of

this Act.

342

The ‘‘Counter-Terrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass

Destruction’’ appropriation has been deleted.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

[In thousands of dollars]

Agency program Last year of

authorization Authorization level

Appropriations in

last year of authorization

Appropriations in

this bill

Military Personnel, Army ................................................ 2002 (1) 23,752,384 26,832,217

Military Personnel, Navy ................................................ 2002 (1) 19,551,484 21,874,395

Military Personnel, Marine Corps ................................... 2002 (1) 7,345,340 8,504,172

Military Personnel, Air Force .......................................... 2002 (1) 19,724,014 21,957,757

Reserve Personnel, Army ................................................ 2002 (1) 2,670,197 3,373,455

Reserve Personnel, Navy ................................................ 2002 (1) 1,654,523 1,897,352

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps .................................. 2002 (1) 471,200 553,983

Reserve Personnel, Air Force ......................................... 2002 (1) 1,061,160 1,236,904

National Guard Personnel, Army .................................... 2002 (1) 4,041,695 5,070,188

National Guard Personnel, Air Force ............................. 2002 (1) 1,784,654 2,124,411

Operation and Maintenance, Army ................................ 2002 20,653,241 22,335,074 23,942,768

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ................................ 2002 26,461,299 26,876,636 29,121,836

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................... 2002 2,872,524 2,931,934 3,579,359

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force .......................... 2002 25,598,767 26,026,789 27,587,959

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide .................. 2002 11,949,586 12,773,270 14,850,377

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve .................. 2002 1,824,146 1,771,246 1,976,710

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................... 2002 1,000,050 1,003,690 1,239,309

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ..... 2002 142,853 144,023 189,532

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ............ 2002 2,029,866 2,024,866 2,165,604

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard ...... 2002 3,705,359 3,768,058 4,231,967

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard .......... 2002 3,967,361 3,988,961 4,113,010

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund .......... 2002 2,844,226 50,000 0

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 2002 9,096 9,096 9,614

Environmental Restoration, Army .................................. 2002 389,800 389,800 395,900

Environmental Restoration, Navy ................................... 2002 257,517 257,517 256,948

Environmental Restoration, Air Force ............................ 2002 385,437 385,437 389,773

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide ..................... 2002 23,492 23,492 23,498

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense

Sites ........................................................................... 2002 230,255 222,255 212,102

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid .......... 2002 49,700 49,700 58,400

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction .......................... 2002 403,000 0 416,700

Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense .......................................................................... 2002 15,800 15,800 19,000

Defense Emergency Response Fund .............................. n/a 0 0 0

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................ 2002 2,075,372 1,984,391 2,214,369

Missile Procurement Army ............................................. 2002 1,086,968 1,079,330 1,112,772

Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles,

Army ........................................................................... 2002 2,348,145 2,193,746 2,248,358

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................ 2002 1,187,233 1,200,465 1,207,560

Other Procurement, Army ............................................... 2002 4,027,374 4,183,736 6,017,380

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................ 2002 8,323,147 7,938,143 8,682,655

Weapons Procurement, Navy .......................................... 2002 1,484,321 1,429,592 2,384,617

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps .. 2002 466,907 461,399 1,167,130

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ............................... 2002 9,370,972 9,490,039 8,127,694

Other Procurement, Navy ............................................... 2002 4,282,471 4,270,976 4,631,299

Procurement, Marine Corps ........................................... 2002 1,014,637 995,442 1,369,383

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ..................................... 2002 10,789,167 10,567,038 12,492,730

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force .......................... 2002 881,844 866,644 1,290,764

Missile Procurement, Air Force ...................................... 2002 3,222,636 2,989,524 3,185,439

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................... 2002 8,196,021 8,085,863 10,622,660

Procurement, Defense-Wide ........................................... 2002 2,279,482 2,389,490 3,457,405

National Guard and Reserve Equipment ....................... 2002 0 699,130 0

Defense Production Act Purchases ................................ 2002 0 40,000 73,057

343

[In thousands of dollars]

Agency program Last year of

authorization Authorization level

Appropriations in

last year of authorization

Appropriations in this bill

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army ..... 2002 6,675,325 7,106,074 7,447,160

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy ..... 2002 10,784,264 11,498,506 13,562,218

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 2002 14,407,187 14,669,931 18,639,392

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, DefenseWide ........................................................................... 2002 14,372,640 15,415,275 17,863,462

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................... 2002 221,355 231,855 242,054

Defense Working Capital Funds .................................... 2002 1,951,986 1,312,986 1,832,956

National Defense Sealift Fund ....................................... 2002 636,566 432,408 944,129

Defense Health Program ................................................ 2002 17,898,969 18,391,194 14,600,748

Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army:

Operation and maintenance ................................. 2002 789,020 739,020 974,238

Procurement .......................................................... 2002 164,158 164,158 213,278

Research, development, test, and evaluation ...... 2002 200,379 202,379 302,683

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense 2002 820,381 842,581 859,907

Office of the Inspector General ..................................... 2002 152,021 152,021 157,165

CIA Retirement & Disability System Fund ..................... 2002 212,000 212,000 212,000

Intelligence Community Management Account ............. 2002 152,776 160,429 162,254

Transfer to Dept of Justice ................................... 2002 27,000 (42,752) (34,100)

Payment to Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation and Environmental Restoration Fund .............. 2002 25,000 67,500 25,000

National Security Education Trust Fund ........................ 2002 8,000 8,000 8,000

Sec. 8005 ....................................................................... 2002 2,500,000 (2,000,000) (2,500,000)

Sec. 8021 ....................................................................... 2002 0 8,000 8,000

Sec. 8035 ....................................................................... 2002 19,000 19,000 29,730

Sec. 8038 ....................................................................... 2002 3,362 3,362 1,000

Sec. 8050 ....................................................................... 2002 0 ¥531,475 ¥192,932

Sec. 8082 ....................................................................... 2002 0 ¥240,000 ¥615,000

Sec. 8087 ....................................................................... 2002 0 8,000 10,000

Sec. 8099 ....................................................................... 2002 0 1,700 2,000

Sec. 8100 ....................................................................... 2002 0 ¥1,650,000 ¥51,000

Sec. 8103 ....................................................................... 2002 0 ¥100,000 ¥97,000

Sec. 8105 ....................................................................... 2002 0 0 17,000

Sec. 8109 ....................................................................... 2002 0 0 5,000

Sec. 8112 ....................................................................... 2002 0 0 ¥470,000

Sec. 8113 ....................................................................... 2002 0 0 ¥475,000

Sec. 8115 ....................................................................... 2002 0 0 4,000

1 The FY 2003 National Defense Authorization Act authorizes $93,725,028,000 for military personnel.

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.

TRANSFERS

Language has been included in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ which provides for the transfer of funds relating to

classified activities.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration,

Army’’ which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration,

Navy’’ which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration, Air

Force’’ which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

344

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide’’ which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into

this account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration, Formally Used Defense Sites’’ which provides for the transfer of funds

out of and into this account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Drug Interdiction and CounterDrug Activities, Defense’’ which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.

Language has been included in ‘‘Intelligence Community Management Account’’ which provides for the transfer of funds to the

Department of Justice for the National Drug Intelligence Center.

Twelve provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8035, 8038, 8059,

8070, 8097, 8101, 8105, 8109, 8120) contain language which allows

transfers of funds between accounts.

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill.

Aircraft Procurement, Army 2002/2004 ............................................... $3,000,000

Missile Procurement, Army 2002/2004 ................................................ 28,350,000

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

2002/2004 ............................................................................................ 9,500,000

Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2002/2004 ................................... 25,500,000

Procurement, Marine Corps 2002/2004 ................................................ 4,682,000

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2002/2004 ......................................... 23,500,000

Missile Procurement, Air Force 2002/2004 .......................................... 26,900,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2002/2003 ....... 2,500,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 2002/2003 ....... 2,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 2002/2003 67,000,000

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding:

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations.

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)

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):

SECTION 305 OF THE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL ACT, 2002

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

SEC. 305. (a) During the current fiscal year, $475,000,000 of appropriations provided in this Act shall be transferred to the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund only to reconstruct

345

the Pentagon Reservation and for related activities as a result of

the events of September 11, 2001. From amounts transferred to the

Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund pursuant to the

preceding sentence, not to exceed $305,000,000 may be transferred

to the Defense Emergency Response Fund, but only in the amounts

necessary to reimburse that fund (and the category of that fund designated as ‘Pentagon Repair/Upgrade’) for expenses charged to that

fund (and that category) between September 11, 2001 and January

10, 2002, for reconstruction costs of the Pentagon Reservation.

Funds transferred to the Defense Emergency Response Fund pursuant to this section shall be available only for reconstruction, recovery, force protection, or security enhancements for the Pentagon Reservation.’’

* * * * * * *

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that:

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this

specific power granted by the Constitution.

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows:

(In millions of dollars)

302b allocation This bill 1

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary ................................................... 354,447 346,110 354,446 338,718

Mandatory ....................................................... 276 275 276 275

1 Does not include fiscal year 2003 outlays from the fiscal year 2002 supplemental. These outlays are assumed in the allocation.

346

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying

bill.

(Millions)

Budget Authority ................................................................................... 354,722

Outlays:

2003 ................................................................................................. 1239,277

2004 ................................................................................................. 78,853

2005 ................................................................................................. 24,085

2006 ................................................................................................. 6,871

2007 and beyond ............................................................................. 4,528

1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 344), as amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by the

accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local governments.

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

(359)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. NORMAN D. DICKS

CRISIS IN DEFENSE PROCUREMENT

With this bill, the committee achieved the best balance of meeting the full range of our defense obligations that it could given the

top line constraints imposed by the Budget Committee and the Republican leadership. The committee’s recommendation of

$70,285,272,000 for defense procurement is an increase of

$9,420,324,000 over the amount approved for fiscal year 2002, and

it is an increase of $3,065,238,000 over the President’s budget request. However, despite the committee’s best efforts, it has not

changed the fundamental fact that the Defense Department procurement budget is in crisis.

Numerous reputable studies performed in the last several years

have affirmed this growing crisis. Even the most conservative analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office has found that

the procurement budget needs to be increased to at least $94 billion in order to sustain the military force structure that has now

been ratified in the Quadrennial Defense Review. Other credible

outside studies have reached estimates of over $120 billion. DOD’s

own studies on procurement needs, performed by the individual

Services and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, show a requirement for

$100–$110 billion. The Navy has testified to Congress that it faces

a procurement shortfall of $10 billion a year, and CBO estimates

that including the Marine Corps this shortfall is $12 billion. The

Air Force has told Congress of a shortfall of $14 billion, and the

Army has a shortfall estimated by CBO at $5 billion a year.

The effects of this crisis are all too visible in the procurement

programs and in the condition of military equipment and service

maintenance budgets. The cost and length of individual procurement programs have reached absurdity as buy quantities are reduced to minimum levels driving up unit costs. Drawn out procurement programs mean that average equipment ages are increasing

rapidly. The average age of Air Force aircraft has increased by 24%

in the last decade. Navy aircraft average age has increased 21%

since 1990. The average age of Army helicopters has increased 12%

since 1990. These increases have occurred even as force structure

is reduced and the oldest equipment is retired. Furthermore, the

current rate of procurement of Navy ships will lead to a fleet of

only 230 ships by 2030.

The impact on operation and maintenance budgets is severe. The

number of maintenance hours required for each aircraft flying hour

is skyrocketing. For example, the Air Force had a 293% increase

in the number of maintenance hours per flying hour on the F–15E

from 1992 to 1999. The Navy experienced a 227% increase in the

number of maintenance hours per flying hour on the F–14 in the

same period. The direct effect is a dramatic increase in the Air

360

Force budget for flying hours, more than 45% above inflation in the

last five years. And the Navy’s cost of Aviation Depot Level

Repairables increased 68% between 1996 and 1999.

The President’s proposed $48 billion increase for defense spend- ing contained only a $7.6 billion increase for procurement. That

means that despite the crisis in procurement spending, if the committee had accepted the President’s budget recommendation,

growth in procurement funds for fiscal year 2003 would have been

slower than the growth in the overall defense budget. The fiscal

year 2003 budget request follows the first Bush defense budget in

which procurement was actually lower than the last defense budget

of the Clinton Administration. Most important, the size of the

shortfall in procurement funding is more than 4 times the increase

proposed for procurement in the President’s FY03 budget.

The credibility of studies by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CBO and

the other higher estimates are strongly reinforced by a consideration of the historical patterns of defense spending. The current

budget for procurement is less than half what it was at the peak

of the Reagan years in 1985 when considered in constant dollars.

Operations and maintenance spending, on the other hand, now exceeds the peak of the Reagan years even though our military force

structure is about one-third smaller. As a result, procurement,

which was 25% of the defense budget in 1980 under President

Carter, and 34% in 1985, is now only 19% of the budget. This historically low level is inadequate for sustaining our current force

structure, let alone for transforming the military into a 21st Century fighting force.

There remains one more chance this year to begin addressing the

crisis in procurement when the Department of Defense requests

and the committee considers the $10 billion contingency fund for

FY03. This fund must begin the process of modernizing our oldest

military equipment. The longer we delay in facing up to this problem, the greater the cost of the solution and the more severe the

crisis in both condition and quantity of the systems that we ask our

military to use in our nation’s defense. We owe it to our men and

women in uniform and to the entire nation to step up to this crisis

in procurement and commit ourselves to provide the sustained level

of resources that will solve it.

NORM DICKS.

(361)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE MARTIN OLAV

SABO

While the bipartisan spirit with which the Committee has developed a wise and workable future Army artillery program gratifies

me, I remain deeply concerned over the Defense Department’s determination to terminate the Crusader next-generation artillery

program.

Three Defense Secretaries, three Secretaries of the Army, and

three Army Chiefs of Staff have testified before Congress that the

lives of U.S. soldiers are at risk due to the Army’s outdated artillery.

Twelve nations outrange the Army’s existing Paladin artillery

cannon, including the so-called ‘‘axis of evil.’’ Twenty-eight nations

are now developing artillery that will outperform the Paladin,

which was first designed in the 1950s. Under the Administration’s

proposal to cancel Crusader, Paladin would continue in service

until at least 2032—at which time its basic design will be 80 years

old.

The Army has expressed deep concern that the Paladin chassis

cannot perform for this long, or be modified satisfactorily to fire the

precision munitions now being developed that the Administration

places so much faith in. Further, the Paladin’s lack of mobility and

range is a handicap for the Army’s transformation strategy based

on speed and more widely dispersed forces.

The Crusader program was on track to give the U.S. one of the

world’s fastest and most accurate artillery systems in order to support and protect U.S. troops in battle. Its prototype gun and automatic reloading system has already fired over 6000 rounds in the

Arizona desert demonstrating the capability of firing ten rounds a

minute out to a range of 40 kilometers compared to 30 kilometers

for Paladin.

When completed, Crusader would have moved twice as fast as

Paladin, had three times its rate of fire, and sixty percent fewer

crewmembers. At $10 million per system, Crusader would have

cost less than one Blackhawk helicopter or two M1–A2 Abrams

tank upgrades.

The Department’s desire to terminate Crusader seems to stem

from a view that artillery warfare is obsolete, and that air-delivered precision weapons and the development of new precision artillery shells to be fired by Paladin are adequate substitutes.

However, for certain artillery missions, such as suppression of

enemy forces and denial of terrain, a high volume and rate of fire

are more important than precision. Our soldiers also tell us of the

limitations of close air support that have little to do with better

precision—weather, timing, availability of aircraft, target identification, munitions loading and reloading, air-ground communications, smoke and confusion, imperfect intelligence and modern surVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
362

face to air missiles. The Army has argued convincingly that our soldiers still need cannons, like Crusader, to provide lifesaving close

support on a minute’s notice, 24 hours a day, in all weather.

In lieu of Crusader, the Department proposed to accelerate development of precision weapons such as Excalibur, NetFires, and

Guided MLRS. However, that recommendation was not accompanied by thorough cost and capabilities analysis of these high-risk

programs. To make matters worse, there is serious risk that relying solely on these alternatives would cost far more than Crusader,

without providing equal capability.

In the case of Excalibur, the physics of putting sensitive guidance

systems in an artillery shell are extremely challenging, and there

is no guarantee that the technical hurdles can be overcome. Excalibur is currently projected to cost $220,000 per round for the first

9,000 rounds. The Guided MLRS is projected to cost between

$55,000–$65,000 per round. These costs compare to about $250 to

buy a standard 155mm high explosive artillery round. NetFires is

still in a very early conceptual stage of development, and the projected per unit cost for its munitions is roughly $125,000.

Despite the breezy optimism we have heard that these technical

risks and costs can be overcome, the Pentagon’s record of fielding

new technology on schedule and on budget is horrendous.

Recognizing the importance of maintaining a robust Army artillery development program, the Committee has worked hard to provide more money to accelerate and transfer the best elements of

crusader artillery technology to Objective Force Artillery and Resupply systems for the Future Combat System program, while accelerating the development of a range of compatible precision munitions and related technologies.

Under this plan, the Army will develop and field, by 2008, a

first-rate artillery system to protect U.S. combat troops. To achieve

this goal in this short period, the Committee recognizes that more

money and a strict program schedule will be required. In addition,

it will be critical to retain the fine technical team that produce the

artillery technology breakthroughs under the Crusader program.

It is my hope that the Department will join the Committee in

promoting this Non-Line of Sight artillery solution as the best

course to transform the Army and protect American soldiers in

combat in the near term.

MARTIN O. SABO.

(363)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. NORMAN D. DICKS AND HON.

CHET EDWARDS

THE GAMBLE ON CRUSADER

The Administration’s recent decision to terminate the Crusader

artillery system is a decision fraught with risk. Risk that we hope

will not end up costing soldiers’ lives.

The Crusader self-propelled howitzer has been under development for the last eight years. This program is running under budget and on schedule with fielding of the first new howitzer set for

2008. The Crusader has been considered by the Army to be its

highest priority acquisition program, because it would rectify the

one glaring operational weakness that endangers the Army’s battlefield success—heavy artillery support.

Currently, our Army is outgunned in heavy artillery by at least

12 different countries (including all 3 countries in the so-called

‘‘Axis of Evil’’)—a situation the Crusader would rectify. It is estimated that as many as 40 countries could soon have artillery systems that out-range the Army’s current howitzer—the Paladin—

and that 28 countries are developing artillery-delivered high precision munitions to complement these systems. Clearly, most other

countries around the world plan on making high performance

heavy artillery a mainstay of their military force for some time to

come.

Last month, the Administration took the highly unusual step of

deciding to cancel the Crusader program in the middle of the budget cycle. This action was taken without consultation with the

Army’s military leadership, and over their strong substantive objection. This decision will fundamentally alter the role that U.S.

heavy artillery will play in future battles, yet we have seen very

little evidence of any serious analytical effort to support this radical departure from the Army’s accepted doctrine.

The Administration has essentially made a giant strategic bet on

behalf of our land forces that the combination of future advances

in precision cannon and rocket munitions (as distinguished from

precision bombs and missiles) combined with hoped for perfection

of real time target identification and selection technology (based on

ubiquitous ‘‘24/7’’ all weather surveillance capabilities) will supplant the need to replace the Army’s outdated Paladin howitzer

with a system that shoots farther and faster.

This decision depends upon unproven technology and unproven

tactics—betting that more traditional lethality and combat overmatch capabilities can be replaced by precision and speed. It is a

decision that—as the Army’s vaunted ‘‘Crusader talking points’’

said—‘‘could put soldiers’ lives at risk’’ if the Department’s hypothetical assumptions about how and where future wars will be

fought turn out to be wrong.

364

What is somewhat puzzling to us in that the Army’s artillery upgrade plan that the Secretary of Defense has now rejected calls for

improvements in both areas—lethality and precision. The Army’s

Crusader plan that was devised in the last Administration and endorsed in the first two Bush Administration budgets called for

fielding the new world-class Crusader howitzer by 2008 giving the

U.S. Army an artillery system that is operationally and technologically superior to any artillery system in the world. The second

part of the Army’s plan was to perfect and field the GPS-guided

Excalibur projectile to shoot from the Crusader within 3 to 5 years

after the Crusader was in the force. The combination of Crusader

and Excalibur would give the Army a truly devastating capability

to support its soldiers—combining unprecedented accuracy with

vastly superior rate of fire and range.

The Army had a prudent and affordable plan that recognized the

possibility that developing precision-guided cannon projectiles and

rocket systems is a difficult task that may end up falling short of

expectations. Contrary to popular wisdom, precision-guided cannon

and rocket systems are not perfected yet. Shooting sensitive hightech precision guidance systems out of cannons exerts several hundred times the G-forces exerted on air-delivered precision-guided

bombs and missiles such as JDAM or Tomahawk, and the cost that

contractors propose charging to overcome these factors is very high

at the current time. For instance, the Army’s published plans call

for paying $222,000 per round for the first 9,417 Excalibur projectiles when and if they are perfected. This is 7 times greater than

the Secretary of Defense’ target price of $33,000 per round, and

many experts question whether this target price will ever be

achieved. It seems the Army had a very prudent plan—both from

a warfighting perspective and from a development and cost risk

perspective—that the Secretary of Defense summarily and unilaterally rejected.

So what is the Army left with under the Administration’s new

plan? In essence, the Army will be left with the outdated Paladin

howitzer that sits on a 40-year-old chassis design that has already

been upgraded six different times. The Paladin of the future will

continue to shoot standard 155mm ammunition at low rates of fire

and at substandard ranges as well as the new Excalibur precision

projectile if it can be perfected, if the Paladin chassis can be shown

to withstand the additional forces generated by firing this new

round.

Whether the Excalibur works or not, the Administration now

plans on keeping the Paladin in the force until 2032 when the Future Combat System will finally phase it out.

The Administration explains that the risk of keeping the Paladin

is acceptable because the greater precision and range of Excalibur

rounds and the projected availability of fire support systems such

as Guided MLRS and air-delivered precision munitions can cover

the existing indirect fire support shortfall. Aside from the issues of

bad weather, responsiveness, and ability to support the close fight,

this new plan discounts many of the traditional roles of artillery

that depend upon volume of fire over accuracy—such as fire to suppress enemy attacks, and cover fire to protect friendly troop moveVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00374 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
365

ments or to protect sectors of a battlefield. Rate of fire is completely discounted as a priority under the new plan.

It does not overstate the case to say that Army military leaders

do not support this plan—they see too much risk. While the Administration points to skirmishes in Afghanistan to support its bet on

precision, many of our military leaders worry about the potential

major battles that could erupt in Korea or other theaters where

mechanized forces will determine the outcome. A high level Defense Department official echoed these exact concerns just 3

months ago when discussing the Crusader:

Unless we want to have no new artillery facing North

Korea’s artillery, we need something. We have to remember, it’s not just a matter or fighting on horseback with

satellites and B–52s as we did in Afghanistan. We still

face Kim Jung-II in North Korea. We still face Saddam

Hussein in Iraq. We face others who use conventional

weapons and the question then becomes do you want to

modernize those or do you not.—Dov Zakheim, Comptroller, Department of Defense. Comments on The News

House With Jim Lehrer March 18, 2002.

The Crusader decision also signals a troubling change of direction about how we will equip and fight our future force. Over the

last several decades there has been a consensus that we should

take maximum advantage of America’s Scientific and technological

strength to field military systems and devise military strategy and

tactics to achieve decisive ‘‘combat overmatch’’ capabilities against

any potential opponent. General Michael E. Ryan, former Air Force

Chief of Staff, succinctly summed up the combat overmatch philosophy as follows:

I’m not interested in fair fights. What I’m interested in

is a 100 to nothing score, not 51–49.

This philosophy has proven its worth—not only does it save

American lives on the battlefield, but it is an effective way to win

the peace. Our vastly superior military capabilities cause potential

adversaries to think twice before confronting us or our allies militarily, which contributes significantly to world peace and stability.

This was not always the case, and we must continue to work at

keeping this edge.

Of all the military services, it is perhaps most important for the

Army to continue with the philosophy of ‘‘combat overmatch’’

through superior technology. Unlike the Air Force and the Navy,

we have a small Army compared to other countries. Currently,

eight other armies in the world outnumber our Army. We make up

for this with superior people, superior leadership, and superior

technology, but numbers still matter if we let our technological

edge slip.

It is disturbing that the Defense Department seems willing to

rest on the laurels of past administrations and go back to a philosophy of ‘‘just enough,’’ The Crusader would provide US military

personnel with the best technology in the world that meets a know

deficiency of a military service that American industry has shown

it can deliver on time and on budget. The Crusader system is a

366

state-of-the-art heavy artillery system that has already produced 7

new patents from its new technology. Over 6,000 test rounds have

already been fired and the system is meeting or exceeding range,

rate-of-fire, and reliability requirements by all accounts.

It is simply hard to understand why a system that meets the biggest Army warfighting deficiency is being scrapped.

If the President persists in demanding the termination of the

Crusader, the weaknesses of the outdated Paladin (with or without

the Excalibur projectile) make it imperative that we expedite the

development and fielding of the Objective Force next generation artillery system. American soldiers do not deserve to continue to endure the risks of substandard artillery support. This deficiency

must be eliminated as quickly as possible. We therefore support the Committee position of adding $173 million to the $195 million budget request for development of the Objective Force artillery system in order to field a new system by

2008. This would accelerate the Army’s old schedule by four to six

years. This acceleration is possible only if the Army uses the existing Crusader engineering team and leverages the technology advances garnered with the Army’s $2 billion investment that has already been spent on Crusader development. Following are some of the detailed answers received from DOD

to our specific questions on the Crusader that have been raised in

the course of this debate.

1. How does the Crusader compare to other top foreign systems?

Why don’t we simply buy one of those systems? A comparison of the most advanced artillery systems in the global marketplace available to our allies shows why the Army believes

the Crusader is a superior artillery system. The Crusader delivers

more firepower is more mobile, protects its crew better weighs less,

uses fewer crewmembers, and is the only system that can be fully

networked on the battlefield.

COMPARISON OF MODERN SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZERS

Crusader (U.S.) Paladin (U.S.) G6 (S. Africa) AS90 (U.K.) PzH2000 (Germany)

Max Range (km) * ............. 40 ..................... 30 ..................... 30 ..................... 37.4 .................. 37.4

Max Rate of Fire * ............. 10 to 12/Minute.

Indefinitely.

4/minute for 3 .. 3/minute ........... 6/minute for 3 .. 6–8 minute for

3

Crew Size (howitzer + resupply veh).3 + 3 ................ 4 + 4 ................ 6+resupply crew 5+resupply crew 5+resupply crew

Curb Wt. (ton) ................... 40 ..................... 27 ..................... 52 ..................... 46.3 .................. 54+

Combat Wt. (ton) .............. 50 ..................... 32 ..................... 55.6 .................. 50.7 .................. 60.3

Horsepower ........................ 1500 ................. 440 ................... 520 ................... 660 ................... 991

Projectile Qty. .................... 48 ..................... 39 ..................... 45 ..................... 58 ..................... 60

Accuracy ............................ 96m @ 30km ... 232m@30km .... Unknown ........... 246m@30km .... 200m@km

Simultaneous rounds on

target (MRSI Capability).

4–10 rounds ..... N/A .................... Unknown ........... Unknown ........... 2–6 rounds

Highway Speed (km/hr) * .. 67 ..................... 60 ..................... 85 ..................... 52 ..................... 62.5

X-Country Speed (km/hr) * 48 ..................... 27 ..................... 30 ..................... 25 ..................... 45

NBC Macro Protection ....... Yes .................... No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... No

Resupply Vehicle ............... Yes/Automated .. Yes/Manual ....... No ..................... No ..................... No

U.S. Command & Control Yes .................... Yes/Not All ........ No ..................... No ..................... No

Notes:

1. G6 is a South African howitzer, AS90 is from the United Kingdom, and PzH2000 is German.

2. * Indicates a key performance parameter (KPP). An additional KPP is the ability to automatically transfer 48 rounds from the resupply

vehicle to the howitzer within 10.4 minutes, including maneuver time to link the vehicles—no other system can meet this requirement.

3. CEP is circular error probability.

4. MRSI is multiple round simultaneous impact capability.

5. NBC is nuclear (radiological), biological warfare, and chemical warfare crew protection.

Maximum Rate of Fire is at all deflections and quadrants using all projectile and fuse combinations.

367

2. How Much Does Crusader Cost?

A two-vehicle Crusader system (howitzer and resupply vehicle)

could be procured for about $10.01 million (recurring production

costs, FY 01 constant dollars) which is about 70% of the cost of one

Army Blackhawk helicopter. In budget terms, the total procurement cost of $7 billion for 480 systems (another $4 billion is for development) is substantial in and of itself, but in terms of the total

Defense budget the Army’s planned average appropriation level of

about $1 billion per year represents about one percent of the

Army’s annual budget, and about 3 tenths of one percent of the annual Defense Department budget. The total cost of the entire Crusader procurement is less than one year’s worth of research for the

missile defense program.

3. How much are the new Excalibur and guided MLRS munitions

expected to cost, and how does that compare to standard 155mm

ammunition?

Excalibur. The latest February 12, 2002 Army estimate pegged

the future Excalibur program acquisition cost for the first 9,417

unitary projectiles at $222,000 per round, or a total cost of $2.1 billion. The Army could purchase nearly half of the entire Crusader

fleet (209 out of 480 systems) for the cost of the first 10,000 rounds

of Excalibur ammunition. The Administration’s target unit cost for

Excalibur unitary is $33,000 per round for 200,000 rounds, a sevenfold decrease compared to the current price, for a total cost of $6.6

billion. In addition, the Administration plans on buying an additional 40,264 Excalibur senior-fused (infra-red sensing skeet

bomblets) projectiles at $96,000 per round, for a total cost of $3.9

billion. The past Army track record in precision/smart munitions

programs (SADARM, MSTAR, BAT, WAM, Copperhead) does not

support this cost reduction assumption. But assuming the Army

can attain these ‘‘best cost’’ estimates, the cost of the first 200,000

rounds of Excalibur unitary and 40,000 rounds of Excalibur sensorfused projectiles would cost $10.5 billion, more than one and half

times the total cost of the Crusader procurement ($7 billion). If the

$33,000 ‘‘best cost’’ estimate for Excalibur unitary cannot be

reached and the price can be reduced by only 50% to say, $100,000

per round, the total cost for Excalibur unitary projectiles skyrockets to over $20 billion in order to attain the Army’s initial

200,000-unit inventory objective. In any case, it would require annual appropriations of well over $1 billion per year in order to finance the Excalibur production rate efficiencies used as the basis

for the target cost estimate—something that is unprecedented for

one type of round of Army ammunition. It is also expected that the

Army Excalibur inventory objective over time would increase well

above 200,000 units.

Guided MLRS. The latest Army estimates peg the expected cost

of Guided MLRS unitary rockets at $65,000 per unit. Assuming

that the Army would fire a minimum of two rockets per target, the

cheapest ‘‘kill’’ cost for a truck or a tank using guided MLRS would

be $130,000. Each salvo of 12 MLRS rockets would cost $780,000

for unitary warheads (equivalent to the cost of 3,250 155mm projectiles).

368

Non-precision 155mm HE ammunition. The Army’s most recent

purchase of M107 HE 155mm projectiles was $240 per round for

155,000 rounds. M795 HE rounds are estimated to cost between

$500 and $770 per round.

Inventory. The Army has an inventory of over 4.2 million 155mm

HE rounds already paid for. There are no Excalibur projectiles or

Guided MLRS rockets in the current inventory.

4. The Army has the best tank, the best infantry fighting vehicle,

and the best attack helicopter in the world. Why has the Army operated so long with an inferior heavy artillery system?

During the late 1970’s and 1980’s the Army introduced new families of fighting systems that included the Abrams tank, Bradley

fighting vehicle, air defense systems and helicopters such as

Apache and Blackhawk. Due to fiscal constraints and diverging priorities in the mid 80’s, the field artillery was forced to skip a generation of cannon modernization.

During that time period, the Army developed the Multiple

Launch Rocket System (MLRS) to satisfy its deficiency in deep attack and Paladin was developed as an interim solution for its cannon deficiencies. Consequently, Paladin was a simple product improvement to the old M 109 that lacked mobility, lethality, and survivability. Because if the limitations of the chassis, Paladin lacks

the potential or significant product improvement.

5. Can indirect cannon fire support missions be accomplished by

greater investment in other systems—aircraft, missiles, and rockets?

U.S. ground forces have traditionally required a mix of rocket,

missile and cannon systems to meet their fire support requirements. Cannons have historically provided close support to the maneuver arms on a 24-hour all weather basis. Although the unique

characteristics that made cannon systems ideal for this mission are

becoming less distinct as the capabilities of precision and smart

munitions are improved, several distinct characteristics are like to

remain.

Flexibility and responsiveness. Flexibility and responsiveness are

probably the cannon’s hallmark. The close combat environment demands the ability to rapidly accommodate change. Cannon systems

are more responsive to rapidly changing battle conditions because

they carry a readily available quantity and variety of munitions

and can rapidly change from on type of munition to another as required. Cannons reload by individual rounds vice pods for rockets/

missiles. Rocket/missile pods can only accommodate one type of

munition at a time. Often, the type of rocket/missile pod loaded

may not be the optimum munition required for the specific target.

Fires and effects coordinators then face what can be a dilemma.

They must either search for launchers loaded with the correct munition, fire the launcher loaded with the less than optimum munition, or direct reload. Launcher reload operations can take approximately 7–20 minutes, making them less than ideal in a time critical situation. Aircraft carry limited amounts and types of munitions and must land to reconfigure or replenish their load. Aircraft

reload cycles are generally much longer than missile and rocket

systems. Army data indicated that a Crusader battalion could proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00378 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
369

vide 130 tons of munitions in one hour, and 900 rounds in close

support before the first aircraft sorties arrives on station.

Continuous Fires. Cannon systems are more capable of providing

continuous fires (fires without gaps over a period of time) than are

rocket/missile launchers and aircraft. With an actively cooled cannon, and fully automated rearm and resupply provided by Crusader

resupply vehicles, the capability to provide continuous fires is

greatly enhanced. Cannons have the capability to shift from target

to target quickly—a matter of seconds in many cases. While

launches do well in providing massed fires, there can often experience unacceptable gaps for reloading operation in sustaining fires.

Employment in Proximity to Friendly Forces. Providing fires in

close proximity to friendly forces is an essential fire support task

in the close fight. The minimum safe distance as measured by

bursting radius is considerably smaller for cannons compared to existing rocket/missile systems. Final protective fires and ‘‘danger

close’’ missions end up placing fires extremely close to friendly

forces. The smaller bursting radius of cannon munitions enables

the ‘‘echelonment of fires’’ whereby the infantry uses a succession

of cannon and mortar systems interchangeably to maximize the

coverage of fires until they must be shifted or lifted.Close fires require accuracy, responsiveness, timely delivery, and ‘‘controlled’’ (or

limited) effects (burst radius), to reduce risk to supported forces.

Cannon artillery can be employed much closer to our forces and is

an absolute necessity in the close support role since it can be employed in all weather, in all terrain, day or night. Weather can severely hamper close air support. For instance, during the Kosovo

air campaign, 56% of sorties were aborted due to weather. Of those

sorties executed, 33% were adversely affected by weather, resulting

in less than half of the targets being effectively engaged.

Sustainability. Accordingly to the Army, the logistical footprint

for cannons is generally smaller than for rocket/missile launchers

based on ammunition weight and cube size.

Cost of Munitions. Cannon munitions have historically been less

expensive than rockets or missiles on a per-unit cost basis, and

they provide a larger family of munitions to select from the deal

with battlefield dynamics. Compared to the expected range of cost

for new precision guided cannon and rocket munitions, the cost per

round of non-precision 155mm cannon projectiles is cheaper on the

order of 140–925 to one (see #3 above).

6. Will there be a void in indirect fire support with out Crusader?

Possibly. According to the requirement that was developed by the

Army and approved by the Joint Requirements Council of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, the Paladin was judged to be not mobile enough to

keep up with our mechanized force in a maneuver-dominated fight.

The Army is also concerned that the Paladin’s range and rate-offire limitations prevent it from providing the required counter-fire

‘‘umbrella’’ for our forces. In addition to the significant increase in

mobility, range, and rate-of-fire, Crusader provides the responsive,

continuous fires and mobility required for fast moving close combat

operations. Its automated ammunition handling and resupply system combined with an actively cooled cannon provide accurate sustained fires where needed in the required volume. Crusader interoperability with Joint and all Army command and control networks

370

assures that effects are delivered when needed; providing direct

link capability to any platform on the battlefield.

7. How old is Paladin and how much longer would it need to be

in the force if Crusader is cancelled? Can Paladin be upgraded to

meet many of the Crusader requirements?

The M109 series howitzer design began in the mid-1950s and entered service in 1961. Paladin is the sixth modification to the M109

design—no Paladins are new howitzers. While maintaining virtually the same chassis, engine, transmission, and basic suspension, the Paladin’s weight has grown by one third from 24 tons to

32 tons. The armament system has grown from a 24 caliber cannon

with a range of 14 kilometers to a 39 caliber cannon with a range

of 30 kilometers.

The Crusader was planned to remain in the force beyond 2032.

If Crusader is not available and the M109 series howitzer must be

continued in its place, it is probable that it too would be in the field

in 2032. This would mean that the M109 series howitzer would be

in the field 70 years after it initially entered service. The soldiers

in 2030 could be fighting with the same howitzer used by their

great grandfathers.

The Army evaluated the prospect of improving Paladin during

the Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis completed for Crusader’s Milestone 1 decision and the Congressional report delivered

in December 2000. The analysis shows that to attain Crusader’s

rate-of fire (10–12 RPM), cross country mobility (39–48 KPH) and

firing range (40–50 KM), Paladin would require an automated ammunition handling system, increased horsepower, improved suspension, and a cooled 56 caliber cannon. Paladin lacks sufficient

growth capacity in the chassis to allow these improvements. To

strengthen the chassis to withstand these stresses would require

replacing or significant design changes in the hull structure, hydraulics, engine, transmission and suspension sub-systems.

8. Is Crusader rate of fire oversold because it can’t be resupplied

at high enough rates? What is the logistical plan to resupply Crusader during maximum rates of fire?

Ammunition resupply has been an issue that has plagued artilleryman for years. Because Crusader has a fully automated resupply system, it allows a 300% improvement in resupply operations.

The key to successfully achieving this new resupply requirement

will be the fielding of fully automated resupply vehicles (RSVs)

that can rearm a Crusader howitzer with 48 rounds and refuel it

in 10 minutes—a 50% improvement. One technique employs two

resupply vehicles (RSV’s) per howitzer battery in the vicinity of the

firing area to conduct rearming and refueling, two RSVs in hide

areas with full loads of ammunition, and two RSVs uploading at

the Logistics Resupply Point. Other methods may be employed, depending on the individual tactical situation, and considerations of

distances that have to be traveled between the locations. The introduction of the wheeled RSV gives the commander enhanced flexibility to conduct resupply operations depending on the threat. For

example, when facing a high counter fire threat, the commander

could deploy the tracked resupply vehicles forward providing maximum protection for the crew while using the wheeled vehicles to

upload and transport ammunition in the less vulnerable rear posiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 080348 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR532.XXX pfrm11 PsN: HR532
371

tions and transfer the ammunition to the tracked carriers. In a law

counter fire threat, the commander could also deploy the wheeled

vehicles forward maximizing through put of ammunition. The automatic resupply and cannon autoloader capability is a major technological leap forward for the Army, which has never had this capability before.

9. What force structure was sacrificed in anticipation of fielding

Crusader? Will structure be added back if Crusader is terminated?

What will that cost?

In anticipation of the increased firepower and productivity of the

Crusader system, the Army reduced force structure in both maneuver and fire support units by 25 percent in the mid-1990s. The

Army reduced Paladin and all other cannon battalions from three

batteries of eight howitzers (3x8) to three batteries of six howitzers

(3x6). MLRS battalions were also reduced to 3 batteries of 6

launchers each (down from 8 or 9 launchers each). at the same

time, Army tactics were changed to take full advantage of the

speed of its tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, the Crusader, and

other situation awareness capabilities, increasing the planned battle space for Army forces by over 200 percent. Termination of the

Crusader will necessitate a reexamination of Army force structure,

tactics, techniques, and procedures.

10. What are remaining development and cost risks of the Crusader?

The Army has testified that it rates the Crusader program a

moderate to low risk for technical performance, cost, and schedule.

The software build for Crusader is on schedule and within cost estimates. The range and rate-of-fire key performance parameters are

being demonstrated with the first prototype vehicle at Yuma Proving Grounds and the resupply and mobility are on schedule for

demonstration in 2002. Over 6,000 test firings have shown the Crusader to be 142% more accurate to date than Paladin. Accuracy improvements come from:

A new projectile tracking system that removes meteorological errors;

Percision pointing with electric drives;

Thermal management

Muzzle velocity management;

On-board projectile weighting;

Inertial reference unit coupled to GPS to null out position errors.

The program has been focusing significant effort on building the

reliability of the system in order to remove soldiers from the technical and manual operational aspect of fighting a weapon system.

11. How much does the Crusader weigh and what can carry it?

The Crusader howitzer was redesigned several years ago to reduce its weight from 60 tons to 40 tons. Under the Army’s current

plan, Crusader artillery would be either prepositioned or moved by

sea as part of a counterattack corps. If needed, Crusader systems

could be airlifted on C–17 or C–5B aircraft. Deployments by airlift

would most likely entail a battery of 3 Crusader systems to meet

special contingencies. Crusader airlift ranges would be:

372

Nautical

Miles

C–17:

2 howitzers (84 tons) ...................................................................................... 2,276

1 howitzer and 1 resupply vehicle (w) (73 tons) ........................................... 2,782

C–5B:

2 howitzers (84 tons) ...................................................................................... 3,200

1 howitzer and 1 resupply vehicle (w) (73 tons) ........................................... 3,500

NORM DICKS. CHET EDWARDS.

Æ