" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

106–162

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 1401

together with

ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND

DISSENTING VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

MAY 24, 1999.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

56–735

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

1999

106–162

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 1401

together with

ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND

DISSENTING VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

MAY 24, 1999.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman

BOB STUMP, Arizona

DUNCAN HUNTER, California

JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio

HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JAMES TALENT, Missouri

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

HOWARD ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California

J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina

JIM RYUN, Kansas

BOB RILEY, Alabama

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARY BONO, California

JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

STEVEN KUYKENDALL, California

DONALD SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

IKE SKELTON, Missouri

NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia

JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN PICKETT, Virginia

LANE EVANS, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

TOM ALLEN, Maine

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

JIM TURNER, Texas

ADAM SMITH, Washington

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

MIKE THOMPSON, California

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

ANDREW K. ELLIS, Staff Director

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Administration’s Defense Budget Request ................................................. 11

The Committee Bill: Managing Risk .................................................................. 12

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 13

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION .................... 13

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 13

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 13

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 17

Overview ........................................................................................................ 17

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 21

AH–64 modifications ................................................................................. 21

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) ................................................... 21

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications ........................... 22

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications ..................................................... 22

Longbow ..................................................................................................... 22

UH–60 Blackhawk .................................................................................... 23

UH–60 modifications ................................................................................. 23

Utility/cargo airplane modifications ......................................................... 24

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 24

Overview ........................................................................................................ 24

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 27

Avenger modifications ............................................................................... 27

Avenger system summary ........................................................................ 27

Brilliant anti-armor (BAT) submunition ................................................. 27

Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems .................... 27

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ............................................. 28

Overview ........................................................................................................ 28

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

Abrams upgrade program/heavy assault bridge (HAB) ......................... 32

Bradley base sustainment ........................................................................ 32

M113 carrier modifications ....................................................................... 33

M240 series medium machine gun .......................................................... 33

M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW) .................................................... 33

MK19–3 grenade launcher ....................................................................... 33

Ammunition Procurement, Army .................................................................... 34

Overview ........................................................................................................ 34

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 38

Ammunition ............................................................................................... 38

Hydra 70 rockets ....................................................................................... 38

Provision of industrial facilities ............................................................... 38

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 39

Overview ........................................................................................................ 39

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 51

Area common user system (ACUS) modification program ..................... 51

Army data distribution system (ADDS) .................................................. 51

Artillery accuracy equipment ................................................................... 51

Automated data processing equipment (ADPE) ..................................... 52

Combat support medical ........................................................................... 52
Page

IV

Family of heavy tactical vehicles ............................................................. 53

General purpose vehicles .......................................................................... 53

High speed compactor ............................................................................... 53

Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) .................................................. 53

Information system security program (ISSP) ......................................... 54

Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE) ............................................ 54

Items less than $2.0 million (construction equipment) .......................... 54

Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS) Common

ground station (CGS) ............................................................................. 55

Lightweight video reconnaissance system (LVRS) ................................. 55

M56 smoke generator system ................................................................... 55

Modification of in-service equipment ....................................................... 56

Modification of in-service equipment (tactical surveillance) .................. 56

Night vision devices .................................................................................. 57

Nonsystem training devices ...................................................................... 57

Product improved (PI) combat vehicle crewman (CVC) headset ........... 58

Ribbon bridge ............................................................................................. 58

Shortstop .................................................................................................... 59

Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS) family ............................................................................................................ 59

Small pusher tug ....................................................................................... 60

Standard teleoperating kit ....................................................................... 60

Super high frequency (SHF) terminal ..................................................... 60

Vibratory self-propelled roller .................................................................. 61

Wheel-mounted 25-ton crane .................................................................... 61

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army ..................................... 61

Overview ........................................................................................................ 61

Item of Special Interest ................................................................................ 63

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 63

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 63

Overview ........................................................................................................ 63

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 68

CH–60S ...................................................................................................... 68

Common data link (CDL) .......................................................................... 68

Common ground equipment ..................................................................... 68

E–2 modifications ...................................................................................... 68

EA–6B modifications ................................................................................. 69

F–18 series modifications ......................................................................... 69

F/A–18E/F .................................................................................................. 69

Joint primary air training system (JPATS) ............................................ 70

KC–130J ..................................................................................................... 70

Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA) ..... 71

MV–22 ........................................................................................................ 71

P–3 series modifications ........................................................................... 71

T–45 training system (TS) ........................................................................ 72

UC–35 ......................................................................................................... 72

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 72

Overview ........................................................................................................ 72

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 76

Aerial targets ............................................................................................. 76

Evolved seasparrow missile (ESSM) ........................................................ 76

Hellfire II missile ...................................................................................... 76

Joint stand-off weapon (JSOW) ................................................................ 76

Rolling airframe missile ............................................................................ 77

Standard missile ........................................................................................ 77

Tomahawk missiles ................................................................................... 78

Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps ............................................ 78

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 81

Navy ammunition ...................................................................................... 81

Marine corps ammunition ........................................................................ 81

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 81

Overview ........................................................................................................ 81

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

Attack submarine force level .................................................................... 84

LHD–8 amphibious assault ship .............................................................. 84

Strategic sealift ......................................................................................... 84
Page

V

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 85

Overview ........................................................................................................ 85

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 96

AN/BPS–16 submarine navigation radar upgrade ................................. 96

AN/SPS–73 (V) surface search radar ....................................................... 96

AN/USC–42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) ultrahigh frequency (UHF) satellite communications (SATCOM) terminals .......................................................................................................... 96

Computer aided submode training (CAST) lesson authoring system

(CLASS) .................................................................................................. 97

Fire fighting equipment ............................................................................ 97

Joint engineering data management and information control system

(JEDMICS) ............................................................................................. 97

Minesweeping equipment ......................................................................... 98

Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES) ............................................... 98

Other training equipment ......................................................................... 98

Shipboard display emulator (SDE) equipment ....................................... 99

Sonobuoys .................................................................................................. 99

Surface sonar support equipment ............................................................ 99

WSN–7B ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN–2 doppler sonar velocity

log (DSVL) .............................................................................................. 100

Undersea Warfare support equipment .................................................... 100

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 100

Overview ........................................................................................................ 100

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 106

155 millimeter (mm) lightweight towed howitzer ................................... 106

Body armor ................................................................................................ 106

Communications and electronic infrastructure support ......................... 106

Marine corps air ground task force (MAGTF) command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) modification kits ..... 107

Material handling equipment ................................................................... 107

Modification kits (tracked vehicles) ......................................................... 107

Night vision equipment ............................................................................. 108

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 108

Overview ........................................................................................................ 108

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 114

Bomber modernization .............................................................................. 114

C–17 ............................................................................................................ 114

C–17A aircraft modifications .................................................................... 114

C–130J ........................................................................................................ 115

C–135 modifications .................................................................................. 115

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP) ................................ 115

E–8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS) ....... 116

F–15 modifications .................................................................................... 116

F–16C ......................................................................................................... 117

F–16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS) ................................. 117

F–16 modifications .................................................................................... 117

F–22 ............................................................................................................ 118

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle ........................................................... 119

T–38 modifications .................................................................................... 120

Terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS) ................................... 120

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force .............................................................. 120

Overview ........................................................................................................ 120

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 123

Air Force ammunition ............................................................................... 123

Laser guided bombs (LGB) ....................................................................... 123

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 123

Overview ........................................................................................................ 123

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 127

AGM–65 modifications .............................................................................. 127

Minuteman III modifications .................................................................... 127

Spaceborne equipment .............................................................................. 127

Titan ........................................................................................................... 128

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 128

Overview ........................................................................................................ 128

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 135

60K a/c loader ............................................................................................ 135
Page

VI

Aircrew laser eye protection ..................................................................... 135

Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE) ....................................... 135

Master crane .............................................................................................. 135

Military satellite communications terminals .......................................... 136

National eagle system ............................................................................... 136

Radio equipment ........................................................................................ 136

Supply asset tracking system (SATS) ...................................................... 137

Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment ............................ 137

Theater air control system (TACSI) ......................................................... 137

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 138

Overview ........................................................................................................ 138

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 143

Automated document conversion system (ADCS) ................................... 143

Mentor protege .......................................................................................... 143

Nightstar binocular ................................................................................... 143

National Guard and Reserve Equipment ....................................................... 143

Overview ........................................................................................................ 143

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 145

National guard and reserve equipment ................................................... 145

Reconnaissance aircraft augmentation .................................................... 145

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense ................................. 146

Overview ........................................................................................................ 146

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 148

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 148

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 149

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 149

Sections 101–109—Authorization of Appropriations ................................. 149

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 149

Section 111—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army Program ........ 149

Section 112—Extension of Pilot Program on Sales of Manufactured

Articles and Services of Certain Army Industrial Facilities Without

Regard to Availability from Domestic Sources ....................................... 149

Section 113—Revision to Conditions for Award of a Second-Source Procurement Contract for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles ....... 149

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 150

Section 121—F/A–18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft Program ......................... 150

Subtitle D—Chemical Stockpile Destruction Program .................................. 150

Section 141—Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical

Agents and Munitions ............................................................................... 150

Section 142—Alternative Technologies for Destruction of Assembled

Chemical Weapons ................................................................................. 151

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 151

Section 151—Limitation on Expenditures for Satellite Communications 151

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 152

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 152

Army RDT&E ................................................................................................... 155

Overview ........................................................................................................ 155

Items Of Special Interest ............................................................................. 164

Aircraft avionics ........................................................................................ 164

All source analysis system ........................................................................ 164

Alternative vehicle propulsion initiative ................................................. 164

Armament enhancement initiative .......................................................... 164

Army aircrew coordination training program ......................................... 165

Army technical test instrumentation and targets .................................. 165

Comanche ................................................................................................... 165

Combat vehicle improvement programs .................................................. 165

Combined turbine diesel engine ............................................................... 166

Combustion driven eye-safe laser ............................................................ 166

Concepts experimentation program ......................................................... 166

Defense healthcare information assurance program .............................. 166

Defense manufacturing technology program .......................................... 167

Environmental quality technology ........................................................... 168

Full spectrum active protection ................................................................ 168

Future combat vehicle ............................................................................... 168

Geographic synthetic aperture radar ....................................................... 170

Geo-positioning system—inertial measurement unit integration ......... 170

Heart rate variability technology ............................................................. 170
Page

VII

High energy laser test facility .................................................................. 171

High mobility artillery rocket system ...................................................... 172

Joint service small arms program ............................................................ 172

Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS) ............... 172

Kwajalein missile range modernization .................................................. 173

Lightweight x-band radar ......................................................................... 173

Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment ........................ 173

MedTeams .................................................................................................. 174

Night vision advanced technology ............................................................ 174

Panoramic night vision goggle ................................................................. 174

Passive millimeter wave imaging ............................................................ 174

Patriot anti-cruise missile defense ........................................................... 174

Plasma energy pyrolysis system .............................................................. 175

Proximity fuzing for dual-purpose improved conventional munition

submunitions .......................................................................................... 175

Security and intelligence activities .......................................................... 176

Self-destruct fuse ....................................................................................... 176

Semi-automated imagery processor ......................................................... 177

Small arms fire control system ................................................................ 177

Tactical voice control for maneuver control system ............................... 177

Trichloromelamine testing ........................................................................ 177

University and industrial research centers ............................................. 178

Navy RDT&E .................................................................................................... 178

Overview ........................................................................................................ 178

Items Of Special Interest ............................................................................. 188

Advanced amphibious assault vehicle ..................................................... 188

Advanced anti-radiation guided missile .................................................. 188

Advanced waterjet propulsor demonstration program ........................... 188

Affordable advanced acoustical arrays .................................................... 189

Analysis of alternatives for follow-on support jammer .......................... 189

Aquifer vulnerability/contamination assessment .................................... 190

Aviation depot maintenance technology .................................................. 190

Beartrap nonlinear dynamics and environmental characterization ..... 190

C–2 eight-blade composite propeller system ........................................... 191

Claymore marine ....................................................................................... 191

Cooperative engagement capability ......................................................... 191

Cruiser conversion ..................................................................................... 192

Distributed surveillance system ............................................................... 193

DP–2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration ............. 193

E–2C radar modernization ....................................................................... 194

Electric drive propulsion for Navy ships ................................................. 194

Electro-optical framing technologies ........................................................ 195

Environmentally safe energetic materials .............................................. 195

Extended range guided munition and projectile common guidance ...... 195

F/A–18C/D BOL chaff countermeasure ................................................... 196

Free electron laser ..................................................................................... 197

Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system technology ............. 197

Hyper-spectral analysis ............................................................................ 198

Improved software production management ........................................... 198

Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine ............................................ 199

Joint experimentation program ................................................................ 200

Joint non-lethal weapons programs ......................................................... 200

Joint tactical combat training system ..................................................... 200

Lightweight 155MM howitzer .................................................................. 201

Littoral warfare fast patrol craft ............................................................. 201

Location of global positioning systems jammers ..................................... 202

Marine Corps H–1 helicopter upgrade .................................................... 202

Marine mammal research ......................................................................... 203

Multi-function self-aligned gate technology ............................................ 203

Multipurpose processor ............................................................................. 203

National oceanographic partnership program ........................................ 204

Navy aviation survivability ...................................................................... 205

Navy land attack missile program ........................................................... 205

Navy theater missile defense and fleet defense radar upgrades ........... 206

NSSN advanced submarine systems technology development and insertion ..................................................................................................... 207

Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition ........... 208
Page

VIII

Optically fed and controlled phased array antenna ............................... 208

Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer ............................... 208

P–3 maritime patrol aircraft combat systems research and development ........................................................................................................ 209

Parametric airborne dipping sonar .......................................................... 209

Phased array weather radar .................................................................... 210

Power electronic building blocks and power node control centers ........ 211

Project ‘‘M’’ ................................................................................................. 211

S–3B surveillance system upgrade program ........................................... 212

Ship survivability and personnel protection ........................................... 212

Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates ................................................ 212

Smart propulsor product model ............................................................... 213

SSGN conversion from Trident-class SSBN submarines ....................... 213

Superconducting waveform generator ..................................................... 214

SWATH ship mine counter-measures demonstrator .............................. 214

Tactical control system ............................................................................. 215

Tactical Tomahawk ................................................................................... 215

Trajectory correctable munitions development ....................................... 216

Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers .................................................... 217

Undersea warfare advanced technology .................................................. 217

Unmanned aerial vehicles ........................................................................ 217

Upgrading fleet systems ........................................................................... 218

Vacuum electronics ................................................................................... 218

Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter demonstration 218

Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems ............................ 219

Air Force RDT&E ............................................................................................. 219

Overview ........................................................................................................ 219

Items Of Special Interest ............................................................................. 229

Airborne Laser ........................................................................................... 229

Aircrew laser eye protection ..................................................................... 229

Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office partnership .......................... 230

Air Force science and technology funding ............................................... 230

Automatic target recognition ................................................................ 231

Crew technology ..................................................................................... 231

Friction stir welding .............................................................................. 231

Hyperspectral imaging .......................................................................... 231

Tactical missile propulsion .................................................................... 232

Ballistic missile technology ...................................................................... 232

B–2 upgrades ............................................................................................. 232

B–52 squadrons ......................................................................................... 233

Combat training ranges ............................................................................ 233

Commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats .................................. 234

Common imagery processor ...................................................................... 234

Evolved expendable launch vehicle .......................................................... 235

Global combat support system ................................................................. 235

Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle .......... 235

Integrated satellite communications control ........................................... 235

Joint airborne SIGINT program .............................................................. 236

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile ........................................................ 236

Joint strike fighter .................................................................................... 236

Kinetic energy anti-satellite ..................................................................... 237

Microsatellite technology .......................................................................... 237

Military spaceplane ................................................................................... 238

Miniature satellite threat reporting system ............................................ 238

Miniaturized munitions capability ........................................................... 238

National polar-orbiting operational environmental surveillance system .......................................................................................................... 239

Precision location and identification (PLAID) technology ...................... 239

Satellite control network .......................................................................... 240

Simulation based forecasting decision support system (SBFDSS) ........ 240

Space-based infrared system-high ........................................................... 240

Space-based infrared system-low ............................................................. 242

Space launch and spacelift ranges ........................................................... 242

Spacetrack .................................................................................................. 244

Synthetic theater operations research model .......................................... 244

Defense Agencies RDT&E ................................................................................ 244

Overview ........................................................................................................ 244
Page

IX

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 253

Advanced concept technology demonstration .......................................... 253

Advanced moving target indicator radar ................................................. 253

Aeronautical test facilities ........................................................................ 253

Airborne common sensor ........................................................................... 254

Ballistic missile defense ............................................................................ 255

Advanced technology development ....................................................... 255

Applied research .................................................................................... 256

Atmospheric interceptor technology ..................................................... 256

Ballistic missile defense test targets .................................................... 257

International cooperative programs ..................................................... 257

Low cost launch technology .................................................................. 257

Medium extended air defense system .................................................. 258

National missile defense ....................................................................... 258

Navy area defense ................................................................................. 259

Patriot advanced capability-3 (PAC–3) ................................................ 260

Space-based laser ................................................................................... 261

Technical operations .............................................................................. 261

Theater high altitude area defense ...................................................... 262

Upper tier ............................................................................................... 262

Biological warfare defense program ......................................................... 263

Chemical-biological defense program ....................................................... 264

Chemical and biological point detectors .............................................. 265

Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors .................. 265

Safeguard ............................................................................................... 265

Small unit biological detector and chemical-biological individual

sampler ............................................................................................... 266

Complex systems design ........................................................................... 266

Cryofracture disposal of anti-personnel landmines ................................ 267

CV–22 Osprey ............................................................................................ 267

Domestic preparedness for response to terrorism involving weapons

of mass destruction ................................................................................ 267

Facial recognition technology ................................................................... 268

Flat panel displays .................................................................................... 268

Forging lead time technology ................................................................... 269

Ground-based common sensor/prophet .................................................... 269

Information systems technology, superiority, and security ................... 269

Global networked information enterprise security ............................. 270

Information assurance ........................................................................... 271

Information assurance for national critical infrastructures ............... 271

Report on information superiority ........................................................ 271

Joint theater air and missile defense organization ................................ 272

Logistics sustainment technology ............................................................ 272

Medical free electron laser ........................................................................ 273

National technology alliance .................................................................... 273

Pilot program for revitalizing the laboratories and test and evaluation centers of the Department of Defense .......................................... 274

Special operations forces reconnaissance ................................................ 274

Special operations forces small boat improvements ............................... 274

Special operations tactical systems development ................................... 275

Strategic environmental research program ............................................. 275

Thermionics ............................................................................................... 275

University research initiatives ................................................................. 276

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 276

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 276

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 276

Section 202—Amount For Basic and Applied Research ............................ 276

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 276

Section 211—Collaborative Program To Evaluate And Demonstrate Advanced Technologies For Advanced Capability Combat Vehicles .......... 276

Section 212—Revisions in Manufacturing Technology Program .............. 277

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense ............................................................. 277

Section 231—Additional Program Elements for Ballistic Missile Defense Programs .......................................................................................... 277

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 277

Section 241—Designation of the Secretary of the Army as Executive

Agent for High Energy Laser Technologies ............................................ 277
Page

X

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 277

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 277

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 309

Budget Request Increases ................................................................................ 309

Critical Readiness Accounts Increases ........................................................ 309

Aircraft spare parts ................................................................................... 309

Depot Maintenance ................................................................................... 309

Training Accounts ..................................................................................... 309

Real property maintenance and base operations support ...................... 310

Miscellaneous unfunded requirements .................................................... 311

Mobility Enhancement Funding ............................................................... 311

Modern Field Kitchen Burner Unit ............................................................. 311

Army Cold Weather Clothing ....................................................................... 312

Budget Request Reductions ............................................................................. 312

Administration and Support Accounts ........................................................ 312

Advisory and Assistance Services ................................................................ 313

Civilian Personnel Overstatement Reductions ........................................... 313

Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises ..................................................... 313

Other Items of Special Interest ....................................................................... 314

Commercial Activity Studies ........................................................................ 314

Defense Fuel Surcharges .............................................................................. 314

Information Technology ................................................................................ 315

Environmental Issues ...................................................................................... 315

Alternative Technologies for Asbestos Treatment and Disposal ............... 315

Environmental Contamination in Watershed Surrounding the Former

Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant at McGregor, Texas ............. 316

Navy Environmental Leadership Program ................................................. 316

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues ......................................................... 316

Overview ........................................................................................................ 316

Appropriated Fund Support of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs .......................................................................................................... 316

Combined Stores at Closed Installations .................................................... 317

Commissary Surcharge Fund ....................................................................... 317

Military Exchange Privileges for Disabled Veterans ................................. 318

Nonappropriated Fund Retirement Plans .................................................. 318

Restrictions on Patron Access to Overseas Commissaries and Exchange

Stores .......................................................................................................... 318

Sale of Value Brand Products in Commissary Stores ................................ 319

Vendor Representatives Overseas ............................................................... 319

Other Issues ...................................................................................................... 319

Abrams Integrated Management Program ................................................. 319

Apache Helicopter Support .......................................................................... 320

Army Battery Management Program .......................................................... 321

Army Maintenance and Personnel Systems ............................................... 321

Automatic Document Conversion Technology ............................................ 322

Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence—Public-Private Partnerships ...................................................................................................... 322

Civilian Marksmanship Program ................................................................ 322

Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities ............................... 323

Communicator Automated Emergency Notification System ..................... 323

Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs .............................................. 324

Department of Defense Dependent Schools ................................................ 324

Excess Military Property for Law Enforcement Agencies ......................... 325

Home Schooled Children Overseas .............................................................. 325

Information Systems Security Education ................................................... 325

Joint Warfare Analysis Center .................................................................... 326

Military Affiliate Radio System ................................................................... 326

Tugboat Operations ...................................................................................... 327

Urban Warfare Training .............................................................................. 327

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 328

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 328

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 328

Section 302—Working Capital Funds ......................................................... 328

Section 303—Armed Forces Retirement Home .......................................... 328

Section 304—Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction

Fund ........................................................................................................... 328
Page

XI

Section 305—Transfer to Defense Working Capital Funds to Support

Defense Commissary Agency .................................................................... 328

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 329

Section 311—Reimbursement of Navy Exchange Service Command for

Relocation Expenses .................................................................................. 329

Subtitle C—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 329

Section 321—Remediation of Asbestos and Lead Based Paint ................. 329

Subtitle D—Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources ............... 329

Section 331—Expansion of Annual Report on Contracting for Commercial and Industrial type Functions ........................................................... 329

Section 332—Congressional Notification of A–76 Cost Comparison

Waivers ...................................................................................................... 329

Section 333—Improved Evaluation of Local Economic Effect of Changing Defense Functions to Private Sector Performance ........................... 330

Section 334—Annual Report on Expenditures for Performance of DepotLevel Maintenance and Repair Workloads by Public and Private

Sectors ........................................................................................................ 330

Section 335—Applicability of Competition Requirement in Contracting

Out Workloads Performed by Depot-Level Activities of Department

of Defense ................................................................................................... 330

Section 336—Treatment of Public Sector Winning Bidders for Contracts

for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads

Formerly Performed at Certain Military Installations .......................... 330

Section 337—Process for Modernization of Computer Systems at Army

Computer Centers ..................................................................................... 330

Section 338—Evaluation of Total System Performance Responsibility

Program ...................................................................................................... 331

Section 339—Identification of Core Logistics Capability Requirements

for Maintenance and Repair of C–17 Aircraft ......................................... 331

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents Education .................................................. 332

Section 341—Assistance to Local Education Agencies that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees .......................................................................... 332

Section 342—Continuation of Enrollment at Department of Defense

Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools ..................... 332

Section 343—Technical Amendments to Defense Dependents’ Education

Act of 1978 ................................................................................................. 332

Subtitle F—Military Readiness Issues ........................................................... 333

Section 351—Independent Study of Department of Defense Secondary

Inventory and Parts Shortages ................................................................ 333

Section 352—Independent Study of Adequacy of Department Restructured Sustainment and Reengineered Logistics Product Support Practices ............................................................................................................. 333

Section 353—Independent Study of Military Readiness Reporting System .............................................................................................................. 334

Section 354—Review of Real Property Maintenance and its Effect on

Readiness ................................................................................................... 335

Section 355—Establishment of Logistics Standards for Sustained Military Operations .......................................................................................... 335

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 336

Section 361—Discretionary Authority to Install Telecommunication

Equipment for Persons Performing Voluntary Services ........................ 336

Section 362—Contracting Authority for Defense Working Capital Funded Industrial Facilities .............................................................................. 336

Section 363—Clarification of Condition on Sale of Articles and Services

of Industrial Facilities to Persons Outside Department of Defense ...... 336

Section 364—Special Authority of Disbursing Officials Regarding Automated Teller Machines on Naval Vessels ................................................ 336

Section 365—Preservation of Historic Buildings and Grounds at United

States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home, District of Columbia ................... 337

Section 366—Clarification of Land Conveyance Authority, United

States Soldiers’ and Airman’s Home ....................................................... 337

Section 367—Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in Defense

Household Goods Moving Programs ........................................................ 337

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW ................................................................. 338

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 342

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 342
Page

XII

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 342

Section 402—Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels ..... 342

Section 403—Appointments to Certain Senior Joint Officer Positions .... 343

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 344

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 344

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

of the Reserves ........................................................................................... 344

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ....... 345

Section 414—Increase in Number of Army and Air Force Members

in Certain Grades Authorized to Serve on Active Duty in Support

of the Reserves ........................................................................................... 346

Section 415—Selected Reserve End Strength Flexibility .......................... 346

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 346

Section 421—Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel ..... 346

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 348

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 348

Backlog in Requests for Replacement of Military Awards and Decorations ............................................................................................................ 348

Commissioning of Ms. Ella E. Gibson ......................................................... 348

Electronic Transmission of Certificates of Release or Discharge from

Active Duty ................................................................................................ 349

Enlisted Promotions ...................................................................................... 349

Junior Reserve Officer Training Program (JROTC) .................................. 349

Merchant Marine Academy Midshipmen .................................................... 350

Recruiting ...................................................................................................... 350

Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Program (SROTC) ................................ 351

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 351

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 351

Section 501—Recommendations for Promotion by Selection Boards ........ 351

Section 502—Technical Amendments Relating to Joint Duty Assignments .......................................................................................................... 352

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Reserve Components ................................. 352

Section 511—Continuation on Reserve Active Status List to Complete

Disciplinary Action .................................................................................... 352

Section 512—Authority to Order Reserve Component Members to Active Duty to Complete a Medical Evaluation .......................................... 352

Section 513—Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion ......................... 352

Section 514—Retention until Completion of 20 Years of Service for

Reserve Component Majors and Lieutenant Commanders Who Twice

Fail of Selection for Promotion ................................................................. 352

Section 515—Computation of Years of Service Exclusion ......................... 352

Section 516—Authority to Retain Reserve Component Chaplains Until

Age 67 ......................................................................................................... 353

Section 517—Expansion and Codification of Authority for Space-Required Travel for Reserves ....................................................................... 353

Section 518—Financial Assistance Program for Specially Selected Members of the Marine Corps Reserve ............................................................ 353

Section 519—Options to Improve Recruiting for the Army Reserve ........ 353

Subtitle C—Military Technicians .................................................................... 354

Section 521—Revision to Military Technician (Dual Status) Law ............ 354

Section 522—Civil Service Retirement of Technicians .............................. 354

Section 523—Revision to Non-Dual Status Technicians Statute .............. 355

Section 524—Revision to Authorities Relating to National Guard Technicians ........................................................................................................ 355

Section 525—Effective Date ......................................................................... 355

Section 526—Secretary of Defense Review of Army Technician Costing

Process ........................................................................................................ 355

Section 527—Fiscal Year 2000 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status Technicians .......................................................................................... 355

Subtitle D—Service Academies ....................................................................... 356

Section 531—Waiver of Reimbursement of Expenses for Instruction

at Service Academies of Persons from Foreign Countries ..................... 356

Section 532—Compliance by United States Military Academy with

Statutory Limit on Size of Corps of Cadets ............................................ 356

Section 533—Dean of Academic Board, United States Military Academy, and Dean of the Faculty, United States Air Force Academy ....... 356
Page

XIII

Section 534—Exclusion from Certain General and Flag Officer Grade

Strength Limitations for the Superintendents of the Service Academies ........................................................................................................... 356

Subtitle E—Education and Training .............................................................. 357

Section 541—Establishment of a Department of Defense International

Student Program at the Senior Military Colleges .................................. 357

Section 542—Authority for Army War College to Award Degree of

Master of Strategic Studies ...................................................................... 357

Section 543—Authority for Air University to Award Graduate-Level

Degrees ....................................................................................................... 357

Section 544—Correction of Reserve Credit for Participation in Health

Professional Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program ................ 357

Section 545—Permanent Expansion of ROTC Program to Include Graduate Students ............................................................................................. 357

Section 546—Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for Senior

ROTC Cadets Selected for Advanced Training ....................................... 358

Section 547—Contingent Funding increase for Junior ROTC Program ... 358

Section 548—Change from Annual to Biennial Reporting under the

Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill ................................................ 358

Section 549—Recodification and Consolidation of Statutes Denying Federal Grants and Contracts by Certain Departments and Agencies

to Institutions of Higher Education that Prohibit Senior ROTC Units

or Military Recruiting on Campus ........................................................... 358

Subtitle F—Decorations and Awards .............................................................. 358

Section 551—Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain Decorations to Certain Persons ........................................................................... 358

Section 552—Sense of Congress Concerning Presidential Unit Citation

for Crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis ......................................................... 358

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 359

Section 561—Revision in Authority to Order Retired Members to Active

Duty ............................................................................................................ 359

Section 562—Temporary Authority for Recall of Retired Aviators ........... 359

Section 563—Service Review Agencies Covered by Professional Staffing

Requirement .............................................................................................. 359

Section 564—Conforming Amendment to Authorize Reserve Officers

and Retired Regular Officers to Hold a Civil Office while Serving

on Active Duty for Not More than 270 Days .......................................... 359

Section 565—Revision to Requirement for Honor Guard Details at Funerals of Veterans ..................................................................................... 360

Section 566—Purpose and Funding Limitations for National Guard

Challenge Program .................................................................................... 361

Section 567—Access to Secondary School Students for Military Recruiting Purposes .............................................................................................. 361

Section 568—Survey of Members Leaving Military Service on Attitudes

Toward Military Service ........................................................................... 361

Section 569—Improvement in System for Assigning Personnel to

Warfighting Units ..................................................................................... 361

Section 570—Requirement for Department of Defense Regulations to

Protect the Confidentiality of Communications Between Dependents

and Professionals Providing Therapeutic or Related Services Regarding Sexual or Domestic Abuse .................................................................. 362

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 363

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 363

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 364

Tax Deferred Savings Plans ............................................................................ 364

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 364

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 364

Section 601—Fiscal Year 2000 Increase in Military Basic Pay and

Reform of Basic Pay Rates ....................................................................... 364

Section 602—Pay Increases for Fiscal Years after Fiscal Year 2000 ....... 364

Section 603—Additional Amount Available for Fiscal year 2000 Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States ......... 365

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 365

Section 611—Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities

for Reserve Forces ..................................................................................... 365
Page

XIV

Section 612—Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities

for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists ....................................................................................................... 365

Section 613—Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Other

Bonuses and Special Pays ........................................................................ 366

Section 614—Aviation Career Incentive Pay for Air Battle Managers .... 366

Section 615—Expansion of Authority to Provide Special Pay to Aviation

Career Officers Extending Period of Active Duty ................................... 366

Section 616—Diving Duty Special Pay ....................................................... 366

Section 617—Reenlistment Bonus ............................................................... 366

Section 618—Enlistment Bonus .................................................................. 366

Section 619—Revised Eligibility Requirements for Reserve Component

Prior Service Enlistment Bonus ............................................................... 366

Section 620—Increase in Special Pay and Bonuses for Nuclear-Qualified Officers ................................................................................................ 367

Section 621—Increase in Authorized Monthly Rate of Foreign Language

Proficiency Pay .......................................................................................... 367

Section 622—Authorization of Retention Bonus for Special Warfare

Officers Extending period of Active Duty ................................................ 367

Section 623—Authorization of Surface Warfare Officer Continuation

Pay .............................................................................................................. 367

Section 624—Authorization of Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay ....... 367

Section 625—Authorization of Judge Advocate Continuation Pay ........... 368

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 368

Section 631—Provision of Lodging in Kind for Reservists Performing

Training Duty and Not Otherwise Entitled to Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................................................................... 368

Section 632—Payment of Temporary Lodging Expenses for Members

Making their First Permanent Change of Station ................................. 368

Section 633—Emergency Leave Travel Cost Limitations .......................... 368

Subtitle D—Retired Pay Reform ..................................................................... 368

Section 641–644—Redux Retired Pay System Applicable Only to Members Electing New 15-Year Career Status Bonus ................................... 368

Subtitle E—Other Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits Matters ................... 369

Section 651—Effective Date of Disability Retirement for Members

Dying in Civilian Medical Facilities ........................................................ 369

Section 652—Extension of Annuity Eligibility for Surviving Spouses

of Certain Retirement Eligible Reserve Members .................................. 369

Section 653—Presentation of United States Flag to Retiring Members

of the Uniformed Services Not Previously Covered ................................ 370

Section 654—Accrual Funding for Retirement System for Commissioned Corps of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .... 370

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 370

Section 671—Payments for Unused Accrued Leave as Part of Reenlistment ............................................................................................................ 370

Section 672—Clarification of Per Diem Eligibility for Military Technicians Serving on Active Duty without Pay Outside the United States 370

Section 673—Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program ................... 370

Section 674—Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Uniformed

Services Retirees ....................................................................................... 371

Section 675—Tuition Assistance for Members Deployed in a Contingency Operations ....................................................................................... 371

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE MATTERS .............................................................. 372

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 372

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

Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines ..................................................... 372

Defense Health Program Unfunded Requirements .................................... 373

Report on Portability of TRICARE Prime Benefits .................................... 373

Report on Preventive Healthcare Services ................................................. 373

Study on the Effect of TRICARE Cost Sharing on the Financial Status

of Enlisted Service Members in Pay Grades E–1 Through E–4 ............ 374

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 374

Subtitle A—Health Care Services ................................................................... 374

Section 701—Provision of Health Care to Members on Active Duty

at Certain Remote Locations .................................................................... 374

Section 702—Provision of Chiropractic Health Care ................................. 375
Page

XV

Section 703—Continuation of Provision of Domiciliary and Custodial

Care for Certain CHAMPUS Beneficiaries ............................................. 375

Section 704—Removal of Restriction on Use of Funds for Abortions

in Cases of Rape or Incest ........................................................................ 376

Subtitle B—TRICARE Program ...................................................................... 376

Section 711—Improvements to Claims Processing Under the TRICARE

Program ...................................................................................................... 376

Section 712—Authority to Waive Certain TRICARE Deductibles ............ 376

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 376

Section 721—Pharmacy Benefits Program ................................................. 376

Section 722—Improvements to third-Party Payer Collection Program .... 377

Section 723—Authority of Armed Forces Medical Examiner to Conduct

Forensic Pathology Investigations ........................................................... 378

Section 724—Trauma Training Center ....................................................... 378

Section 725—Study on Joint Operations for the Defense Health Program ........................................................................................................... 378

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 379

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 379

Section 801—Sale, Exchange, and Waiver Authority for Coal and Coke . 379

Section 802—Extension of Authority to Issue Solicitations for Purchases of Commercial Items in Excess of Simplified Acquisition

Threshold ................................................................................................... 379

Section 803—Expansion of Applicability of Requirement to Make Certain Procurements From Small Arms Production Industrial Base ....... 379

Section 804—Repeal of Termination of Provision of Credit Towards

Subcontracting Goals for Purchases Benefiting Severely Handicapped

Persons ....................................................................................................... 379

Section 805—Extension of Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans ............................................. 379

Section 806—Facilitation of National Missile Defense System ................ 380

Section 807—Options for Accelerated Acquisition of Precision Munitions ............................................................................................................ 380

Section 808—Program to Increase Opportunity for Small Business Innovation in Defense Acquisition Programs ............................................. 380

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 381

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 381

Section 901—Limitation on Amount Available for Contracted Advisory

and Assistance Services ............................................................................ 381

Section 902—Responsibility for Logistics and Sustainment Functions

of the Department of Defense .................................................................. 381

Section 903—Management Headquarters and Headquarters Support

Activities .................................................................................................... 382

Section 904—Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and Support

Workforce ................................................................................................... 383

Section 905—Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs ................ 383

Section 906—Responsibility Within Office of the Secretary of Defense

for Monitoring OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO ........................................ 384

Section 907—Report on Military Space issues ........................................... 385

Section 908—Employment and Compensation of Civilian Faculty Members of Department of Defense African Center for Strategic Studies ... 385

Section 909—Additional Matters for Annual Report on Joint

Warfighting Experimentation .................................................................. 385

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 386

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 386

Counter-Drug Activities ....................................................................................... 386

Overview ............................................................................................................ 386

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 387

Air National Guard fighter operations ........................................................ 387

Colombian detection and monitoring .......................................................... 387

Joint interagency task force-West ............................................................... 388

Other joint military intelligence programs ................................................. 388

Requirement for Report on Forward Operating Locations ........................ 388

Southwest border fence ................................................................................ 389

Tethered aerostat radar system ................................................................... 389
Page

XVI

Transfer of military construction funding for forward operating locations ............................................................................................................ 389

Transit zone detection and monitoring ....................................................... 389

Other Matters ................................................................................................... 390

Counterterrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction ... 390

Department of Defense Responsiveness to Congressional Questions for

the Record .................................................................................................. 392

Illegal Immigration to Guam ....................................................................... 392

Pentagon Reservation Renovation Security Upgrades ............................... 392

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 393

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 393

Section 1001—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 393

Section 1002—Incorporation of Classified Annex ...................................... 393

Section 1003—Authorization of Prior Emergency Military Personnel

Appropriations ........................................................................................... 393

Section 1004—Repeal of Requirement for Two-Year Budget Cycle for

the Department of Defense ....................................................................... 394

Section 1005—Consolidation of Various Department of the Navy Trust

and Gift Funds .......................................................................................... 394

Section 1006—Budgeting for Operations in Yugoslavia ............................ 394

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 396

Section 1011—Revision to Congressional Notice-and-Wait Period Required Before Transfer of a Vessel Stricken from Naval Vessel Register ............................................................................................................. 396

Section 1012—Authority to Consent to Retransfer of Former Naval

Vessel ......................................................................................................... 396

Section 1013—Report on Naval Vessel Force Structure Requirements ... 396

Section 1014—Auxiliary Vessels Acquisition Program for the Department of Defense ......................................................................................... 396

Section 1015—Authority to Provide Advance Payments for the National

Defense Features Program ....................................................................... 396

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities ............................ 396

Section 1021—Support for Detection and Monitoring Activities in the

Eastern Pacific Ocean ............................................................................... 396

Section 1022—Condition on Development of Forward Operating Locations for United States Southern Command Counter-Drug Detection

and Monitoring Flights ............................................................................. 397

Section 1023—United States Military Activities in Colombia .................. 398

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 399

Section 1031—Identification in Budget Materials of Amounts for Declassification Activities and Limitation on Expenditures for Such Activities ......................................................................................................... 399

Section 1032—Notice to Congressional committees of Compromise of

Classified Information within Defense Programs of the United States 400

Section 1033—Revision to Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement

of Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems .................................................... 400

Section 1034—Annual Report by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff

on the Risks in Executing the Missions Called for Under the National

Military Strategy ....................................................................................... 401

Section 1035—Requirement to Address Unit Operations Tempo and

Personal Tempo in Department of Defense Annual Report ................... 402

Section 1036—Preservation of Certain Defense Reporting Requirements .......................................................................................................... 403

Section 1037—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 403

Section 1038—Contributions for Spirit of Hope Endowment Fund of

United Service Organizations, Incorporated ........................................... 403

Section 1039—Chemical Defense Training Facility ................................... 403

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ............... 404

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ......................................................................... 404

Section 1101—Increase of Pay Cap for Nonappropriated Fund Senior

Executive Employees ................................................................................. 404

Section 1102—Restoration of Leave for Certain Department of Defense

Employees who Deploy to a Combat Zone Outside the United States . 404

Section 1103—Expansion of Guard-and-Reserve Purposes for which

Leave under Section 6323 of Title 5, United States Code, May be

Used ............................................................................................................ 404

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS .............................. 405
Page

XVII

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 405

Arms Control Implementation ......................................................................... 405

Ballistic Missile Defense Discussions with Russia ........................................ 406

Department of Defense Review of Satellite Licenses .................................... 406

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 407

Section 1201—Report on Strategic Stability Under START III ................ 407

Section 1202—One Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities

for Support of United Nations Weapons Inspection Regime in Iraq ..... 408

Section 1203—Military-to-Military contacts with Chinese People’s Liberation Army .............................................................................................. 408

Section 1204—Report on Allied Capabilities to Contribute to Major

Theater Wars ............................................................................................. 410

Section 1205—Limitation on Funds for Bosnia Peacekeeping Operations for Fiscal Year 2000 ....................................................................... 410

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF

FORMER SOVIET UNION ............................................................................. 411

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 411

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 412

Arms Elimination Projects in Russia .......................................................... 412

Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine ........................................................ 414

Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia ............................ 414

Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia .................................................. 415

Fissile Material Storage Facility ................................................................. 417

Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion ................................................................ 418

Nuclear Warhead Dismantlement Processing in Russia ........................... 419

Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia ............................................ 419

Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security ................................................. 419

Other Support Programs .............................................................................. 419

Prohibition of Specified Activities ................................................................ 420

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 420

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

and Funds .................................................................................................. 420

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 420

Section 1303—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified Purposes ......... 420

Section 1304—Limitation on Use of Funds for Fissile Material Storage

Facility ....................................................................................................... 420

Section 1305—Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons Destruction ..................................................................................................... 421

Section 1306—Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention Activities ................................................................ 421

Section 1307—Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of Report

and Multiyear Plan ................................................................................... 421

Section 1308—Requirement to Submit Report ........................................... 421

Section 1309—Report on Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative ............. 421

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 423

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 423

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW ...................................................... 423

STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET REQUEST ................................................... 424

TITLE XXI—ARMY ................................................................................................. 444

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 444

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 444

Improvements to Military Family Housing ................................................ 444

Environmental Remediation at Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant,

Chattanooga, Tennessee ........................................................................... 444

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 444

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ....................................................................................................... 444

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 445

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 445

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 445

TITLE XXII—NAVY ................................................................................................ 446

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 446

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 446

Headquarters, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific .............................................. 446

Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities, Blount

Island Jacksonville, Florida ...................................................................... 446
Page

XVIII

Improvements to Military Family Housing ................................................ 447

Unspecified Minor Construction .................................................................. 447

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 447

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ....................................................................................................... 447

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 447

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 447

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 447

Section 2205—Authorization to Accept Electrical Substation Improvements, Guam ............................................................................................. 447

Section 2206—Correction in Authorized Use of Funds, Marine Corps

Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia ............................. 448

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE .................................................................................... 449

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 449

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 449

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ....................................................................................................... 449

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 449

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 449

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 449

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES .................................................................. 450

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 450

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 450

Military Construction in Support of Base Closure and Realignment

Activities .................................................................................................... 450

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 450

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ....................................................................................... 450

Section 2402—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 450

Section 2403—Military Housing Improvement Program ........................... 451

Section 2404—Energy Conservation Projects ............................................. 451

Section 2405—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies .......... 451

Section 2406—Increase in Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization for Military

Construction Projects Pueblo Chemical Activity, Colorado ................... 451

Section 2407—Condition on Obligation of Military Construction Funds

for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities ................................ 451

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION ......................... 452

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 452

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 452

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ....................................................................................................... 452

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ............................ 452

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 453

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 453

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 453

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 453

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS ..... 454

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 454

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to

be Specified by Law ................................................................................... 454

Section 2702—Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1997

Projects ....................................................................................................... 454

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1996

Projects ....................................................................................................... 454

Section 2704—Effective Date ....................................................................... 454

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................... 455

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 455

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing

Changes ...................................................................................................... 455

Section 2801—Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Security Investment .................................................................................. 455

Section 2802—Development of Ford Island, Hawaii .................................. 455

Section 2803—Restriction on Authority to Acquire or Construct Ancillary Supporting Facilities for Housing Units .......................................... 456
Page

XIX

Section 2804—Planning and Design for Military Construction Projects

for Reserve Components ........................................................................... 456

Section 2805—Limitation on Authority to Carry Out Small Projects

for Acquisition of Facilities for Reserve Components ............................. 456

Section 2806—Expansion of Entities Eligible to participate in Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing ............................................................................................................... 456

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 457

Section 2811—Extension of Authority for Lease of Land for Special

Operations Activities ................................................................................. 457

Section 2812—Utility Privatization Authority ........................................... 457

Section 2813—Acceptance of Funds to Cover Administrative Expenses

Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions .................................... 457

Section 2814—Study and Report on Impacts to Military Readiness of

Proposed Land Management Changes on Public Lands in Utah .......... 457

Subtitle C—Defense Base Closure and Realignment .................................... 458

Section 2821—Continuation of Authority to Use Department of Defense

Base Closure Account 1990 for Activities Required to Close or Realign Military Installations ...................................................................... 458

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 458

Part I—Army Conveyances .......................................................................... 458

Section 2831—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Fort Sam Houston, Texas .......... 458

Section 2832—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Kankakee, Illinois ............................................................................................................. 458

Section 2833—Land Conveyance, Fort Des Moines, Iowa ......................... 458

Section 2834—Land Conveyance, Army Maintenance Support Activity

(Marine) Number 84, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania ................................ 458

Section 2835—Land Conveyance, Army Docks and Related Property,

Alaska ......................................................................................................... 459

Section 2836—Land Conveyance, Fort Huachuca, Arizona ...................... 459

Section 2837—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Cannon Falls,

Minnesota ................................................................................................... 459

Section 2838—Land Conveyance, Nike Battery 80 Family Housing Site,

East Hanover Township, New Jersey ...................................................... 459

Section 2839—Land Exchange, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois ................... 460

Section 2840—Modification of Land Conveyance, Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, Illinois ..................................................................................... 460

Section 2841—Land Conveyance, Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,

Minnesota ................................................................................................... 460

Part II—Navy Conveyances ......................................................................... 460

Section 2851—Land Conveyance, Naval Weapons industrial Reserve

Plant No. 387, Dallas, Texas .................................................................... 460

Section 2852—Land Conveyance, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve

Center, Orange County, Texas ................................................................. 461

Section 2853—Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry

Point, North Carolina ............................................................................... 461

Part III—Air Force Conveyances ................................................................. 461

Section 2861—Conveyance of Fuel Supply Line, Pease Air Force Base,

New Hampshire ......................................................................................... 461

Section 2862—Land Conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida .......... 461

Section 2863—Land Conveyance, Port of Anchorage, Alaska ................... 462

Section 2864—Land Conveyance, Forestport Test Annex, New York ...... 462

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 462

Section 2871—Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery ....................... 462

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ..................................... 463

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 463

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 463

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 476

Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative ................................................ 476

Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative Construction Projects .......... 476

Arms Control and Nonproliferation ............................................................. 477

Commercializing Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention .......................... 477

Commission to Review Nuclear Policy and Management .......................... 478

Comptroller General Audit of Department of Energy Contract Management Practices ........................................................................................... 478
Page

XX

Construction Projects .................................................................................... 479

Education ....................................................................................................... 479

Eligibility to Bid on Excess Department of Energy Equipment at the

Savannah River Site ................................................................................. 480

Environmental Management Science Program .......................................... 480

Environmental Management Environmental, Safety, and Health ........... 480

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) ................. 480

Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Compliance ......................................... 481

Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant Deactivation ..................................... 481

Hanford Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning ........................ 481

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)

Post 2006 Completion ............................................................................... 481

Inertial Confinement Fusion ........................................................................ 481

In-Tank Precipitation Process ...................................................................... 482

International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting ................... 482

International Nuclear Safety ....................................................................... 482

Naval Reactors .............................................................................................. 483

Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex ........................................................ 483

Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reserve .......................................................... 483

Oak Ridge Operations Compliance Obligations ......................................... 484

Office of Counterintelligence ........................................................................ 484

Pit Production ............................................................................................... 484

Program Direction for Defense Programs ................................................... 485

Program Direction for Environmental Management ................................. 485

Records Declassification ............................................................................... 485

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project ................... 485

Savannah River Site Infrastructure Investment ........................................ 485

Security Investigations ................................................................................. 486

Stockpile Management ................................................................................. 486

Stockpile Management Fissile Material Storage and Disposition ............ 487

Technology Partnerships .............................................................................. 487

Worker and Community Transition ............................................................ 488

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 488

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorization ............................... 488

Section 3101—Weapons Activities ............................................................... 488

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management ............................................................................................................ 488

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 488

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................................ 488

Section 3105—Defense Environmental Management Privatization ......... 489

Subtitle B—Recurring General Provisions ..................................................... 489

Section 3121—Reprogramming .................................................................... 489

Section 3122—Limits on General Plant Projects ....................................... 489

Section 3123—Limits on Construction Projects ......................................... 489

Section 3124—Fund Transfer Authority ..................................................... 489

Section 3125—Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design .......... 489

Section 3126—Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction Activities .................................................................................... 490

Section 3127—Funds Available for all National Security Programs of

the Department of Energy ........................................................................ 490

Section 3128—Availability of Funds ........................................................... 490

Section 3129—Transfers of Defense Environmental Management

Funds .......................................................................................................... 490

Subtitle C—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 490

Section 3131—Limitation on Use at Department of Energy Laboratories

of Funds Appropriated for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention

Program ...................................................................................................... 490

Section 3132—Prohibition on Use for Payment of Russian Government

Taxes and Customs Duties of Funds Appropriated for the Initiatives

for Proliferation Prevention Program ...................................................... 491

Section 3133—Modification of Laboratory Directed Research and Development to Provide Funds for Theater Ballistic Missile Defense ........... 491

Section 3134—Support of Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Activities

of the Department of Defense .................................................................. 492

Subtitle D—Commission on Nuclear Weapons Management ....................... 492

Section 3151–3159—Commission to Examine Nuclear Weapons Policy

Management and Oversight ..................................................................... 492
Page

XXI

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 493

Section 3161—Procedures for Meeting Tritium Production Requirements .......................................................................................................... 493

Section 3162—Extension of Authority of Department of Energy to Pay

Voluntary Separation Payments .............................................................. 493

Section 3163—Fellowship Program for Development of Skills Critical

to the Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex ..................... 494

Section 3164—Department of Energy Records Declassification ............... 494

Section 3165—Management of Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities

and National Laboratories ........................................................................ 494

Section 3166—Notice to Congressional Committees of Compromise of

Classified Information within Nuclear Energy Defense Programs ....... 495

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 496

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ............................................................................... 496

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 496

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE ........................................ 497

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ............................................................................... 497

Section 3301—Definitions ............................................................................ 497

Section 3302—Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds .................................. 497

Section 3303—Elimination of Congressionally Imposed Disposal Restrictions on Specific Stockpile Materials ................................................ 497

TITLE XXXIV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................ 498

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 498

Great Lakes Maritime Academy .................................................................. 498

Merchant Marine Academy .......................................................................... 498

Repair and Maintenance of Maritime Administration Vessels ................. 498

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 499

Section 3401—Short Title ............................................................................ 499

Section 3402—Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000 ...... 499

Section 3403—Amendments to Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act

of 1936 ........................................................................................................ 499

Section 3404—Extension of War Risk Insurance ....................................... 499

Section 3405—Ownership of the JEREMIAH O’BRIEN ........................... 500

TITLE XXXV—PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION ............................................... 501

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 501

Section 3501—Short Title ............................................................................ 501

Section 3502—Authorization of Expenditures ............................................ 501

Section 3503—Purchase of Vehicles ............................................................ 501

Section 3504—Office of Transition Administration ................................... 501

Departmental Data .................................................................................................. 502

Department of Defense Authorization Request ................................................. 502

Military Construction Authorization Request ................................................... 502

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 503

Communications From Other Committees ............................................................ 503

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 511

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................................................... 511

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ...................................................... 512

Authorization of Appropriations ...................................................................... 512

Committee Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 527

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 527

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 527

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 527

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 528

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 534

Additional, Dissenting, and Supplemental Views ................................................. 685

Additional views of Roscoe G. Bartlett, Gene Taylor, Joseph R. Pitts ............ 685

Additional views of Patrick J. Kennedy ............................................................. 687

Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Robert A. Brady, Lane Evans, Thomas

H. Allen, Ellen O. Tauscher, Patrick J. Kennedy, Neil Abercrombie, Rob

R. Blagojevich, Mike Thompson ...................................................................... 688

Additional views of Ike Skelton .......................................................................... 689
Page

XXII

Additional views of Ike Skelton, Norman Sisisky, John M. Spratt, Jr.,

Solomon P. Ortiz, Owen Pickett, Lane Evans, Gene Taylor, Neil Abercrombie, Martin T. Meehan, Robert A. Underwood, Patrick J. Kennedy,

Rod R. Blagojevich, Silvestre Reyes, Thomas H. Allen, Jim Turner, Adam

Smith, Loretta Sanchez, James H. Maloney, Ellen O. Tauscher, Robert

A. Brady, Robert E. Andrews, Baron P. Hill, Mike Thompson, John B.

Larson ................................................................................................................ 690

Additional views of James M. Talent—Army Logistics Modernization ........... 692

Additional views of James M. Talent—Navy’s F/A 18E/F Super Hornet ........ 695

Additional views of Gene Taylor ......................................................................... 696

Additional views of Robert A. Underwood ......................................................... 698

Additional views of Robert A. Underwood, Lane Evans, Norman Sisisky,

Thomas H. Allen, Solomon P. Ortiz, and Neil Abercrombie ......................... 700

Supplemental views of Ciro D. Rodriguez .......................................................... 702

Dissenting views of Cynthia A. McKinney ......................................................... 704
106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–162

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2000

MAY 24, 1999.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SPENCE, from the Committee on Armed Services,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 1401]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 1401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 and

2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal years 2000 and 2001,

and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as

amended do pass.

The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause of the

bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported bill.

The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the

text of the bill.

EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1401. The title of the bill

is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The

remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended.
2

PURPOSE

The bill would—(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000

for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation

(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3)

Authorize for fiscal year 2000: (a) the personnel strength for each

active duty component of the military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed forces; (c) the military training student loads for

each of the active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military

personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military construction and family

housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the

Department of Energy national security programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; (8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the operation of the Panama

Canal Commission; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year

2000 for the Maritime Administration.

RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS

The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts provide

budget authority. The bill addresses the following categories in the

Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance; working

capital funds, military personnel; and military construction and

family housing. The bill also addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs, the Panama Canal Commission and the

Maritime Administration.

Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in this

bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel

determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization

of specific dollar amounts for personnel.

SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL

The President requested budget authority of $280.5 billion for

the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2000. Of this

amount, the President requested $266.9 billion for the Department

of Defense (including $5.4 billion for military construction and family housing) and $12.4 billion for Department of Energy national

security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The committee recommends an overall level of $288.8 billion in

budget authority. This amount is consistent with the discretionary

defense spending limitations imposed by the Balanced Budget Act

of 1997 and it represents an increase of approximately $18.3 billion

from the amount authorized for appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261).

Overall, the committee’s recommendation is consistent with the

amounts established in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget

for Fiscal Year 2000 for the national defense budget function.
3

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

The following table provides a summary of the amounts requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the bill

(in the column labeled ‘‘Budget Authority Implication of Committee

Recommendation’’) and the committee’s estimate of how the committee’s recommendations relate to the budget totals for the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the budget authority implications of committee action, the table reflects the numbers contained in the President’s budget for proposals not in the

committee’s legislative jurisdiction.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000

once again reflects the committee’s efforts to address decade-long

concerns about the declining state of the U.S. armed forces. The

combination of reduced defense resources and increased military

commitments around the world has resulted in a diminished quality of military life, a severe degradation in the readiness of units

to train for and execute their primary combat missions, and an erosion of the technological advantages enjoyed by U.S. forces on the

battlefield as a result of delayed equipment modernization.

Over the past several months, the challenges confronting U.S.

armed forces have been put into stark relief by the war in the

former Yugoslav republic of Kosovo. The unanticipated strength of

Serb resistance has resulted in a significant expansion of the U.S.

and NATO air war, to the point where the number of aircraft involved in Operation Allied Force is nearing levels anticipated in a

major theater war. As a result, the ability of U.S. armed forces to

meet their worldwide commitments is increasingly in question.

From substantial gaps in the regional deployment of aircraft carriers, to shortages of cruise missiles and other precision munitions,

to strains on the fleets of specialized electronic warfare and tanker

aircraft, and even to stresses on the conventional fighter and attack aircraft force, the air campaign over Yugoslavia has revealed

the extent to which today’s U.S. military is overextended.

Should current operations against Yugoslavia evolve into ground

combat or even peacekeeping operations involving U.S. troops, the

strains that such a ground operation would place on U.S. forces

worldwide would escalate rapidly. According to the Administration,

just a peacekeeping force in Kosovo would require 50,000 to 60,000

NATO troops, with perhaps 20,000 U.S. soldiers participating in

what would likely become a long-term, open-ended commitment.

There should be no doubt that any future requirement for the U.S.

Army to sustain a force of such size in the Balkans, on a rotational

basis, will increase the exposure of U.S. interests in other regions

of the world to challenge.

For years, the committee has highlighted the difficulties U.S.

armed forces would face in executing the National Military Strategy’s requirement to be capable of fighting nearly simultaneous

wars in the Persian Gulf and in Korea. The unforeseen challenges

and shortfalls revealed by the need to wage a third ‘‘major theater

war’’ in Europe—even absent the deployment of U.S. ground

forces—unfortunately affirms the committee’s long-standing concerns. Testifying earlier this month about ongoing operations in the

Balkans, Secretary of Defense William Cohen admitted that ‘‘we

have a situation where we have a smaller force and we have more

missions, and so . . . we are wearing out systems, wearing out people.’’ These problems are not new, and they are getting worse. The

committee hopes that the obvious strains being placed on the military services as a result of Operation Allied Force will at least compel some broader recognition of the shortfalls confronting the nation’s armed forces and lead to a sustained and bipartisan commitment to revitalizing America’s military.
11

The Administration’s Defense Budget Request

In the context of mounting quality of life, readiness, and modernization shortfalls, the committee once again believes the Administration’s defense budget request falls short. Earlier this year, the

President declared in his State of the Union address that ‘‘it is time

to reverse the decline in defense spending that began in 1985....My

balanced budget calls for a sustained increase over the next six

years for readiness, for modernization, and for pay and benefits for

our troops and their families.’’ The President’s words, following as

they did on the heels of last fall’s testimony by the Joint Chiefs of

Staff (JCS) that the military services had critical unfunded requirements of at least $150 billion over the next six years, provided a

degree of hope that the Administration had ‘‘turned the corner’’ and

recognized the need to substantially increase defense spending. The

unfortunate reality became apparent, however, when the President

unveiled his fiscal year 2000 budget request and six-year defense

plan—a plan that relied heavily on budgetary gimmicks and optimistic economic assumptions and which provided increased funding

sufficient to address only about one half of the Joint Chiefs’ identified shortfalls in critical military requirements. Moreover, the Administration conditioned even its ‘‘50 percent solution’’ on the

achievement of domestic political objectives involving Social Security reform.

Earlier this year, the Joint Chiefs updated their estimates of unfunded quality of life, readiness, and modernization requirements.

Even assuming the validity of the budget gimmicks and optimistic

assumptions contained in the Administration’s budget request, the

Joint Chiefs testified that the six-year defense plan still fell $46.7

billion short of their minimal requirements. If the Administration’s

budget gimmicks and optimistic economic assumptions are judged

invalid, the six-year defense plan falls at least $70 billion short of

addressing the services’ shortfalls.

Even as the Administration was crafting its fiscal year 2000

budget request, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were concluding that the

ability of U.S. armed forces to execute the full range of missions

required by the National Military Strategy entailed ‘‘moderate to

high’’ risk. Marine Commandant General Charles Krulak summarized the JCS’ assessment in testimony before the committee, stating, ‘‘In terms of risk to the [ability to execute] the National Military Strategy, I think we’ve gone too far; I think we’re there now.

If we don’t do something about this, we’re going to be back into the

hollow armed forces and this nation can’t have that, can’t take

that, because the world is changing so rapidly, is so dangerous,

that we need to stop this now.’’

During months of oversight hearings, the motto of the post-ColdWar military—‘‘doing more with less’’—was once again the predominant theme heard from all ranks and services. As Army Chief

of Staff General Dennis Reimer informed the committee in January, ‘‘Army leaders at all levels have been fighting to meet expanding requirements with diminishing resources. Our commanders are

struggling to balance operational readiness—supporting training

and maintaining equipment—with base operations expenses and

maintaining soldiers’ quality of life.’’ Likewise, Chief of Naval Op-
12

erations Admiral Jay Johnson expressed ‘‘serious concerns’’ about

personnel, training, and equipment maintenance problems that

were creating an ‘‘erosion of readiness at home and even the beginning stages of degradation in our deployed forces.’’ A decade ago,

Navy non-deployed units reported high states of readiness nearly

70 percent of the time, while today the figure has slipped to approximately 50 percent.

The Air Force is confronting similar problems. Air Combat Command has suffered a 56 percent drop in readiness rates since 1996.

The aging of the Air Force fleet and the resulting increased costs

and expanded maintenance workload caused by aircraft fatigue,

corrosion, and parts obsolescence underlies the Air Force’s worsening readiness problems. Under projected budgets and modernization plans, the average Air Force aircraft will be 20 years old by

the turn of the century and 30 years old by 2015. Air Force ‘‘nonmission capable’’ rates have increased 53 percent since the Persian

Gulf War while the rate of ‘‘cannibalization’’—the practice of stripping parts from one aircraft or system to replace broken parts on

another—has increased 75 percent.

The services’ long-term quality of life, readiness, and modernization problems seem to be worsening at an exponential rate as the

force shrinks, the equipment ages, and the pace of operations

mounts. The mismatch between military ends and means is so

large that the services’ ability to conduct even smaller-scale contingencies is at risk. In the committee’s view, the expanding and potentially open-ended mission in the Balkans not only highlights

these risks, but exacerbates them at the same time.

The Committee Bill: Managing Risk

The committee’s recommendations in the bill have been shaped

by the above concerns and guided in large part by the priorities

identified by the military service chiefs. The committee’s first step

is to put the defense budget on somewhat sounder fiscal footing.

Thus, the committee bill increases the President’s budget request

by $8.3 billion. Within this topline increase, the committee has

taken a number of steps to improve the quality of military life, to

improve the readiness of the force, and to accelerate the pace of

equipment modernization.

Major quality of life initiatives include a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise, substantial pay table reform, and reform of the military retirement system. The committee also rejected the Administration’s inexplicable $3.1 billion cut to the already underfunded

military construction accounts, instead fully funding military construction at a level of $8.6 billion to provide important improvements to the quality of military life. The committee also increased

spending on critical readiness accounts by more than $2 billion, including significant increases for real property maintenance and

base operations support, depot maintenance, aircraft spare parts,

combat training center operations, as well as more than $700 million for other unfunded readiness priorities identified by the military service chiefs. The committee has also increased funding for

equipment modernization, adding approximately $4 billion to the

President’s underfunded budget request for research, development,

and procurement programs. Important modernization initiatives in-
13

clude the addition of more than $400 million to the Administration’s request for missile defense programs, and substantial increases to upgrade the B–2 bomber fleet, and for EA–6B, F–15, F–

16, Joint Strike Fighter, V–22, AH–64 Apache Longbow and Comanche helicopter programs.

Despite the substantial improvements this bill has made to the

President’s budget request, the committee is under no illusions concerning the rising level of risk U.S. armed forces are facing. The

committee does not believe that ‘‘high risk’’ in executing the core

missions of our National Military Strategy is acceptable. The nation is facing a dilemma that Secretary Cohen recently articulated

in testimony to the Congress. The Secretary noted the multiple

strains caused by conducting Operation Allied Force simultaneously with having to meet other important requirements, and

commented that ‘‘we’ve got to find a way to either increase the size

of our forces or decrease the number of our missions.’’

The committee believes that unless the nation fields the forces

and provides the resources required by the National Military Strategy, the inevitable alternative is for the United States to retreat

from its global responsibilities and interests. As it does with regard

to the growing risk confronting our military forces, the committee

also believes it is unacceptable for the United States to retreat

from the aggressive promotion and protection of our interests

around the world.

HEARINGS

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 results from extensive hearings that began

on February 2, 1999 and that were completed on March 25, 1999.

The full committee conducted 6 sessions. In addition, a total of 26

sessions were conducted by five different subcommittees and two

panels of the committee on various titles of the bill.

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

OVERVIEW

The President’s $53.0 billion procurement budget request for fiscal year 2000 represents a decrease of $1.1 billion below the

amount forecast in fiscal year 1999, $9.3 billion below the amount

first forecast in fiscal year 1996, and continues the Department of

Defense’s delay in achieving the Joint Chiefs of Staff goal of a

$60.0 billion procurement budget by three years (from fiscal year

1998 to fiscal year 2001). Even before the initiation of Operation

Allied Force the service chiefs of staff were lamenting a budget

that leaves them far short of attaining their modernization requirements, despite Congress’ having added over $15.0 billion to the procurement accounts in the past four years. The ongoing campaign in

the Balkans has only exacerbated this situation.
14

For example, the Army Chief of Staff testified to the committee

that ‘‘modernization is still underfunded. What I don’t think will be

fixed out of this [referring to the funding he expects to receive in

fiscal year 2000] will be the modernization. We’ll have to defer

that . . . further.’’ Commenting on his inability to recapitalize the

fleets of naval ships and aircraft, the Chief of Naval Operations

noted, ‘‘We continue to compensate [for readiness and personnel

needs] by shifting resources from modernization and recapitalization accounts to operations and support accounts.’’ Even more critical of the current predicament, he was the Commandant of the

Marine Corps, who testified that, ‘‘As I’ve said for years [our problem] is long-term procurement. I have got very great concerns

about the cancer of modernization that I must address.’’ And the

Air Force Chief of Staff declared that ‘‘if we don’t modernize by replacing aircraft that are beyond their useful life and revitalize

those with life left in them, we can expect significant additional

maintenance requirements, reduced reliability, and increased costs

as these aircraft deteriorate.’’

In order to bring the modernization problem into focus, the committee held a hearing on the Department’s fleet of aging equipment. The Department clearly acknowledged that reduced modernization budgets, combined with increased deployments, have

taken their toll. Its inventory of weapons is not only aging chronologically but also technologically, as older and overworked weapons

systems continue to drain resources because of more frequent and

more expensive maintenance. Equipment expected to leave the inventory years ago is still operational and, in some cases, approaching nearly double expected service lives. Yet, despite this situation,

the procurement budget continues to receive low priority.

Although much has been touted by the Department concerning a

major increase in its budget in the next six fiscal years, the procurement accounts are not the beneficiaries of any largesse. As

noted above, the fiscal year 2000 procurement request actually declines from the amount forecast only one year ago. The cumulative

addition to these accounts over the next four years is projected to

be only $4.1 billion-hardly a significant part of a proposed six-year

$84.0 billion overall increase.

Unfortunately, unless a sustained increase in procurement funding is forthcoming, the aging equipment situation will only get

worse, as the impact of Operation Allied Force is felt. With the

United States shouldering the largest share of the burden in the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s air campaign against Yugoslavia, inventories of key precision weapons are being depleted at

much faster rates than ever anticipated; units deployed for combat

are stripping vital supplies from U.S.-based units, contributing to

a dramatic drop in their readiness ratings; and cannibalization

rates are climbing rapidly within deployed units because of spare

parts shortages. Even with the substantial amount of additional

funding provided by the Congress in fiscal year 1999 supplemental

appropriations, the process of ‘‘getting well’’ from this ongoing operation will be slow and likely require substantial additional funding

in the future.

Against this backdrop, the committee successfully argued for an

increase to the funds allocated for national defense in the fiscal
15

year 2000 budget resolution and has applied much of this additional money to procurement. This marks the fifth consecutive year

the committee has added funds to modernize the Department’s

weaponry, including:

[In millions of dollars]

Army:

UH–60L helicopters ........................................................................................ 27.0

CH–47F upgrades ........................................................................................... 56.0

AH–64D upgrades ........................................................................................... 45.0

MLRS rocket launchers .................................................................................. 56.0

Bradley fighting vehicles upgrades ............................................................... 72.0

M113A3 carrier mods ..................................................................................... 25.0

Small arms ...................................................................................................... 48.0

Ammunition .................................................................................................... 55.0

Night vision devices ........................................................................................ 33.0

Shortstop ......................................................................................................... 40.0

Communications equipment .......................................................................... 92.0

Combat support equipment ............................................................................ 63.0

Construction equipment ................................................................................. 33.0

Navy/Marine Corps:

KC–130J .......................................................................................................... 252.0

MV–22 .............................................................................................................. 60.0

CH–60S ............................................................................................................ 38.0

UC–35 .............................................................................................................. 18.0

E/A–6B upgrades. ........................................................................................... 45.0

F/A–18 series modifications ........................................................................... 63.0

P–3 series modifications ................................................................................. 75.0

Tomahawk missiles ........................................................................................ 300.0

Joint stand-off weapon ................................................................................... 75.0

Hellfire missiles .............................................................................................. 52.0

Joint direct attack munition. ......................................................................... 48.0

Maritime prepositioning ship-advance procurement ................................... 80.0

Base telecommunications upgrades ............................................................... 50.0

Improve & recovery vehicle ............................................................................ 49.0

AH–1/UH–1 upgrades .................................................................................... 27.0

Ammunition .................................................................................................... 75.0

Air Force:

E–8C-advance procurement ........................................................................... 46.0

B–2 upgrades .................................................................................................. 187.0

F–15 upgrades ................................................................................................. 50.0

F–16 upgrades ................................................................................................. 47.0

C–135 upgrades .............................................................................................. 68.0

Defense airborne reconnaissance program ................................................... 40.0

Joint stand-off weapon ................................................................................... 35.0

Minuteman III upgrades ................................................................................ 40.0

AGM–65D Maverick upgrades ....................................................................... 10.0

Joint direct attack munition .......................................................................... 66.0

Ammunition .................................................................................................... 75.0

Theater deployable communications ............................................................. 35.0

Defense-Wide:

National guard/reserve miscellaneous equipment ....................................... 60.0
16
17

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,229.9 million for Aircraft Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,415.2 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
18
19
20
21

Items of Special Interest

AH–64 modifications

The budget request contained $22.6 million for AH–64 modifications, but included no funds for an oil debris detection system

(ODDS) or the continuation of the vibration management enhancement program (VMEP).

The ODDS is an on-board detection system that alerts aircrews

to the presence of metal chips in engines and propeller gear boxes,

allowing flights to be terminated prior to catastrophic failure of

critical components. It also permits the clearing of smaller particles

that routinely accumulate in engine oil and cause false impending

engine failure alarms, resulting in unnecessary termination of aircraft missions and costly engine diagnostics.

The VMEP is an Army National Guard (ARNG) effort currently

directed toward resolving vibration management problems on the

ARNG’s AH–64 Apache fleet, but the committee understands the

technology is also applicable to the UH–60 Blackhawk, the CH–47

Chinook, and the OH–58D Kiowa Warrior. The committee continues to support the VMEP because of its belief that such onboard diagnostic capabilities contribute significantly to both aircrew safety and improved aircraft reliability.

Since the ODDS, which has been successfully integrated into

many other Department of Defense aircraft, both reduces aircraft

maintenance costs and enhances aircrew safety, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to incorporate the ODDS on

AH–64 Apaches. The committee also recommends an increase of

$7.0 million to continue VMEP procurement for the ARNG Apache

fleet and to transition this technology to other aircraft.

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)

The budget request contained $88,000 for ASE, but included no

funds for the procurement of upgrades to the Aircraft Survivability

Equipment Trainer (ASET) IV.

ASET IV is a ground-based, mobile aviation threat emitter simulation and training system which enables both fixed and rotary

wing aviators to recognize surface-to-air-missile (SAM) and antiaircraft artillery threats in order to employ the correct aircraft evasive maneuvers. ASET IV systems are currently fielded at major

training centers throughout the United States and Germany and

require that an aircraft have a fully operational ASE suite of sensors on board for training.

The Congress added $7.4 million in fiscal year 1998 and $6.4 million in fiscal year 1999 for ASET IV upgrades. However, additional

validated requirements exist and several systems in their present

configuration still lack the capability to simulate the most current

infrared (IR) and radio frequency (RF) SAM threats, thereby limiting aircrew training against older threats-a situation which is not

representative of the Army’s ‘‘train as you fight’’ concept.

Consistent with past committee actions and based on the Army’s

requirement for forces to train in realistic threat environments, the

committee recommends $18.2 million, an increase of $18.1 million

for upgrading ASET IV systems with current IR and RF SAM

threat simulators.
22

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications

The budget request contained $11.8 million for the procurement

of ASE modifications, but included no funds for AN/AVR–2A laser

detecting sets (LDS).

The LDS is the only device in the Army inventory that provides

warning to helicopter crews when they have been illuminated by a

laser-targeted weapon. It detects, identifies, and characterizes

threats 360–degrees-around and plus-or-minus 45 degrees aboveand-below an aircraft. The committee is concerned with the growing laser threat to helicopter aircrews and notes the limited situational awareness that is currently provided by existing AN/AVR–

2A technology. The committee understands that a quantum improvement to aircrew situational awareness is achievable by incorporating the precise laser azimuth and discrimination capabilities

of the AN/VVR–1 ground LDS into the AN/AVR–2A aviation LDS.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to

expeditiously establish an engineering change proposal (ECP) to integrate the precision laser azimuth and discrimination capabilities

of the AN/VVR–1 into the AN/AVR–2A and recommends an increase of $11.5 million, which includes a $5.5 million increase for

the ECP, and, $6.0 million to procure additional AN/AVR–2A LDS

until the ECP is in production.

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications

The budget request contained $70.7 million for procurement of

CH–47 Chinook helicopter modifications.

The CH–47D, the Army’s only heavy lift helicopter, is capable of

lifting multiple types of cargo weighing up to 26,000 pounds or carrying 33 personnel. The committee understands that the average

age of the CH–47 fleet is 31 years old, yet notes that the Army has

delayed the start of a comprehensive CH–47 upgrade from fiscal

year 1999 to fiscal year 2001. However, the committee also notes

that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $56.1 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2000 to accelerate fielding of improved CH–47Ds in Korea by 30 months.

Therefore, based on the critical need to upgrade these heli- copters, the committee recommends $126.8 million, an increase of

$56.1 million for CH–47D modifications.

Longbow

The budget request contained $729.5 million to modify 74 AH–

64A Apache helicopters to the AH–64D Apache Longbow configuration and $35.7 million in advance procurement to modify 60 aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The budget request did not include funds

to upgrade Longbow sensor and avionics integrated circuits.

The AH–64D Apache Longbow, a day/night, all weather, heavy

attack helicopter, is capable of engaging and destroying advanced,

multiple threat armor targets on the future digital battlefield with

minimum exposure time. The committee continues to support this

upgrade. However, it notes that many of the aircraft sensors and

avionics on the Longbow were not designed with an ‘‘open information architecture,’’ and, as a result of the rapid rate of information

technology advances driven by the commercial information technology market, military specification integrated circuits (IC) in
23

these avionics and sensors are no longer produced, resulting in

processor obsolescence.

Consequently, replacement of ICs for these components will require redesign. The committee understands the cost of this redesign is estimated to be $45.0 million. Therefore, the committee recommends $45.0 million to replace obsolete Apache Longbow ICs.

The committee is concerned that the current plan for fiscal year

2001–the first year of a second five-year multiyear procurement

(MYP) contract for this aircraft—only includes 60 airframe upgrades—a 12 aircraft reduction from previously approved plans.

The committee understands that an additional $4.9 million in advance procurement is needed to restore the program to previously

approved levels. Therefore, the committee recommends $774.5 million, an increase of $45.0 million for obsolete IC replacement, and $40.6 million, an increase of $4.9 million for advance procurement for 12 additional aircraft modifications in fiscal year 2001. The committee

also recommends approval of a second five-year MYP contract.

UH–60 Blackhawk

The budget request contained $86.1 million for procurement of

eight UH–60L Blackhawk helicopters for the Army National Guard

(ARNG), of which $283,000 was included for engines and accessories.

The UH–60 Blackhawk is the Army’s primary utility helicopter

in both the active and reserve components. The committee understands that a validated requirement for 83 additional ARNG

Blackhawks remains unfilled and, therefore, consistent with past

committee actions, recommends an increase of $27.0 million to accelerate fielding of 3 additional Blackhawks.

The committee is aware that the Army procured 28 additional

Blackhawk engines in fiscal year 1998 and intends to use some of

these engines for the helicopters to be procured in fiscal year 2000.

Additionally, the Army provided no justification for accessory

equipment. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of

$283,000. In total, the committee recommends $112.8 million for

UH–60L Blackhawks.

UH–60 modifications

The budget request contained $12.1 million for UH–60

modifcations, but included no funds to procure either UH–60Q

aeromedical evacuation (MEDEVAC) modification kits for the Army

National Guard (ARNG) or a UH–60Q medical mockup training device.

The committee notes that new production UH–60Q MEDEVAC

aircraft are not planned to be procured until fiscal year 2002; however, an interim capability exists through UH–60Q modification

kits, which internally reconfigure UH–60A utility aircraft into

MEDEVAC variants.

The committee also notes that while the Army plans to procure

UH–60Q aircraft in the future, it has not included funds in the Future Years Defense Program for the one required UH–60Q medical

mockup training device. This fully functional training device accurately replicates the interior of a UH–60Q MEDEVAC helicopter
24

and will provide flight medics a classroom-based, ‘‘hands-on,’’ training capability, eliminating the current need to use dedicated aircraft on the ground for extended periods of time for this purpose. Therefore, the committee recommends $22.6 million, an increase

of $9.0 million to procure UH–60Q medical evacuation modification

kits to reconfigure two ARNG UH–60A Blackhawk helicopters and

an increase of $1.5 million to accelerate procurement of the UH–

60Q medical mockup training device.

Utility/cargo airplane modifications

The budget request contained $6.3 million for avionics modifications to the C–12 utility aircraft.

The C–12 is the Army’s primary short to medium range utility

and personnel transport. The 62 aircraft in the service’s inventory

are located throughout the world, and the majority of them continue to operate with analog avionics technology that was current

at the time they were procured in the 1970s and 1980s. Replacement of obsolete avionics with state-of-the-art communications,

navigation, surveillance and flight management equipment will enable the aircraft to be more easily deployed around the world to

meet emerging global requirements.

The committee is pleased that the Army has requested funds for

these safety of flight upgrades but believes additional funds are required. Accordingly, and consistent with actions taken in past fiscal

years, the committee recommends $9.3 million, an increase of $3.0

million to more efficiently procure C–12 avionics upgrades.

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,358.1 million for Missile Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,416.0 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
25
26
27

Items of Special Interest

Avenger modifications

The budget request contained no funds to procure Avenger slewto-cue (STC) modifications.

The STC upgrade enables the Avenger turret to automatically

and rapidly slew in azimuth and elevation resulting in a 55 percent

increase in target engagements. The committee understands that

existing Army National Guard (ARNG) Avenger fire units require

installation of a fire control computer with embedded STC capability to provide the most lethal and rapid force protection air defense capability.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million

to upgrade one ARNG Avenger battalion with STC-capable fire control computers.

Avenger system summary

The budget request contained $33.8 million to procure 15 Avengers for the Army National Guard (ARNG), of which $636,000 was

for the installation of environmental control units/prime power

units (ECU/PPU).

The Avenger, the Army’s primary mobile, short-range, surface-toair defense missile and antiaircraft artillery system, is mounted on

and operates off the internal power of a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. The committee understands that some

Avenger turrets do not have a climate control unit, resulting in either extremely high or low turret temperatures during hot and cold

weather. The committee is aware of an ongoing ECU/PPU retrofit

program, which provides stable turret temperatures as well as an

independent power supply for the turret.

Based on the added benefits of these enhancements, the committee recommends $35.1 million, an increase of $1.3 million for

additional ECU/PPU upgrades to ARNG Avengers.

Brilliant anti-armor (BAT) submunition

The budget request contained $149.3 million to procure 846 BAT

submunitions, of which $5.0 million was included for test and evaluation.

The committee notes that the amount of funds requested for test

and evaluation represents a 285 percent increase over the amount

that was authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for 420

submunitions. Additionally, the amount planned for this same requirement in fiscal year 2001 is only $2.3 million for a corresponding 1,028 missiles.

The committee is concerned with this unjustified, sharp increase

in test and evaluation funds, and, therefore, recommends a decrease of $2.7 million.

Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) launcher systems

The budget request contained $114.6 million for the procurement

of 47 MLRS launcher systems for the active Army, but included no

funds for the procurement of launcher systems for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
28

The committee notes that the ARNG provides nearly 70 percent

of the total Army’s artillery fire support but further notes that an

MLRS launcher shortfall continues to exist for ARNG units. However, the committee is aware that the Army Chief of Staff’s fiscal

year 2000 unfunded requirements list included MLRS launcher

systems to fill ARNG MLRS battalion readiness shortfalls as a top

priority.

Consistent with actions taken in past fiscal years, the committee recommends $170.1 million, an increase of $55.5 million for additional MLRS launcher systems for the ARNG.

WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,416.8 million for procurement of

Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends authorization of $1,575.1 million for

fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
29
30
31
32

Items of Special Interest

Abrams upgrade program/heavy assault bridge (HAB)

The budget request contained $423.0 million to procure 120

M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program (SEP) tanks and

$67.3 million to procure 13 HABs, but included no funds for HAB

advance procurement.

The HAB is an 85–foot, military-load class bridge transported on

a modified M1A2 SEP tank chassis. The system is capable of spanning up to 79–foot spaces, is deployable in five minutes, and can

be retrieved in less than ten minutes—requirements that resulted

from Army bridging system deficiencies identified during Operation

Desert Storm.

The committee notes the Secretary of the Army’s request for a

second multiyear procurement (MYP) contract for the M1A2 SEP

tank beginning in fiscal year 2001 and that an estimated $118.0

million in savings is expected from the MYP contract through fiscal

year 2005. Due to the 80 percent commonality between HAB and

M1A2 hardware, the committee also notes that an estimated

$190.0 million in savings from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year

2005 could be achieved from the efficiencies of a combined HAB

and M1A2 MYP contract.

Based on these larger savings, the committee recommends a combined M1A2 SEP/HAB MYP contract. The committee also recommends an increase of $14.0 million to synchronize HAB advance

procurement in fiscal year 2000 with M1A2 SEP tank advance procurement.

Bradley base sustainment

The budget request contained $281.1 million for the procurement

of 104 Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, but included no funds

for upgrading first-generation Bradley A0 fighting vehicles to the

A2 Operation Desert Storm (ODS) variant for the Army National

Guard (ARNG).

The Bradley A2ODS variant improves the vehicle’s lethality, survivability, and mobility, as well as the situational awareness of its

crew. Modifications include installation of a laser range finder,

Global Positioning System navigation capability, a combat identification system, a driver’s thermal viewer and a missile countermeasure device.

When the Army completes all of its planned upgrades to the

Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most advanced

A3 variant, along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The majority of

the ARNG’s Bradley fleet, on the other hand, will remain unmodified and be comprised mainly of first-generation A0 vehicles, which,

because of major survivability deficiencies, were not used in the

Persian Gulf War. However, as part of the new ARNG enhanced

brigades, the committee notes that some of these A0 vehicles will

be required to deploy with active Army forces.

Because ARNG enhanced brigades will comprise an increasing

percentage of the Army’s warfighting capability as a result of active

force reductions, and consistent with actions taken in past fiscal

years, the committee recommends $353.1 million, an increase of
33

$72.0 million for modifying Bradley ‘‘A0’’ vehicles to the A2ODS

variant for the ARNG.

M113 carrier modifications

The budget request contained $53.5 million for 198 M113A3 carrier modifications.

The M113A3 upgrade program, forecast to add an additional 20

years of service life to the vehicle, includes installation of a new engine, transmission, external fuel tanks, driver controls, and kevlar

spall liners. The committee is aware that M113A3 upgrades are

one of the Army Chief of Staff’s fiscal year 2000 top unfunded priorities.

Therefore, consistent with actions taken in past fiscal years, the committee recommends $78.5 million, an increase of $25.0 million

for additional M113A3 upgrade kits.

M240 series medium machine gun

The budget request contained $12.2 million for the procurement

of 1,304 M240 series medium machine guns.

The M240B is the infantry version of the vehicle-mounted M240

machine gun and replaces the older M60 series machine gun in

light and mechanized infantry and combat engineer units. The

committee notes that the Army has a validated requirement for

over 6,000 M240Bs to upgrade its current inventory of 7.62mm machine guns.

Therefore, consistent with actions taken in past fiscal years, the committee recommends $40.0 million, an increase of $27.8 million

to accelerate the fielding of M240B medium machine guns.

M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of

M249 SAW machine guns.

The M249 SAW is a lightweight weapon capable of delivering a

sustained volume of automatic, accurate, and highly lethal fire up

to ranges of 800 meters. This highly mobile machine gun is being

widely fielded throughout the Army to airborne, light and mechanized infantry, as well as air cavalry units. The committee is concerned that the Army has eliminated funds for this weapon

throughout the Future Years Defense Program, yet an unfunded

requirement for nearly 8,000 SAWs exists. Therefore, the committee recommends $10.1 million to continue procurement of M249

SAWs to reduce this shortfall.

MK19–3 grenade launcher

The budget request contained $18.3 million to procure 1,085

MK19–3 grenade launchers.

The MK19–3 is a 40 millimeter automatic grenade launcher capable of engaging point targets up to 1,500 meters and providing

suppressive fire up to 2,200 meters in range. This infantry weapon

can also be mounted on armored vehicles and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles.

The committee notes that the Army has an unfulfilled requirement of over 3,600 MK19–3s and that there are critical shortages

of this weapon in European-, Republic of Korea-, and continental
34

United States-based units. The committee also notes this weapon’s

increased importance in military operations in urban terrain

(MOUT) and close combat operations.

Because of the MK19–3’s critical shortages and the fact that

United States military forces are increasingly being deployed into

MOUT and potential close combat situations, the committee recommends $28.3 million, an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate

procurement of MK19–3 grenade launchers.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,140.8 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $1,196.2 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
35
36
37
38

Items of Special Interest

Ammunition

The budget request contained $987.0 million for procurement of

ammunition. The committee recommends $1,037.0 million, an increase of $50.0 million for the following types of ammunition, which

include top unfunded priorities of the Chief of Staff of the Army for

fiscal year 2000:

[In millions of dollars]

Small/Medium Cal Ammunition:

CTG 25mm All Types ..................................................................................... 2.0

CTG 40mm All Types ..................................................................................... 8.0

Mortar Ammunition:

CTG 120mm Illum XM930 w/MTSQ FZ ....................................................... 5.0

CTG 120mm WP Smoke M929A1 ................................................................. 5.0

Artillery Ammunition:

CTG Arty 105mm DPICM XM915 ................................................................ 5.0

Mines:

Mine, Antitank (Volcano) ............................................................................... 10.0

Rockets:

Bunker Defeating Munition ........................................................................... 10.0

Grenade, All Types:

Smoke Screening, XM 90 ............................................................................... 5.0

Hydra 70 rockets

The budget request contained $144.8 million for Hydra 70 rockets.

The committee acknowledges the Army’s actions to identify and

eliminate the problem of early motor blows (EMB) experienced by

the Hydra 70 from 1992 to 1995. The committee asked the General

Accounting Office to conduct a review of the service’s ongoing inspection program and was generally pleased with the information

it received. However, the committee understands that because

some of the Army’s Hydra 70 rockets are prepositioned on ships

and in-theater, they will not be accessible for inspection before the

current inspection contract expires in November 1999. Given the

potential threat EMBs pose to aircraft and crew, the committee

urges the Army to extend this contract and make every reasonable

effort to inspect the entire inventory of Hydra 70 rockets that could

experience this problem.

Provision of industrial facilities

The budget request contained $46.1 million for Army ammunition plant (AAP) future project design, obsolete production line

equipment replacement, and environmental deficiencies and infrastructure corrections, of which $9.1 million was for production line

and facility upgrades to Iowa AAP. However, the budget request

did not include non-recurring engineering costs for the 120 millimeter (mm) tank ammunition load, assemble, and pack (LAP) production line enhancements at this plant.

The committee is aware of the Army’s future plans to improve

the Iowa AAP production line, resulting in increased efficiency,

safety, and reliability, as well as production line output. However,

based on the implementation timeline of these plans, an estimated

$4.7 million in annual savings is not expected to accrue until fiscal

year 2004.
39

The committee understands that a $5.4 million increase in nonrecurring engineering for the LAP production line will accelerate

these enhancements. Therefore, the committee recommends $51.5

million, an increase of $5.4 million for this purpose.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $3,423.9 million for Other Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $3,799.9 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Items of Special Interest

Area common user system (ACUS) modification program

The budget request contained $109.1 million for the ACUS modification program in order to support its migration to the Warfighter

Information Network (WIN) systems architecture, but included no

funds for the procurement of high speed multiplexers (HSMUX) for

Army National Guard (ARNG) signal brigades.

The WIN architecture will seamlessly link the Army’s diverse information systems on the 21st century digitized battlefield.

HSMUX will provide increased bandwidth to the WIN in response

to the growing demand for video and data in the battlefield tactical

communications environment. As part of the echelon above and

below corps force support packages, ARNG signal brigades will be

required to deploy with these early entry units; however, they will

not be able to provide state-of-the-art video and data communications support without HSMUX upgrades.

The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified

the ACUS modification program as a fiscal year 2000 top unfunded

priority. In response to this requirement, the committee recommends $110.0 million, an increase of $900,000 to procure and

field HSMUX upgrades to ARNG signal brigades.

Army data distribution system (ADDS)

The budget request contained $38.8 million to procure 1,280 Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) radios, but included no funds for the procurement of EPLRS for the Army National Guard (ARNG).

The EPLRS radio is the Army’s and Marine Corps’ primary position location reporting system, providing battlefield commanders

combat information on the position of their forces in addition to

supporting the majority of the services’ data communications requirements for brigade and below tactical command and control.

The system provides secure, jam-resistant, near-real-time communications and is essential to support tactical operations on the battlefield.

The committee notes that procurement and fielding of additional

EPLRS is on both the Army Chief of Staff’s and Commandant of

the Marine Corps’ fiscal year 2000 unfunded priorities lists. The

committee also notes that ARNG enhanced brigades must have the

necessary data communications capabilities to operate alongside active Army units.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $64.7 million, an increase of $25.9 million for the procurement of EPLRS for ARNG

enhanced brigades. The committee also recommends $103.2 million,

an increase of $20.3 million to procure of EPLRS for the Marine

Corps.

Artillery accuracy equipment

The budget request contained $4.3 million to procure the Artillery Muzzle Velocity System, but included no funds to procure the

Meteorological Measuring System (MMS). The MMS provides data

to field artillery units that improves firing accuracy. The committee

is encouraged that the Army plans to procure 14 MMSs for the
52

Army National Guard (ARNG) in fiscal year 2001, however, it recognizes that accelerated fielding of MMS to the ARNG would benefit total Army mission requirements since the ARNG provides

nearly 70 percent of the total Army’s artillery fire support.

Therefore, the committee recommends $7.3 million for artillery

accuracy equipment, an increase of $3.0 million to accelerate procurement of the MMS for the ARNG.

Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)

The budget request contained $138.6 million for procurement of

ADPE, of which $38.9 million was included for the procurement of

Major Army Command (MACOM) automation systems and $4.2

million was for automatic identification technology (AIT).

The committee notes a 27 percent increase in the amount requested for MACOM automation systems over the amount authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1999 and believes this growth

to be excessive. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease

of $4.5 million for production of these systems.

AIT devices, which consist of various radio frequency (RF), bar

code scanning, and data carrier devices, are used as components of

automated logistics systems, contributing to expedited receiving,

storage, distribution, and inventory management of new and repairable items. For example, the committee understands that RF

tagging devices are currently used in a pilot program implemented

at six locations worldwide in fiscal year 1998 to track ammunition

from point of origin to place of destination. The committee understands that these devices are also used to automate manufacturing

process controls for aircraft repair parts and to track ground support equipment at various military depots.

The committee is impressed with the promising results achieved

to date with RF tagging devices and believes that substantial savings can be achieved from further implementation of these devices

in automated inventory and repair processes. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million for ammunition

AIT integration efforts and $8.7 million for maintenance AIT implementation. In total, the committee recommends $153.8 million

for ADPE.

Combat support medical

The budget request contained $25.3 million for the procurement

of deployable medical systems and field medical equipment, but included no funds for the procurement of the advanced surgical suite

for trauma casualties (ASSTC) for the Army National Guard

(ARNG).

The ASSTC is a lightweight, highly mobile, self-contained medical facility for on-scene triage, minor surgery, diagnostic and preventive medical treatment, which can also be used for life-saving,

resuscitative surgery for 20 casualties. It is capable of operating

independently for up to 48 hours in support of contingency operations and disaster relief.

Based on the ARNG’s evolving role as ‘‘first responders’’ to weapons of mass destruction and domestic terrorist incidents, and its requirement to deploy in response to natural disasters, the committee
53

recommends $40.3 million, an increase of $15.0 million for the procurement of ASSTCs for the ARNG.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles

The budget request contained $190.4 million to procure palletized

load systems and related equipment, heavy expanded transporter

system trucks, and heavy repair vehicles, of which $36.8 million

was for 119 M984 heavy expanded mobility tactical truck (HEMTT)

wreckers. However, no HEMTT wreckers were requested for the

Army Reserve (AR). The HEMTT wrecker is a 10–ton, diesel-powered, eight-wheel drive vehicle designed to retrieve other heavy

wheeled combat and support vehicles.

The committee notes that the AR’s evolving combat support and

combat service support mission requirements necessitate the need

for HEMTT wreckers.

Therefore, the committee recommends $196.4 million, an increase of $6.0 million for 21 HEMTT wreckers for the AR.

General purpose vehicles

The budget request contained $1.0 million for the procurement of

general purpose vehicles, but included no funds for the procurement of Military (M) Gators.

The M Gator is a low cost, air-deployable, multipurpose vehicle

designed for transport of logistics equipment and personnel on the

battlefield and in urban terrain. The committee understands that

the XVIII Airborne Corps has submitted an urgent operational

needs statement for procurement of 600 M Gators to the Chief of

Staff of the Army and that an operational requirements document

is currently being staffed. The committee also understands that

this vehicle has been extensively tested and used by both the Army

and Special Operations Command in Bosnia and in the Middle

East.

Therefore, to fill the XVIII Airborne Corps’ urgent operational

needs, the committee recommends $13.0 million, an increase of

$12.0 for M Gators.

High speed compactor

The budget request contained $9.8 million to procure 67 815F

high-speed compactors. The 815F high-speed compactor is a commercially produced, self-propelled, diesel powered, tamping machine used to build roads, airfields, and dams. The committee notes

that the amount in this budget request would enable the service to

reach 199 of its 212 vehicle acquisition objective but that the remaining vehicles are not planned to be procured until fiscal year

2005.

The committee believes that meeting the acquisition objective

should be accelerated and, therefore, recommends $12.4 million, an

increase of $2.6 million for this purpose.

Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of

upgrades for the Hunter UAV.

The Hunter UAV is the Army’s only operational UAV system and

is used to develop corps-, division-, and brigade-level tactics, tech-
54

niques, and procedures, and is also available for worldwide contingency operations. It is currently deployed to the Balkans as part

of Operation Allied Force supporting North Atlantic Treaty Organization operations.

The committee understands that the fielded Hunter systems

have only partially received hardware and software upgrades which

improve their operational effectiveness and reduce operations and

support costs. Additional Hunter systems being readied for fielding

and those in storage have not been similarly upgraded.

The committee believes that the Hunter UAV system will play a

major role in tactics development and the enhancement of battlefield commander’s tactical awareness until the follow-on Tactical

UAV is fielded.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million

to provide these upgrades to the Hunter UAV inventory.

Information system security program (ISSP)

The budget request contained a total of $28.8 million, $64.1 mil- lion, and $13.3 million to procure secure voice and data terminal

equipment for the Army, Navy, and Air Force respectively.

The committee understands that the services are replacing older

secure voice and data systems with newer multi-media secure digital communications equipment and that the systems available

today provide significant operations and maintenance savings over

legacy systems.

Therefore, in order to accelerate the replacement of obsolete secure voice and data terminals, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to procure additional secure terminal equipment: $3.0 million for the Army ISSP, $3.0 million for the Navy

ISSP, and $3.0 million for the Air Force command, control, and

communications countermeasures program.

Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)

The budget request contained $41.6 million to procure IFTE, including $12.7 million for 4 IFTE electro-optic test facilities (EOTF).

The EOTF provides automatic electro-optics (EO) test and diagnostic support and is capable of satisfying the full range of Army

EO test requirements. These facilities will replace existing electronic equipment repair facilities and the committee understands

that they will initially support the OH–58D Kiowa Warrior and the

Improve Target Acquisition System (ITAS).

The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff identified a fiscal year 2000 unfunded priority for additional EOTFs. Accordingly,

the committee recommends $51.6 million, an increase of $10.0 million to procure additional EOTFs for Kiowa Warrior and ITAS support.

Items less than $2.0 million (construction equipment)

The budget request contained $4.3 million to procure various construction equipment items less than $2.0 million, but included no

funds to procure ultimate building machines. The ultimate building

machine system is a highly mobile steel fabrication mechanism

which can be rapidly set up to construct complex steel structures

in support of field operations and interim shelter requirements.
55

The committee notes that each of the services has had additional

requirements placed on its engineer support and construction units

as a result of increased deployments for contingency, humanitarian

assistance, and disaster relief operations. The committee recognizes

the benefits that easily and rapidly constructed shelters contribute

to these types of operations. Therefore, the committee recommends $6.3 million, an increase

of $2.0 million to procure ultimate building machines for the Army

and the Army National Guard. The committee also recommends an

increase of $1.0 million each for procurement of these machines by

the Navy, Marine Corps, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS) common ground station (CGS)

The budget request contained $82.2 million to procure 12 Joint STARS CGSs, of which $6.0 million was included for pre-planned

product improvements (P3I).

The Joint STARS CGS improves ground commanders’ battlefield

command and control capability by integrating into a single station

the processing of signals, imagery, and other intelligence received

through a data link from the Air Force’s E–8 Joint STARS aircraft

radar. The system detects, locates, tracks, and classifies both moving and stationary targets beyond the forward line of troops. The

P3I program provides the Joint STARS an expanded capability to

interface with additional airborne intelligence assets while incorporating joint message processing and information security upgrades.

The committee is aware of the proven success of the CGS and believes the P3I upgrades will greatly enhance the ground commanders’ situational awareness. Therefore, the committee recommends $112.2 million for Joint STARS CGS, an increase of $30.0

million for these upgrades.

Lightweight video reconnaissance system (LVRS)

The budget request contained $3.4 million to procure 145 LVRSs.

The LVRS consists of a small, ruggedized, open architecture

processor and generation III image intensification night vision-capable video camera/recorder. The system allows special operations

forces (SOF) and light force scout and reconnaissance units to photograph, record, and transmit near real-time video images over Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems from forward deployed field positions back to tactical operations centers. It facilitates rapid target identification and analysis critical to mission

planning and execution on the digitized battlefield and in urban

environments. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff

identified a $2.5 million unfunded requirement for fiscal year 2000

to procure an additional 268 LVRSs for SOF and light forces.

Therefore, the committee recommends $5.9 million, an increase

of $2.5 million to procure 268 additional LVRSs.

M56 smoke generator system

The budget request contained $6.3 million for the procurement of

14 M56 smoke generator systems.
56

The M56 smoke generator system, the primary battlefield obscurant for Army light forces, is a High Mobility Multipurpose

Wheeled Vehicle-mounted system capable of disseminating smoke

in both stationary positions and on the move. The M56 can defeat

enemy sensors such as tank thermal sights as well as smart and

guided munitions which operate in the visual through far infrared

portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The committee understands that the M56 has been designated as

an essential item of equipment for early entry forces. The committee further understands that while the Army’s force package

one units have a requirement of 300 of these smoke generators,

only 25 have been funded in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Therefore,

the committee recommends $22.3 million, an increase of $16.0 million for additional M56 smoke generator systems.

Modification of in-service equipment

The budget request contained $24.9 million for upgrades to various marine vessels and onboard equipment, construction, and logistic vehicles, but included no funds to conduct an Army National

Guard (ARNG) D–7 dozer service life extension program (SLEP).

The committee understands that the majority of the currently

fielded ARNG D–7 dozers have an average fleet age of 27 years,

well beyond their intended 15 year service lives and that there are

no plans to replace the D–7s. The committee notes that a reserve

component D–7 dozer limited rebuild program was initiated in fiscal year 1995, but that a more extensive SLEP which would extend

the D–7 service life and eliminate its ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ readiness

rating is not contemplated in the Future Years Defense Program.

This, despite the greater demand placed on overage D–7 dozers by

increased ‘‘operations-other-than-war’’ deployments.

Therefore, the committee recommends $34.9 million, an increase

of $10.0 million for an ARNG D–7 dozer SLEP.

Modification of in-service equipment (tactical surveillance)

The budget request contained $6.5 million to procure fire support

digitization hardware and software upgrades for the AN/TPQ–36

and AN/TPQ–37 Firefinder radars, but included no funds to procure additional AN/TPQ–36 radars.

The AN/TPQ–36 is a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle-mounted, phased-array, X-band radar, which locates mortars

and short-range rocket launchers. The system transmits near-real

time target data to friendly artillery elements enabling these units

to rapidly engage the targeted mortars and rocket launchers with

counterfire.

The committee notes that the Army does not plan to resume procurement of AN/TPQ–36 Firefinder radars until fiscal year 2002

and is concerned both with this two-year break in production and

the force protection implications related to it.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $11.5 million, an increase of $5.0 million to continue procurement of AN/TPQ–36

Firefinder radars.
57

Night vision devices

The budget request contained $21.0 million for the procurement of night vision devices, of which $19.0 million was included for

4,550 AN/PVS–7D night vision goggles, but included no funds for

the procurement of generation III 25 millimeter (mm) image intensification tubes.

The AN/PVS–7D night vision goggle is a head- or helmet-mounted, third-generation, image intensifying, device used by soldiers for

nighttime operations. The committee notes that the Army acquisition objective for this device has increased by 100,000 units since

fiscal year 1998 to 381,000; however, at the end of fiscal year 1999

only 194,409 units will have been procured. The committee also

notes that the ‘‘Own the Night’’ concept—the Army’s strategy of

fighting, dominating and winning battles during nighttime operations—remains as one of the Army Chief of Staff’s top priorities.

The committee is aware of the joint Army/Navy/Marine Corps

program to procure generation III 25mm image intensification

tubes as replacements for less capable generation II tubes fielded

in the AN/PVS–4 and AN/TVS–5 night vision goggles and notes

that the generation III tubes provide a minimum 25 percent resolution increase.

The committee is aware that the Army Chief of Staff has identified several fiscal year 2000 unfunded requirements, two of which

are, $8.0 million for AN/PVS–7D night vision goggles and $25.0

million for generation III 25mm image intensification tubes.

Based on existing shortfalls, the enhanced operational capability

that night vision devices provide to combat forces, and the committee’s belief that these devices will provide a pivotal ‘‘force multiplier’’ in future Army deployments, the committee recommends

$8.0 million for AN/PVS–7D night vision goggles and $25.0 million

for generation III 25mm image intensification tubes, for a total increase of $33.0million for these devices.

Nonsystems training devices

The budget request contained $67.4 million to procure nonsystem

training devices, but included no funds to procure the area weapons scoring system (AWSS), improved moving target simulator

(IMTS) upgrades, or the deployable force-on-force instrumented

range system (DFIRST).

The AWSS is an electronic aerial gunnery scoring system used

to accurately score helicopter units in day/night, live fire air-toground gunnery training. The committee notes that this type of

training is directly related to the readiness of attack helicopter aircrews, especially for short-notice combat operations such as Operation Allied Force. The committee understands that the Army procured three AWSSs in fiscal year 1991, however, these systems are

capable of supporting only 40 percent of the total Army’s training

requirement. The committee further understands that a validated

requirement for three additional systems has existed since fiscal

year 1995, yet none of these has been procured.

The 360 degree, high-resolution IMTS is an Army and Marine

Corps air defense simulation system which trains personnel on

Stinger surface-to-air missile operations and launch proficiency.

The committee is aware of IMTS upgrades that would provide com-
58

puter-generated targets, variable scenario computer-generated

background video images, and computer workstations for modeling

air defense encounters. The committee understands that these upgrades would enhance both Army and Marine Corps air defense

forces’ operational proficiency by providing rapid, effective, realworld training prior to deploying into potential combat situations.

The committee understands that the DFIRST Global Positioning

System satellite-based instrumentation system for mounted maneuver training exercises would contribute significantly to the furtherance of the Army National Guard’s (ARNG) regional home station

instrumentation training plan. This plan calls for force-on-force,

simulation-based training at a number of regional centers that

would produce experiences for ARNG units comparable to those received at the Army’s combat training centers. The committee notes

the impressive results obtained during the DFIRST evaluation and

believes that this system will not only increase the readiness of

ARNG units through more effective training but do so at a lower

cost and with greater safety than is currently done. Therefore, the committee recommends $80.7 million, an increase

of $3.8 million to procure three AWSSs; $1.5 million for three Army

IMTS upgrades; $1.0 million for an ARNG IMTS upgrade; and, an

increase of $7.0 million to field two DFIRST regional ARNG training sites. In total, the committee recommends $13.3 for nonsystems

training devices for the Army and ARNG. The committee also recommends an increase of $1.0 million for a Marine Corps IMTS upgrade.

Product improved (PI) combat vehicle crewman (CVC) headset

The budget request contained no funds to procure PI CVC headsets.

The committee understands that loss of communications in CVC

headsets was identified in late fiscal year 1998 during armored vehicle Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) testing and evaluation. Army testing revealed that electromagnetic interference (EMI) created by new, higher powered Single Channel

Ground and Airborne Radio Systems installed in armored vehicles

to transmit FBCB2 data creates these communication problems.

The committee believes that such communication problems could

endanger crews as a result of not receiving complete command and

control information and data transmissions in a high operational

tempo or combat environment.

Since the PI CVC headset eliminates EMI communication losses,

the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to procure

PI CVC headsets to address this safety issue.

Ribbon bridge

The budget request contained $12.1 million to procure ribbon

bridge equipment, but included no funds to procure this equipment

for Army National Guard (ARNG) multi-role bridge companies

(MRBC).

Ribbon bridge equipment consists of 10-ton, 8-wheel drive M1977

Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Common Bridge Transporters, M15 Bridge Adaptor Pallets, and M14 Improved Boat Cradles. The committee understands that seven ARNG MRBC are
59

being established in fiscal year 2001 using existing engineer bridging equipment and older, lower capacity five-ton trucks. Without

increased funds, these new ARNG units will not begin conversion

to the new equipment required for MRBC until fiscal year 2004.

Therefore, the committee recommends $25.6 million for ribbon

bridging equipment, an increase of $13.5 million to accelerate the

fielding of one ARNG MRBC.

Shortstop

The budget request contained no funds to procure the Shortstop

Electronic Protection System (SEPS).

The SEPS is a commercial electronics radio frequency countermeasure system that protects personnel and high value assets from

artillery, mortar rounds, and rockets by detonating their proximity

fuzes well before they impact. Developed as a quick reaction capability system, SEPS was deployed during Operation Desert Storm

and more recently in Operation Joint Endeavor. The committee understands that initial Army testing of 5,000 rounds fired at the

SEPS resulted in a 100 percent pre-detonation success rate and

that follow-on tests against both artillery and rockets were also

highly successful.

The committee notes that, although the theater commanders-inchief have submitted urgent SEPS requirements, the Army has

failed to fund this system for the fourth straight year. The Commander, United States Army Forces Europe has submitted the

most recent such requirement for over 200 SEPS to support Balkan

operations. In consideration of this requirement, in recognition of

the fact that SEPS is also one of the Army Chief of Staff’s fiscal

year 2000 top unfunded priorities, and consistent with actions

taken in past fiscal years, the committee recommends an increase

of $40.0 million for the procurement of additional SEPS. The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the Marine

Corps to ensure that Marine expeditionary forces have adequate

protection from proximity-fuzed artillery rounds, mortars, and rockets.

Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS)

family

The budget request contained $13.2 million for the fielding of

SINCGARS, but included no funds to procure SINCGARS advanced

system improvement program (ASIP) radios for the Army National

Guard (ARNG).

The SINCGARS ASIP radio upgrades earlier version, voice-only

radios and includes a tactical Internet controller and integrated

communications security enhancements, which provides commanders a highly reliable, easily maintained, secure voice and data

handling command and control capability. The committee is aware

of the Army Chief of Staff’s unfunded requirement for 5,100

SINCGARS ASIP radios for force package three, which includes the

ARNG. The committee understands that without these radios,

ARNG forces will be unable to transmit to and receive data from

their active Army components when operating together.
60

Therefore, consistent with prior fiscal years, the committee recommends $60.4 million, an increase of $47.2 million to procure

SINCGARS ASIP radios for the ARNG.

Small pusher tug

The budget request contained no funds to procure small pusher

tugs.

The small pusher tug is a 60–foot, steel hull, twin propeller vessel designed to tow general cargo barges in harbors, inland waterways, and along coastlines. It is also capable of assisting larger

tugs in docking and undocking ships of all sizes, movement of floating cranes and machine shops, and performing line handling duties.

The committee is aware of the Army’s intent to replace its unreliable 40–year old small tugs that were used in Operations Desert

Shield and Desert Storm and understands that it has recently increased its requirement for seven additional tugs to replace these

older vessels. The committee included an increase of $4.7 million

in fiscal year 1999 to procure two additional tugs to complete the

earlier requirement of eight tugs. However, the committee notes

that the Army has not budgeted for the additional seven new tugs

in its Future Years Defense Program.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million

to accelerate procurement of three vessels towards the new Army

requirement.

Standard teleoperating kit

The budget request contained $4.0 million to procure 12 Standardized Robotic System (SRS) vehicle teleoperating kits.

The SRS kit can be installed on existing tracked, construction, or

wheeled vehicles to enable them to be operated by remote control,

if circumstances dictate, to clear mines. The committee understands that SRS contingency sets have been responsible for detonating hundreds of mines while deployed in Bosnia.

The committee notes that redesigned combat engineer force

structure requires SRS equipment at all force levels, but that the

Army only intends to procure 12 kits in a ‘‘one-time buy’’ during

fiscal year 2000. The committee disagrees with the Army’s procurement strategy for this equipment and recommends $24.0 million,

an increase of $20.0 million for additional SRS kits.

Super high frequency (SHF) terminal

The budget request contained $32.0 million for the procurement

of 13 SHF Tri-Band Advanced Range Extension Terminals (STAR–

T). The STAR–T is a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehiclemounted, multi-channel, tactical tri-band satellite terminal capable

of operating with both commercial and military SHF satellites.

The committee understands that the system has experienced an

eight month delay in its initial operational test and evaluation as

a result of contractor team restructuring, a $20.0 million cost overrun; program complexities with the integration of asynchronous

transfer mode, integrated services digital network and Internet

routing capability; and antennae design, and power amplification
61

problems. As a result of this delay, the Milestone III procurement

decision will not be made until September 2000.

The committee is concerned with these problems but recommends the amount requested. However, the committee expects

the Secretary of the Army to report to the Congressional defense

committees about any further complications and delays with the

program and such recommendations as he may deem appropriate

for dealing with them.

Vibratory self-propelled roller

The budget request contained no funds to procure vibratory selfpropelled rollers. The vibratory self-propelled roller is a commercial

compacting vehicle used to support construction of airfields, logistic

areas, and roads required to deploy and sustain Army forces.

The committee notes that the last major procurement of this

equipment occurred in the early 1980s and that its 22-year average

age, combined with increased deployments, has reduced its readiness ratings to unsatisfactory levels. The committee also notes that

the Army Chief of Staff identified the replacement of vibratory selfpropelled rollers for both the active and reserve components as a

fiscal year 2000 unfunded priority.

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.3 million to procure additional vibratory self-propelled rollers: $5.3 million for active Army units, and $5.0 million for Army Reserve units.

Wheel-mounted 25-ton crane

The budget request contained $12.1 million to procure 47 wheelmounted, 25-ton all-terrain cranes (ATECs), but no ATECs were requested for the Army Reserve (AR).

The ATEC is a multi-use, state-of-the-art, commercial all-terrain

crane used for engineer construction excavation, lifting and loading

general supplies and materiel, and bridging movement. The ATEC

replaces three existing cranes, which range in age from 19 to 30

years old and suffer from low operational readiness rates and high

operations and support costs with a single, state-of-the-art unit

that exceeds all three obsolete cranes’ capabilities and mobility

characteristics.

The committee notes the importance of ATECs in fulfilling Army

Reserve combat support and combat service support mission requirements and recommends $20.1 million, an increase of $8.0 million to procure ATECs for the Army Reserve.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,169.0 million for Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army for fiscal year 2000. The

committee recommends authorization of no funds for fiscal year

2000.
62
63

Item of Special Interest

Chemical agents and munitions destruction

The budget request contained $1,169.0 million for Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.

Section 1412(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99–145) requires that funds for the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions, including funds for military construction projects necessary

to carrying out the demilitarization program, shall be set forth in

the budget of the Department of Defense as a separate program

and shall not be included in the budget accounts for any military

department.

The committee reaffirms its belief that funds for the chemical demilitarization program must be authorized and appropriated in a

defense-wide budget account in order to emphasize that destruction

of the chemical weapons stockpile is a national issue, which affects

all of the Department of Defense, not just a single military service.

Section 1412(f) was intended to keep this funding separate in order

to prevent it from being subject to internal service budget priorities

and to avoid artificially inflating the budgets of any of the military

departments. The committee believes that the reasoning behind the

legislative mandate was sound in 1986, when the estimated life cycles cost of the chemical stockpile demilitarization program was approximately $1.5 billion, and is even more valid today, when the estimated cost of the program has grown almost ten-fold.

Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of $1,169.0

million. The committee recommends an increase of $1,012.0 million

for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $8,228.7 million for Aircraft Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends

authorization of $8,804.1 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
64
65
66
67
68

Items of Special Interest

CH–60S

The budget request contained $208.5 million for 13 CH–60S heli- copters and $73.8 million for advance procurement of 18 CH–60S

helicopters in fiscal year 2001.

The CH–60S replaces the H–46, H–1, H–3, and HH–60 helicopters, which meet combat support taskings for vertical replenishment, cargo and personnel transfer, medical evacuation, and search

and rescue. The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations included additional CH–60S helicopters in his unfunded priority list for fiscal year 2000, of which two would be assigned to

the Naval Reserve.

Consequently, the committee recommends $246.5 million, an in- crease of $38.0 million for two additional CH–60S helicopters for

the Naval Reserve.

Common data link (CDL)

The budget request contained $28.8 million for modifications to special project aircraft, of which $2.0 million was included for the

CDL.

The CDL, consisting of aircraft and ground terminals, allows special project P–3 aircraft to transfer data between shore- and seabased intelligence communication systems. The committee understands that the Navy requires two ground terminals and all four

special project P–3 aircraft to be configured with the CDL, but the

budget request included sufficient funding for only one ground terminal and installation of equipment on two aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends $30.8 million, an increase

of $2.0 million for one additional CDL ground terminal and to procure and install the CDL equipment on the remaining two special

project P–3 aircraft.

Common ground equipment

The budget request contained $413.7 million for common ground

equipment.

The committee notes an approximately 30 percent increase in the

budget request for common ground equipment when compared to

previous and future years. The committee also notes that cost,

schedule, and contractor data is not provided in the Department’s

budget justification material for such equipment. Based on the information provided, the committee believes that the request exceeds requirements by $20.0 million and, therefore, recommends

$393.7 million, a decrease of $20 million.

E–2 modifications

The budget request contained $28.2 million for E–2 modifications, but included no funds to upgrade the E–2C aircraft fleet to

the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

The Hawkeye 2000 modification upgrades the E–2C aircraft with

satellite communications; a commercial-off-the-shelf, high-capacity

mission computer and associated workstations; and cooperative engagement capability. The committee understands that this modification will provide the E–2C fleet with a quantum leap in situa-
69

tional awareness and fleet-wide connectivity and that two aircraft

are available to accept this modification in fiscal year 2000. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million: $15.0 million for non-recurring engineering and $30.0 million for the modification of two aircraft to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

EA–6B modifications

The budget request contained $161.0 million for EA–6B modifications, but included no funds for the band 9/10 transmitter/receiver

upgrade.

The band 9/10 transmitter/receiver upgrade is designed to

counter the high-frequency radar techniques of a new family of

electronic threats. In recognition of this emerging requirement, the

committee recommended an increase of $39.0 million for fiscal year

1999 and the Congress appropriated $20.0 million for this purpose.

Additionally, the committee notes that the Department has an inventory objective of 196 band 9/10 transmitter/receiver systems but

currently plans to procure only 120. The committee understands

that the existing band 9 transmitter is based on 1960’s technology

and that the cost to maintain these systems through 2015 is approximately $25.0 million.

Consistent with its previous actions, the committee recommends $206.0 million, an increase of $45.0 million to procure additional

band 9/10 transmitter/receivers for the EA–6B.

F–18 series modifications

The budget request contained $308.8 million for F–18 series modifications, of which $35.1 million was included for engineering

change proposal (ECP)–583 kits to modify four Marine Corps F/A–

18A aircraft.

The ECP–583 modification kit upgrades the avionics and weapons capability of the F/A–18A to the same capability as the newer

F/A–18C. Without this capability, the F/A–18A cannot autonomously deliver precision-guided munitions or employ the AIM–120

Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile. Despite the fact that

the Marine Corps has a requirement to upgrade 76 of its F/A–18As

with this modification, the Department only budgeted to upgrade

24 aircraft in its Future Years Defense Program.

Since the Commandant of the Marine Corps identified ECP–583

among his highest unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000, the committee recommends an increase of $63.0 million to procure 14 additional upgrade kits: 7 for the active and 7 for the reserve components.

F/A–18E/F

The budget request contained $2,692.0 million for 36 F/A–18E/F

aircraft, and $162.2 million for advance procurement of 42 aircraft

in fiscal year 2001. The committee notes that the 36 aircraft requested would begin a five-year, 222 aircraft multiyear procurement through fiscal year 2004 which is projected to cost 7.4 percent

less than annual procurement of these aircraft.

During the past two years, the committee has expressed its concerns with the F/A–18E/F program due to its higher cost for a rel-
70

atively small capability increase when compared to the existing F/

A–18C/D aircraft. As a result of prior year testimony by the Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the committee has also expressed concern that the final production configuration may not be determined until the completion of the aircraft’s

operational evaluation in October 1999 and that deficiencies in

survivablility and radar jamming systems may not be corrected

until after full-rate production begins. However, the committee supports the Navy’s requirement to replace its aging fighter attack aircraft fleet and believes that the Department’s proposed multiyear

procurement should proceed if the aircraft demonstrates that it

meets key performance parameters and requirements for effectiveness and suitability upon completion of the operational evaluation

and can be procured at the Department’s projected 7.4 percent

multiyear contract cost savings.

Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (Section

121) that would limit the Secretary of the Navy’s authority to enter

into the multiyear contract until the Secretary of Defense certifies

that the results of the aircraft’s operational test and evaluation

meet both key performance parameters and requirements for operational effectiveness and suitability and that the multiyear procurement contract cost is at least 7.4 percent less than procurement of the same number of aircraft would be through annually

funded contracts. Since the committee understands that the fiveyear multiyear contract award date is scheduled for April 2000, it

believes that the Department will be afforded ample time to review

and assess the results of the F/A–18E/F’s operational evaluation

prior to the Secretary’s certification to the congressional defense

committees.

Joint primary air training system (JPATS)

The budget request contained $44.8 million for 8 T–6A aircraft and associated ground training systems, and $9.6 million for advance procurement of 24 aircraft in fiscal year 2001.

The JPATS, consisting of the T–6A aircraft and a ground-based

training system, will be used by both the Navy and Air Force for

primary pilot training. The committee notes that the Navy has

budgeted $1.0 million for engineering change orders (ECO), but the

Air Force included no funds for this purpose. Since the Navy and

Air Force T–6A are the same aircraft, the committee does not understand how one service’s aircraft requires ECOs and the other’s

does not.

Consequently, the committee recommends $43.8 million, a decrease of $1.0 million.

KC–130J

The budget request contained $12.3 million for KC–130J support

costs, but included no funds for procurement of KC–130J aircraft.

The KC–130J is a tactical transport aircraft that also serves as

a tanker for both helicopters and tactical fighters. The KC–130J replaces the Marine Corps’ existing KC–130F, R, and T model aircraft, providing a 40 percent increase in range, a 25 percent higher

cruise ceiling, a 21 percent increase in maximum speed, and a 41

percent decrease in take-off distance over the existing older models.
71

The Marine Corps currently has an inventory of 35 KC–130Fs,

14 KC–130Rs, and 28 KC–130Ts. The KC–130F, which was procured between 1960 and 1962, is the oldest aircraft in the inventory and is approaching the end of its service life. The committee

understands that a December 1998 assessment of the KC–130F

fleet revealed that, unless procurement of KC–130Js is accelerated

or a comprehensive and costly service life extension is undertaken,

an inventory shortfall of 15 aircraft may occur as early as 2001.

The committee recommended an increase of two KC–130Js in fiscal year 1999 and notes that additional KC–130J aircraft is the

Commandant of the Marine Corps’ number two unfunded aviation

procurement priority for fiscal year 2000.

Therefore, consistent with its prior actions and the Com- mandant’s priorities, the committee recommends $264.3 million, an

increase of $252.0 million for four KC–130J aircraft.

Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)

The budget request contained no funds for the LESPA.

Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life, the committee continues to believe that the Navy will realize substantial

life cycle cost savings by procuring LESPA, as compared to the use

of existing parachutes. Accordingly, the committee strongly supports the LESPA to replace old parachutes in the P–3 and E–2C

aircraft.

Consistent with its previous actions, the committee recommends $10.0 million to procure additional LESPAs: $5.0 million for the P–

3 and $5.0 million for the E–2C.

MV–22

The budget request contained $796.4 million to procure 10 MV– 22 tiltrotor aircraft and $71.0 million for advance procurement of

16 aircraft in fiscal year 2001.

The committee continues to support accelerated MV–22 procurement and endorses the Quadrennial Defense Review’s (QDR) recognition of the urgent need to replace the Marine Corps’ aging fleet

of Vietnam-era CH–46 medium lift helicopters. The committee

notes that the procurement of additional MV–22 aircraft in fiscal

year 2000 is the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ highest unfunded aviation procurement priority.

Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the QDR’s findings,

and the Commandant’s priorities, the committee recommends

$856.4 million, an increase of $60.0 million to procure one additional MV–22 aircraft.

P–3 series modifications

The budget request contained $276.2 million for P–3 series modifications, of which $106.0 million was included for six anti-surface

warfare improvement program (AIP) kits.

The AIP improves the P–3’s communications, survivability, and

over-the-horizon targeting capabilities through the installation of

commercial-off-the-shelf components. The committee understands

that the Navy’s operational objective is 56 AIP-configured aircraft

by fiscal year 2000 but notes that only 44, including the six requested in fiscal year 2000, have been funded. The committee also
72

notes that the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has included additional AIP kits among his highest unfunded priorities for fiscal

year 2000.

To reduce the Navy’s shortfall and in consonance with the CNO’s priorities, the committee recommends an increase of $70.0 million

for an additional five AIP kits.

T–45 training system (TS)

The budget request contained $325.5 million for 15 T–45 aircraft and associated ground training systems, and $9.6 million for advance procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2001.

The T–45TS, consisting of the T–45 aircraft and ground-based

training, replaces the Navy’s TA–4J and T–2C as advanced pilot

training aircraft.

The committee supports the T–45TS but notes unexplained cost

growth for engineering change orders. Consequently, the committee

recommends $323.5 million, a decrease of $2.0 million.

UC–35

The budget request contained no funds for the UC–35.

The UC–35 is a long-range medium-lift operational support aircraft. The committee understands that the Future Years Defense

Program includes procurement of three UC–35s in fiscal years 2001

and 2002 to replace older CT–39s. However, the committee further

understands that, since submission of the budget request, the need

to replace the CT–39 has been accelerated because two of the Marine Corps’ CT–39s have been transferred to the Navy for Undergraduate Naval Flight Officer training and the third aircraft is approaching the end of its service life.

Since the Commandant of the Marine Corps has included three

UC–35s among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000, the

committee recommends $18.0 million to procure these aircraft.

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,357.4 million for Weapons Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,764.7 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
73
74
75
76

Items of Special Interest

Aerial targets

The budget request contained $21.2 million for aerial targets, but

included no funds for the BQM–74.

The BQM–74 is a practice aerial target designed to replicate

anti-ship cruise missiles, and the committee understands that,

since entering the Navy’s inventory, it has satisfied over 80 percent

of missions requiring high-speed aerial targets. While the Department has informed the committee that its inventory objective for

BQM–74 targets is 240 at the end of each fiscal year in the Future

Years Defense Program, no future BQM–74 targets have been

budgeted. The committee is concerned that without BQM–74s, adequate crew training and weapons system tests will not be possible.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million

to procure BQM–74 targets. The committee notes $2.1 million of unexplained government

costs for other aerial targets and recommends a decrease of this

amount.

In total, the committee recommends $44.1 million for aerial targets, an increase of $22.9 million.

Evolved seasparrow missile (ESSM)

The budget request contained $11.7 million for the ESSM, of which $1.1 million was included for fleet support and integrated logistics support (ILS).

The ESSM program is a cooperative effort among 10 North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations to develop and produce an improved version of the Navy’s shipboard ‘‘RIM–7P’’ surface-to-air

missile. The committee notes that production of the missiles for

which funds were appropriated in fiscal year 1999 has been delayed due to software problems and further notes that no missiles

are planned for production in fiscal year 2000.

Consequently, the committee believes that no funds are required

for fleet support and ILS and recommends $10.6 million, a decrease

of $1.1 million.

Hellfire II missile

The budget request contained no funds for Hellfire II missiles.

The Hellfire II missile is a laser-guided, anti-armor and anti-ship

weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH–1W helicopter and

by the Navy on the SH–60B helicopter. The committee notes that,

despite additional funding provided by Congress in fiscal year

1998, the Department has still not met its inventory requirement

for these missiles. Consequently, the Chief of Naval Operations

(CNO) has included procurement of 750 Hellfire II missiles among

his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000.

The committee supports the CNO’s request and recommends an

increase of $52.0 million to procure 750 Hellfire II missiles.

Joint stand-off weapon (JSOW)

The Navy budget request contained $154.9 million for 615

JSOWs, and the Air Force budget request contained $80.0 million

for 193 JSOWs.
77

The JSOW is an air-to-ground glide weapon that uses the global

positioning system and an inertial navigation system for its precision guidance and can be launched outside the range of most target-area surface-to-air threat systems. The committee understands

that the JSOW performed flawlessly on its first 17 combat deliveries in the first half of fiscal year 1999 during Operation Southern

Watch in Southwest Asia. As a result of its success rate, the committee also understands that current JSOW demand for both the

European Operation Allied Force and the Southwest Asian Operation Southern Watch combat operations exceeds supply.

Consequently, the committee recommends $229.9 million for the

Navy, an increase of $75.0 million for 401 JSOWs, and $115.0 million for the Air Force, an increase of $35.0 million for 207 JSOWs.

Rolling airframe missile

The budget request contained $45.4 million for 90 rolling airframe missiles (RAM). The RAM is a lightweight ship self-defense

system designed to engage anti-ship missiles.

The committee notes unexplained cost growth for component improvement, government in-house engineering, and production acceptance. Consequently, the committee recommends $44.4 million,

a decrease of $1.0 million.

Standard missile

The budget request contained $198.9 million for Standard missiles, of which $45.9 million was included for 75 Block IIIB missiles, $43.6 million for 16 Block IVA missiles, and $93.5 million for

procurement support costs.

The Standard missile is a surface-to-air missile employed on

AEGIS cruisers and destroyers. The Block III series missiles have

improved homing and guidance mechanisms, while the Block IVA

missile is upgraded with a new booster for better range and maneuverability and would add a near-term capability against theater

ballistic missiles.

Subsequent to submission of the budget request, the committee

has learned that technical problems with the development of the

Block IVA missile have resulted in testing delays. The committee

understands that, as a result of these delays, development and

operational evaluation of the Block IVA will not be complete until

early in fiscal year 2001. Since procurement of the Block IVA missile will not occur before fiscal year 2001, the committee recommends no funds for this program, a decrease of $43.6 million.

Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends an increase

for Block IVA missile engineering and manufacturing development.

The committee notes, however, that the Chief of Naval Operations has included additional Block IIIB missiles among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000. Accordingly, the committee

recommends an increase of $19.0 million for 27 additional Block

IIIB missiles.

The committee also notes a 39 percent increase in procurement

support costs from fiscal year 1999 appropriated levels, despite the

fact that the total number of missiles to be procured decreases.

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $14.4 million.
78

In total, the committee recommends a decrease of $39.0 million

for the Standard missile.

Tomahawk missiles

The budget request contained $50.9 million for the remanufacture of 148 Block II Tomahawk land attack missiles (TLAM) to the

Block III configuration, but included no funds to remanufacture

Tomahawk anti-ship missiles (TASM) to the TLAM Block III configuration or to re-start TLAM Block III missile production.

The Tomahawk missile is a long range, precision strike cruise

missile launched from surface ships or submarines and is produced

in both TASM or TLAM versions for conventional warfare. The

TLAM Block III, the most current and the most sought-after

version by theater commanders-in-chief, has increased range and

accuracy and involves decreased planning time compared to the

earlier TLAM block II configuration. In the first half of fiscal year

1999, over 500 TLAMs have been expended in Southwest Asia and

European combat operations, substantially reducing the TLAM inventory below required levels.

As a result of the TLAM shortage, the Department requested $421.2 million in fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations for the remanufacture of 424 Block II TLAMs and 200

TASMs to the Block III configuration. Despite this increase, the

committee has learned that Tomahawk inventory requirements will

still not be met in the Future Years Defense Program. Consequently, the committee recommends $350.9 million, an in- crease of $300.0 million. Of this amount, $260.8 million is for the

remanufacture of 326 TASMs to the TLAM Block III configuration,

$40.0 million is for non-recurring costs to re-start the TLAM Block

III production line, and $50.1 million is for the procurement of new

production TLAM Block III missiles.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, NAVY/MARINE CORPS

Overview

The budget request contained $484.9 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $612.9 million for fiscal year

2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
79
80
81

Items of Special Interest

Navy ammunition

The budget request contained $328.7 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends $381.7 million, an increase of $53.0 million to procure additional Joint Direct Attack

Munitions which were among the top unfunded priorities of the

Chief of Naval Operations for fiscal year 2000:

[In millions of dollars]

JDAM ...................................................................................................................... 48.0

MJU–52 BOL IR .................................................................................................... 5.0

Marine Corps ammunition

The budget request contained $156.2 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends $231.2 million, an increase of $75.0 million for the following types of ammunition, which

are among the top unfunded priorities of the Commandant of the

Marine Corps for fiscal year 2000:

[In millions of dollars]

5.56mm, all types ................................................................................................... 9.0

7.62mm, all types ................................................................................................... 5.0

Linear charges, all types ....................................................................................... 10.0

.50 Caliber .............................................................................................................. 4.0

40mm, all types ...................................................................................................... 1.3

60mm, all types ...................................................................................................... 4.0

CTG 25mm, all types ............................................................................................. 8.2

Rocket, 83mm Dual Mode HE .............................................................................. 14.0

Artillery, all types .................................................................................................. 8.0

Fuze, Hand Grenade, practice .............................................................................. 3.0

Charge, Demolition Assembly ............................................................................... 7.2

Items less than $5.0 million .................................................................................. 1.3

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $6,678.5 million for Shipbuilding

and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $6,687.2 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
82
83
84

Items of Special Interest

Attack submarine force level

Although a baseline force of 50 nuclear powered attack submarines (SSNs) was established in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense

Review, Department of the Navy witnesses testified in 1998 that

theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINC) requirements for SSNs, including aircraft carrier battlegroup deployments, Arctic operations,

special forces missions, and independent presence missions dictate

a force of 72 SSNs. Near term fiscal constraints make such a force

unaffordable.

Early in the next century, LOS ANGELES Class SSNs, procured

at relatively high rates of two to four boats per year during the

1980s, will reach the end of their service lives and begin to leave

the fleet in large numbers. The low SSN procurement rate between

1990 and 2005, if not redressed, will drive the SSN force level

below 50 boats. Moreover, by 2015 significant military challenges

from modernized military forces and the proliferation of advanced

military weapons could confront our armed forces. This situation

may require a Navy that has a larger SSN force. The committee

is concerned that potential future threats to U.S. national security

interests warrant the establishment of an absolute minimum SSN

force level of 50 boats and believes the SSN procurement rates in

the Future Years Defense Program must be increased and maintained at a rate to ensure that this minimum force level is sustained.

LHD–8 amphibious assault ship

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of a

Wasp-class (LHD) amphibious assault ship.

The committee understands that the Navy intends to procure the

LHD–8 amphibious assault ship in fiscal year 2005 but has yet to

decide whether or not to conduct a service life extension program

(SLEP) to the older Tarawa-class (LHA) amphibious assault ships

in the fleet. Should the Navy choose to SLEP the LHA ships, it

could cost almost $1.0 billion per ship and add only 15 years to the

service life of each ship. An alternative to the LHA SLEP may be

the new construction of LHD-class amphibious assault ships. The

LHD is larger than the LHA and in most respects provides more

capability. The committee understands that, with some modifications, the LHD could meet or exceed the capabilities of the LHA

in all regards. The committee believes that avoiding a break in the

production of LHD-class ships preserves the option of procuring

these vessels as an alternative to an LHD SLEP until the Navy determines which option is more cost-effective.

Therefore, to preserve this option, the committee recommends an

additional $15.0 million for advance procurement of long lead materials for the construction of LHD–8.

Strategic sealift

The budget request contained no funds for the acquisition of new

sealift ships in the National Defense Sealift Fund.

The committee is concerned that the Maritime Prepositioning

Force (Enhanced) MPF(E) conversion program that was intended to
85

provide the Marine Corps with three additional prepositioning

ships by purchasing and converting used foreign vessels has proven

to be more costly than originally envisioned. Since there are insufficient funds to complete all of the planned conversions and the Marine Corps prepositioning requirement has not been reduced, the

committee continues to believe that the most sensible way to address the shortfall is to convert a Large Medium Speed Roll-on/

Roll-off (LMSR) vessel to the Marine Corps-required configuration. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $80.0 mil- lion in the National Defense Sealift Fund: $50.0 million for the advance procurement of long lead components for the construction of

an additional LMSR and $30.0 million for modification of an existing LMSR for the Marine Corps mission.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $4,100.1 million for Other Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $4,260.4 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96

Items of Special Interest

AN/BPS–16 submarine navigation radar upgrade

The budget request contained no funds for upgrading the AN/

BPS–16 submarine navigation radar to make it compliant with the

Navy’s electronic chart display information systems (ECDIS–N).

ECDIS–N compliance will eliminate the requirement for paper

navigational charts on submarines by upgrading radar navigation

systems with computer-based charts designed to international commercial standards.

The committee added $9.0 million in fiscal year 1999 to upgrade

AN/BPS–15(H) submarine radar systems to the ECDIS–N standard. The committee continues to support the ECDIS–N compliance

and recommends an increase of $8.0 million to provide for the procurement and installation of nine ship sets of equipment to upgrade the AN/BPS–16 submarine navigation radar.

AN/SPS–73 (V) surface search radar

The budget request contained $1.1 million for the procurement

and installation of AN/SPS–73 (V) surface search radars.

The committee understands that the Navy currently operates

several different surface search radar variants as well as commercial navigational radars and plans to replace these systems with

the AN/SPS–73 (V) surface search radar, a commercial-off-the-shelf

(COTS) system, in order to improve performance and standardize

logistics and maintenance requirements. The committee supports

the accelerated adoption of a standard COTS surface search radar

and believes it can be expected to greatly reduce total ownership

costs to the Navy.

Therefore, the committee recommends $15.1 million, an increase

of $14.0 million for necessary non-recurring combat systems integration costs and to procure and install additional AN/SPS–73 (V)

surface search radars.

AN/USC–42 mini-demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) ultrahigh frequency (UHF) satellite communications (SATCOM) terminals

The budget request contained $237.7 million for SATCOM ship

terminals, but included no funds for AN/USC–42 mini-DAMA UHF

SATCOM terminals.

The AN/USC–42 mini-DAMA terminal is a commercial-off-theshelf variant of the shipboard DAMA transceiver miniaturized for

submarine application. It provides two-way satellite encrypted

voice and data communications in a much smaller package than

other DAMA and non-DAMA terminals.

The committee understands that DAMA terminals may provide

up to four times more UHF satellite channel capacity than conventional terminals through multiplexing, thereby providing increased

utilization of existing satellite channels and reducing the requirement for additional satellites. The committee further understands

that the Navy plans no additional procurement of AN/USC–42

mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM terminals even though there remains

a shortfall of these units.
97

Therefore, the committee recommends $247.7 million, an increase of $10.0 million to procure additional mini-DAMA UHF

SATCOM terminals and associated spares.

Computer aided submode training (CAST) lesson authoring system

(CLASS)

The budget request contained $86.7 million for AEGIS support

equipment, but included no funds for CLASS to be expanded to

ships or systems other than AN/UYQ–70-equipped AEGIS destroyers.

CLASS is a commercial-off-the-shelf training system that operates with the Navy’s existing CAST system, but adds multi-media

capabilities such as video, audio, three-dimensional graphics, animation, and interactive simulations. The committee understands

that the CLASS is being installed on AN/UYQ–70-equipped AEGIS

destroyers, but the Navy does not plan to backfit this system on

other AEGIS-equipped platforms or to expand it to other systems.

The committee supports the incorporation of effective commercial

training technologies into Navy warships and believes that the

CLASS can provide flexible low-cost training capabilities to all

AEGIS class ships. Accordingly, the committee recommends $94.7 million for AEGIS support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million for the purpose of

backfitting CLASS on non-AN/UYQ–70-equipped AEGIS cruisers

and destroyers and to expand this technology to other systems such

as cooperative engagement capability, joint maritime command information system, and global command and control system.

Firefighting equipment

The budget request contained $17.0 million for fire fighting equipment, of which $12.0 million was included for the procurement and installation of the Fire Fighters Breathers Apparatus

(FFBA).

The FFBA is a self-contained, compressed air breathing device

that is compatible with fire fighter protective wear, helmet and

other damage control equipment. The committee understands that

it is a safer system that provides breathable air to the fire fighter

for a longer period of time than the current, less capable oxygen

breathing apparatus (OBA).

Accordingly, the committee recommends $32.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million to accelerate the replacement of existing

OBA systems with the FFBA.

Joint engineering data management and information control system

(JEDMICS)

The budget request contained no funds for JEDMICS, a Department of Defense-wide repository for engineering drawings and related text.

The committee believes that the transfer of unclassified sensitive

information contained in the JEDMICS database via the Internet

may lead to unacceptable national security risks and is aware that,

in order to provide better security for the system, the program office has identified DiamondTEK, a commercial-off-the-shelf network security product as the solution to the problem.
98

The committee fully supports the integration of DiamondTEK

technology into JEDMICS and recommends an increase of $12.0

million for this purpose.

Minesweeping equipment

The budget request contained $16.3 million for minesweeping

equipment, of which $900 thousand was included for procurement

of the versatile mine exercise system (VEMS). The budget request

included no funds for procurement of the Dyad mine countermeasures system.

The VEMS is a simulation system that provides realistic training

for fleet and mine countermeasures forces. The system also aids in

evaluating the effectiveness of mine warfare tactics and provides a

quantitative assessment of equipment and ship vulnerability. The

committee understands that the Navy has not met its inventory objective for the VEMS.

The Dyad mine countermeasures system is an influence minesweeping system towed behind a small craft that can mimic the

magnetic and acoustic signature of a larger vessel to clear a path

through a minefield for that vessel. The committee understands

that the Navy evaluated this system in 1996 and favorably reported its potential for port breakout minesweeping missions.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $24.9 million for minesweeping equipment, an increase of $4.1 million to procure additional VEMS and an increase of $4.5 million to procure Dyad countermeasures systems.

Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)

The budget request contained $12.2 million for weapons range

support but included no funds to procure MRES systems.

The MRES is a ground-based, high-power electronic warfare

threat simulator that is capable of tracking fast-moving tactical aircraft, surface ships and other signal collection platforms. The committee believes that the Navy currently operates outdated electronic simulators that are incapable of tracking fast-moving tactical

aircraft and do not provide high fidelity threat representations so

critical for realistic training.

Therefore, to improve the quality and availability of electronic

warfare threat training, the committee recommends $20.2 million,

an increase of $8.0 million to procure and install one MRES system.

Other training equipment

The budget request contained $44.2 million for other training

equipment, of which $27.9 million was included to procure Battle

Force Tactical Training (BFTT) equipment.

The BFTT system allows surface combatants, submarines and

aircraft carriers to conduct realistic, coordinated training scenarios

using ownship equipment instead of shore-based training simulators. The committee understands that while BFTT is a valuable

training system, it currently lacks an Air Traffic Control (ATC)

training capability for aircraft carriers and a complete BFTT Electronic Warfare Trainer (BEWT) interface.
99

Therefore, in order to improve the utility of the BFTT system

and to provide realistic low-cost ATC and electronic warfare training, the committee recommends $56.2 million, an increase of $12.0

million: $7.0 million for the procurement and installation of 12

ATC trainers and $5.0 million to complete the procurement of 30

BEWT systems.

Shipboard display emulator (SDE) equipment

The budget request contained no funds for SDE equipment for

Perry and Spruance class surface combatants and older AEGIS

class ships not equipped with the Vertical Launching System.

The committee understands that older surface combatants use

obsolete display systems that are no longer in production and are

increasingly more difficult to maintain due to the scarcity of repair

parts. Consequently, the committee believes that these ships,

which constitute over one quarter of the Navy’s surface combatant

force and are expected to remain in active service for several years,

should be upgraded with modern, supportable display systems. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to procure and install modern state-of-the-art SDE equipment

in older surface combatants.

Sonobuoys

The budget request contained $48.0 million for the procurement

of sonobuoys, including the AN/SSQ–36, AN/SSQ–53E, AN/SSQ–57,

AN/SSQ–62E, AN/SSQ–101, and Signal Underwater Sound buoys.

The committee notes that the Navy’s peacetime annual requirement for sonobuoys is approximately 100,000 units, but that the

budget request only funds approximately 50,000 sonobuoys of all

types. Despite the end of the Cold War, anti-submarine warfare remains a primary mission of the Navy that requires coordinated realistic training of air, surface, and submarine units. Such training

necessarily consumes large numbers of sonobuoys, and the Navy’s

procurement rate fails to meet the annual peacetime requirements.

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to address this shortfall, to be distributed as follows: $12.8 million for AN/SSQ–53E, $6.0 million for AN/SSQ–62E, and $1.2 million for AN/SSQ–101.

Surface sonar support equipment

The budget request contained no funds for surface sonar support

equipment.

The committee understands that the Navy has developed a new

material and production process for surface ship sonar dome windows and that initial testing on FFG–7 frigate keel sonar domes

has thus far validated the expected performance improvements.

While the FFG–7 application is useful, the majority of Navy surface ships that are equipped with hull mounted sonars, including

DDG–51 and DD–963 class destroyers, and CG–47 class cruisers,

have bow-mounted sonar domes which require more complex sonar

dome windows.

The committee further understands that efforts are underway to

fabricate a dome made from the new material for installation on

a DDG–51 destroyer and recommends an increase of $5.0 million
100

to refine manufacturing processes and reduce production costs of

the new sonar dome.

WSN–7B ring laser gyro (RLG) and WQN–2 doppler sonar velocity

log (DSVL)

The budget request contained $67.5 million for navigation equipment, of which $40.4 million was included for the procurement of

43 WSN–7 RLGs, but included no funds for the procurement of

WQN–2 DSVLs.

The WSN–7 RLG is the common RLG ship navigation system for

surface ships and submarines. The WQN–2 has been designated by

the Navy as the fleet standard speed log to replace obsolete and

maintenance intensive electro-magnetic speed logs currently in

service throughout the fleet. The committee added $18.0 million in

fiscal year 1999 to accelerate introduction of these systems into the

fleet in order to reduce the life cycle costs of ship navigational systems and continues to strongly support an accelerated program.

The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the

procurement and installation of 30 additional WSN–7B RLGs to

significantly accelerate the replacement of maintenance intensive

WSN–2 ship conventional gyro navigation systems in surface ships.

The committee also recommends an increase of $10.0 million for

the procurement and installation of 30 additional WQN–2 DSVLs

to upgrade ship speed logs concurrent with navigation system upgrades.

Undersea warfare support equipment

The budget request contained $2.6 million for undersea warfare

support equipment, of which $1.2 million was included for procurement of 55 Launched Expendable Acoustic Devices (LEADs).

The committee is concerned that the Navy has not widely fielded

effective countermeasures against submarine launched torpedoes

but notes that the LEAD was approved for full production in May

1998.

To address this concern the committee recommends $11.2 million, an increase of $8.6 million for procurement of 300 LEADs and

two SSTD test beds for large deck ships in order to widely disseminate throughout the fleet a capable defense against torpedoes.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview

The budget request contained $1,137.2 million for Procurement,

Marine Corps in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $1,297.5 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
101
102
103
104
105
106

Items of Special Interest

155 millimeter (mm) lightweight towed howitzer

The budget request did not contain funds to procure the 155mm

lightweight towed howitzer.

The committee notes that, as a result of production delays, the

155mm lightweight towed howitzer program was restructured and

a new prime contractor was selected. Since this restructuring, program performance has improved dramatically with engineering,

testing and schedule milestones being met successfully. While litigation pursued by an arsenal union/industry team against the

Army regarding the original 155mm lightweight towed howitzer

contract award is unfortunate and a cause for concern, the committee believes it should not be allowed to interfere with other

business opportunities for the arsenal.

The committee also believes that arsenals possess valuable capabilities that are underutilized, especially in the areas of recoil

mechanisms, carriages and gun barrels. The committee further believes that given the opportunity, arsenals could contribute to improved quality and reduced costs for these and other components

being subcontracted for the restructured 155mm lightweight howitzer program.

Accordingly, the committee expects the Army to establish a process by which arsenals shall be afforded an opportunity to submit

challenge proposals for appropriate artillery and tank system components to be considered for incorporation into these weapons systems.

Body armor

The budget request contained no funds in Procurement, Marine

Corps for body armor.

In previous years, the committee noted the effectiveness of the

all-torso body armor used during Operation Provide Hope in

Mogadishu, Somalia, and that subsequent analyses have indicated

that more than 50 percent of all life-threatening wounds received

in combat could be prevented by using this armor.

The committee continues to believe that the costs of procuring

and fielding this type of armor far outweigh the medical expenses

and loss of human life that would be avoided by its employment.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million,

for the procurement of all-torso body armor.

Communications and electronic infrastructure support

The budget request contained $81.8 million for communications

and electronic infrastructure support equipment, of which $43.0

million was included for the upgrades to and fielding of base telecommunications upgrades.

For each of the last three years, the Commandant of the Marine

Corps has designated base telecommunications upgrades to the Marine Corps Enterprise Network as his number one non-aviation unfunded priority.

Consistent with its past actions to support the Marine Corps’ demands for transfer of all types of data among its bases, the committee recommends $131.8 million, an increase of $20.0 million for
107

telecommunications infrastructure upgrades at Marine Corps Base

Camp Pendleton, $5.0 million for upgrades at Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center Bridgeport, and $25.0 million for upgrades at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

Marine Corps air ground task force (MAGTF) command, control,

communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) modification

kits

The budget request contained $13.8 million for modifications to previously fielded MAGTF C4I equipment, of which $5.0 million

was included to procure product improvements for the mobile electronic warfare support system (MEWSS).

The MEWSS is an electronic warfare equipment suite included

in a variant of the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV). The MEWSS

product improvement program (PIP) replaces obsolete components

with upgrades that can detect, locate, and demodulate advanced

adversary communications.

The committee notes that the Army and the Marine Corps were

working together to field a joint, seamless ground signals intelligence collection capability. The MEWSS PIP was the Marine

Corps’ system, and the ground based common sensor (GBCS) was

the Army’s. However, the Army terminated its portion of the program in fiscal year 1998. This action directly impacted the MEWSS

PIP, resulting in increased costs and delayed fielding. The committee understands that the Army has decided to lessen the impact

of the GBCS termination on the MEWSS by providing GBCS residual equipment to the Marine Corps. However, modifications to this

equipment will be required in order to retrofit it into the MEWSS

LAV and the Marine Corps did not budget for these. Therefore, the committee recommends $18.8 million for MAGTF

C4I modification kits, an increase of $5.0 million to modify GBCS

sensor systems into the MEWSS LAV.

Material handling equipment

The budget request contained $50.0 million for the procurement

of various types of material handling equipment, but included no

funds for the remanufacture of D7G bulldozers. The D7G bulldozer

is used throughout Marine Corps combat engineer and support

units to build airfields, as well as for combat clearing and debris

excavation.

The committee notes that the service’s bulldozer fleet is 14 years

old and rapidly deteriorating. The committee also notes that the

D7G remanufacturing program is one of the Commandant of the

Marine Corps’ fiscal year 2000 unfunded priorities and that this

program will extend the life of 200 bulldozers for an additional 10

years.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $66.5 million, an increase of $16.5 million for D7G bulldozer remanufacturing.

Modification kits (tracked vehicles)

The budget request contained $22.9 for the procurement of various modifications to tracked vehicles, but included no funds for upgrading M88A1 recovery vehicles to the more capable M88A2 Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicle (IRV) variant.
108

The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles weighing

less than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are required to safely

tow an Abrams tank if it is rendered immobile due to combat damage or mechanical failure. The A2 upgrade includes increased engine horsepower, as well as braking, steering, winch, lift, and suspension capabilities required to safely recover Abrams tanks and

other heavy combat systems.

The committee has recommended an increase for Army IRV upgrades elsewhere in this report, and based on the critical role that

this vehicle will fulfill in future expeditionary operations and warfare, the committee also recommends $72.3 million, an increase of

$49.4 million for 24 M88A2 IRV upgrades for the Marine Corps.

Night vision equipment

The budget request contained $9.0 million for the procurement of

night vision equipment, of which $3.2 million was included for the

procurement of generation III 25 millimeter (mm) image intensification tubes, but no funds were included to procure AN/PEQ–

2 laser Target/Illuminator/Aiming Light (TPIAL).

The committee is aware of the joint Army/Navy/Marine Corps

program to procure generation III 25mm image intensification

tubes as replacements for less capable generation II tubes fielded

in the AN/PVS–4 and AN/TVS–5 night vision goggles and notes

that the generation III tubes provide a minimum 25 percent resolution increase. The AN/PEQ–2 TPIAL is a dual laser, consisting of

highly collimated infrared aiming light and infrared target illuminator, which are visible only through night vision goggles. These

lasers can either be operated independently or in combination.

The committee notes that both generation III 25mm image intensification tubes and AN/PEQ–2 laser TPIALs are top unfunded priorities of the Commandant of Marine Corps in fiscal year 2000.

Based on the enhanced operational capability that night vision devices provide to combat forces and the committee’s belief that these

devices will provide a pivotal ‘‘force multiplier’’ in future Marine

Corps expeditionary operations and warfare, the committee recommends $17.5 million, an increase of $3.5 million for generation

III 25mm image intensification tubes and an increase of $5.0 million for AN/PEQ–2 laser TPIALs.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $9,302.1 million for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $9,647.7 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
109
110
111
112
113
114

Items of Special Interest

Bomber modernization

The committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–532) required

the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a bomber modernization

plan that identified upgrades required for the current bomber fleet,

a funding profile for these upgrades, and a timeline for consideration of the acquisition of a follow-on bomber. The plan submitted

by the Secretary would sustain the current bomber force structure,

consisting of B–2, B–1, and B–52 bombers, through 2037 and would

delay any planning for procurement of a new bomber until 2013.

The committee considers this planned force structure is unacceptable.

Consistent with the March 1998 conclusions of the Congressionally-directed Long Range Air Power Panel, the committee continues

to believe that a replacement bomber will be required much sooner

than predicted in Air Force bomber roadmap. The committee notes

that by 2037, on average, B–2 bombers will have been in service

over 40 years, the B–1 over 50 years, and the B–52 nearly 80

years, with a fleet average of over 60 years. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide to the

House Committee on Armed Services and Senate Committee on

Armed Services by February 15, 2000, a conceptual study of a next

generation bomber, including cost estimates, to be deployed by approximately 2015.

C–17

The budget request contained $3,080.1 million to procure 15 C–

17 aircraft and $304.9 million for advance procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The budget request did not include advance procurement funds for a maintenance training system (MTS)

for the Air National Guard.

The C–17 MTS is designed to qualify personnel to maintain the

C–17 aircraft. The committee understands that the Air National

Guard unit that will receive C–17 aircraft in fiscal year 2003 requires an MTS for initial qualification of its maintenance personnel

prior to the arrival of the aircraft.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $3,083.6 million, an increase of $3.5 million for advance procurement of an Air National

Guard MTS.

C–17A aircraft modifications

The budget request contained $95.6 million for C–17A aircraft

modifications, of which $11.9 million was included for the electronic

flight control system (EFCS) modification.

The EFCS modification updates the C–17A’s flight control computers with increased memory and allows for future system expansion. The committee supports the EFCS upgrade but notes unexplained equipment cost growth for this modification.

Consequently, the committee recommends $93.5 million for C–17

modifications, a decrease of $2.1 million for the EFCS modification.
115

C–130J

The committee notes that the Marine Corps has a clear requirement for 51 KC–130J aircraft to replace existing KC–130F/Rs,

many of which are already almost 40 years old. In addition, the Air

Force has reported a requirement for 150 C–130J–30s to replace C–

130Es delivered in the early 1960s. None, however, were included

in the budget request, and the Air Force currently plans to delay

procurement until fiscal year 2002. An aircraft production line cannot be simply turned off and on without major disruption to the

total supplier network across the country and the loss of skilled

employees it represents. Such a shutdown and restart of the C–

130J production is estimated to cost $500.0 million.

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to include

the necessary funds in the President’s fiscal year 2001 budget request for the procurement of both Marine Corps KC–130Js and Air

Force C–130J–30s, in order to meet the requirement without the

adverse disruption resulting from the shutdown and restart of the

production line.

C–135 modifications

The budget request contained $347.1 million for C–135 modifica- tions, of which $170.7 million was included for the compass, radar,

and global positioning system modification known as PACER

CRAG, but included no funds for reengining older model KC–135E

tanker aircraft.

The committee has long been a strong supporter of the KC–135

reengining program and notes that 414 KC–135A/Q/E model tankers have been funded to date. The committee also notes its past

disagreement with the Department’s decision to cancel the KC–

135E reengining modification and has added additional funding for

such purpose in each of the last several years. Consistent with its

past actions, the committee recommends an increase of $52.0 million for two KC–135E reengining kits.

The committee also notes excessive cost growth in PACER CRAG

installation equipment when compared to prior years. Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.1 million for

the PACER CRAG modification.

In total, the committee recommends an increase of $49.9 million

for these C–135 modifications.

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP)

The budget request contained $138.4 million for various RC–135

and U–2 aircraft modifications, but included no funds for RC–135

Rivet Joint (RJ) quick reaction capabilities (QRCs) or an upgraded

U–2 common data link (CDL).

The RC–135 RJ is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft that provides

real-time intelligence to combat forces. The QRCs consist of new

software and hardware processing modifications that allow the aircraft and its crews to exploit new adversary systems. Since the Air

Force Chief of Staff included additional funding for these QRCs

among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2000, the committee

recommends $13.4 million for these modifications.

The U–2 is a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, and the CDL

is its data link to ground stations. The committee understands that
116

the U–2’s current CDL, designed over 20 years ago, has limited

jam resistance and is increasingly costly to operate and maintain.

The committee also understands that an upgraded CDL improves

jam resistance, is less costly to operate and maintain, provides enhanced throughput capacity, and is compatible with the Department’s existing information architecture. Therefore, the committee

recommends an increase of $5.0 million to upgrade the U–2’s CDL. In total, the committee recommends $178.1 million for DARP, an

increase of $39.7 million. Explanations for other increases are addressed in the classified annex to this report.

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

The budget request contained $280.3 million to procure one E–

8C Joint STARS aircraft, but included no funds for advance procurement to continue its production.

The Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommended reducing the number of Joint STARS aircraft to be procured from 19 to 13 based on the assumption that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would select and purchase six

Joint STARS to meet its requirements for Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) aircraft. Despite NATO’s rejection of the Joint STARS

as its AGS aircraft in 1998, the Department did not change its recommendation nor budget for more than 13 Joint STARS aircraft in

its fiscal year 1999 budget request. Accordingly, the committee recommended $72.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for advance procurement of two aircraft, and the Congress appropriated $36.0 million

for one aircraft.

While the committee is encouraged that the Department has

funded the 14th Joint STARS aircraft in its budget request, the

committee remains concerned that, despite the Joint Requirements

Oversight Council-validated requirement for 19 aircraft, the Department once again intends to shut down the E–8C production

line after this aircraft is produced. These ‘‘low-density, high demand’’ aircraft are among the most sought-after assets by the regional commanders-in-chief for a range of reconnaissance and surveillance operations.

Therefore, the committee recommends $326.3 million, an increase of $46.0 million for advance procurement of one additional

E–8C Joint STARS aircraft in fiscal year 2001.

F–15 modifications

The budget request contained $263.5 million for F–15 modifications, of which $17.6 million was included for 10 modification kits

that convert the F100 engine to the F100–220E configuration.

However, no funds were included for conversion of the Air National

Guard’s (ANG) F–15A and F–15B aircraft engines to the F100–

220E configuration.

Conversion kits for the F100 engine, also known as ‘‘E-kits’’, will

provide increased thrust, greater reliability, reduced maintenance

requirements, and better fuel efficiency. The committee understands that, without the E-kit modification, the ANG’s F–15A/B

fleet will be increasingly costly to operate and maintain, less safe,

and have diminished availability to respond to contingency operations.
117

Consequently, the committee recommends $313.5 million for F–

15 modifications, an increase of $50.0 million for upgrading for the

ANG’s F–15A/B aircraft with E-kits.

F–16C

The budget request contained $252.6 million for 10 F–16C aircraft, of which $5.0 million was included for engineering change orders (ECOs).

The F–16C is the Air Force’s primary multi-mission fighter aircraft. The committee notes that F–16Cs have been delivered to the

Air Force since fiscal year 1992 and believes that ECOs to the aircraft should be minimal at this point in the production cycle.

Consequently, the committee recommends $250.1 million, a decrease of $2.5 million.

F–16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS)

The budget request contained $30.0 million for F–16 post production support, of which $10.0 million was included for two IAIS systems.

The F–16 IAIS is a mobile test station used to diagnose and repair F–16 avionics problems at deployed locations. Because the F–

16 IAIS uses fewer people and requires less cargo space for transit

than the existing avionics intermediate shop, F–16 units have reported a savings of greater than $450 thousand per deployment.

The committee understands that 55 F–16 IAISs are required, but

notes that only 44 have been, or are planned to be, procured in the

Future Years Defense Program.

Consequently, the committee recommends $50.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million for four F–16 IAIS systems-two for active

units, and one each for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve

units.

F–16 modifications

The budget request contained $249.5 million for various F–16

modifications, including $50.0 million to procure 32 LITENING II

precision attack targeting systems (PATS). However, the request

included no funds for long range fuel tanks or for the Digital Terrain System (DTS) upgrade.

The committee understands that Air National Guard (ANG) F–

16 units are currently restricted from participation in combat operations because of their limited capability to perform precision

strikes. The committee further understands that, due to this situation, the ANG Chief has designated procurement of additional

LITENING II PATS as his number one unfunded priority for fiscal

year 2000. This system, which consists of a third-generation forward-looking infrared and a laser spot tracker, will allow older

ANG F–16s to participate in future Air Expeditionary Force deployments in support of theater commanders-in-chief precision strike

taskings.

The committee believes the integration of ANG F–16s into precision strike operations is essential to the Total Force concept and,

therefore, recommends $80.0 million for LITENING II PATS, an increase of $30.0 million to procure 18 additional systems.
118

The committee notes that the Congress provided $4.0 million in

fiscal year 1999 for continued procurement of 600 gallon fuel tanks

for the F–16. The committee believes that additional tanks are required to support testing with different aircraft configurations and,

therefore, recommends an increase of $4.0 million for this purpose.

The DTS is designed to reduce controlled flight into terrain mishaps by providing F–16 pilots with a precise navigation and a

ground collision avoidance capability. The committee has strongly

supported the DTS upgrade in previous fiscal years. The committee

is aware that the Air Force has a firm requirement for the DTS

and is in the process of modifying the F–16’s operational flight program to accommodate DTS integration. However, the committee

understands that no funds are budgeted to continue this upgrade

until fiscal year 2001.

Consistent with its earlier recommendations and Air Force requirements, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to accelerate fielding of the DTS upgrade.

The committee supports all the modifications for which funds

were requested but notes unexplained cost growth in the following

projects: F110 digital engine control; global positioning system;

mission computer kits; and engineering change orders. Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.1 million for

these projects. In total, the committee recommends $296.4 million for F–16

modifications, an increase of $46.9 million.

F–22

The budget request contained $1,575.0 million for 6 F–22 aircraft and $277.1 million for advance procurement of 10 aircraft in fiscal

year 2001. The budget request also contained $1,222.2 million in

PE 0604239F for F–22 engineering and manufacturing development (EMD).

The F–22, the Air Force’s next-generation air superiority fighter

aircraft, is currently approximately 80 percent complete in the

EMD phase of acquisition and low rate initial production is

planned to begin in fiscal year 2000. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105–85) established a cost

limitation for both the EMD and procurement phases of the program, which are $18.9 billion for EMD and $43.4 billion for procurement.

Over the past year, the committee has learned that potential

EMD costs could exceed the cost limitation by $667.0 million. To

retain EMD costs within the cost ceiling, the Air Force has identified proposed actions to offset this amount, which included the depletion of the contractor’s management reserve, deferral of external

combat stores certification until after the F–22 EMD program is

complete and reductions to test and laboratory infrastructure.

The committee also notes that the Department’s fiscal year 2000

request for six F–22s has increased by $312.7 million, or 25 percent, compared to its forecast cost submitted with the fiscal year

1999 budget request. The committee understands that the Department based its fiscal year 1999 forecast on a cost model estimate

but the fiscal year 2000 budget request reflects negotiated values

and actual contractor costs. As a result of this increase, the com-
119

mittee also understands that costs for aircraft to be procured beyond fiscal year 2000 have been planned to cost less so that the Department can procure the planned number of aircraft within the

cost limitation.

While the committee continues to support the F–22 aircraft, it is

disturbed by continuing EMD cost growth; the prospect that EMD

actions being eliminated or deferred will result in higher future

costs, increased program risk, or both; and by unforeseen increases

in procurement costs. Since future budget requests for research and

development are projected to decrease and for procurement are

likely to rise only modestly, the committee is concerned that future

F–22 EMD and procurement cost increases could impact other programs, may require a reduction to the number of F–22s procured,

or eliminate some of the aircraft’s intended capabilities to remain

within cost limits. Thus, the committee questions whether the

present F–22 EMD and procurement programs can be completed as

planned within projected budgets and limitations.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force

to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000, that certifies that F–22 EMD and production can remain within the cost limits and that testing of the aircraft will be

performed in accordance with test plans that were in place when

the cost limits were established. If the Secretary is unable to make

such certification, he shall inform the committees of the reasons

therefor and present a revised plan, including new cost estimates,

for the acquisition of this aircraft.

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle

The budget request contained $38.0 million for three Predator

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and one ground control station

(GCS).

The committee notes that the Predator has been flying support

missions in Bosnia, and now Kosovo, for over three and one-half

years, logging more than 11,000 total flight hours. Because of its

importance to theater commanders’ intelligence needs, a solid production base for this system must be continued, attrition reserve

vehicles must be maintained, and improvements must be made to

fully exploit the potential of this system. For example, the committee believes the laser designator upgrades now being integrated

into the aircraft for immediate contingency needs should be put

into long-term production.

Also, Predator operations are expected to be expanded to other

theaters and operational areas. However, the committee understands Predator is currently not deployable worldwide because of

some host-nation communications frequency restrictions. The committee believes the Air Force needs to add the tactical common

data link (TCDL) to the air vehicles and the GCS to overcome this

operational limitation.

Finally, the committee notes that when using satellite communications control of an aircraft, the GCS can only control a single

air vehicle at a time. This precludes dual aircraft control for on-station relief that has been demonstrated with the line-of-sight data

link. A dual-channel beyond-line-of-sight satellite communications

capability needs to be retrofitted into existing aircraft.
120

Therefore, the committee recommends $58.0 million, an increase

of $20.0 million to procure two additional attrition reserve UAVs

and for production versions/kits of the laser designator, the dualchannel satellite communications suite and the TCDL.

T–38 modifications

The budget request contained $94.5 million for T–38 modifica- tions, of which $85.7 million was included for the avionics upgrade

program (AUP).

The AUP updates the T–38 cockpit configuration to provide

state-of-the-art avionics and improve instrument management

training. The committee supports the AUP but notes an unexplained increase in engineering change orders. Consequently, the committee recommends $91.1 million, a de- crease of $3.4 million.

Terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS)

The budget request contained $35.7 million for procurement and

installation of the TAWS upgrade on the C–135, KC–10, and C–20

aircraft, but included no funds for upgrade of the T–43 aircraft.

The TAWS upgrade projects an aircraft’s position relative to the

ground and improves pilot situational awareness by warning of potential ground impact, thus preventing controlled flight into terrain

(CFIT). The committee notes that CFIT is the leading cause of airline fatalities worldwide and that the TAWS is required on commercial airliners.

Therefore, the committee recommends $81.0 million, an increase

of $18.2 million for the C–135, $6.0 million for the KC–10, $10.3

million for the T–43, and $10.8 million for the C–20, to accelerate

the TAWS upgrade and understands that this amount will complete its procurement and installation of this equipment on these

aircraft.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $419.5 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $560.5 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
121
122
123

Items of Special Interest

Air force ammunition

The budget request contained $416.1 million for procurement of

ammunition. The committee recommends $557.1 million, an increase of $141.0 million for the following types of ammunition,

which are among the top unfunded priorities of the Chief of Staff

of the Air Force for fiscal year 2000:

[In millions of dollars]

Rockets:

2.75 inch rocket motors .................................................................................. 5.0

Cartridges:

.50 caliber ball, linked .................................................................................... 1.5

.50 caliber ball/tracer, linked ......................................................................... 0.5

20mm PGU–27/B ............................................................................................ 12.6

Bombs:

Practice Bombs (BDU–50/56) ......................................................................... 23.2

General Purpose Bombs ................................................................................. 10.0

MK–84 HE ....................................................................................................... 7.5

JDAM ............................................................................................................... 66.0

Flares

MJU–23 ........................................................................................................... 6.8

LUU–19 ........................................................................................................... 5.4

LUU–2 ............................................................................................................. 2.5

Of the amount recommended for practice bombs, the committee

expects $6.0 million to be designated for MK–84 (BDU–56) cast

ductile iron practice bombs.

Laser guided bombs (LGB)

The bombing campaign of Operation Allied Force clearly illustrates the importance of precision-guided munitions as a weaponof-choice and the necessity to maintain an adequate production

base of these weapons for surge requirements, replenishment, and

war reserves.

The committee is concerned that reliance on a single producer

could result in unnecessary delays in replenishing and rebuilding

the inventory of LGBs. The committee is aware that the Air Force

previously qualified a second source for LGB production and believes that a second source should be reestablished.

Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air

Force to submit a report analyzing alternative production options

to the Congressional defense committees by June 30, 1999.

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $2,359.6 million for Missile Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $2,303.7 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
124
125
126
127

Items of Special Interest

AGM–65 modifications

The budget request contained $2.8 million to convert 200 AGM–

65G missiles to the AGM–65K configuration, but included no funds

to upgrade AGM–65B missiles to the AGM–65H configuration or

for training missiles.

The AGM–65 is a precision guided tactical missile employed on

the F–16 and A–10 aircraft. The ‘‘G’’ configuration uses an infrared

(IR) target seeker, while the ‘‘K’’ and ‘‘H’’ configurations use an updated electro-optical (EO) seeker. The ‘‘B’’ configuration uses an obsolete EO target seeker.

The committee understands that the Air Force planned to retain

its AGM–65G IR-guided missiles and convert obsolete EO-guided

AGM–65B missiles to the updated AGM–65H configuration, but,

due to funding constraints, chose to modify its inventory of 1200

AGM–65Gs to the AGM–65K configuration, which would eliminate

IR-guided AGM–65s from its inventory.

Since the committee believes that a mix of both IR- and EO-guided AGM–65s are required for mission flexibility, it recommends

$12.8 million, an increase of $10.0 million to convert AGM–65B

missiles to the AGM–65H and AGM–65K configurations and to procure training missiles and associated test equipment for these

variants.

Minuteman III modifications

The budget request contained $146.5 million for the Minuteman

III guidance replacement program (GRP).

The committee notes that the Air Force has substantially delayed

the planned procurement of GRP, which will replace older guidance

packages in the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile

fleet. The committee understands that the delay in the program

also will force a delay of the propulsion replacement program

(PRP). The PRP will replace aging solid rocket motors, but installation of the new rocket motors depends on prior installation of GRP

computers. The committee also understands that the condition of

solid rocket fuel in some of these rocket motors will render them

unreliable prior to GRP completion and that the delay of GRP and

PRP will significantly lower the operational effectiveness of the

Minuteman force in the middle of the next decade.

To avoid these unacceptable operational consequences, the committee recommends $186.5 million, an increase of $40.0 million to

accelerate the procurement of GRP.

Spaceborne equipment

The budget request contained $9.6 million for spaceborne communications security equipment.

The committee notes that these funds were requested to support

the global positioning system and the space based infrared system

but understands that these requirements have already been met.

Consequently, the committee recommends $4.6 million, a decrease of $5.0 million.
128

Titan

The budget request contained $431.2 million for the Titan launch

vehicle and launch operations.

The committee notes a substantial increase in the request for

payload integration compared to the amount appropriated in fiscal

year 1999. The committee also notes that the expenditure rate for

prior year funds is lagging behind DOD end-of-year standards.

Consequently, the committee believes that the request exceeds

requirements and recommends $411.2 million, a reduction of $20.0

million.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $7,085.2 million for Other Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $7,077.8 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
129
130
131
132
133
134
135

Items of Special Interest

60K a/c loader

The budget request contained $81.2 million to procure 39 60K

aircraft loaders.

The 60K loader replaces the Air Force’s aging fleet of 1960s-era

40K loaders and wide-body elevator loaders. They provide the critical high-reach capability required to load the KC–10 and other

commercial wide-body aircraft that comprise the Civil Reserve Air

Fleet. The committee understands that there are 55 60K loaders

currently fielded at locations around the world, providing a critical

link in the responsive projection of U.S. forces and in the delivery

of materiel to support humanitarian operations.

The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included 60K loaders on his list of unfunded priorities for fiscal year

2000. In order to accelerate production and fielding of this key material handling equipment, the committee recommends $93.7 million, an increase of $12.5 million to procure an additional nine 60K

loaders. The committee understands that this action will enable the

maximum annual production rate of the 60 K loader to be attained.

Aircrew laser eye protection

The budget request contained no funds to procure aircrew laser

eye protection (LEP) equipment.

The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff recently directed that plans to procure and field LEP equipment be immediately accelerated. The committee has provided additional funds in

prior years for the Air Force to complete development and evaluation of aircrew LEP technologies and understands that, as a result,

two mature LEP technologies have emerged—FV–9 dye-based spectacles and visors and the clear laser eye protection for infrared

(CLEPIR) dielectric spectacles. The FV–9 spectacles and visors provide protection in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the CLEPIR spectacles provide protection in the invisible, near infrared portion of the spectrum.

The committee strongly supports the Chief’s direction to accelerate procurement and fielding of LEP spectacles and visors.

Therefore, the committee recommends $6.6 million to expeditiously

begin procurement of the FV–9 and CLEPIR equipment.

Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)

The budget request contained $71.2 million for ADPE but included no funds for the spare parts production and reprocurement

system (SPARES).

The committee notes the usefulness of this information system in

supporting spare parts buys at the Ogden Air Logistics Center and

believes it should be expanded to other installations Departmentwide.

Therefore, the committee recommends $81.2 million for ADPE,

an increase of $10.0 million for this purpose.

Master crane

The budget request contained no funds for the master crane.
136

The master crane is an aircraft component hoisting system for

use on all aircraft, both fixed-wing and rotary. It is currently only

in limited use within the Air National Guard (ANG) but has been

found to be safer to operate, faster to use, easier to deploy, and to

require much less maintenance than other cranes in the ANG’s inventory.

The committee believes that the master crane is kind of equipment that is needed for today’s rapid deployment forces. Therefore,

the committee recommends $5.0 million to procure additional master cranes for the ANG.

Military satellite communications terminals

The budget request contained $46.3 million for military satellite

communications terminals.

The committee understands that the request exceeds requirements because of a schedule delay in a military communications

satellite program. Accordingly, the committee recommends $40.0

million, a decrease of $6.3 million.

National eagle system

The budget request contained no funds to upgrade the national

eagle system.

The deployable national eagle system provides U.S. forces with

time-sensitive, commercial satellite imagery that allows aircrews to

have up-to-date access to imagery of an adversary’s terrain. Such

imagery can be immediately used in aircraft mission planning and

rehearsal systems, contributing both to survivability and mission

effectiveness. However, the committee understands that the national eagle system does not currently have an antenna or a data

acquisition capability, as does the upgraded eagle vision system.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $5.0 million to procure

an eagle vision antenna and data acquisition segment to upgrade

the national eagle system.

Radio equipment

The budget request contained $16.7 million for radio equipment,

including $15.7 million for Scope Command.

The Scope Command program provides for consolidating and upgrading the Department’s network of high frequency (HF) ground

stations around the world with commercial-off-the-shelf, state-ofthe-art HF radio equipment. These ground stations provide the sole

command and control resource for Air Mobility Command cargo

and tanker aircraft.

The committee has been a strong supporter of Scope Command

and understands that, with minor modifications, the network is capable of performing HF e-mail gateway functions. Since HF radio

signals use the ionosphere for propagation, incorporating an e-mail

capability into this network will provide an inexpensive method for

forward-deployed forces to communicate with friends and families

in the CONUS.

Consequently, the committee recommends $20.5 million for radio

equipment, an increase of $3.8 million to incorporate an HF e-mail

capability into the Scope Command network.
137

Supply asset tracking system (SATS)

The budget request contained $1.1 million for SATS.

SATS is one example of the Department’s effort to achieve Total

Asset Visibility—the ability to quickly and accurately identify and

locate personnel, equipment, and supplies—through the use of commercial automated information technology (AIT). It incorporates

radio frequency terminals and smart cards, enabling electronic status confirmation of supply assets from receipt to issue. The committee notes that the Congress has provided additional funds for

SATS installation over the past two fiscal years and is supportive

of the use of AIT to streamline business processes. Therefore, the committee recommends $11.1 million for SATS, an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate its installation at Air Force

bases worldwide.

Tactical communications-electronics (CE) equipment

The budget request contained $49.7 million for tactical CE equip- ment, of which $36.4 million is for theater-deployable communications (TDC) sets. TDC is a compact, ruggedized, high-bandwidth

communications system used by forward-deployed Air Expeditionary Force units. Its state-of-the-art technology is much more capable than the aging equipment it replaces, and it requires significantly reduced airlift support.

In 1997, the Air Force conducted a command and control (C2)

task force to establish an air and space C2 policy for the 21st century. One key finding of the task force was that the service should

accelerate procurement of TDC sets and complete the buyout of

this equipment by fiscal year 2001. The committee endorsed this

finding and added $25.0 million ($18.0 million of which was appropriated) for this purpose in fiscal year 1998 and $20.0 million (none

of which was appropriated) in fiscal year 1999.

The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included TDC sets on his list of unfunded priorities for fiscal year

2000. Accordingly, the committee recommends $84.2 million for tactical communications-electronics equipment, an increase of $34.5

million to accelerate the production and fielding of the two key

components of the TDC set, the lightweight mobile satellite terminal and the integrated communications access package.

Theater air control system (TACSI)

The budget request contained $37.9 million for TACSI, but contained no funds for mobile radar approach controls (RAPCON) for

the Air National Guard (ANG).

The committee is aware that the ANG has a requirement for 12

mobile RAPCONs, since, even though it is responsible for over 60

percent of the Department’s wartime air traffic control (ATC) mission, it is using ATC systems originally fielded in the 1960s. The

committee understands these systems are difficult to deploy, are

becoming unsupportable due to lack of spare parts, and lack current-generation automation aids that reduce controller workload

and fatigue. In view of this situation, funds were appropriated for

fiscal year 1999 to procure the first replacement mobile RAPCON,

an off-the-shelf, solid-state design system that corrects these deficiencies.
138

The committee supports continued modernization of ANG ATC units and recommends $61.9 million for TACSI, an increase of

$24.0 million to procure an additional three mobile RAPCONs.

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview

The budget request contained $2,129.0 million for Procurement,

Defense-Wide in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $2,107.8 million for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends approval of the request except for

those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise

specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability considerations.
139
140
141
142
143

Items of Special Interest

Automated document conversion system (ADCS)

The budget request contained no funds for the ADCS.

The committee recognizes that the ADCS is the Department’s

single most productive program in the conversion of legacy engineering drawings. However, a significant inventory of these drawings remain to be converted if the Department is to achieve its goal

to digitize them by fiscal year 2002. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $32.0 million to continue procurement of ADCS hardware and software for

this purpose.

Mentor prote ́ge ́

The budget request contained $26.3 million for the Mentor

Prote ́ge ́ program. This program provides funds to major Department of Defense prime contractors for the purpose of developing

the technical capabilities of Small Disadvantaged Businesses to

perform as subcontractors.

The committee notes that the legal authority for this pilot program expires at the end of fiscal year 1999. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds for the Mentor Prote ́ge ́ program.

Nightstar binocular

The budget request contained $23.4 million for special operations

forces small arms and weapons, but included no funds for nightstar

binoculars.

The nightstar binocular is a compact, lightweight, hand-held binocular that combines night vision and laser range-finding capabilities that allows the operator to transmit range, azimuth, and elevation data to external systems such as the global positioning system for immediate coordination definition. The committee understands that the Department’s initial operational test and evaluation of the nightstar binocular indicates that it provides increased

capabilities compared to existing night vision devices.

Consequently, the committee recommends $30.4 million, an increase of $7.0 million to initiate procurement of nightstar binoculars.

National Guard and Reserve Equipment

Overview

The budget request did not contain any funds for National Guard

and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of $60.0 million for fiscal year 2000.
144
145

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

National guard and reserve equipment

The budget request did not contain any funds for National Guard

and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million for this equipment.

[In millions of dollars]

Army Reserve:

Miscellaneous .................................................................................................. 10.0

Navy Reserve:

Miscellaneous .................................................................................................. 10.0

Marine Corps Reserve:

Miscellaneous .................................................................................................. 10.0

Air Force Reserve:

Miscellaneous .................................................................................................. 10.0

Army National Guard:

Miscellaneous .................................................................................................. 10.0

Air National Guard:

Miscellaneous .................................................................................................. 10.0

The committee expects that priority consideration be given to the

following items: fire fighting aircraft (with preference to U.S.-manufactured aircraft), cargo compartment expanded range fuel systems, medium tactical wreckers, night vision devices, ALR–56M

radar warning receivers, and night targeting systems.

Reconnaissance aircraft augmentation

Following the end of the Cold War, conventional thinking concluded that the relatively high operations tempo rates and the

numbers of reconnaissance aircraft could be reduced significantly.

Indeed, the operations tempo rates for these aircraft have increased

significantly since the demise of the Soviet Union. In addition to

their strategic reconnaissance and operations-other-than-war roles,

reconnaissance aircraft have been increasingly called on to provide

direct tactical intelligence to forces engaged in numerous regional

conflicts or supporting peacekeeping operations.

Unfortunately, fiscal realities make it unlikely that new reconnaissance aircraft will be procured in the near future. Further, the

numbers of reconnaissance aircraft have been reduced over time

due to accidents or to decisions such as the Navy’s to terminate the

ES–3 Shadow aircraft in fiscal year 2000 and the Air Force’s to terminate the Senior Scout platform in fiscal year 2002. Although unmanned aerial vehicles may mitigate some of these force size limitations, the committee believes there is a need to enhance the reconnaissance capabilities of manned systems that are already

available and in service.

The committee is aware of an initiative by the Air Force Chief

of Staff (CSAF) to use the EC–130H Compass Call offensive information operations aircraft in a secondary reconnaissance role. The

committee fully understands that Compass Call system operators

are the same specialists that operate reconnaissance systems such

as the Rivet Joint and Senior Scout. The committee also understands that the Compass Call mission equipment has some of the

same technical characteristics of the Rivet Joint and Senior Scout.

Consequently, the committee believes that by exercising the full extent of the Compass Call operators’ skills and by employing the
146

Compass Call equipment in a different manner, a reconnaissance

capability can be realized with only minor investment.

The committee further believes the CSAF initiative has two

other important potential benefits. The first is linguist training.

Currently, Compass Call linguists train primarily in language laboratories or in the Compass Call mission simulator, while their reconnaissance aircrew contemporaries train daily against their realworld mission targets. By using the Compass Call aircraft in a reconnaissance role, its operators would have the benefit of realworld operations, thereby having better training for their wartime

offensive information operations role.

Second, the Air Force decision to terminate Senior Scout leaves

a mission gap for the Air National Guard’s 169th Intelligence

Squadron (IS). This squadron provides a unique linguistic talent

pool that must be retained and kept operationally proficient. Assuming the Air Force decides to use Compass Call in the additional

reconnaissance role, there appears to be a logical force management decision to move part of the Compass Call mission to the Air

National Guard. The 169th IS would be fully taskable for peacetime reconnaissance missions and would also be available for Air

Combat Command war or contingency missions.

The committee commends the CSAF initiative and requests the

Secretary of the Air Force to provide an analysis of this initiative

to the Congressional defense and intelligence committees concurrent with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE

Overview

The budget request contained no funds for Chemical Agents and

Munitions, Defense, for fiscal year 2000.

The committee recommends authorization of $1,012.0 million for

fiscal year 2000, including $230.0 million for research and development, $232.0 million for procurement, and $550.0 million for operations and maintenance, as noted in the following table. Unless

otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based

on affordability considerations.
147
148

Item of Special Interest

Chemical agents and munitions destruction

Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends transferring the budget request of $1,169.0 million for Chemical Agents and

Munitions Destruction, Army, to Chemical Agents and Munitions

Destruction Defense.

The committee notes the progress that has been made during the

last fiscal year in the continuing effort to dispose of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions and of chemical warfare related materiel, while ensuring maximum protection of the

public, personnel involved in the destruction, and the environment.

Of the original stockpile of 31,495 tons of chemical agent, 13.4 percent has been destroyed and 90 percent of the stockpile is under

contract for destruction (as of February 28, 1999). Destruction facilities at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah, are operational. Five facilities are in the design phase or under construction: Anniston,

Alabama; Umatilla, Oregon; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Aberdeen, Maryland; and Newport, Indiana. Facilities at Pueblo, Colorado, and

Blue Grass, Kentucky, are on hold pending completion of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program demonstration.

The committee notes that the current estimate of the total cost

of the chemical agents and munitions destruction program is $14.9

billion, continues to be concerned about the cost of the program,

and believes that attention needs to be given to measures that

could reduce this overall cost, including potential alternatives relating to the destruction of non-stockpile related materiel and to the

ultimate disposition of the destruction facilities themselves. Accordingly the committee recommends a provision (sec.141) that would

address the cost issue and would require the Secretary of Defense

to report to the Congressional defense committees on cost reduction

measures he might recommend.

The committee recommends $1,012.0 million for Chemical Agents

and Munitions Destruction, Defense, a decrease of $157.0 million.

The committee notes that even after the reduction, the amount authorized is still almost $250.0 million greater than the fiscal year

1999 appropriation for this account. The committee believes this reduction can be accommodated without a breach in U.S. compliance

with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Treaty and with no

disincentive to the Russian effort to destroy its chemical munitions

stockpile.

The committee understands that the ability to complete destruction of the chemical munitions stored at Pueblo by the CWC date

of April 29, 2007, requires the design and construction phase for

the Pueblo facility to begin in June 1999. To meet this requirement, the committee further believes that there must be close coordination between the Project Manager for Chemical Demilitarization and the Project Manager for ACWA in order to accommodate

future implementation of ACWA technologies in the design of the

baseline facility currently planned for construction at Pueblo. The

committee recommends a provision (sec. 142) that would require

the USD (A&T) and the Secretary of the Army to ensure coordination of the activities and plans of the two project managers and
149

would also require the Secretary to take measures necessary to facilitate the integration of ACWA alternative technologies in the design of the baseline facility for Pueblo.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sections 101–109—Authorization of Appropriations

These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year

2000 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army Programs

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter

into multiyear procurement contracts for the Javelin missile system, the M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle, the AH–64D Longbow

Apache attack helicopter, and a combined M1A2 Abrams tank/

Heavy Assault Bridge multiyear procurement contract in fiscal

year 2000.

Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense

to submit a report on the composition of multiyear procurements

in the procurement portion of the Future Years Defense Program

prior to the execution of any multiyear contract.

Section 112—Extension of Pilot Program on Sales of Manufactured

Articles and Services of Certain Army Industrial Facilities Without Regard to Availability from Domestic Sources

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to extend

an existing pilot program through fiscal year 2001 that enables

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant and Rock Island and

Watervliet arsenals to continue to provide articles and services

under this authority. This pilot program allows the sale of articles

or services to an entity that will incorporate those articles or services into a weapon system to be procured by the Department of Defense or will use those articles or services to manufacture weapon

systems that will ultimately be procured by the Department of Defense. This extension should allow sufficient time to further evaluate the viability of the program and the opportunity it provides for

these facilities to generate significant additional work.

Section 113—Revision to Conditions for Award of a Second-Source

Procurement Contract for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

This section would clarify section 112 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261). It

would enable the Secretary of the Army to award a second-source

full-rate production contract for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles only after he certifies in writing that the total quantity of

trucks required by the Army will be sufficient to enable the prime

contractor to maintain a minimum production level of 150 trucks

per month over any given 12 month period.
150

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

Section 121—F/A–18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft Program

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter

into a multiyear procurement contract for the F/A–18E/F aircraft

subject to the Secretary of Defense’s certification that the results

of the aircraft’s operational test and evaluation meet both key performance parameters and requirements for operational effectiveness and suitability and that the multiyear procurement contract

cost is at least 7.4 percent less than procurement of the same number of aircraft through annually funded contracts.

Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense

to submit a report on the composition of multiyear procurements

in the procurement portion of the Future Years Defense Program

prior to the execution of a multiyear contract for the F/A–18E/F.

SUBTITLE D—CHEMICAL STOCKPILE DESTRUCTION PROGRAM

Section 141—Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical

Agents and Munitions

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct

an assessment of the current chemical munitions stockpile destruction program with the purposes of reducing the overall cost of the

program and ensuring completion of the destruction program by

the date required under the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty,

while maintaining maximum protection of the environment, the

general public, and the personnel involved in the actual destruction

of the munitions. It would authorize the Secretary to take those actions to achieve the purposes of the assessment that could be accomplished under existing authorities and would direct the Secretary to recommend additional legislative authority that may be

needed.

The section would amend paragraph 1412(c)(2) of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99–

145) to provide that facilities constructed to carry out the chemical

stockpile destruction program shall be disposed of in accordance

with site-specific, mutual agreements between the Secretary of the

Army and the governor of the state in which the facility is located.

The committee notes the increasing practice in the stockpile destruction program, the chemical stockpile emergency preparedness

program, and the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment, of

meaningful involvement by state and local jurisdictions and others

in the development of programmatic and policy decisions that are

specific to their local stockpile storage sites and to the construction

and operation of the stockpile destruction facilities at those sites.

The committee believes that such authority should be extended to

decisions regarding the ultimate disposition of the chemical munitions stockpile destruction facilities.

The section would also amend subsection 1412(c) to allow nonstockpile chemical agents, munitions, or related materials specifically designated by the Secretary of Defense to be destroyed at

stockpile facilities once the affected states have issued the appropriate permits.
151

Section 142—Alternative Technologies for Destruction of

Assembled Chemical Weapons

This section would direct and establish conditions for the transfer of management oversight responsibility for the assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA) program from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to the Secretary

of the Army.

The ACWA program was established under section 8065 of the

Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998

(Public Law 104–208) as the Department of Defense program for

assessment of the feasibility of alternative technologies for the destruction of assembled chemical munitions. Such technologies could

provide an alternative to the baseline program, which uses incineration of chemical agents and munitions as the means for destruction of the chemical munitions stockpile. In order to facilitate coordination of the ACWA program with the baseline program during

ACWA’s demonstration and pilot facility phase, the provision would

require the Under Secretary and the Secretary to ensure coordination of the activities and plans of the program manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment and the program manager

for Chemical Demilitarization. Further, if the Under Secretary decides to proceed with pilot facility testing of technologies demonstrated under the ACWA program, the provision would transfer

oversight and management of the ACWA program from the Under

Secretary to the Secretary.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 151—Limitation on Expenditures for Satellite

Communications

This section would prohibit the Department from obligating

funds to procure communications systems or lease communications

services from commercial satellites, unless such systems or services

have been proven through independent testing not to disrupt the

reception of Global Positioning System (GPS) signals.

The committee notes the increasing importance of GPS to military operations. In recognition of this fact, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) mandated that all new Department of Defense aircraft, ships, armored

vehicles, and indirect fire systems be equipped with GPS by 2005.

The committee also notes that GPS is very important to civil and

commercial activities as well.

The committee is disturbed that commercial satellite communications systems that provide mobile subscriber services (MSS) are increasingly likely to interfere with GPS signals. Although MSS communications are important to U.S. military forces, the committee

believes that the overarching significance of GPS to the military

and as a world navigation standard for commercial and civil users

mandates the protection of GPS frequencies.
(152)

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND

EVALUATION

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $34,375.2 million for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), representing a decrease

of $3,067.8 million from the amount provided for fiscal year 1999.

The committee recommends authorization of $35,835.7 million,

an increase of $1,460.5 million from the budget request.

The committee expresses great concern with the reluctance on

the part of Department of Defense officials to acknowledge the numerous modernization programs and science and technology efforts

that have been adversely impacted by the decrease in overall research and development funding over the past several years. During the presentation of the fiscal year 1999 budget request, the Department forecasted RDT&E funding to decrease by 14 percent

over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and maintained

this planned decrease was appropriately based on a ratio of twoto-one between procurement and RDT&E. The committee notes

that the Department has not justified the decline in overall

RDT&E on the basis of an assessment of procurement needs versus

RDT&E needs, but rather on the subjective position that a two-toone ratio seems ‘‘about right’’ and has worked in the past. While

the Department continues to justify this planned decline, DOD officials routinely announce that high priority programs such as Army

and Navy theater missile defense programs, tactical information

systems, space based early warning systems, other satellite programs, and a host of others can no longer support critically needed

deployment schedules primarily due to insufficient funding.

The committee further notes that the Department’s claim of increased modernization funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget request is composed of an increase of $4 billion in procurement, while

RDT&E, the other half of modernization, is proposed to be reduced

by over $3 billion. The committee is concerned that the Department’s emphasis on addressing the backlog of military procurement

is occurring at the direct expense of the nation’s critical military

technologies.

The committee notes that the Department’s ability to pursue application of leading edge technologies is also severely constrained

by the fact that over 33 percent of the total RDT&E request is for

modifications to mature and aging fielded systems, while the accounts that lead to development of new capabilities have been decreased by almost 25 percent. This trend appears to continue

throughout the declining RDT&E FYDP. The committee believes

that this trend, if continued, will seriously undermine our nation’s

technological advantage.
153

The committee remains concerned that an alarmingly large number of high priority service programs are experiencing schedule

delays and restructuring due primarily to service-wide shortages of

RDT&E funds while a significant number of defense-wide RDT&E

efforts appear adequately funded and in some cases are experiencing growth. The committee also questions the Department’s continued trend of investing large levels of funding in environmental

and other non-defense initiatives while reducing funding necessary

for efficient completion of high priority defense programs.

The committee concludes that the Department’s declining

RDT&E strategy does not support the critical tenets of the Quadrennial Defense Review which stressed the need for a smaller, but

more modern, more capable military force, and seriously threatens

the ability of the United States to maintain the technological superiority critical to ensuring U.S. military dominance of tomorrow’s

battlefields.
154
155

ARMY RDT&E

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $4,426.2 million for Army RDT&E.

The committee recommends authorization of $4,708.2 million, an

increase of $282.0 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Army

RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes

to the Army request are discussed following the table.
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Aircraft avionics

The budget request contained $6.4 million in PE64201A for the

Army Airborne Command and Control System (A2C2S).

The A2C2S is a UH–60 deployable command post, which provides a secure and nonsecure, highly mobile data, voice, and imagery command and control (C2) capability in support of Corps

through Brigade level commanders. The committee is aware that

the A2C2S is one of the Army Chief of Staff’s top unfunded priorities in fiscal year 2000 and that additional funding would enable

the system to complete engineering and manufacturing development, initial operational test and evaluation, and be fielded to the

first digital corps.

Therefore, the committee recommends $21.7 million in

PE64201A, an increase of $15.3 million for these purposes.

All source analysis system

The budget request contained $49.7 million in PE 64321A, including $43.7 million for the Army’s all source analysis system

(ASAS), an increase of over 50 percent from the fiscal year 1999

estimate.

The committee recognizes the importance of the ASAS capability.

However, it is troubled by the development costs of this service intelligence support system, particularly when compared to the modest costs for the other services’ intelligence systems.

The committee recommends $45.0 million in PE 64321A, a decrease of $4.7 million.

Alternative vehicle propulsion initiative

The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 62601A for

combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funding

for the alternative vehicle propulsion program.

The committee notes that one of the Army’s most significant

challenges is to develop lighter, more efficient propulsion systems

for future vehicles. The committee believes that dramatic advances

in vehicle propulsion require harnessing the combined capabilities

of academia, the private sector, and government research facilities.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

62601A for the ongoing alternative propulsion initiative and urges

the Army to aggressively pursue greater private and public sector

involvement in this effort.

Armament enhancement initiative

The budget request contained $36.9 million in PE 63639A for the

armament enhancement initiative, but included no funding for the

tank extended range munition-kinetic energy (TERM–KE).

The committee notes that the armament enhancement initiative

is intended to develop improved tank ammunition to continue providing an overmatch capability for tanks. TERM–KE is intended to

provide a higher lethality, extended range kinetic energy munition

for the M1 tank main gun.
165

The committee supports development of improved munitions and recommends $44.9 million, an increase of $8.0 million for TERM–

KE.

Army aircrew coordination training program

The budget request contained $3.0 million in PE 63007A for

manpower, personnel and training, but included no funding for aircrew coordination training.

The committee notes the recent increase in the Army aviation accident rate and believes that aviation safety must be enhanced.

The committee is aware that the aircrew coordination training program holds promise in reducing aviation accident rates, and strongly urges the Army to accelerate this program and field an enhanced

air crew training capability for Army aviation units as soon as possible.

The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 63007A, an increase of $2.0 million for aircrew coordination training.

Army technical test instrumentation and targets

The budget request contained $30.5 million in PE 65602A for

Army technical test instrumentation and targets, but included no

funding for characterization and quantification of missile debris

hazards to aircraft.

The committee recommends $31.7 million in PE 65602A, an increase of $1.2 million for continuation of characterization and

quantification of missile hazards to aircraft.

Comanche

The budget request contained $427.0 million in PE 64223A for

Comanche demonstration and validation.

Comanche is the Army’s highest priority modernization program

and is often referred to as the ‘‘quarterback of the digital battlefield.’’ The committee notes that while the capabilities provided by

the Comanche are described as vital to the success of the Army in

the next century, the Army is still struggling to complete development flight testing of a totally new, state-of-the-art aircraft with a

single test aircraft. Though the Army has received the second Comanche prototype, it is not scheduled to be flown in the flight test

program until fiscal year 2001, due only to a shortage of funding.

The committee is aware that additional funding is necessary to

accelerate development of the mission electronics package and enable a more aggressive flight test program using at least two aircraft. The committee notes that additional funding for Comanche is

the Army’s number one unfunded modernization requirement and

strongly supports the earliest possible fielding of this important

new capability. The committee recommends $483.0 million in PE

64223A, an increase of $56.0 million for Comanche program acceleration.

Combat vehicle improvement programs

The budget request contained $29.5 million in PE 23735A for

combat vehicle improvement programs.

The committee notes that tracks for existing and future tracked

vehicles are a life-cycle cost driver. The committee supports devel-
166

opment of a lighter, higher performance track that offers the potential of life-cycle cost improvement. The committee recommends $31.5 million in PE 23735A, an increase of $2.0 million for improved vehicle track development.

Combined turbine diesel engine

The budget request contained $90.9 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but contained

no funding for the ongoing turbine diesel engine.

The committee notes that turbine diesel engine development has

been slowed by technical obstacles and funding delays. The committee also notes that the contractor has successfully developed an

operating prototype. The committee recommends $92.9 million in PE 63005A, an increase of $2.0 million to complete development and testing of a prototype engine. The committee urges the Army to support any further funding required for follow-on evaluation.

Combustion driven eye-safe laser

The budget request contained $30.6 million in PE 64710A for

night vision systems, but included no funding for the combustion

driven eye-safe laser.

The committee notes increasing concern for laser hazards and

supports development of eye-safe lasers. The committee also notes

that emerging combustion driven selective emitter technology can

be used to pump an eye-safe, portable, stealthy, low cost radar system that identifies friend and foe.

The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 64710A, an increase of $3.0 million for combustion driven eye-safe laser.

Concepts experimentation program

The budget request contained $17.0 million in PE 65326A for the

concept experimentation program.

The committee notes that the Army mounted maneuver

battlespace lab (MMBL) has formulated a strategic research plan

to develop strategies and doctrine for the application of Force XXI

technologies on the battlefield. The new strategies and doctrine are

intended to give combat commanders the ability to dominate the

future maneuver battlespace.

The committee recommends $22.0 million in PE 65326A, an increase of $5.0 million for execution of the MMBL strategic research

plan.

Defense healthcare information assurance program

The budget request contained $9.4 million in PE 33140A for the

Army information systems security program.

The Congress provided $2.5 million in fiscal year 1998 to initiate

a demonstration program for military healthcare information protection that would be consistent with national healthcare and information protection initiatives. An additional $4.0 million was provided in fiscal year 1999 to continue the program. The two-phased

program will initially establish a prototype for protection of sensitive data integral to the military healthcare information system

at a single service medical facility, then extend the prototype eval-
167

uation to other military services, regional medical centers, and civilian medical treatment facilities.

The committee notes the progress that has been made to date in

the prototype phase of the program and supports the plans for extending the program to additional sites, refinement of information

protection technology, policy, procedures, and development of industry wide security criteria for healthcare systems. The committee

understands that available funds are sufficient for completion of

the demonstration program and test of the prototype, and that a

decision could be made to begin fielding a defense healthcare information assurance system in fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends $15.4 million in PE 33140A, an increase of $6.0 million to support initiating deployment of the defense healthcare information assurance system. The additional

funds may not be obligated until 30 days after the Secretary of the

Army reports to the Congressional defense committees the results

of the beta-test of the system and gives recommendations for continuation of the program.

Defense manufacturing technology program

The budget request contained a total of $132.5 million for the manufacturing technology (ManTech) program, including $14.9 million in PE 78045A, $59.1 million in PE 78011N, $51.8 million in

PE 78011F, and $6.7 million in PE 78011S.

The committee has reviewed the Department’s ‘‘Five-Year Plan

(FY00–FY04) for the Manufacturing Technology Program.’’ Although the committee supports the overall direction of the

ManTech program, the committee notes that, for the second year

in a row, the total program falls far short (approximately $60.0 million) of the Congressional funding guidelines for the program that

are contained in the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105–340).

Section 213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1999 (Public Law 105–736) amended section 2525 of title 10,

United State Code, to establish annual goals for cost sharing in the

DOD ManTech program and procedures for waiver of the cost sharing requirements in the program. The intent of the Congress in the

amendment was to provide increased flexibility to the Secretary of

Defense in the administration of the cost sharing requirement,

rather than establishing fixed, rigid guidelines. To clarify the Congress’ intent regarding the flexibility available to the Secretary in

his administration of the cost sharing requirement, the committee

recommends a provision (sec. 212), which would eliminate percentages goals for cost sharing in manufacturing technology projects.

The committee notes a significant reduction in the manufacturing technology program managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The committee also notes a significant reduction in the Army’s

manufacturing technology program, including the failure to continue increased funding for development of munitions manufacturing technology that could result in reduced production costs for

ammunition in the future. In view of the fact that the Army is the

single service manager for the defense ammunition program, the

committee believes that insufficient priority is being given in the

Army’s ManTech program for this critical area. The committee is
168

aware that the estimated cost of air burst munitions for the objective individual combat weapon (OICW) will probably limit their use

in training and believes that increased emphasis should be given

to a small arms ammunition ManTech initiative that is specifically

focused on decreasing the overall cost of the OICW air burst munitions through warhead and fuse cost reductions. The committee recommends $34.9 million in PE 78045A for the

Army’s manufacturing technology program, an increase of $17.0

million for munitions manufacturing technology (including the

small arms ammunition initiative) and $3.0 million for rotary wing

sustainment manufacturing technology, and $74.1 million in PE

78011N, an increase of $15.0 million for the Navy’s ManTech program. Elsewhere in this report the committee recommends additional funding to accelerate new initiatives in the Defense Logistics

Agency’s ManTech program.

Environmental quality technology

The budget request contained $12.8 million in PE 62720A for environmental quality technology, but included no funding for the

Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies (TRIES).

The committee notes that TRIES, working with the Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, has been developing a

computer-based land management model to reduce costs and time

for training area recovery.

The committee supports well focused military environmental clean-up efforts and recommends $15.8 million in PE 62720A, an

increase of $3.0 million to complete development of the TRIES computer-based land management model.

Full spectrum active protection

The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 62601A for

combat vehicle and automotive technology.

The committee is aware that the Army needs a capability to defend armored vehicles against attack by hit-to-kill anti-tank guided

missiles, as well as kinetic energy and high explosive anti-tank projectiles.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million for development of full spectrum active protection within the tank and automotive technology effort.

Future combat vehicle

The budget request contained $39.8 million in PE 62601A for armored systems modernization.

The committee notes that the Army’s armored system modernization strategy has become more an incidental by-product of the administrative process of the Army budget than a commitment to a

vision. The consequences of this approach to modernization increases program instability and reinforces short term reactive planning rather than adherence to a strategy. Moreover, the committee

believes that the consequences for not having a comprehensive, coherent, and enduring armored system modernization strategy are

no longer acceptable.

The committee is encouraged, however, by the Army’s vision for

the Army After Next. In particular, the committee fully supports
169

the attributes and capabilities described by both the Army and the

Quadrennial Defense Review as essential in future combat vehicles,

and believes that the development efforts essential for their fielding should begin immediately. However, there is a serious mismatch between what the vision calls for and the Army’s ability

without full DOD support and participation, to execute the necessary experimentation and demonstration of future alternatives

while attempting to sustain its current aging fleet of over 6,000 M–

1 tanks.

The committee understands that the current fleet demands an

exponentially increasing sustainment budget that is depleting

funds intended for incremental modernization of the fleet. Left unchecked, it would soon take the entire armored systems modernization budget to sustain an M1 fleet that will have further compounded its problems by evolving into at least four different configurations. The Army’s current armored systems modernization

budget has been decreased to such a low level that between the

years of 2000 and 2030 the resulting tank fleet will be composed

of only 17 percent modernized M1A2 SEP tanks, while the remaining 4,000 plus tanks will be in varying stages of deterioration and

questionable deployability. The committee believes current armored

systems cannot be evolved to meet the critical land warfare requirements identified by the QDR and as essential to the Army

After Next. Thus, a commitment to decisive action must be made

now to redress the armor system modernization dilemma. To delay

is to limit the possibilities and make them unaffordable.

Therefore, the committee recommends a legislative provision

(Sec. 211) that would direct the Secretary of the Defense to establish a collaborative combat vehicle demonstration program between

the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA). While the Army has committed $67.0 million of its fiscal

year 2000 RDT&E science and technology request toward this critical requirement, related DARPA efforts are not focused to support

any similar initiative. The committee further directs the Secretary

to establish the necessary DOD-level priority for this program to

ensure that both the Army and DARPA complete this effort in an

efficient and timely manner. While the committee understands that

the Army fully intends to pursue this critical modernization initiative, DARPA participation is also required to enable rapid prototyping, special contract authorities, and pursuit of high risk, high

gain technologies essential to the success of this program.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army and

the Director of DARPA to establish and enter into a Memorandum

of Agreement (MOA) to develop an appropriate competitive demonstration project that will consider and evaluate all promising

combat vehicle technologies including lethality, propulsion, mobility, survivability, robotics, human engineering, and C4ISR technologies. The project will conduct competitive demonstrations of

these technologies integrated into potential combat vehicle platforms with an objective of identifying the most promising candidates for a full development program to begin by fiscal year 2006.

The Secretary and the Director shall provide a report to the Congressional defense committees with submission of the fiscal year
170

2001 budget request that outlines the MOA, objective schedule, and

required funding for the joint Army/DARPA project.

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the future combat vehicle modernization program for fiscal

year 2000. Additionally, the committee recommends that of the

amounts authorized and appropriated for DARPA fiscal year 2000

funding, not less than $38.0 million in PE 63764E and $18.2 million in PE 62702E shall be for the Army/DARPA future combat vehicle program.

Geographic synthetic aperture radar

The budget request contained $41.1 million in PE 62784A for

military engineering technology, but included no funding for geographic synthetic aperture radar (SAR).

The committee notes that an airborne geographic SAR is being

developed to generate high-resolution, three dimensional maps of

the earth. This dual band interferometric SAR will be able to map

above, through, and below the vegetation canopy.

The committee is aware that airborne foliage penetrating radar

may offer potential target identification enhancement to the Army

and recommends $56.1 million in PE 62784A, an increase of $15.0

million to evaluate dual band airborne interferometric SAR technology for possible Army applications.

Geo-positioning system—inertial measurement unit integration

The budget request contained $23.0 million in PE 62120A for

sensors and electronics survivability.

The committee notes that uses for the geo-positioning system

(GPS) and inertial measurement units (IMU) include personnel,

weapon and non-weapon system platforms, and an increasing variety of smart weapons. The burgeoning applications for these types

of systems, coupled with advances in electronics integration and

the emergence of micro electro mechanical systems (MEMS) technology now make possible full integration of GPS and MEMS on a

single chip that offers the possibility of dramatic reductions in the

cost. Though the development cost of full GPS–IMU integration

may be unattractive to an individual acquisition program, the recurring cost savings make such development an imperative for the

Department of Defense as a whole.

The committee strongly supports efforts to reduce the cost of

smart weapons and directs the Secretary of the Army to establish

a focused program to develop a fully integrated GPS–IMU on a single chip capable of meeting the needs of service missile, artillery,

and other appropriate applications. The committee is aware that

there are disparate efforts in industry, government laboratories,

and academia to reduce the size and cost of GPS and IMUs which

may be leveraged.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for GPS–

IMU chip level integration.

Heart rate variability technology

The budget request contained $70.1 million in PE 62787A for

medical technology.
171

The committee notes that heart rate variability technology offers

potential for enhancing on-site assessment of disease and trauma

by enabling physiological measurement of the nervous system functioning and balance. Improvements in these areas could lead to improved treatment and victim survivability. The committee believes

that this technology, designed for point-of-injury assessment for

emergency response personnel in civilian and military trauma environments, may also have significant applications for enhancing

early detection and prevention of chemical and biological agent effects.

The committee urges the Army Medical Command to pursue testing of this technology and to assess its potential for improved

chem-bio detection and prevention, as well as other military emergency response applications, and recommends $74.1 million, an increase of $ 4.0 million in PE 62787A.

High energy laser test facility

The budget request contained $14.2 million in PE 65605A for the

high energy laser system test facility (HELSTF).

The committee notes that the Army has taken the initiative to

develop and publish a Directed Energy Master Plan, laying out a

road map for future high power directed energy technology exploitation. However, the committee is concerned that the Department

of Defense does not have a central directed energies (DE) technology clearing house to identify, assess, and develop the full range

and potentials of these promising technologies.

The committee further notes that Space and Missile Defense

Command (SMDC) has proposed that HELSTF be the premier joint

service open-air laser test facility for all high power DOD laser programs, providing testing for laser lethality and system effectiveness

as well as threat exploitation, directed energy bio-effects, and susceptibility testing. A high-power laser facility capable of testing lasers over a broad range of wavelengths is required to support all

these critical parameters. The committee believes that leveraging

past investments in HELSTF infrastructure and building on past

Army research and development in high power lasers is a cost effective means of developing next generation high power lasers capable of operating with variable wavelengths and pulse formats.

The committee supports the use of the HELSTF to focus development of high power free electron and other solid-state lasers as a

complement to various chemical laser development programs, and

recommends a provision (Sec. 241) that would direct the Secretary

of Defense to designate the Commander, SMDC as the DOD executive agent for oversight of high-power solid state laser and directed

energy technologies with potential weapons applications. The committee notes that the HELSTF is currently controlled by SMDC

and directs that HELSTF be established as the DOD center of excellence for high-power, solid state laser and directed energy technologies. Additionally, the committee recommends the establishment of a relationship between Livermore National Laboratory,

with its high power laser expertise, and appropriate industry participants to create a national center of excellence for high power

solid-state laser development.
172

The committee recommends $38.2 million for the HELSTF in PE

65605A, an increase of $20.0 million for assessment and development of high energy solid state lasers and other directed energy

technologies, and an increase of $4.0 million for evaluation of the

Navy’s free electron laser technology program.

High mobility artillery rocket system

The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63778A for the

multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) product improvement program (PIP), and included $6.0 million for the MLRS high mobility

rocket system (HIMARS).

The committee notes that the HIMARS is a C–130 transportable,

wheeled version of the MLRS launcher, capable of firing all rockets

and missiles in the current and future MLRS family of missiles.

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense recognizes

the importance of the improved deployability provided by HIMARS

and supports accelerated development of the program.

The committee strongly encourages accelerated development and fielding of HIMARS and recommends $67.4 million in PE 63778A,

an increase of $30.9 million for HIMARS.

Joint service small arms program

The budget request contained $4.9 million in PE 63607A for the

joint service small arm program.

The committee is aware that the present family of individual

weapons as well as the objective individual combat weapon (OICW)

for the future will have a 5.56mm capability. The committee is informed that accuracy of the 5.56mm round can be improved significantly as was the 7.62mm round with relatively little expense.

The committee believes that, despite the emergence of ‘‘smart

weapons,’’ the importance of individual combat weapons will remain and that ammunition for these weapons should be as accurate as modern production technology will allow. The committee

also notes that there is a new technology which reduces drag in the

barrel that offers much higher projectile velocity from the same caliber small arms cartridges. The committee is also aware that features such as laser ranging and target tracking which are important for the OICW air-burst round could be included in the initial

OICW with a small additional investment.

Therefore, the committee recommends $9.9 million, an increase

of $5.0 million in PE 63607A for OICW improvements, development

of more accurate 5.56 ammunition, and assessment of new high-velocity small arms projectile technology.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system (Joint STARS)

The budget request contained $11.5 million in PE 64770A for

system improvements to the Joint STARS Common Ground Station

(CGS).

The committee notes the proven success of the Joint STARS system in both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Joint Endeavor

in Bosnia and its current support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Operation Allied Force. A key feature of Joint STARS

is the secure, encrypted, anti-jam Surveillance Control Data Link

(SCDL), which links the Air Force’s E–8 Joint STARS aircraft to
173

the Army’s ground support modules and CGSs, enabling real-time

data transfer of command and control information between the aircraft and ground stations.

The committee is aware that the ongoing SCDL System Improvement Program (SIP), which eliminates obsolete parts and updates

older digital circuit boards with state-of-the-art, software-based

array boards, will increase data transfer rates as well as reduce

component size, weight, and power requirements by as much as 50

percent. Consistent with past committee actions and based on the

benefits of the SIP, the committee recommends $19.5 million, an

increase of $8.0 million in PE 64770A to complete this upgrade.

Kwajalein missile range modernization

The budget request contained $140.3 million in PE 65301A for

Kwajalein missile range (KMR) modernization.

The committee is concerned that delays in KMR modernization

will increase risk in key tests of the national missile defense

(NMD) system. This modernization effort includes replacement of

obsolete components, upgrade of hardware and software architectures, and provision for remote operation of range sensors and instrumentation. The committee believes that accelerating modernization of the range will not only reduce NMD development

risks, but will substantially reduce annual KMR operations and

maintenance costs.

The committee recommends $148.3 million in PE 65301A, an increase of $8.0 million for KMR modernization.

Lightweight x-band radar

The budget request contained $24.9 million in PE 12419A for the

Aerostat Joint Project Office, but included no funds for lightweight

x-band radar technology.

The committee understands that the Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization has examined the potential of lightweight x-band

radar technology for application to the Army’s Aerostat project and

found it to be useful to the requirement for fire control radar.

The committee recommends that the Army evaluate this technology from within existing funds and make a recommendation to

the Congressional defense committees providing the results of the

evaluation.

Medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment

The budget request contained $9.70 million in PE 64807A for

medical materiel/medical biological defense equipment, including

$491,000 for the Life Support Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) system EMD program.

The committee has learned that the EMD program is underfunded and that it could easily be completed in fiscal year 2000 if

properly resourced. Furthermore, the committee understands that

the Army does support the LSTAT program and plans to procure

the system on a multiyear basis.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $13.2 million in PE

64807A, an increase of $3.5 million to complete LSTAT EMD in fiscal year 2000.
174

MedTeams

The budget request contained $16.4 million in PE 62716A for

human factors engineering technology, but included no funding for

continuation of the medical teams (MedTeams) program.

The committee notes that the MedTeams effort provides development and testing of methods to provide improved coordination of

emergency medical teams.

The committee supports development of improved medical care and recommends $19.8 million in PE 62716A, an increase of $3.4

million.

Night vision advanced technology

The budget request contained $36.6 million in PE 63710A for

night vision advanced technology.

The committee notes that damage control capability is critical to

military survivability. Sensor technology has been and is being developed for ground forces to improve night vision situational awareness. Damage control personnel also require night vision situational awareness. The committee supports adaptation of emerging

sensor technology to develop helmet mounted sensors for firefighters and damage control personnel. The committee recommends $39.6 million in PE 63710A, an in- crease of $3.0 million for helmet mounted sensors for firefighters

and damage control personnel.

Panoramic night vision goggle

The budget request contained $20.1 million in PE 62709A for

night vision technology.

The committee notes that wide field of view night vision capability for aviation is increasingly critical as operations migrate from

daylight to dark. Existing night vision equipment has a very narrow field of view, excessive weight, and very poor depth perception

in inclement weather.

The committee supports development of superior night vision

equipment to improve safety and increase the capability of our

forces. The committee recommends $30.1 million in PE 62709A, an

increase of $10.0 million for the panoramic night vision goggle, including emerging technologies that may be generally applicable to

night vision improvement.

Passive millimeter wave imaging

The budget request contained $23.0 million in PE 62120A for

sensors and electronics survivability, but contained no funding for

passive millimeter wave imaging.

The committee is aware that passive millimeter wave and associated devices may offer the ability to solve problems in the nap-ofthe-earth wire and other obstacle collision avoidance for the Apache

and other aircraft.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for passive millimeter wave imaging for obstacle/collision avoidance.

Patriot anti-cruise missile defense

The budget request contained no funding in PE 23801A for the

Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM) seeker upgrade.
175

In the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–736), the conferees directed the

Secretary of the Army to complete a rigorous PACM test program

and to evaluate the effectiveness of the PACM seeker against a full

range of cruise missile threats. The committee notes that a preliminary evaluation has been completed prior to flight testing of the

seeker, and that a more thorough evaluation will be possible only

after the flight testing is completed. Without this more thorough

evaluation, the committee is unable to reach a definitive conclusion

on the ability of PACM to meet the cruise missile threat cost effectively.

The committee understands that the Patriot advanced capability–3 (PAC–3) will have substantial capability against cruise

missiles, in addition to providing effective ballistic missile defense.

The committee also understands that the PACM seeker would be

used to upgrade older PAC–1 missiles that have very limited capabilities to defend against ballistic missile attack. The committee

notes that a thorough analysis of the cost trade-offs between acquisition of PACM and PAC–3 is also needed prior to consideration of

PACM acquisition.

The committee recommends no funding in PE 23801A for PACM.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to prepare a report, following completion of PACM flight testing, with a thorough

assessment of PACM capabilities and the opportunity costs of additional PACM development and eventual PACM procurement. The

report shall be submitted to the Congressional defense committees

prior to any budget request for additional PACM funds.

Plasma energy pyrolysis system

The budget request contained $12.8 million in PE 62720A for environmental quality technology, but included no funds for the plasma energy pyrolysis system (PEPS). A total of $15.9 million has been invested in this program to develop a transportable PEPS prototype which is now undergoing

testing. The committee is aware that PEPS testing is intended to

determine its ability to destroy, vitrify, and dispose of several hazardous waste streams. The Army intends to await completion of the

PEPS evaluation program and analysis of the results to determine

cost and performance of PEPS prior to proceeding further in acquisition.

The committee supports development of safe, economical means

to eliminate hazardous waste and encourages the Army to continue

its efforts with PEPS.

Proximity fuzing for dual-purpose improved conventional munition

submunitions

The budget request contained $39.9 million in PE 63004A for the

Army’s weapons and munitions advanced technology development

program and $101.5 million in PE 63795N for the Navy’s land attack technology development program.

The committee notes the common use by the Army and the Navy

of the M80 grenade submunition. This submunition is now dispensed by the dual-purpose improved conventional munition

(DPICM) 120 mm mortar, the 5–inch gun, 155mm cannon projec-
176

tiles, the multi-launch rocket system (MLRS) warhead, the extended range guided munition (ERGM), and the Best Buy projectile

advanced technology demonstration. The committee also notes that

Army and Navy studies and tests indicate that lethality gains of

10 percent to 200 percent are possible if a height of burst proximity

fusing option were incorporated in the M80 submunition. The committee understands that the Army and the Navy are teaming to develop a proximity fuzing feature that could be added to the existing

self-destruct fuze in the M80 grenade and greatly increase the

armor penetration and anti-personnel lethality of the grenade. The

committee believes that a joint program to develop a common proximity fuze for DPICM submunitions could capitalize on the efforts

of both the Army and the Navy by deferring the development and

testing of individual service prototypes and result in significantly

reduced costs through the economy of scale that would be gained

by the production of a single fuse and submunition for both services.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE

63004A and $2.5 million in PE 63795N to establish a joint Army/

Navy program to develop a proximity fuze for DPICM submunitions. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army and the

Secretary of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees on the establishment of the joint program and the plan and

funding for the proximity fuze development with the submission of

the fiscal year 2001 budget request.

Security and intelligence activities

The budget request contained no funding for security and intelligence activities in PE 35128A.

The committee notes the government’s increasing dependence on

computer-based information systems and the growing world-wide

threat to these systems. It is also aware of the Army Intelligence

Command’s (INSCOM) state-of-the-art land information warfare

activity (LIWA) and its developing capability to protect the worldwide computer infrastructure. The LIWA has recently demonstrated a significantly enhanced capability for responding to computer systems viruses and attacks by rapidly identifying and providing protection and corrective actions to all supported systems.

The committee is also aware that the Department of Defense has

recognized the potential of the LIWA to offer significant improvements in providing timely assessments of intelligence information

to the warfighter.

The committee strongly supports improved and strengthened information system protection and processing and recommends $10.0

million in PE 35128A for the INSCOM LIWA.

Self-destruct fuse

The committee notes that there are a number of apparently duplicative efforts within service and defense-wide programs to pursue self-destruct fuzes for munitions. The Army has recently typeclassified self-destruct fuses for some Army munitions, and yet it

appears that there is no Department wide program development to

the share the Army’s completed development or to coordinate other

service efforts.
177

The committee directs that the Secretary of Defense conduct a

study of unexploded ordnance problems and establish a defensewide program to develop affordable, reliable self-destruct fuses for

munitions, and report the results of this study and the actions

being by December 31, 1999.

Semi-automated imagery processor

The budget request contained no funding in PE 63766A for tactical electronic surveillance systems.

The committee notes that the semi-automated imagery processor

(SAIP) is an advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD)

designed to provide automatic target cueing to support imagery analysts. Further, the tool provides a limited capability for automated

target recognition. While the SAIP is not perfected, the committee

notes the development effort and results to date. The committee remains concerned that current and future imagery collection systems are overwhelming the limited number of imagery analysts

available to put ‘‘eyes on target.’’ Automated capabilities to reduce

imagery analyst workloads are critically needed. The committee believes that the SAIP represents the best effort to date to provide

such radar imagery automation. However, the Department has

failed to provide sufficient funding to transition a needed ACTD capability to an operational application. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE

63766A to transition the SAIP effort from an ACTD to an operational capability. The committee notes that the SAIP is not a total

solution and expects the Army to continue efforts to refine and improve the SAIP.

Small arms fire control system

The budget request contained $54.9 million in PE 64802A for

weapons and munitions, but included no funding for the small

arms fire control system (SAFCS).

SAFCS is a lightweight optical sight that corrects the aimpoint

of small arms. The committee notes that the SAFCS offers potential for improved accuracy and probability of hit for small arms.

The committee supports improvements in small arms accuracy

and recommends $57.4 million in PE 64802A, an increase of $2.5

million for engineering development and type classification for

SAFCS.

Tactical voice control for maneuver control system

The budget request contained $45.1 million in PE 23740A for the

maneuver control system (MCS).

The committee notes that tactical voice recognition systems have

been proven to provide more accurate, faster and robust command

and control than conventional input/output devices.

The committee recommends $46.1 million for PE 23740A , an increase of $1.0 million for tactical voice control for MCS.

Trichloromelamine testing

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997

(Public Law 104–201) directed the Secretary of the Army to conduct toxicity studies of trichloromelamine (TCM) disinfectant to
178

provide appropriate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registration for Army future procurement from TCM suppliers, thus

ensuring competition and recommend additional funding for this

purpose.

The committee notes that the Army has failed to complete directed testing and, therefore, reiterates its earlier direction that

the Army complete testing and EPA registration for TCM as rapidly as possible from within funding in PE 63002A for medical advanced technology.

University and industrial research centers

The budget request contained $47.1 million in PE 61104A for university and industrial research centers, and included $5.9 million for advanced displays.

The committee notes that, despite the importance of advanced

and interactive displays for the Army After Next, funding for the

advanced and interactive displays consortium has been reduced

over the past four years. The committee supports the development

of innovative, cost-effective displays and recommends $48.5 million

in PE 61104A, an increase of $1.4 million for the advanced and

interactive displays consortium.

NAVY RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $7,984.0 million for Navy RDT&E.

The committee recommends authorization of $8,358.5 million, an

increase of $374.5 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Navy

RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes

to the Navy request are discussed following the table.
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188

Items of Special Interest

Advanced amphibious assault vehicle

The budget request contained $94.8 million in PE 63611M for the

advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV).

The AAAV is a self-deploying, high water-speed, armored, amphibious assault vehicle capable of operating in all weather and in

nuclear, chemical, and biological environments. The committee

notes that the AAAV is the Marine Corps highest priority ground

modernization requirement and that additional funding will permit

incorporation of improvements identified during testing, reduce

program technical risk, and position the program for acceleration

of initial operational capability from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year

2005.

The committee recommends $121.2 million in PE 63611M, an increase of $26.4 million, for the AAAV.

Advanced anti-radiation guided missile

The budget request contained $23.6 million in PE 25601N, in- cluding $10.8 million to continue development and demonstration

of the advanced anti-radiation guided missile (AARGM).

The committee notes that ARRGM is a Phase III small business

innovative research (SBIR) program to develop and demonstrate a

dual-mode guidance section on a high-speed anti-radiation missile

(HARM). Program objectives are to demonstrate an effective and

affordable lethal suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) capability against mobile, relocatable, or fixed air defense threats in the

presence of potential emitter shutdown or other anti-radiation missile countermeasures.

The ARRGM technology demonstration program is an outgrowth

of a Phase I and Phase II competitive SBIR program, which successfully demonstrated the feasibility of a dual-mode seeker to address radar ‘‘shut-down’’ anti-radiation missile countermeasures.

The dual-mode technology being developed in the AARGM program

has demonstrated very high potential to solve the problem of ‘‘shutdown’’ not only in the HARM, the primary SEAD weapon, but has

also demonstrated the potential for integration with other missile

airframes.

The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 25601N, an increase of $10.0 million to continue risk reduction, test, and other

field activities to prepare for a potential fiscal year 2001 Milestone

II decision to enter engineering and manufacturing development.

Advanced waterjet propulsor demonstration program

The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for

Navy advanced technology demonstrations, but included no funds

for demonstration of an advanced waterjet propulsor for future

naval applications.

The committee notes that a number of propulsion technologies

are being considered for use in the DD–21 land attack destroyer

and other future naval ships, with the goal of increased operational

performance and reduced acquisition and life-cycle costs.

The committee notes the development under an extension of the

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s maritime technology
189

program of an advanced waterjet propulsor which could meet operational performance, signature and cost reduction requirements for

the DD–21 and other naval ships. The committee notes proposals

for 1⁄4-scale at-sea demonstration and cavitation tunnel testing of

the waterjet propulsor to validate critical performance criteria and

potential application of the propulsor to the DD–21 or other naval

ships.

The committee urges that the Secretary of the Navy assess the

requirement for further development, demonstration, and evaluation of advanced waterjet propulsor technology and provide to the

Congressional defense committees by December 1, 1999, a report

which includes the Secretary’s recommendations regarding the

demonstration, a program execution plan, and Navy funding for the

program.

Affordable advanced acoustical arrays

The budget request contained $115.8 million in PE 63561N for

advanced submarine systems development, including $71.6 million

for advanced submarine combat systems development.

The committee notes the Navy’s continued development of advanced sonar arrays for surface, submarine, and distributed surveillance systems, including single and multi-line towed arrays,

conformal-hull mounted arrays, and advanced arrays for use in the

fixed-distributed and advanced-deployable systems. The committee

strongly supports the development and demonstration of all-optical

array and other key enabling technologies for advanced acoustical

arrays that could significantly improve array performance and dramatically reduce the cost of future acoustical array systems.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

63561N to accelerate the development and transition of all-optical

array and other key enabling technologies to advanced towed, hullmounted, and distributed acoustical array systems.

Analysis of alternatives for follow-on support jammer

The budget request contained $87.3 million in PE 64270N for engineering and manufacturing development of the EA–6B electronic

countermeasures aircraft system. The budget request states that a

requirement exists to begin planning and analysis of alternatives

for a command and control warfare (C2W) replacement for the EA–

6B aircraft, however, no funds were requested for this purpose.

The committee notes the high demands that are being placed on

the EA–6B aircraft as an electronic countermeasures weapons system, projections that there will not be enough EA–6B aircraft to

meet mission requirements beyond 2015, and considerations to retire the EA–6B in 2015. The committee notes further that a mission needs statement for a C2W platform that would replace the

EA–6B and achieve initial operational capability in 2012 is being

reviewed by the Navy. The committee understands that a C2W follow-on platform would incorporate air vehicle enhancements that

would reduce operational and maintenance costs, improve reliability, and significantly increase command, control, and operational effectiveness. The committee believes that the Navy should

initiate an analysis of alternatives for a C2W follow-on platform
190

which will determine the most cost-effective approach for replacing

the EA–6B in the radar support jamming mission. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63XXXN to initiate the analysis of alternatives for a C2W replacement for the EA–6B aircraft, and directs the establishment of a

separate concept exploration/product definition and risk reduction

program element for the program.

Aquifer vulnerability/contamination assessment

The budget request contained $8.2 million in PE 65873M for Marine Corps program-wide support, but included no funding for

acquifer vulnerability/contamination assessment.

The committee recognizes the potential for groundwater contamination at military bases due to fuel spills, hazardous chemical handling, and waste disposal. The committee recommends $9.7 million

in PE 65873M, an increase of $1.5 million to conduct an analysis

and acquifer mapping of a candidate military site to establish contamination identification.

Aviation depot maintenance technology

The budget request contained $70.8 million in PE 63721N for environmental protection.

The committee notes that new environmentally friendly repair

processes are being developed that offer significant productivity improvements and potential cost savings. To this end, the Congress

provided $2.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for the development and

demonstration of aviation depot maintenance technologies that will

significantly reduce maintenance and repair costs and reduce or

eliminate hazardous waste and pollution products. The committee recommends $73.8 million in PE 63721N, an increase of $3.0 million to complete the program for demonstration

of advanced maintenance technologies for removal of coatings from

large aircraft, cleaning and stripping of metal surfaces, and application of tungsten carbide coatings to aircraft landing gear and hydraulic components.

Beartrap nonlinear dynamics and environmental characterization

The budget request contained $17.8 million in PE 63254N for

anti-submarine warfare (ASW) system developments, including

$5.3 million for Project Beartrap.

The committee notes that the budget request for Beartrap supports hardware and software developments for advanced capability

acoustic and non-acoustic sensors, as well as data collection and

analysis for threat assessment and environmental characterization.

The committee understands that basic research in nonlinear dynamic stochastic resonance (NDSR), supported by the Office of

Naval Research, has advanced to the point that it offers explanations for many observed physical phenomena, and it offers the

potential to develop significantly improved acoustic and non-acoustic AWS sensor systems. The committee believes that NDSR technology offers a significant opportunity to enhance the capabilities

of Beartrap at a time when evolving ASW requirements indicate

the critical need to integrate these latest relevant technologies.

Specific areas include characterization of the ocean nonlinear dy-
191

namics environment, application of NDSR technology in advanced

Beartrap sensors, and validation of NDSR ASW performance.

The committee also notes that the Navy requires extensive environmental data to achieve effective performance from the extended

echo ranging (EER) devices used in shallow littoral waters. These

active acoustic devices are key to naval airborne ASW performance.

The Beartrap program is well suited to collect this environmental

data.

The committee recommends $23.8 million in PE 63254N for ASW

systems development, an increase of $6.0 million for Project Beartrap for the purposes outlined above.

C–2 eight-blade composite propeller system

The budget request contained $53.3 million in PE 25633N for improvements in operational Navy aviation and aviation support systems.

The committee is aware that the Navy is seeking a solution to

operational limitations encountered with the propeller system used

on E–2C and C–2A aircraft. The current propeller system incorporates technology developed in the 1950’s and the 1960’s, is difficult and expensive to maintain, and is no longer in production.

Following committee recommendations in its report on H.R. 1119

(H. Rept. 105–132) for initiation of a development and demonstration of an eight-blade composite propeller for E–2C and C–2A aircraft, the Navy began a program for design, development, test, and

production of the propeller system. The committee notes that the

program includes flight and ground test of the new propeller system for the E–2 aircraft, but includes only ground tests for the new

propeller on the C–2 aircraft.

The committee recommends $58.3 million in PE 25633N, an increase of $5.0 million to support flight testing the new propeller

system on the C–2 aircraft sequentially with the E–2 flight test

program.

Claymore marine

The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for the

Navy’s advanced technology demonstration program, including $3.9

million for the Claymore Marine advanced technology demonstration.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.7 million in PE

63792N for risk reduction and to maintain the schedule for the

Claymore Marine advanced technology demonstration.

Cooperative engagement capability

The budget request contained $114.9 million in PE 63658N to

continue hardware and software engineering, integration, test and

evaluation of the Navy’s cooperative engagement capability (CEC).

The statement of managers accompanying the conference report

on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–736) directed the Secretary of the Navy

to report to the Congressional defense committees at least quarterly on the interoperability problems between CEC, ship self-defense, and the Aegis combat direction system that were first encountered in 1997 during fleet operational test and evaluation of
192

the systems and the Navy’s plan for and progress in resolving these

problems.

The committee has reviewed the Secretary’s first quarterly report

and notes that the Navy has made significant progress in developing a plan that focuses on interoperability to support carrier battle group deployments in the near term, and on force-level systems

engineering to coordinate requirements, capital investments, development, and installation of new system capabilities for the fleet in

the far term. The Program Executive Office for Theater Surface

Combatants has been created to provide a common management

structure for all surface ship combat direction systems and interfacing systems, including systems integration and interoperability

of CEC, Aegis, the advanced combat direction system, and related

joint command and control systems. The committee also notes that

the Navy has significantly increased land-based system engineering

analysis and testing capabilities for combat systems and is establishing a shore-based, distributed engineering test capability that

provides the ability to address battle group level combat system

interoperability issues and to validate operational tactics, techniques and procedures prior to shipboard installation of the systems. The committee recognizes the potential provided by the Distributed Engineering Plant for reducing the cost of system, acquisition, testing, and training and encourages the Navy to continue to

develop and support its shore-based, distributed engineering test

capability. The committee notes further that the Navy has realigned and reprogrammed the funds necessary to address these

issues.

The committee understands that recent land-based and at-sea

testing has demonstrated continuing progress in resolving combat

systems interoperability issues. However, the committee believes

that resolution of the interoperability issues will require a stable

program plan and funding and a coordinated effort on the part of

the Navy and the supporting system contractors.

The committee recommends $114.9 million in PE 63658N to continue CEC development, systems integration, and test and evaluation.

Cruiser conversion

The budget request contained $28.5 million in PE 64307N and

$11.5 million in PE 64567N for cruiser conversion program design

and engineering studies but did not include any procurement

funds.

Aegis class cruisers are the Navy’s premier air defense and strike

warfare platforms. The first ships of this class have now been in

service over 15 years and some of their systems are approaching

technical obsolescence. The committee understands that, in order to

protect its investment in these highly capable ships, the Navy is

planning to extensively upgrade the Aegis cruisers’ combat systems

and engineering equipment beginning in fiscal year 2002. These

upgrades include new computer systems, cooperative engagement

and theater ballistic missile defense capabilities, land attack and

area air defense commander functions, and other hull and mechanical improvements.
193

The committee supports upgrading these cruisers and recommends $37.5 million in PE 64307N and $17.5 million in PE

64567N, a total increase of $15.0 million, including $9.0 million in

PE 64307N and $6.0 million in PE 64567N for engineering studies

associated with expansion of the conversion program to include all

Aegis cruisers.

Distributed surveillance system

The budget request contained $14.9 million in PE 64784N for

continued development of the distributed surveillance system.

The Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) program

includes both fixed and relocatable acoustic sensor systems to detect and track diesel and nuclear powered submarines. The Fixed

Distributed System (FDS) is a series of permanently installed

acoustic arrays and the Advanced Deployable System (ADS), currently under development, will comprise sensors that can be rapidly deployed in littoral environments.

The committee understands that the incorporation of fiber optic

sensor technologies in acoustic arrays can greatly reduce maintenance requirements for these systems. Littoral anti-submarine

warfare (ASW) operations pose complex challenges in the evaluation and analysis of acoustic sensor data due to the high volume

of traffic and diverse environmental conditions. The committee is

concerned that the ADS program does not adequately address automation of detection and tracking functions, connectivity to the

Global Command and Control System (GCCS) and web-based network centric warfare systems.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $33.9 million, an increase of $19.0 million in PE 64784N for the distributed surveillance system including $8.0 million for the continued application of

remote-powered fiber optic sensor technologies for FDS acoustic arrays; and $11.0 million for the development of improved detection

and tracking algorithms to provide increased automation for the

ADS and an interface among it, the GCCS, and other network centric warfare systems.

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

The budget request contained $42.0 million in PE 63217N for development of air systems and weapons advanced technology. No

funds were requested for continuation of the DP–2 thrust vectoring

system proof-of-concept demonstration.

DP–2 is a proof of concept program to demonstrate thrust vector

control to achieve vertical takeoff and conventional takeoff capabilities in a one-half scale flight test vehicle. This technology offers the

potential for a low cost, medium range aircraft of advanced composite construction.

The committee recommends $47.0 million in PE 63217N, an increase of $5.0 million to complete the proof-of-concept flight test

demonstration and provide the basis for a potential Department of

the Navy decision to proceed with a full-scale aircraft development

program.
194

E–2C radar modernization

The budget request contained $16.1 million in PE 24152N for the

E–2C maritime surveillance aircraft, including $12.1 million for the

E–2C radar modernization program.

The committee notes that the radar modernization program is an

advanced technology transition demonstration of a new E–2C radar

system that will provide improved airborne surveillance capabilities for carrier battle groups engaged in littoral operations. However, funding for the radar modernization program was sharply reduced in this year’s budget request. The committee understands

that restoration of the funds would accelerate the development and

integration of the new radar system and enable participation in the

Navy’s early operational assessment of the cooperative engagement

capability (CEC) with the E–2C. The committee also understands

that this would accelerate the E–2C CEC demonstration by one

year, reduce risk, and provide the opportunity to forward-fit the capability into new production E–2C aircraft. The committee notes

that in addition to demonstrating the potential for significant improvements in airborne surveillance support for littoral operations,

the radar improvement program also addresses major obsolescence

and reliability issues associated with the current E–2C radar system.

The committee recommends $31.1 million in PE 24152N, including an increase of $15.0 million for the E–2C radar modernization

program.

Electric drive propulsion for Navy ships

The budget request contained $108.3 million in PE 63513N for

shipboard system component development, including $25.7 million

for integrated power systems (IPS) development.

The committee notes the Navy’s increased interest in the development of electric drive propulsion technology and the potential use

of electric drive propulsion in future surface combatants and submarines, including insertion of an electric drive propulsion system

in the DD–21 land attack destroyer and in the New Attack Submarine (NSSN) programs. A common integrated electric drive system appears to offer significant advantages, however, implementation of such a system has been limited by the technology needed

for reliable electric motors of the power (approximately 30,000 to

50,000 shaft horse power (shp)) required. The committee is aware

that several alternative electric propulsion motor concepts have

been proposed that are of varying degrees of technical maturity.

The statement of managers accompanying the conference report

on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105–746) directed the Secretary of the Navy

to provide a report to the Congress which evaluates the installation

of a common integrated electric drive system for DD–21, a NSSN

variant, and the next-generation CV(X) aircraft carrier with both a

common integrated electric drive system and a conventional mechanical drive system. The Secretary’s report, dated March 1, 1999,

states that the Navy has concluded that the radial-gap PM motor

possesses the power density, acoustic performance, and maturity of

technology to be a viable propulsion motor common to the broadest

ranges of ships and that the Navy is currently considering expand-
195

ing its IPS development to a corporate Navy program that will include state-of-the-art permanent magnet motor technology. The committee recommends $108.3 million in PE 63513N, including $25.7 million for integrated power systems development. The

committee will consider recommendations by the Secretary for further development and demonstration of electric drive propulsion

technology for Navy ships which identify necessary funding and

provide a program plan for the development.

Electro-optical framing technologies

The budget request contained $5.0 million in PE 35206N for air- borne reconnaissance systems, including $2.0 million for electrooptic (EO) framing technologies.

The committee continues to support development of the revolutionary digital EO framing technologies with on-chip forward motion compensation (FMC). The committee notes the Navy F–14 Tactical Air Reconnaissance Podded System—Completely Digital

(TARPS CD) demonstration system using this technology has recently been successfully employed at sea. Based on this success, the

committee believes there is a need for additional TARPS CD riskreduction pods and that the Navy should expand this effort. Further, the committee believes that the EO framing with on-chip

FMC should be fully developed and improved to satisfy current and

future applications on aircraft such as tactical unmanned aerial vehicles and other tactical fighter aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends $10.0 million in PE

35206N, an increase of $5.0 million for continued development of

EO framing with on-chip FMC technologies. These efforts shall include development of the high quantum efficiency infra-red framing

chip, precision strike improvements, and step-framing technologies.

Environmentally safe energetic materials

The budget request contained $34.3 million in PE 63609N for development and demonstration of improvements in Navy conventional munitions. No funds were requested to continue the program

for development of environmentally safe energetic materials.

The Congress has supported the accelerated development and

demonstration of energetic materials and processes for explosives,

propellants and pyrotechnics for use in undersea, surface, and

other weapons systems, which minimize or eliminate any adverse

environmental impact normally associated with these materials in

production and demilitarization. These new environmentally safe

materials are expected to meet insensitive munitions and system

performance requirements while lowering the total ownership costs

of the weapons systems.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63609N to continue the development of environmentally safe energetic materials.

Extended range guided munition and projectile common guidance

The budget request contained $101.5 million in PE 63795N for

gun weapons system technology demonstration and validation, including $37.7 million for continued development of the EX–171 extended range guided munition (ERGM).
196

The committee notes that the ERGM projectile, the modified 5–

inch, 62 caliber gun, and a land attack missile comprise the Navy’s

near-term program for improving the Navy’s surface fire support

capability.

The committee is aware that technical problems in development

of the ERGM projectile have caused schedule delays and potential

increases in program costs, and that the system contractor’s decision to relocate the ERGM development program to a new site has

only exacerbated these delays and increased costs. The committee

believes that while the technology issues facing the ERGM program

are low to medium risk, additional effort will be required to control

potential cost growth and to minimize any further delay in fielding

ERGM to the fleet.

The committee notes that both the Navy and the Army are pursuing the development of projectile guidance and control that will

use the global positioning system (GPS) and rugged inertial navigation systems (INS). The current guidance and control system for

the Navy’s ERGM uses mid–1990’s technology that typically accounts for at least 50 percent of the total projectile cost. The committee is aware that the Navy and the Army have been modestly

investing in the development of micro electro-mechanical sensor

(MEMS) technologies that can significantly reduce the cost of navigation systems that use GPS/INS guidance. Use of MEMS to upgrade the baseline (non-MEMS) guidance section would save at

least 10 percent of the total cost of each ERGM. If the MEMS system were packaged to fit within the NATO standard fuze, the resulting guidance integrated fuze that could be used by the Army,

Navy, Marines, and NATO allies in a variety of current and future

projectiles would reduce the cost of the ERGM up to 40 percent.

The potential production base for MEMS GPS/INS guidance and

control and make low-cost, precision-guided munitions a reality for

all services and NATO allies.

The committee recommends that the Navy and the Army capitalize on the development of MEMS GPS/INS technology by incorporating the technology in the ERGM projectile, and establishing

a joint program for the development of common guidance and control for cannon-fired projectiles. Such a program could leverage

technologies developed by the Competent Munitions Advanced

Technology Demonstration, Multifunction Fuze, and ERGM programs.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

63795N for ERGM baseline development and to accelerate integration of MEMS-based GPS/INS into the ERGM, and an increase

$4.0 million to initiate the joint Projectile Common Guidance program. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and the

Secretary of the Army to report to the Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request,

the program plan, schedule, and funding for the joint Projectile

Common Guidance program.

F/A–18C/D BOL chaff countermeasure

The budget request contained $315.7 million in PE 24136N for

F/A–18 aircraft operational systems development, including $169.1

million for the development of improvements to fielded F/A–18 air-
197

craft. No funds were requested to continue the certification of BOL

chaff countermeasures for the F/A–18C/D.

The committee notes that the LAU–138A/A Guided Missile

Launcher Set and its associated chaff countermeasures (RR184 and

RR189), commonly referred to as BOL chaff, have been qualified

and deployed on the F–14 aircraft. The launcher significantly increases aircrew/aircraft survivability and mission effectiveness by

dispensing increased quantities of countermeasures against radar

homing and infra-red missiles that are dispensed from the rear of

the aircraft launcher rail without displacing other aircraft weapons

from the launcher rail. The committee further notes that Phase I

integration testing of the LAU138A/A on the F/A–18C/D aircraft

will be completed in fiscal year 1999. However, the committee understands that funding for completion of Phase 2 of the F/A–18C/

D qualification program, which would lead to a production decision

is insufficiently funded.

The committee recommends $318.2 million in PE 24136N, an increase of $2.5 million to complete Phase 2 testing and qualification

of the LAU 138A/A BOL chaff countermeasure on the F/A–18C/D

strike fighter.

Free electron laser

The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 62111N for applied research in surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons technology, and $14.2 million in PE 65605A for the high energy laser

system test facility (HELSTF).

The committee understands that the Department of Energy is

considering a technology program for development and demonstration of a free electron laser that operates in the infrared spectrum

and desires to evaluate the technology for potential ship self-defense applications. A program has been proposed for upgrade of the

free electron laser demonstration facility for applied research in the

potential use of tunable free electron lasers as countermeasures

against anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile infrared seekers.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62111N to initiate the demonstration facility upgrade program, and

an increase of $4.0 million in PE 65605A for evaluation of this

technology by the DOD HELSTF to determine suitability to address Navy requirements. The committee directs the Secretary of

the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees with

the fiscal year 2001 budget request, a Navy supported program

plan and DOD funding required to complete the project. The committee further directs the Commander, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, as DOD executive agent for high power

solid-state laser technology, to provide a report containing the results of the HELSTF evaluation of the proposed free electron laser

technology program prior to a Navy request for funding for the

demonstration facility upgrade program.

Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communications system technology

The budget request contained $68.8 million in PE 62232N for applied research in command, control, and communications technology.
198

The Congress provided $1.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for development and demonstration of the technology for hybrid fiberoptic/

wireless communications systems. The committee understands that

the application of this technology to shipboard communications systems would combine the characteristic flexibility and mobility of

wireless base stations with the security of point-to-point fiberoptic

communications to achieve increased mobility and security while

reducing the effects of frequency interference. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE

62232N to continue the development of hybrid fiberoptic/wireless

communication system technology.

Hyper-spectral analysis

The budget request contained $12.1 million in PE 65867N, in- cluding $10.5 million for the Navy Force Tactical Exploitation of

National Capabilities (TENCAP), $10.1 million in PE 27247F for

Air Force TENCAP, and $7.8 million in PE 63232D8 for automatic

target recognition.

The committee understands that hyperspectral sensor systems

could provide the capability to detect and identify targets that are

not discernible with conventional sensors by exploiting the spectral

signature of both the target and the environment. The committee

also understands that the Navy and the Department of Defense

now believe that recent design and component technology innovations have reached a level of maturity where hyperspectral technology can be used to provide enhanced capabilities to existing and

planned airborne reconnaissance sensors. The committee notes

hyperspectral technology has been successfully tested on a limited

scale onboard Navy intelligence collection aircraft. The technology

provides real-time, automated, hyper-spectral, wide-area search

functionality. By searching for spectral anomalies, it provides users

with automated target nominations without prior detailed information. This could dramatically cut imagery analyst workloads, while

greatly improving real-time targeting and threat warning. The

committee believes such a capability is needed to exploit the vast

amount of imagery data that the intelligence community is able to

provide.

Therefore, the committee recommends $10.8 million in PE

63232D8, an increase of $3.0 million for advanced development of

hyperspectral technology for automatic target recognition, and

$16.1 million in PE 65867N and $14.1 million in PE 27247F, an

increase of $4.0 million respectively for the services to procure and

test hyper-spectral sensors and exploitation tools.

Improved software production management

The budget request contained no funding for improved software

development and production management. The committee notes

that the Office of the Secretary of Defense recently acknowledged

that Department of Defense software expenditures had risen to $42

billion annually by 1994, and that 40 to 50 percent of this amount

was attributed to software rework and correction of problems.

The committee also notes that industry has demonstrated the

ability to significantly reduce required rework by more than a factor of four by implementing an initiative known as best software
199

practices. It further notes that even a far more conservative percentage of cost avoidance would result in annual savings of billions

of dollars that could be invested elsewhere by the Department of

Defense.

Another serious problem addressed by this industry initiative is

an increasing shortage of qualified programmers. Industry has determined that the number of highly qualified software programmers is declining and that acheiving significant reductions in software re-work enables more efficient use of best qualified software

programmers, enabling the focus on new development efforts.

The implementation of best software practices by industry has

proven that more efficient software development offers a dramatic

potential for acquisition cost savings, and the committee believes

that this potential must be pursued by the Department for defense

programs. The Tri-Service Software Program Managers Network

has been established to identify best industry practices for software

development and management and to convey these best to the services. The committee is concerned that although the savings possible

through use of industry best practices have been documented and

an associated implementation plan developed by the Tri-Service

Software Program Managers Network, the Department has failed

to implement this plan. While a significant number of industry segments are aggressively pursuing best software practices to cut their

costs, the annual $42.0 billion cost to the Department of Defense

is so large that even a fraction of possible savings, if realized,

would have a dramatic impact on force modernization.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to mandate the

use of identified best practices for software development and management for all acquisition programs and recommends $4.5 million

in PE 63XXXN for the Tri Service Software Program Managers

Network.

Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine

The budget request contained $17.7 million in PE 63573N to continue development and full scale system testing of the intercooled

recuperated (ICR) gas turbine engine.

The committee supports the development of the ICR gas turbine

as the next-generation marine propulsion gas turbine and potential

power plant for surface combatants and other ships based on the

significantly reduced life cycle fuel costs and improved capabilities

that have been demonstrated during the development program.

The engine is being developed in accordance with cooperative

agreements between the United States and the United Kingdom

and the United States and France.

The committee notes that in 1998 the Navy significantly restructured the ICR program in accordance with program guidance contained in the statement of managers accompanying the conference

report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105–746). The ICR Essential Program has been structured to meet development milestones for the

United Kingdom and France’s common new generation frigate and

to provide industry with a qualified marine gas turbine for consideration as the prime mover for the DD–21 next-generation surface

combatant. Under the program the Navy will complete sufficient

development testing to characterize technical attributes and risks,
200

complete the second 500 hour development test, and identify a preproduction engine configuration that will then undergo qualification testing by the United Kingdom and France. During the qualification test phase of the program, U.S. Navy participation will include technical review, witnessing tests, and accepting test results.

The committee recommends the budget request in PE 63573N.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the

Congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2001 budget

request those measures necessary to ensure completion of the ICR

Essential Program.

Joint experimentation program

The budget request contained $41.8 million in PE 63727N for the

Joint Warfighting Experimentation program.

The program funds the field experiments and supporting simulation to evaluate potential systems and concepts and their contribution toward achieving the objective of enhanced effectiveness and

dominance of U.S. armed forces in future military operations. The

committee notes that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s

‘‘Joint Vision 2010’’ and supporting conceptual doctrine statements

by the military services stress the critical role that technology will

play in achieving new levels of effectiveness across the range of future military operations. The committee also notes that the program will initially focus on experiments relative to the contribution

of advanced information technology to joint warfighting capabilities. The committee supports a coordinated joint program that will

explore and experiment with new operational concepts, doctrine, organizations, training, and system technologies to understand the

new capabilities needed to achieve the next century’s military requirements.

The committee recommends $49.8 million in PE 63727N, an increase of $8.0 million for Joint Warfighting Experimentation program.

Joint non-lethal weapons programs

The budget request included $23.3 million in PE 63851M for nonlethal weapons.

The committee understands that the XM 303 Under-Barrel Tactical Payload System (UBTPS) is being examined for use in internal security and rear area security activities by the military services, Special Operations Command, and the National Guard.

Accordingly, the committee considers the continued development

and evaluation of the UBTPS in fiscal year 2000 to be a matter of

Congressional interest. Further, the committee expects the military

services, Special Operations Command, and the National Guard to

consider the XM 303 UBTPS for the purpose of determining their

requirements for non-lethal systems.

Joint tactical combat training system

The budget request contained $26.3 million in PE 24571N for

Consolidated Training Systems Development, including $8.0 million for continued development of the Joint Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS).
201

The JTCTS is a Navy-led, joint Air Force/Navy program for the

development of fixed, transportable, and mobile range instrumentation for shore-based tactical air crew training and for deployable,

at-sea naval expeditionary force training. The committee report on

H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–532) directed the Secretary of the Navy,

in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to conduct an

assessment of the feasibility and desirability of a transition strategy from the existing Navy large area tracking ranges (LATR) and

the Air Force’s AN/ASQ–34 Kadena Interim Training System

(KITS) to the objective JTCTS capability. The committee expressed

the belief that such a strategy should include potential improvements in the legacy systems, requirements for interoperability with

the JTCTS, and ultimate replacement of the legacy systems by

JTCTS. The statement of managers accompanying the conference

report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105–746) directed the Department of

Defense to conduct a technical evaluation to compare the capabilities, performance, and costs of an integrated LATR/KITS system to

JTCTS.

The committee notes that the report of the Navy’s JTCTS transition strategy assessment, dated February 1999, concluded that programmatic, technical, and operational use factors indicate a marginal return on investment for improvements to existing legacy systems. The assessment concludes that neither of the legacy systems

(LATR or KITS) possesses the capabilities needed to meet the key

operational requirements for JTCTS. The committee also notes that

the Department intends to complete the technical evaluation required by the statement of managers accompanying the conference

report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105–746) by August 1999.

The committee recommends the budget request for continued development of JTCTS.

Lightweight 155MM howitzer

The budget request contained $42.7 million in PE 63635M for

Marine Corps ground combat supporting arms systems and included $23.2 million for the XM 777 lightweight 155mm towed

howitzer.

The XM 777 howitzer was developed as the replacement for the

aging and operationally deficient M198 towed howitzer for the Marine Corps and the Army. The XM 777 will retain the range of the

M198 while reducing the weight from 16,000 pounds to 9,000

pounds. The weight reduction significantly improves transportability by sea, air, and land platforms while providing increased

rate of fire.

The committee supports this urgently needed replacement and

recommends $46.9 million in PE 63635M, an increase of $4.2 million for the XM 777.

Littoral warfare fast patrol craft

The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for the

Navy’s advanced technology demonstration program.

The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research is evaluating initial results of concept evaluation of a littoral warfare fast

patrol craft including preliminary design of the ship and fire support weapons module, development of a communications module,
202

and at-sea demonstration of the concept. The committee believes

that the concept could provide an enhanced in-shore surveillance,

communications, and fire support capability in support of Navy and

Marine littoral operations, and that the Navy should continue the

evaluation and determine the validity of an operational requirement for such a capability. The committee directs the Secretary of

the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees with

the fiscal year 2001 budget request, the program plan, schedule,

and funding for the concept development and evaluation program. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63792N to continue the concept development and evaluation program for the littoral warfare fast patrol craft.

Location of global positioning systems jammers

The budget request contained $163.1 million in PE 64270N for

development of electronic warfare systems. No funds were requested to continue development and demonstration of a state-ofthe art precision surveillance and targeting system for location of

global positioning systems jammers (LOCO GPSI). The Congress provided $3.5 million in fiscal year 1997 and $2.8

million in fiscal year 1998 to develop and demonstrate a prototype

system for locating and targeting global positioning system

jammers. The committee understands that the laboratory, field,

and initial flight tests of the LOCO GPSI prototype have demonstrated the ability of the prototype to target such jammers. The committee recommends $169.1 million in PE 64270N, an increase of $6.0 million to continue the development and evaluation

of the LOCO GPSI system. The committee directs the Secretary of

the Navy to assess the operational requirement for an electronic

countermeasures system for precision targeting global positioning

system jammers and the program plan for development of such systems, and to report the results of the assessment to the Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year

2001 budget request.

Marine Corps H–1 helicopter upgrade

The budget request contained $157.7 million in PE 64245N to

continue engineering and manufacturing development for upgrade

of the Marine Corps fleet of light/attack helicopters.

Under the upgrade, the existing fleet of 201 AH–1W attack and

104 UH–1N utility helicopters will be remanufactured into 180

AH–1Z and 100 UH–1Y helicopters. The program was initiated in

1995 to provide increased performance, reliability, maintainability,

and commonality at an ‘‘affordable’’ cost, reduce maintenance and

spare parts cost and overhead, and extend the life of the existing

Marine light/attack helicopter fleet until an advanced rotor craft

common to all services would become available around 2020.

Known as ‘‘4BN/4BW,’’ the program replaces the current two-bladed rotor system in both helicopters with a new, identical, four-bladed, all composite rotor system, a common engine and power train,

and a fully integrated state-of-the-art cockpit.

The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps

has included an increase of $26.6 million for this program as his

number one unfunded priority for aviation research and develop-
203

ment in fiscal year 2000. Consequently, the committee recommends

$184.3 million in PE 64245N, an increase of $26.6 million. The

committee is concerned, however, by the continuing cost growth for

a weapons system the Marine Corps regards as critical to its future

warfighting capability and expects the Secretary of the Navy to review the program, establish a revised program baseline, and take

measures necessary to manage the program within the revised

baseline.

Marine mammal research

The budget request contained $361.1 million in PE 61153N for

the Navy’s defense research sciences program.

Of the funds provided in PE 61153N, the committee recommends $500,000 for continuation of the Navy’s cooperative marine mammal research program.

Multi-function self-aligned gate technology

The budget request contained $69.7 million in PE 35204N for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and $9.4 million in

35207F for manned reconnaissance systems. No funding was provided in either program element for the multi-function self-aligned

gate (MSAG) active aperture antenna (AAA) technology.

The Congress has supported this AAA technology for several

years, and the committee is pleased with the successful MSAG antenna demonstration completed in August 1998. During this unprecedented demonstration, the MSAG provided wide-band, duplex

communications links simultaneously to a ground vehicle, an aircraft, and a satellite surrogate.

The committee believes that a single, electronically-steered antenna array that can provide multiple wide-band communications

links would be a cost-effective solution to numerous Department of

Defense communications requirements. However, the committee is

concerned to note that the Department has failed to provide even

minimal funding for this technology.

The committee understands that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) is considering initiation of an advanced concept technology

demonstration of the MSAG technology and that the Air Force is

supportive of testing this antenna technology on reconnaissance

aircraft.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million

in PE 35204N for operational evaluation of the MSAG AAA on the

tactical control station and the Predator UAV. The committee also

recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 35207F for evaluation of the MSAG AAA onboard the RC–135 Rivet Joint aircraft.

Multipurpose processor

The budget request contained $40.0 million in PE 64503N for the

submarine sonar improvement program, including $22.5 million to

continue development of the Acoustic Rapid Commercial-Off-theShelf Insertion (A–RCI) program.

The committee notes the significant improvement in sonar system capabilities that has resulted from the application of multipurpose processor (MPP) acoustics signal processing technology to
204

Navy submarine sonar systems. The committee has strongly supported the Navy’s selection of the MPP as the cornerstone for sonar

upgrades for existing submarines in the A–RCI program. The committee has also supported the development of advanced MPP signal

processing capabilities in the A–RCI program, in the Navy science

and technology base, and in the integration of those capabilities in

submarine, airborne, surface sonar, and undersea surveillance systems.

The committee recommends the budget request for the submarine sonar improvement program and continued funding support

for the development of advanced MPP acoustics signal processing

technologies as an integral part of the Navy’s sonar improvement

research and development program.

National oceanographic partnership program

The budget request contained $60.3 million in PE 62435N for applied research in oceanographic and atmospheric technology, including $10.0 million for Department of the Navy support to the

National Oceanographic Partnership Program.

Sec. 282 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201) established the National Oceanographic Partnership Program to promote U.S. national goals of assuring national security, advancing economic development, protecting quality of life, and strengthening science education and

communication through improved knowledge of the ocean and to

coordinate and strengthen oceanographic efforts in support of those

goals.

The committee has reviewed the National Ocean Research Leadership Council’s fiscal year 1999 report to the Congress on the National Oceanographic Partnership Program and notes the steadily

increasing activity in pursuit of the program goals and increased

funding for the program from the participating federal agencies.

The committee notes that the Ocean Research Advisory Panel believes the program has fostered a culture of partnership among

participating government agencies, academia, and industry which

has resulted in unique new approaches to ocean research. The committee also notes the panel’s finding that one of the most pressing

concerns in oceanography is the need for integrated ocean observation systems.

The committee understands that the Department of the Navy is

declassifying and will make available for use by the public and by

private institutions and agencies previously classified acoustical

data from the Navy’s underwater Sound Surveillance System

(SOSUS) and data on ocean temperature and salinity levels under

the Arctic ice cap. The statement of managers accompanying the

conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–736) requested that

the Chairman of the National Oceanographic Research Council conduct an assessment of the value of data from the Navy’s underwater Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) in public and private

ocean research. The committee understands that the council will

consider support for a SOSUS pilot project to determine the feasibility of providing routine access to declassified SOSUS data.
205

The committee recommends $60.3 million in PE 62435N, including $10.0 million for the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.

Navy aviation survivability

The budget request contained $7.3 million in PE 63216N for

aviation survivability.

The committee understands that the Department of Defense has

conducted an extremely successful Foreign Comparative Test (FCT)

of the K–36D Russian ejector seat and that this seat demonstrated

crew survivable ejection capability which surpassed that of current

U.S. ejection seats. The committee notes that the Air Force has

continued evaluation of the K–36D and has developed a new

version, the K–36/3.5A in order to meet U.S. requirements and yet

provide equivalent capabilities in a lighter weight version.

While the Air Force is actively pursuing enhanced crew safety capability offered by the K–36/3.5A, the committee is concerned that

the Navy has not seriously considered this opportunity to afford

Navy and Marine Corps aviators the same increased safe ejection

capability. The Navy has proposed to enter into a multi-year procurement F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet aircraft that do not offer the

same level of crew safety as the K–36/3.5A. Additionally, the Marine Corps is engaged in re-manufacture of its fleet of AV–8B Harrier jets to correct serious safety and sustainability problems.

The committee believes that both of these Navy aircraft represent the backbone of Navy aviation force projection capability

and should be required to seriously evaluate the enhanced crew

safety offered by the K–36/3.5A ejection seat. The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy provide a report to the

Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal

year 2001 budget request including the details of that evaluation.

Navy land attack missile program

The budget request contained $101.5 million in PE 63795N for

systems integration and testing, including $21.8 million for the

Navy’s land attack missile program.

The committee notes the operational requirement for a land attack missile system in the Navy’s near-term and far-term fire support systems. The committee continues to support the development,

risk reduction, and analytical activities leading to a defense acquisition milestone decision for a missile system program that will satisfy the operational requirements for a Navy land attack missile

system

The statement of managers accompanying the conference report

on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–736) directed the Secretary of Defense

to ensure the conduct of an analysis of alternatives (AOA) to support the acquisition of a Navy land attack missile, and further directed that the Navy should not proceed to a Milestone I decision

until the AOA and other requirements appropriate to a major acquisition milestone decision have been satisfied. The committee

notes that the analyses and studies to satisfy this guidance are currently underway. The March 1999 letter report from the Director

of Defense Operational Test and Evaluation, which was submitted

in response to the direction contained in the Appropriations com-
206

mittee report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105–591), states that the results of the studies will be examined as part of a 1999 Defense Acquisition Board review of the land attack missile program and that

the Department of Defense intends to conduct operational testing

to verify the issues on any land attack missile option that is pursued. The committee expects that these actions should result in the

selection from among the competing alternatives of the most costand operationally effective near-term solution to the operational requirement.

The committee also notes that the far-term naval surface fire

support program will require an advanced land attack missile system for the DD–21 land attack destroyer when that ship joins the

fleet in 2009, and that the Navy has yet to establish a development

program for such a missile. The committee believes that a competitive development program should be established beginning in fiscal

year 2001to ensure the availability of an advanced land attack missile for the first DD–21.

The committee recommends $21.8 million in PE 63795N to continue development and systems integration for the Navy’s nearterm land attack missile. The committee directs the Secretary of

the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees the

program plan and funding requirements for development of an advanced land attack missile system for the DD–21 and other naval

combatants with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request.

Navy theater missile defense and fleet defense radar upgrades

The budget request contained $329.8 million in PE 63868C for

the Navy theater wide (NTW) theater ballistic missile defense

(TMD) system and $5.7 million in PE63755N for ship self defense.

The committee notes the benefits of leveraging the large investment in the Aegis weapon system as the technical basis for the development of an effective sea-based theater missile defense system.

The committee understands, however, that the current SPY–1

radar does not meet TMD mission requirements and that significant radar upgrades are required to reach the objective capabilities

for the NTW system. At the same time, the committee recognizes

that radar upgrades required by the TMD mission need to be thoroughly integrated with continuing radar improvements required for

fleet defense to meet aircraft and cruise missile threats, development of the cooperative engagement capability (CEC), and continued development of next generation Navy destroyers and cruisers.

The committee is aware that the Navy has two radar alternatives under consideration to meet its immediate TMD requirements, an adjunct X-band radar and a S/C band SPY–1 upgrade.

The committee also understands that the Navy is conducting a

competitive development of a multi-function radar/volume search

radar (MFR/VSR) suite for the DD–21 and CVN–77 programs. The

committee is concerned that the Navy is simultaneously conducting

three different surface ship radar development programs and that

two major competitors are participating in all three efforts. All

three of these radar programs support similar area search and

tracking requirements for current and future surface ships, and the

committee believes that all three alternatives should be carefully
207

evaluated to determine the most cost effective and technically feasible approach for supporting NTW and fleet defense radar requirements.

The committee notes that the Navy has unique expertise in developing radar and command and control capabilities required for

fleet defense, and that these requirements overlap those derived

from the TMD mission. However, the committee believes that the

Navy needs to lay out a clearly defined roadmap of radar requirements and technology approaches to enable identification of the

best approach for various programs.

The committee also notes that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization shares TMD development costs for a number of programs,

including the Space Based Laser, Navy Area Defense, and Patriot

Advanced Capability-3 Configuration 3 (PAC–3) programs, while

retaining program oversight over the executing service. The committee believes that this is a sound management and funding

structure for NTW as well.

Therefore, the committee recommends $55.7 million in PE

63755N, an increase of $50.0 million for continued development of

an adjunct X-band radar, a SPY–1 upgrade, and the MFR/VSR

suite to meet fleet defense and TMD requirements. The committee

further directs that the Secretary of the Navy provide the Congressional defense committees a comprehensive TMD and fleet defense

radar roadmap with submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget request.

NSSN advanced submarine systems technology development and insertion

The budget request contained $241.5 million in PE 64558N for

continued engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of

the VIRGINIA Class New Attack Submarine (NSSN) and $115.8

million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development.

The committee continues to strongly support the development of

advanced submarine technologies for the NSSN, and is pleased

with the manner in which the Navy has adopted and is executing

a strategy for increasing the capabilities of the NSSN submarine.

Incremental insertion of advanced technologies in the follow-on

ships of the class will lead to the production of a more capable, less

expensive nuclear attack submarine.

The committee has reviewed the February 1999 report from the

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) on the

updated technology insertion plan and notes that the program has

been extended through the first seven ships of the class. The committee notes that, overall, the budget request contains approximately $292.0 million in EMD and Ship Construction, Navy funding to support the VIRGINIA Class technology insertion program.

The committee also notes shortfalls in the advanced submarine

technology program that have been identified by the Chief of Naval

Operations.

The committee recommends the following increases for the NSSN

advanced submarine systems technology development and insertion

program that have been recommended by the Navy to accelerate

and enhance critical warfighting capabilities in the VIRGINIA
208

Class NSSN: $6.5 million in PE 63561N, $18.5 million in PE

64558N, and $5.0 million in Ship Construction, Navy.

Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition

The budget request contained $7.8 million in PE 63232D8Z for

the development and demonstration of automatic target recognition

technology and $34.3 million in PE 63609N for the Navy’s conventional munitions program.

The committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–532) directed

the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) to provide to the Congressional defense committees the Department’s

overall plan and program for the development and demonstration

of optical correlator technology for automatic target recognition.

The committee has reviewed the plan and notes that the Director,

Defense Research and Engineering supports the development and

demonstration of the technology as a priority of the ATR technology

assessment program. The committee also notes that additional

funding support to the program has resulted in key technology advances and increased the potential for near term transition of the

technology and its applications to weapon systems. The committee recommends an increase of $8.7 million in PE

63609N to continue the program for development and demonstration of a miniature, rugged optical correlator for automatic target

recognition and improved aim point selection for the Navy’s Standard Missile.

Optically fed and controlled phased array antenna

The budget request contained $68.8 million in PE 62232N for applied research in communications, command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, including $22.2 million

for radar technology.

The committee notes the potential for the development of monolithic circuits that combine photonic, optic, and microwave technologies in highly integrated, multi-level photonic modules. The use

of such modules could provide increased bandwidth, advanced

beamforming capabilities, and improved performance in advanced

military radar and communication systems that are lower in cost,

smaller in size and weight, and require less power than those systems that employ current phased-array radar technology.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE

62232N for applied research in the development and application of

multi-level photonic module technology to optically fed and controlled phased array radar and communications systems.

Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer

The budget request contained $68.8 million in PE 62232N for applied research in communications, command, control, intelligence,

surveillance, and reconnaissance technology, including $22.2 million for radar technology.

The committee understands that high instantaneous bandwidth

is needed in shipboard radar surveillance systems to achieve the

necessary resolution for theater ballistic missile defense, ship selfdefense, and non-cooperative target identification. The committee

notes that the use of optical wavelength-division multiplexing
209

(WDM) technology, now being developed in the commercial sector,

may provide the capability for wideband beamforming that could

result in the demonstration of a wideband electronically-steered active radar antenna with high instantaneous bandwidth and the

resolution necessary for theater ballistic missile defense and noncooperative target identification. Use of optical WDM technology to

reduce hardware complexity would permit reductions in system

cost and achieve performance levels that are needed for ship self

defense in a littoral environment.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62232N to initiate a cooperative program for research, development, and demonstration of a prototype optically multiplexed,

wideband, radar beam-forming array using optical WDM technology.

P–3 maritime patrol aircraft combat systems research and development

The budget request contained $3.0 million in PE 64221N for engineering and manufacturing development in support of the P–3

maritime patrol aircraft.

The program provides upgrades to P–3C aircraft systems to enhance surface and subsurface tracking, classification, and attack

capabilities, specific emitter identification, and improved radar

tracking, and develops the software necessary to integrate advanced sensors into embedded P–3C Update III computer systems.

The committee notes that major theater combatant commanders

continue to give high priority to the use of P–3C aircraft for reconnaissance and surveillance missions in both maritime and littoral

operations. The Navy’s recently-published Integrated Submarine

Warfare Roadmap, which responded to direction contained in the

statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R.

3616 (H. Rept. 105–736), cites improvements in P–3 system capabilities as either essential or critical to near-term anti-submarine

warfare operational capabilities. The committee also notes that

there is, as yet, no program for development of a new multi-mission

maritime aircraft. The committee strongly believes that increased

priority must be given to the maintenance of a robust, continuing

research and development program to support sustainment of existing P–3C aircraft anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare

capabilities and introduction of new capabilities.

The committee recommends the budget request, and strongly recommends that the Secretary of the Navy carefully review the fiscal

year 2001 budget request for the P–3 maritime patrol aircraft program to ensure that it is in accordance with the program priorities

established in the Integrated Submarine Warfare Roadmap.

Parametric airborne dipping sonar

The budget request contained $58.0 million in PE 63747N for undersea warfare advanced technology development and $118.7 million in PE 64216N for the multi-mission helicopter upgrade program. No funds were requested for the parametric airborne dipping

sonar (PADS).

The committee notes that the Block II Upgrade to the LAMPS

Mark III Weapons System will make significant improvements in
210

both the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and anti-surface warfare

mission areas. The Airborne Low Frequency Sonar (ALFS) will provide the principle improvement in the LAMPS Mark III ASW mission capability.

The committee also notes that, in addition to the ALFS program,

the Navy’s advanced technology demonstration of a prototype

PADS has indicated the significant potential of parametric sonar

technology against both mine-like and submarine targets in littoral

waters. The results of the Navy’s recent at-sea test of PADS indicate that the essential goals of the PADS demonstration have been

met and suggest its potential for mine detection. However, the

PADS ASW performance has not yet been demonstrated against a

submarine target. The Secretary of the Navy’s evaluation report,

dated January 1999, states that the PADS technology merits further pursuit and that the Navy intends to continue demonstrations

of parametric sonar technology using increases provided by the

Congress. The committee believes that demonstrations of the PADS

prototype technology against a submarine target must be completed before any decision is made to continue with a development

program for PADS.

The committee recommends the budget request in PE 63747N

and PE 64216N and awaits recommendations from the Secretary of

the Navy to continue further demonstrations and development of

PADS.

Phased array weather radar

The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 62111N for applied research in surface/aerospace surveillance and weapons technology.

The committee notes ongoing Navy tests of the capability of the

AN/SPY–1 phased array radar for the measurement of detailed

local atmospheric conditions over water and in clear air. The committee is aware of proposals that have been made for the use of the

SPY–1 radar at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric

Agency’s (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory to evaluate

the radar’s capability for the collection of weather data and to test

the technology for upgrading the WSR–88D weather radar with

phased array radar capabilities. The committee believes that such

an evaluation could result in advanced radar capabilities for severe

weather warning, and could also result in enhanced capabilities for

the SPY–1 radar for over-land surveillance and missile engagement

guidance and control during littoral operations.

The committee encourages the Navy, NOAA, and the National

Science Foundation (NSF) to enter into a cooperative agreement for

loan of a SPY–1 radar to the National Severe Storms Laboratory

and evaluation of the potential use of the radar system for weather

prediction, observation, and warning.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

62111N, to be used as matching funds to support a joint NavyNOAA-NSF evaluation of the SPY–1 radar’s capability for the collection of weather data and the technology for upgrading weather

radar with phased array radar capabilities.
211

Power electronic building blocks and power node control centers

The budget request contained $41.5 million in PE 63508N for

surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical advanced technology, including $18.0 million for development of advanced shipboard electrical systems.

The committee notes that the budget request supports the continued development and demonstration of power electronic building

block technology, however, no funds were requested to continue the

development of power node control centers. The committee continues to believe that power node control centers offer potential for

significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness for advanced electrical distribution system fault detection, switching, reconfiguration, and control of shipboard electrical power systems.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE

63508N to continue the program for development and demonstration of power node control centers.

Project ‘‘M’’

The budget request contained $41.5 million in PE 63508N for

submarine and surface ship handling, machinery, and engineering

systems, including $2.4 million to complete the development, demonstration, and transition of advanced vibration control and quieting technology for naval machinery support structures.

The committee has closely followed the progress of Project M, a

mounting system for active control of noise and vibration cancellation on ship machinery support systems, from its inception as a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency advanced submarine

technology program to the transition and continued development of

the technology by the Navy. The results of the program have shown

that the active machinery raft may provide unprecedented quieting

for submarines and other ships. The committee notes the Navy’s

plan to conduct in-water tests of the Project M technology installed

in a large scale test vehicle at the Navy’s underwater acoustic test

range and believes that these tests must be completed in order to

fully characterize the overall performance of the technology.

The statement of managers which accompanied the conference

report on H.R. 3616 (H.Rept 105–736) requested that the Secretary

of the Navy assess the potential of the application of the Project

M technology in surface ships. The Secretary’s assessment, dated

April 1999, concluded that, although Project M offered potential

benefits in low frequency vibration control, the impact on surface

ship design make it unlikely that such technologies would be used

in existing or future surface combatants. Consequently, the Secretary stated that a full-scale prototype development and demonstration of Project M technology should not be pursued. However,

the assessment also stated that these conclusions should not confine or limit continued science and technology investments in active

control vibration reduction technologies for other applications.

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63508N for completion of the in-water evaluation of

Project M quieting technology in the 1⁄4-scale submarine vehicle

and transition of the technology to the Naval Sea Systems Command.
212

S–3B surveillance system upgrade program

The budget request contained $2.1 million in PE 64217N for the

weapon system improvement program for the S–3B maritime patrol aircraft.

The committee notes that the objective of the S–3B surveillance

system upgrade program is the integration of off-the-shelf radar,

electro-optic and infrared sensors, electronic support measures, and

tactical data links to demonstrate an enhanced stand-off surveillance capability in support of Navy battle group operations that

could be achieved with low risk and at relatively low cost. For fiscal

year 1997, Congress added funds to demonstrate the APS–

137V(V)5 synthetic aperture radar on the S–3B in phase I of the

program. The committee notes Navy proposals for phase II of the

program which would demonstrate an integrated surveillance system mission package on the S–3B aircraft. The committee believes

that the phase II program is a logical follow-on to phase I system

demonstrations to be conducted later this year. The committee recommends $9.1 million in PE 64217N, an in- crease of $7.0 million for the S–3B surveillance system upgrade

program.

Ship survivability and personnel protection

The budget request contained $108.3 million in PE 63513N, in- cluding $6.6 million for development and demonstration of survivability and protection technologies.

The committee notes that requirements for increased mission capabilities and reduced manning in future naval ships will place a

premium on protection of ships personnel and the ability to monitor personnel status under all conditions. The committee has followed closely the Navy’s efforts to develop and introduce to the

fleet a computer-based, total ship damage control information management system that would enable rapid, coordinated response to

wartime and peacetime casualties, reduce crew manpower requirements, and improve manpower utilization. The committee notes

that the Navy is evaluating a personal status monitor that could

provide the capability for detecting man overboard incidents. The

committee continues to support the evaluation of commercial offthe-shelf, non-developmental items (COTS NDI) that could improve

operational safety and combat survivability and have a high potential for contributing to safety of flight, fire fighting, damage control,

emergency preparedness ashore, and survival at sea. The committee recommends $112.3 million in PE 63513N, an increase of $4.0 million for development, demonstration, and evaluation of ship survivability and protection technologies.

Silicon carbide semiconductor substrates

The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials, electronics, and computer technology.

The committee is aware that silicon carbide is a wide band-gap

semiconductor material with unique physical and electrical properties that will make possible the fabrication of the next-generation

of microelectronic devices. These devices will be capable of operation in radiation environments and at high temperatures, high

voltages, high power levels, and high frequencies in the microwave
213

regime. These capabilities will enable a wide range of applications

in military and commercial systems, such as high voltage/high

power systems, advanced radar, nuclear instruments, satellite communications, and advanced sensors. The committee supports the

progress that has been made in the development of silicon carbide

materials and encourages partnerships with industry for early commercialization of the technology. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62234N for the continued development of silicon carbide semiconductor materials and to advance high electrical power control and

other applications for next generation military platforms.

Smart propulsor product model

The budget request included $5.3 million in PE 63563N for development and validation of design tools and methods for ship concept

studies.

The Congress provided an increase of $3.0 million in fiscal year

1999 for the smart propulsor product model (SPPM), a joint Navy/

industry effort to develop software design and analysis tools that

bring together design, manufacturing, cost and capabilities modeling for ship propulsion devices. The committee notes that successful completion of the development program for the SPPM should

enable the Navy to consider innovative propulsion concepts for future ships while considering life-cycle cost, manufacturing techniques, and their overall impact on ship system performance and

cost.

The committee recommends $8.3 million in PE 63563N, an increase of $3.0 million to continue development of the SPPM.

SSGN conversion from Trident-class SSBN submarines

The budget request contained no funds for conversion of Tridentclass ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) to a conventional cruise

missile (SSGN) configuration.

The committee believes that sustaining a robust nuclear deterrent ought to be of the highest priority for future use of Trident

class SSBN’s. The committee notes Section 1032 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for 1998 (Public Law 105–85, 111 Stat.

1948), as amended, limits the expenditure of funds for the retirement of any of the 18 Trident SSBNs and other strategic nuclear

systems unless START II enters into the force and the Secretary

of Defense exercises a waiver to implement START II.

The committee further notes that the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–736)

directed the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congressional defense committees by March 1, 1999 on an analysis of Trident SSBN

conversion to the SSGN configuration. This analysis is intended to

address a range of conversion issues, including costs and schedule,

major problem areas requiring additional analysis, implications for

arms control treaty compliance, and possible benefits. The committee notes that the Secretary’s report has not been received.

If the decision is made to retire SSBN submarines as a result of

arms control agreements, the committee believes that the Department of Defense should consider the one time, near term opportunity Trident SSBN conversion to SSGN presents to the United
214

States military. As a result, upon such a decision and the release

of the Secretary of Defense’s report, the committee directs the Navy

to consider submitting a reprogramming request to the Congressional defense committees to reprogram funds required to support

concept validation and cost and operational effectiveness analysis

leading to a defense acquisition milestone decision on conversion of

the Trident SSBN to SSGN conversion. The reprogramming authorization to initiate concept evaluation and validation for the

SSGN conversion should not alter the nation’s policy of remaining

at START I force levels until START II enters into force, nor shall

it detract in any way from the overall U.S. deterrent posture or policy.

The committee re-emphasizes the importance it places on the requested report and directs the Secretary to provide it to the Congressional defense committees at the earliest possible date.

Superconducting waveform generator

The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials, electronics, and computer technology,

including $9.8 million for radio frequency solid state device and

control components.

The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research demonstrated notable performance gains through the use of cryogenic electronics

and high temperature superconductivity technology in analog and

digital electronic components. The Congress provided $1.0 million

in fiscal year 1999 to continue the development of super conducting

waveform generator and analog-to-digital converter technology that

could lead to the demonstration of an advanced ‘‘cryo-radar’’ with

increased performance and clutter rejection and reduced size,

power, and weight. The committee has since learned that the program cannot be executed at the funding level provided. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62234N to continue the program for development of superconducting waveform generator and analog-to-digital converter

technology, and to fulfill the intent expressed by the conferees in

the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on

H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–736).

SWATH ship mine counter-measures demonstrator

The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N for

Navy advanced technology demonstrations. No funds were requested for demonstration of a high-speed mine counter-measures

(MCM) ship.

The committee notes that the Navy’s existing force of dedicated

mine warfare ships are proven and capable of sustained mine hunting and clearance operations, but their slow speed and limited

operational radius limits the effectiveness of their deployment with

Navy surface combatant forces. The committee also notes that

Navy studies indicate continued requirements for a dedicated MCM

force for the foreseeable future.

The committee is aware of proposals that have been made for

evaluation of advanced, high-speed hull designs as MCM ships.

These proposals include the adaptation of existing Navy small
215

water area, twin hull (SWATH) craft, equipped with air and surface MCM systems, as a system demonstrator for evaluation in

fleet battle experiments of the effectiveness of such craft in MCM

operations.

The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to assess the requirement for a high-speed MCM ship demonstration program and

provide to the Congressional defense committees by October 1,

1999, a report which includes the Secretary’s recommendations regarding the demonstration, a program execution plan, and Navy

funding for the program.

Tactical control system

The budget request contained $69.7 million in PE 35204N for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and included $24.6 million for the tactical control system (TCS). No funding was provided

for the operation of the UAV systems integration laboratory (SIL)

or to continue its development of the multiple UAV simulation environment (MUSE).

The committee continues to be supportive of the TCS and notes

that TCS software is the key to interoperability for future mediumaltitude and tactical UAVs and their payloads. Further, the committee is supportive of the TCS objective to interface with high-altitude UAVs.

The committee notes that the Naval Surface Warfare Center program office continues to develop most of the TCS software and expend most of the TCS developmental funding in-house. The committee believes that the TCS program could be more efficiently

managed if the TCS developments, including software engineering

and maintenance, were to be outsourced in whole to the prime system integration contractor. Further, the committee believes such

outsourcing would allow for a smaller and more efficient government program office. The committee believes that holding a prime

contractor responsible for total system performance has demonstrated success with many other programs.

Finally, the committee notes that the U.S. Atlantic Command

(USACOM) has been without a TCS capability for its UAV testing,

and that additional funding is required to provide such a capability.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million

for procuring a TCS ground station for USACOM. Further, the

committee directs a reallocation of $4.5 million within PE 35204N

specifically to realize the program office efficiencies discussed above

and to move software development and maintenance responsibility

to the prime contractor. This funding is to be reapplied within the

TCS program to fund the SIL MUSE efforts.

Tactical Tomahawk

The budget request contained $147.2 million in PE 24229N for

Tomahawk and Theater Mission Planning Center operational systems development, including $145.3 million for the Tactical Tomahawk program.

The committee has supported the Navy’s initiation of the Tactical

Tomahawk program. However, the committee report on H.R. 3116

(H. Rept. 105–532) expressed particular concern about the Navy’s
216

ability to establish a competitive environment for future Tactical

Tomahawk procurement and directed the Secretary of the Navy to

report to the Congressional defense committees the Navy’s plan for

ensuring competitiveness in the production phase of the program.

The Secretary’s letter report, dated September 25, 1998, noted

the Navy’s decision to continue with the current Tomahawk manufacturer for both the Tactical Tomahawk development contract and

the full rate production program that would commence in fiscal

year 2003. The report also asserted that the cost to the Navy associated with acquisition of a comprehensive technical data package

for the missile and facilitating a second source would be prohibitive

and that the delay in bringing on a second source would not support the required schedule for the delivery of missiles to the fleet.

The committee notes that the justification and approval (J&A) on

which the sole-source decision for the Tactical Tomahawk program

was based stated that the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract would require the contractor to develop and

maintain a complete technical data package to support EMD and

future missile production. The committee also notes that since the

approval of the J&A and award of the EMD contract for Tactical

Tomahawk, the Navy has determined that it does not have the

ability to provide a technical data package to firms that would wish

to compete in related warhead programs because the ‘‘EMD contract does not include a requirement for a technical data package.’’

The committee believes that the Navy’s decision not to acquire

a technical data package for the Tactical Tomahawk denies the

ability to establish a second production source for the missile,

should that be required in the future, and the ability of the Navy

to compete any future procurement of the missile. In view of the

operational expenditures of the Tomahawk missile as a weapon of

choice in current operations and the imminent need to replace

those expenditures, the committee considers such a policy shortsighted.

The committee also notes that the estimated cost of the Tactical

Tomahawk program dictate that any procurement decision should

be made only after a formal defense acquisition program milestone

decision review at an appropriate time in the development program. The committee believes that such a milestone decision review should consider measures for establishing competitiveness in

the production phase of the program.

The committee recommends the budget request of $147.2 million

for continuation of the Tomahawk development program. The committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and

Technology) to review the Tactical Tomahawk program and the decision not to acquire a technical data package for the missile. The

Secretary shall report to the Congressional defense committees by

December 31, 1999, on measures that will be taken to insure competition in future Tactical Tomahawk procurement and related programs.

Trajectory correctable munitions development

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

(Public Law 105–261) provided $5.0 million in PE 63635M for the
217

joint Army-Marine Corps Trajectory Correctable Munitions (TCM)

development.

The committee notes that the various agreements required for a

joint international program have been agreed to by all parties and

are to be signed in the near future. The committee continues to

support TCM development and directs the Secretary of Defense to

release the previously authorized funding to the Marine Corps

promptly after the agreements are signed.

Ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers

The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for applied research in materials, electronics, and computer technology.

The committee notes that over the last four years the Navy has

engaged in a program to advance the use of ultra-high thermal conductivity fibers in high-performance, high-density electronic modules. Success in this area could permit the expanded use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) electronic components in military aircraft and avionics (where the high thermal output of such components has constrained their use), and in substantial savings in system procurement costs.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE

62234N to continue the development of applications for ultra-high

thermal conductivity fibers technology.

Undersea warfare advanced technology

The budget request contained $34.1 million in PE 62633N for applied research in undersea warfare weapons technology.

The committee recommends $36.1 million, an increase of $2.0

million to continue the development and application of

microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology to Navy undersea weapons systems.

Unmanned aerial vehicles

The committee notes that the Congress directed the establishment of the office of Director for Expeditionary Warfare (N85) within the Chief of Naval Operations as a provision of Public Law 102–

484, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.

This action was taken to address Congressional concerns about the

adequacy of Navy resources dedicated to expeditionary warfare

areas such as amphibious lift, mine warfare, and naval surface fire

support. The Navy subsequently established responsibility for requirements generation and resource sponsorship for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and assigned the new responsibilities to the expeditionary warfare directorate based on the vital role these systems play in reconnaissance and targeting support to expeditionary

operations.

The committee understands that the Navy is considering transferring responsibility for naval UAVs from N85 to the office of the

Director of Air Warfare (N88). The committee is concerned that the

migration of responsibility for naval UAVs may lead to decreased

emphasis on the vital role these systems perform in expeditionary

operations. The committee urges the Navy to consult the Congressional defense committees on any planned transfer of responsibility
218

for naval UAVs and provide sufficient rationale prior to executing

such a transfer.

Upgrading fleet systems

The budget request contained $46.7 million in PE 63582N for

combat systems integration demonstration and validation.

The committee understands that the recently created Systems

Engineer of the Navy (NAVSEA 007) provides a focal point for

interoperability and configuration control with the authority to direct overall upgrade of obsolete equipment across Navy systems.

The office has developed a methodology for reducing the logistics

costs associated with maintaining legacy equipment: identifying

and analyzing legacy systems in the fleet, then replacing aging and

obsolete equipment with state-of-the-art, commercial-off-the-shelf

(COTS) equipment. Results of the program should significantly reduce ownership costs to the Navy and realize cost reductions estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The committee

supports the initiative and encourages its implementation by the

Navy as soon as possible. The committee recommends $49.7 million in PE 63582N, an increase of $3.0 million to support implementation of the COTS insertion initiative for upgrading fleet systems.

Vacuum electronics

The budget request contained $78.0 million in PE 62234N for applied research in advanced materials, electronics, and computer

technology, including $10.0 million for vacuum electronics technology.

The committee supports continuation of a robust vacuum electronics research and development program and expects the Navy as

the Department of Defense (DOD) executive agent for the program

to insure a coordinated vacuum electronics research and development program among the military services and defense agencies,

and with other federal agencies, that will meet DOD requirements

for advanced vacuum electronics technology.

The committee recommends $10.0 million in PE 62234N for applied research in vacuum electronics technology. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to assess the Department’s requirements for advanced vacuum electronics technology and to report

the results of that assessment and the long-term funding plan for

the Department’s vacuum electronics technology program to the

Congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal

year 2001 budget request.

Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter demonstration

The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 63792N, including $5.0 million to begin an advanced technology demonstration of the Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller (VTDP) Compound

Helicopter, and $48.8 million in PE 64212N, including $34.9 million for development and evaluation of the CH–60S Fleet Combat

Support helicopter.

The committee notes that the request for CH–60S helicopter development includes completion of a three-phase demonstration of

its suitability for airborne mine countermeasures (MCM) towing
219

missions. The Navy has placed a high priority on the development

of an organic airborne mine countermeasures capability and the

demonstration of a variant of the CH–60 helicopter for the towed

airborne MCM mission that will begin in fiscal year 1999. As a

back-up technology, the Navy plans an advanced technology demonstration of the VTDP helicopter to demonstrate and assess the

helicopter’s towed airborne MCM capability, other multi-mission

capabilities, and life cycle cost effectiveness. The committee also

notes that the Navy plans to address the requirements, content,

schedule, and cost of the plan for the VTDP advanced technology

demonstration.

The committee recommends the budget requests for PE 63792N

and PE 64212N and further recommends that the Navy complete

the assessment of requirements, schedule, and cost of conducting

an ATD for VDTP and provide the assessment and recommendations to the Congressional defense committees in conjunction with

submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2001.

Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems

The budget request contained $41.5 million in PE 63508N for development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and

electrical advanced technology.

The committee has supported the development of technologies

that will lead to lower cost designs for future naval ships. The Congress provided funds in fiscal year 1999 to accelerate the development and use of virtual prototyping and a virtual test bed to demonstrate and evaluate advanced shipboard electrical power system

concepts. The test bed provides the capability to dynamically test

hull, mechanical, and electrical system designs in an interactive,

distributed simulation. The committee believes that the test bed

can be further developed through the integration of actual hardware and advanced electrical control device simulations to provide

a distributed hardware-in-the-loop simulation that will permit realistic evaluations of ship hull, mechanical, and electrical systems

performance.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

63508N to continue the development and application of the virtual

test bed.

AIR FORCE RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $13,077.8 million for Air Force

RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $13,212.7

million, an increase of $134.8 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Air

Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major

changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table

and in the classified annex to this report.
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229

Items Of Special Interest

Airborne laser

The budget request contained $308.6 million in PE 63319F for

the airborne laser (ABL) program.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

(Public Law 105–261) required an independent assessment of the

ABL program, including the need for any additional testing, the

adequacy of criteria for entry into engineering and manufacturing

development, and the adequacy of ABL operational concepts.

The committee notes that the independent assessment team

(IAT) stated that ‘‘the nation is on the threshold of being able to

acquire a long-sought military HEL [high energy laser] capability’’

and that such a capability would ‘‘represent a truly revolutionary

weapon in the nation’s arsenal.’’ While acknowledging that technical uncertainties remain, the IAT also stated that ‘‘subsystem development and analyses have matured to the point where the remaining questions relate to system issues which can only be answered by a complete HEL flying system, gathering data and demonstrating effectiveness in an operational environment.’’

The committee notes that the ABL program has been restructured to accommodate a $25.0 million congressional reduction. The

restructured program will increase efforts to characterize atmospheric turbulence that could degrade ABL performance, demonstrate the effectiveness of ABL’s atmospheric compensation, and

examine both the lethality of the laser and potential countermeasures. The committee notes that the program has consistently

met its budget, technical, and schedule milestones, and that the

initiatives in the program restructuring address all relevant congressional concerns. The committee further notes that the ABL program offers the potential for significant contributions to advancing

laser technology generally, including a better understanding of

laser lethality, laser optics, acquisition, aiming, pointing, tracking,

and command and control.

The committee recommends $308.6 million, the amount requested for the airborne laser.

Aircrew laser eye protection

The budget request contained $14.8 million in PE 63231F for

crew systems and personnel protection technology, including $1.3

million for aircrew laser eye protection.

The committee has consistently supported the Department of Defense’s efforts to enhance aircraft crew member protection systems.

The committee is aware of the ongoing efforts to develop both laser

eye protection technologies and an overall laser threat analysis system. The committee urges continued development of these initiatives and encourages them to be viewed as a high priority.

The committee recommends $19.3 million in PE 63231F, an increase of $4.5 million to be used for the development of helmetmounted sensory and laser protection technologies as well as the

laser threat analysis system.
230

Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office partnership

The budget request contained $2.9 million in PE 63856F for the

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

The Air Force/NRO partnership program funds studies and analyses of opportunities to better integrate the activities of the two organizations. The committee believes that the leadership structure

of the two organizations is appropriate to foster such integration,

and that each organization should be highly motivated to leverage

the investments of the other as a means of conserving scarce resources. The committee believes that the activities funded in this

program should be part of the regular order of business for both

the NRO and the Air Force.

The committee recommends no funding in PE 63856F.

Air Force science and technology funding

The budget request contained $209.5 million for Air Force 6.1 basic research and $507.6 million for 6.2 applied research for a

total Air Force science and technology (S&T) request of $717.1 million.

The committee notes with concern that the Air Force S&T budget

request reflects a disturbing decline in basic and applied research

investments from the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level of $802.0

million. This reduced amount is also less than either the Army or

Navy S&T request and gives rise to serious concern for the health

of future Air Force modernization capabilities. The committee is extremely disappointed that the service with the vision to first employ such leading edge technologies as stealth, precision guided

weapons, and space-based information systems could sacrifice the

very tools that delivered these powerful leap-ahead technologies

and prioritize instead a series of near-term upgrades to existing

legacy systems. While the committee recognizes the importance of

sustaining the existing capability inherent in todays weapon systems, it views sacrificing the research essential to open the door to

future modernization without full acknowledgment at the highest

levels of leadership as irresponsible and unacceptable.

The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified a collection of non-space related S&T programs totaling $94.0

and included them among the Air Force unfunded priorities. While

the committee understands the extreme pressures experienced by

the services as they attempt to preserve their most critical modernization programs, the importance of these omitted S&T programs is difficult to understand. The committee disagrees with the

lower priority placed on these programs and believes that several

fielded systems development programs offering only incremental

improvements to existing equipment, while necessary, should still

be considered lower in importance to critically needed S&T investments.

Therefore, the committee recommends the following program decreases explained in detail elsewhere in this report: $12.1 million

in PE 11113F, a decrease of $15.0 million for B–52 squadrons; and

$65.1 million in PE 63434F, a decrease of $15.0 million for the national polar-orbiting operational environmental surveillance system. While the committee has expressed great concern over the se-
231

rious decline in overall RDT&E funding and does not consider

RDT&E program decreases lightly, it does believe that these programs are far lower priorities than the S&T program reductions

proposed by the Air Force.

In conjunction with the above decreases, the committee recommends restoration of the following critical non-space S&T programs:

Automatic target recognition

The budget request contained $65.0 million in PE 62204F for

aerospace sensors, but included no funding for automatic target

recognition (ATR).

The committee notes the importance of accurate target recognition capability and the high sensitivity to collateral damage displayed during recent regional conflicts. Technologies such as ATR

should be thoroughly evaluated for potential improvements to all

applicable weapon systems. The committee recommends $68.6 million in PE 62204F, an increase of $3.6 million for continued evaluation of ATR technology.

Crew technology

The budget request contained $51.5 million in PE 62202F for

human effectiveness applied research, but included no funding for

crew technology.

The committee believes that the Air Force should place high priority on research devoted to crew safety, altitude protection, and

the ability to effectively operate aircraft during long periods of sustained operations, and that this area of research should be viewed

as a fundamental tenet for the Air Force.

The committee recommends $62.3 million in PE 62202F, an increase of $10.8 million for continuation of crew technology research.

Friction stir welding

The budget request contained $63.3 million in PE 62102F for materials research, but included no funding for the continuation of

friction stir welding.

The committee notes that the Air Force has been evaluating a

unique materials technology known as friction stir welding. This

program has demonstrated a materials joining approach that does

not require consumables and exhibits the capability to join dissimilar materials. The committee believes this technology holds significant potential for a number of aerospace applications and recommends $66.3 million, an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62102F

for continued evaluation of friction stir welding.

Hyperspectral imaging

The budget request contained $115.3 million in PE 62601F for

Phillips laboratory exploratory development, but included no funds

for hyperspectral imaging technology.

The committee recommends increases in funding for

hyperspectral imaging technology for Navy and Defense-wide programs described elsewhere in this report and notes that

hyperspectral imaging and sensing technology is one of the many

science and technology efforts that were listed as unfunded prior-
232

ities by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. This technology offers

significant improvements to airborne and other reconnaissance sensors and targeting data collection systems by providing enhanced

wide-area search and targeting and threat warning capability. The committee recommends an increase of $7.3 million in PE

62601F for hyperspectral imaging technology.

Tactical missile propulsion

The budget request contained $115.3 million in PE 62601F for

Phillips laboratory exploratory development, but included no funds

for tactical missile propulsion or Integrated High Payoff Rocket

Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT).

The committee notes that continued research in this technology

offers significant improvements and enhanced safety of operations

for air-to-air and air-to-ground tactical missile programs, as well as

improved propulsion technologies for orbital transfer, space maneuvering, and satellite propulsion technology offered by the IHPRPT

program. The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million in PE

62601F to continue research in tactical missile propulsion and

IHPRPT.

Ballistic missile technology

The budget request contained no funding in PE 63311F for ballistic missile technology (BMT).

The committee understands that the BMT program is developing

and demonstrating technologies that will permit a conventionally

armed ballistic missile to successfully attack hardened and deeply

buried targets that are now immune from attack by everything except nuclear weapons. The committee notes this effort should continue in light of the importance of this potential target set, which

includes command and control bunkers and chemical weapons storage sites. The committee believes that the next logical step in this

effort is a missile technology demonstration of a new penetrating

hard target fuse and simulated high explosive against a hardened

and deeply buried tunnel. The committee also notes that the program will demonstrate progress in several enabling technologies,

including global positioning system (GPS) guidance and navigation

and radiation hardened circuit technology and fabrication techniques.

Therefore, the committee recommends $8.0 million in PE 63311F

for continued technology development and demonstration.

B–2 upgrades

The budget request contained $201.8 million in PE 64240F for

B–2 engineering and manufacturing development and $106.9 million in post production support.

The committee notes that the Long Range Air Power Commission

concluded last year that, in order to reach the full potential of the

bomber force, additional investments should be fully supported.

Commission members testified that upgrades to the B–2 identified

by the Air Force would enhance low observable maintainability,

further improve the B–2’s stealthiness, and significantly increase

situational awareness for its aircrews. The committee is concerned
233

that the budget request does not support an integrated low-observable maintainability/upgrade effort or other modernization initiatives recommended last year by the commission and the committee.

The committee believes that continued enhancement of B–2 capabilities is critical in light of their limited number and the leverage

they provide on the battlefield. Therefore, the committee recommends $353.8 million in PE

64204F, an increase of $152.0 million for the integration of Link 16

on the B–2, a new mission display system, and a stealth enhancement initiative. Link 16 will provide the B–2 with a new data link

terminal, antennas, and aircrew interfaces that will increase responsiveness, enhance survivability, and enable real time targeting. The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force

identified B–2 Link 16 as a high unfunded priority for fiscal year

2000. The mission display system would increase aircrew situational awareness by more effectively displaying threat and targeting information provided through Link 16. The stealth enhancement program would reduce the aircraft’s radar cross section. The committee also recommends $141.9 million for post produc- tion support, an increase of $35.0 million to procure an inflight

planner capable of real time flight planning and generating the

most survivable route to target.

Of the amount authorized for the B–2, the committee directs that

$2.0 million shall be available for a conceptual study of a next generation bomber described elsewhere in this report.

B–52 squadrons

The budget request contained $32.1 million in PE 11113F for B–

52 bomber fleet support.

The committee notes that the B–52 fleet support program has in- creased by $29.6 million from last year’s projected level for fiscal

year 2000 in order to accelerate an avionics mid-life upgrade initiative which will replace aging computers and inertial navigational

systems (INS) with non-developmental items. This initiative, while

justified, was previously planned to start in fiscal year 2003 and

the scheduled completion dates for both the new computer and the

INS are well beyond the current five year defense program. The

committee does not support the proposed three years of acceleration for the B–52 avionics mid-life upgrade program at the expense

of other higher priorities.

The committee recommends $17.1 million in PE 11113F, a decrease of $15.0 million for B–52 fleet support.

Combat training ranges

The budget request contained $6.2 million in PE 64735F and

$17.5 million in procurement for combat training range upgrades.

The budget request also contained $339.6 million for miscellaneous

production charges.

The committee notes that aircrews at the Nellis and Tyndall

combat training ranges are unable to train with their primary airto-air weapon, the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile

(AMRAAM), because information regarding its simulated performance must be encrypted for classification reasons before being

transmitted to ground instrumentation sites. The committee under-
234

stands that the requirement for an encryption device, the Advanced

Data Oriented Security Module (ADOSM), has existed for some

time but that ADOSM units were not available to be integrated

into the Nellis Air Combat Training System (NACTS) or the Tyndall Range Expansion (TRE) upgrades.

Since ADOSM is now qualified and in production, the committee

believes it should be incorporated into both the NACTS and TRE

in order to take full advantage of AMRAAM in exercises conducted

at these ranges. Accordingly, the committee recommends $12.2 million in PE 64735F, an increase of $6.0 million; $19.5 million in

combat training ranges, an increase of $2.0 million; and $340.6 million in miscellaneous production charges, an increase of $2.0 million for this purpose. The committee expects these additional funds

to be expeditiously obligated in order to achieve ADOSM operational capability at the earliest possible date.

Commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats

The budget request contained $6.1 million in PE 64706F for life

support systems, but included no funds for commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats.

Commercial standardized cockpit and crew seats are designed to

protect crew members and passengers during aircraft crash loads

up to 16 times the force of gravity. However, older military transport aircraft, such as the C–130, C–135, C–141, and C–5, were designed with crew and passenger seats that can withstand crash

loads up to nine times the force of gravity.

The committee understands that a commercial standardized

cockpit and crew seat has been developed for the RC–135, but it

requires safety and functionality improvements for its application

to other military transport aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends $10.1 million, an increase

of $4.0 million to develop safety and functionality improvements to

the RC–135 commercial standardized cockpit and crew seat for its

application as a common seat for other military transport aircraft.

Common imagery processor

The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 35208F for the

common imagery processor (CIP).

The committee understands that the CIP has been manufactured

with a known design input/output limitation that precludes it from

processing real-time imagery from current and future digital cameras. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense

pursued a common government solution to digital imagery processing without ensuring a capability to process the high data rates

from current and future digital cameras. Further, the committee is

aware that the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has integrated

commercial imagery processing technologies into a system that can

process these high data-rates in real-time. These commercial solutions are not only less expensive, but provide a viable upgrade path

for future requirements.

The committee notes the partnering relationships now being fostered between the government contractor and the NRL to provide

a CIP that is more commercially-based and capable of processing

modern digital imagery. The committee strongly supports this rela-
235

tionship, and it expects the Air Force and Navy to work more closely together to ensure that modern digital camera systems can be

fully exploited in real-time by the CIP.

The committee recommends the budget request.

Evolved expendable launch vehicle

The budget request contained $324.8 million in PE 64853F for

the evolved expendable launch vehicle.

The committee notes unjustified growth in funding for the sys- tem program office and recommends $322.8 million, a decrease of

$2.0 million.

Global combat support system

The budget request contained $19.4 million in PE 33141F for the

Global Combat Support System—Air Force (GCSS–AF).

The committee notes that the GCSS–AF program will modernize,

and integrate Air Force and other Department of Defense legacy

combat support information systems into a system that will be

compliant with the Defense Information Infrastructure common operating environment. The centerpiece of the GCSS–AF program

will be a shared data environment that will ensure the availability

of critical decision making information required by Air Force operational commanders. GCSS–AF will emphasize commercial off-theshelf products and reusable software to reduce program development costs.

The committee recommends $22.4 million in PE 33141F, an increase of $3.0 million to accelerate the development of GCSS–AF.

Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle

The budget request contained $70.8 million in PE 35205F for endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), including funding for

Global Hawk and DarkStar air vehicles.

Since the budget request was developed, the Air Force has terminated the DarkStar aircraft, leaving Global Hawk as the only endurance UAV program. While some residual funding may result,

termination costs for DarkStar are yet to be determined. However,

the committee understands the Air Force plans to use any residual

funds for Global Hawk testing and evaluation.

Recently, a Global Hawk test air vehicle crashed, destroying with

it the only integrated reconnaissance sensor package. The committee notes the importance of resuming the user evaluation and

testing of Global Hawk, and of sustaining the industrial base until

completion of the user evaluation.

The committee recommends $95.8 million in PE 35205F, an increase of $25.0 million for Global Hawk.

Integrated satellite communications control

The budget request contained $361.3 million in PE 64479F for

Milstar satellite communications, including $12.1 million for development of the Automated Communications Management System

(ACMS).

The committee is concerned that military satellite communication (SATCOM) resources continue to be allocated inefficiently

among forward-deployed units. The committee understands that
236

utilization of a web-based technology which incorporates the ACMS

has the potential to significantly lower communications costs and

promote the efficient utilization of SATCOM assets. Consequently,

the committee believes that continued development of ACMS software is key to this approach by enabling the use of common standards that will allow efficient use of legacy hardware systems. Therefore, the committee recommends $364.3 million in PE

64479F, an increase of $3.0 million to accelerate ACMS development.

Joint airborne SIGINT program

The budget request contained $124.6 million in PE 35206F, in- cluding $81.6 million for joint signals intelligence (SIGINT) avionics family (JSAF).

The committee notes that JSAF funding provides resources for

developing both high and low wave length components of the future

airborne SIGINT collection system, which is expected to become

operational in FY 2007. The committee recommends $131.6 million in PE 35206F including $88.6 million for JSAF, an increase of $7.0 million.

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile

The budget request contained $166.4 million in PE 27325F and $2.0 million in PE 64312N for continued development of the joint

air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM).

The committee understands that the JASSM program plan reflects funding for integration of the missile only on the ‘‘threshold’’

aircraft (B–52H and F–16) through the end of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and that neither the Air Force nor the Navy

has programmed funding for integration of JASSM on the ‘‘objective’’ aircraft (B–2, B–1B, F–16, F–15E, F–117, and F/A–18E/F).

Initial operational capability for JASSM is scheduled for fiscal year

2003. In view of the services’ recent operational experience that has

placed a priority on the use of precision-guided weapons systems,

the committee believes that additional priority should be given to

integrating JASSM on the objective aircraft.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and the

Secretary of the Navy to report jointly to the Congressional defense

committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request regarding the plan and program for the integration of

JASSM on the objective aircraft systems of each service.

Joint strike fighter

The budget request contained $241.2 million in PE 63800N and

$235.4 million in PE 63800F for Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) development and $160.2 million in PE 27268F for the aircraft engine component improvement program (CIP).

The committee continues its strong support for the development

of an alternate engine to ensure sustainment of critical industrial

base capabilities, control of engine cost growth, and reduction of

risk to the reliability and maintainability of the planned fleet of

3,000 JSF aircraft. The committee is concerned that while the Department now states a commitment to development of an alternative engine for JSF, the planned funding levels outlined to sup-
237

port that commitment do not enable cost-efficient and timely completion of the effort.

Meanwhile, the Department is also conducting other jet engine

development efforts in PE 27268F as part of the aircraft engine

CIP. The committee notes that requested funding for this level of

effort program has increased by $66.6 million, over 40 percent,

from the level projected for fiscal year 2000 just last year. The justification for the requested increase is to reduce backlog of proposed engineering tasks for currently fielded engines. While supportive of the CIP, the committee does not consider the proposed

increase to this program to be of higher priority than development

of a new state-of-the-art alternative engine for JSF. The committee

notes that full development of a flight qualified jet engine also provides opportunities to migrate proven new technologies to existing

engines. Therefore, the committee recommends $130.2 million in PE

27268F, a decrease of $30.0 million, and $265.4 million in PE

63800F, an increase of $30.0 million, and directs that this increase

in JSF funding be used only for acceleration of alternate engine development.

Kinetic energy anti-satellite

The budget request contained $9.8 million in PE 63438F for

space control, but included no funding for the kinetic energy antisatellite (KE ASAT) system.

The committee believes space control will be increasingly important to U.S. national security as the threats posed to U.S. military

forces from foreign space assets grow and satellite surveillance and

targeting technology spread. The committee is encouraged that the

Department of Defense is making progress in both developing a coherent space control policy and recognizing the importance of space

control capabilities. The committee is concerned, however, that the

failure to resource KE ASAT will limit the range of options open

to the Department to deploy effective space control systems in the

near term. The committee notes that KE ASAT has been in development for 10 years, and that additional investment could provide

the ability to deploy an effective ASAT capability in a short period

of time.

Therefore, the committee recommends $19.8 million in PE

63438F, an increase of $10.0 million for further development of KE

ASAT integrated command and control system and ground based

hardware-in-the-loop tests.

Microsatellite technology

The committee notes significant progress in preparation for the

XSS–10 flight test of microsatellite technologies. However, the committee is concerned that this demonstration may be delayed because the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

is withdrawing from an agreement to launch the XSS–10 on a

space shuttle flight in fiscal year 2000. The committee understands

that NASA is now offering a shuttle flight for XSS–10 in late fiscal

year 2001. The committee believes that such a delay in the flight

test will disrupt the program, defer the development of microsatellite technology that will benefit both military and civil space pro-
238

grams, and threaten to waste both NASA and Air Force investments in this effort. The committee strongly urges NASA to uphold

its commitment to make a shuttle flight available for the XSS–10

in fiscal year 2000.

Military spaceplane

The budget request contained $76.2 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funding for the military spaceplane.

The committee notes: (1) that U.S. military forces are increasingly reliant on space-based capabilities, (2) that the U.S. Space

Command and the Air Force have identified requirements that are

best met by a military spaceplane and its associated family of vehicles, and (3) that Air Force Space Command has drafted a ‘‘requirements to acquisition’’ strategy for a spaceplane. The committee believes that a family of reusable space vehicles for orbital insertion,

space maneuver, and payload delivery to meet military unique requirements would substantially enhance military access to space

and the ability to conduct rapid global military operations. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63401F to continue development of military unique spaceplane

technologies and concepts of operations.

Miniature satellite threat reporting system

The budget request contained $76.2 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funding for the miniature satellite threat reporting system (MSTRS).

The MSTRS will allow detection of interference, intrusion, jamming, and unauthorized use of satellite communications uplink receivers and determine the source location of the disruptive transmissions. The committee believes that this technology is important

in light of increasing military and commercial reliance on satellite

communications and the vulnerability of these satellites. The committee notes that $5.0 million was appropriated for MSTRS in fiscal year 1999, but understands that the Secretary of Defense continues to withhold this funding.

The committee directs the Secretary to release the fiscal year

1999 funds, and recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63401F to continue preparation of MSTRS for orbital testing.

Miniaturized munitions capability

The budget request contained $8.9 million in PE 64602F for Air

Force Armament Development, but included no specific funding for

Miniaturized Munitions Capability (MMC).

The committee is aware that the Air Force is currently conducting an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to determine which

emerging technologies can be harnessed to yield the best MMC

weapon and notes that the Navy has recently joined the development effort. At least two emerging MMC technologies offer considerable promise for addressing future fixed and mobile targeting capability. The Small Smart Bombs (SSB) program, utilizes a small

diameter, GPS/INS-guided munition to attack fixed targets with increased accuracy, enhanced effectiveness, and reduced collateral

damage. The Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS) pro-
239

vides an alternative approach by combining a laser radar seeker,

shoot down warhead, onboard guidance and navigation system, and

miniature turbojet, all packaged as an autonomous flying munition

for use against relocatable targets.

The current AoA effort, which prioritizes MMC capability for all

types of strike aircraft, is anticipated to lead to a program start in

fiscal year 2002 and an initial operating capability (IOC) in fiscal

year 2007. The committee is concerned that such a schedule does

not adequately satisfy potential warfighting requirements and

urges a concerted effort to accelerate this concept. Therefore, the committee recommends $46.9 million in PE

64602F, an increase of $38.0 million, to accelerate development of

the MMC with particular attention given to the Small Smart Bomb

and Low Cost Autonomous Attack System initiatives. Furthermore,

the committee directs both the Secretary of the Air Force and the

Secretary of the Navy to conduct a comprehensive joint study regarding the potential acceleration of MMC IOC, and to report the

results of the study to the Congressional defense committees with

the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The report

shall include total estimated costs including integration and test

funding requirements associated with acceleration, an assessment

of the technical feasibility of such acceleration, and an assessment

of the anticipated warfighting applicability of such technology.

National polar-orbiting operational environmental surveillance system

The budget request contained $80.1 million in PE 63434F for the

national polar-orbiting operational environmental surveillance system (NPOESS).

The NPOESS program is developing the next generation weather

satellite to meet the meteorological needs of both the military and

civil communities. The committee supports the structure of the

NPOESS program, with cost and program management authority

shared between the Air Force, the Commerce Department, and the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The committee

notes, however, that the current generation of weather satellites,

developed in the Defense Meteorological Satellite program (DMSP),

will continue to be launched through fiscal year 2005, and the first

launch of NPOESS is not scheduled until fiscal year 2008.

The committee recommends $65.1 million in PE 63434F, a decrease of $15.0 million to bring the pace of development in more

appropriate alignment with the fiscal year 2008 first launch date.

Precision location and identification (PLAID) technology

The budget request contained $90.3 million in PE 64270F for

electronic warfare development, but included no funding for the

PLAID technology program.

The PLAID technology program will enhance aircrew situational

awareness by providing precise, on-board location and specific identification of threat radars. The improved situational awareness resulting from this technology will allow combat pilots to effectively

avoid radar-guided surface-to-air missiles. While the PLAID technology may be applied to improve the radar warning receivers of

most present day fighter aircraft and has been identified as critical
240

technology for the joint strike fighter, its present development is focused on the ALR–69 radar warning receiver.

To continue PLAID technology development, the committee rec- ommends $104.0 million in PE 64270F, an increase of $13.7 million

for the ALR–69 radar warning receiver.

Satellite control network

The budget request contained $61.9 million in PE 35110F for the

satellite control network.

The satellite control network is a global system of control centers, remote tracking stations, and communications required to control satellites in orbit. The committee understands that telemetry

and commanding data rates need to be improved and supports the

modernization of the current inefficient and manpower-intensive

system. The committee believes that commercially available technologies offer the Air Force opportunities to leverage its own research and development effort and to explore outsourcing alternatives.

The committee recommends the requested amount for PE 35110F and directs that, of the funds authorized, $2.5 million shall be

available for the examination and testing of commercial technologies that have the potential to meet Air Force satellite control

requirements.

Simulation based forecasting decision support system (SBFDSS)

The budget request contained $22.4 million in PE 78611F for

support systems development.

The committee is concerned with Air Force equipment maintenance backlog levels as well as the service’s processing and accounting capabilities for addressing this problem. The committee

notes a particular service inability to accurately forecast serviceable spare engines over a relatively short period of time (e.g., 6 to

12 months), and recognizes the need to implement a system of

spare parts support for depot-level engine repair in conjunction

with manpower, shop flow time, and equipment availability requirements. The committee understands that without the proper

accounting for these constraints, forecasts of serviceable spare engines will remain insufficient and therefore urges the Air Force to

take appropriate measures.

The committee recommends $25.4 million in PE 78611F, an increase of $3.0 million to provide for the existing standard maintenance information system initiatives and to pursue the development and implementation of the Simulation Based Forecasting Decision Support System (SBFDSS).

Space-based infrared system-high

The budget request contained $328.7 million in PE 64441F for

the space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS High).

The committee notes that the budget request for SBIRS High reflects a reduction of $235.5 million dollars when compared to the

projections in the fiscal year 1999 budget request. The Air Force

also delayed the first launch of SBIRS High from fiscal year 2002

to fiscal year 2004, and justified this delay in part because deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD), which SBIRS High will
241

support, was shifted from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005. Also

referenced was the fact that the Defense Satellite Program (DSP)

satellites, which SBIRS High will replace, are lasting longer than

planned. This delay will increase SBIRS High program costs by

$500 million to $1 billion in the outyears.

Further, although the NMD deployment date now proposed by

the Administration is two years later than last year, the committee

understands that the deployment date could be accelerated if the

NMD test program proceeds well. SBIRS High will also support

theater missile defenses, particularly in meeting the growing threat

posed by longer range missiles, against which the United States

has only very limited defensive capabilities. Finally, with first

launch in fiscal year 2004, the full constellation of SBIRS High

would not be available to support a 2005 NMD deployment. The

committee strongly supports the SBIRS High mission and concludes that the restructuring and delay of this program is unjustified.

The committee further notes that the Secretary of the Air Force

concedes that the requested funding for SBIRS High falls short by

$92.0 million of supporting the planned first launch in fiscal year

2004, and that the Adminstration has not come forward with an

amended budget request to correct this deficiency.

The committee also strongly objects to the manner in which the

Air Force implemented a work slowdown in anticipation of approval of its proposed fiscal year 2000 program reduction. The committee was not informed of this decision until after the contractor

had been ordered to restructure the program spending rates to accommodate the proposed schedule change. This procedure precluded any realistic opportunity for congressional review of the Air

Force decision and preempted congressional oversight prerogatives.

The committee recognizes that restoring SBIRS High to a first

launch date of fiscal year 2002 is now impossible, and to restore

the date to fiscal year 2003 would require approximately $400 million in additional funding in fiscal year 2000. The committee

strongly objects to these management failures by the Air Force and

the Department of Defense, especially concerning a high priority

program such as SBIRS High.

The committee believes that, because of the delay in the program

and the substantial cost growth that results, the Department will

have the opportunity to examine competitive alternatives that may

be available to achieve comparable or superior capabilities at comparable or lower costs. Therefore, of the funds authorized for

SBIRS High, the committee directs that $10.0 million may be used

only for airborne and space experiments of a sensor technology described in the classified annex.

To sustain the SBIRS High program in the most effective manner and assure that it is accorded a high priority in the future, the

committee recommends $328.7 million for SBIRS High. The committee believes that this increase will maintain the currently

planned SBIRS High schedule. The committee recommends that

the SBIRS High funding be allocated as follows: $168.7 million in

a new SBIRS High program element in the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, 64XXXC, and $160.0 million in PE 64441F.

The committee believes that an alternate management and funding
242

structure in which BMDO provides management oversight, the Air

Force serves as executive agent, and BMDO and the Air Force

share funding responsibility, would provide the most thorough assessments of SBIRS High importance in the future.

Space-based infrared system-low

The budget request contained $151.4 million in PE 63441F and $77.7 million in PE 64442F for the space based infrared system-low

(SBIRS Low).

The committee notes that the Air Force substantially restructured the SBIRS Low program, terminating two planned demonstration projects and delaying the first launch of SBIRS Low

from 2004 to 2006. The Air Force argues that the cancellations

were justified because much had been learned from the effort to develop the demonstrators, that proof of principle had already been

established in earlier experiments, and that schedule delays and

cost growth in the demonstration projects had increased program

risk and cost.

The committee believes that deployment of SBIRS Low is critical

to meeting the growing long range ballistic missile threats, and

that the delay is very damaging to the U.S. effort to field capable

systems in response to these threats in a timely manner. The committee is also informed that the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) missile

defense system will rely on SBIRS Low for discrimination and external cueing. The SBIRS Low delay could seriously degrade the

capabilities of the currently planned interim NTW system known

as Block I and could slow progress toward the NTW objective system.

The committee strongly objects to the manner in which the Air

Force carried out the SBIRS Low program restructuring. The Air

Force informed the Congressional defense committees the day prior

to notifying the contractors of the cancellation of the demonstration

projects, effectively precluding review of an important decision in

a program of high congressional interest. Further, the committee

believes that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)

was not adequately consulted concerning the decision. To ensure

that SBIRS Low is accorded the high priority the committee believes is warranted by wider military requirements and to ensure

that other service and DOD equities in the program are protected,

the committee recommends $110.0 million in a new BMDO program element, 63XXXC, $41.4 million in PE 63441F, and $77.7

million in PE 64442F for SBIRS Low. The committee believes that

an arrangement, in which BMDO provides management oversight,

the Air Force serves as executive agent, and BMDO and the Air

Force share funding responsibility, provides the best chance of success in the future.

Space launch and spacelift ranges

The budget request contained $43.2 million in PE 35182F for research and development for the spacelift range system, $83.4 million for spacelift range procurement, and $223.0 million for operations and maintenance of the eastern and western launch ranges.

The committee believes that reliable access to space is both vital

to U.S. national security and, increasingly, the economic well being
243

of the nation. Thus, the committee is concerned that the nation’s

space launch infrastructure appears to be in deep disarray. The

committee believes that a series of space launch failures, the lack

of efficient operation and modernization of the spacelift ranges by

the Air Force, and setbacks in the development of the next generation of U.S. launch vehicles could jeopardize this access.

The committee notes that the launch industry has suffered six

catastrophic launch failures since August 1998, including three

consecutive failures of the Titan IV launch vehicle and failure of

the first two launches of the Delta III launch vehicle. These have

resulted in the loss of commercial and important national security

payloads worth in excess of $2.0 billion.

The committee understands that to support future launch requirements, the Air Force is funding the development of two

variants of the evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV), with the

intent of purchasing commercial launch services from two launch

vendors starting in 2003. However, the Delta III is a technical stepping stone to one of the EELV variants. The other is based on Russian engine technologies. To date, the contractor has been unable

to acquire the necessary licenses to allow for co-production of the

engine in the United States and Russia. The long delay in the licensing process has left the ability of the contractor to meet launch

schedule requirements in serious doubt.

The committee believes that the spacelift ranges at Cape Canaveral, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California are in

equal disarray. The committee notes that commercial space

launches now far outnumber military launches and that commercial launch demand is expected to continue to grow. The Air Force

has done an inadequate job of modernizing the ranges, funding for

operations and modernization has been insufficient, and range

equipment is aging. As a result, the ranges are unable to meet

commercial demands for greater range efficiencies. At the same

time, the rationale for continued Air Force funding for the operation, management, and modernization of the ranges is unclear in

light of the fact that by 2003, when the Air Force expects to contract with commercial vendors for launch services, the only major

operational users of the ranges will be commercial launch vendors.

The committee notes that continued Air Force funding and management of the ranges would constitute a substantial subsidy to the

commercial launch industry, while extending control by an organization that has managed and funded range operations and modernization inadequately to meet commercial and national security

needs.

The committee is aware that the Secretary of the Air Force has

directed a broad area review of space launch to analyze the causes

of recent launch failures, recommend changes in practices, procedures and operations that might prevent such failures, and assure

continued access to space for the Department of Defense. The committee is also aware of ongoing efforts to determine appropriate

steps pertaining to range modernization and operations. The committee believes that these analyses must result in alternative funding, management, operations, and modernization arrangements

that will result in a more efficient and effective launch infrastructure.
244

Consistent with this perspective, the committee recommends $46.2 million in PE 35182F, an increase of $3.0 million for feasibility studies, planning, and design of a universal space port at

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

The committee also directs the Department to include a separate

budget line for initial spares for spacelift range procurement in its

fiscal year 2001 budget request, consistent with the discussion elsewhere in this report regarding the Air Force’s proposed implementation of the Reengineered Supply Support Process.

Spacetrack

The budget request contained $54.8 million in PE 35910F for

space tracking capabilities.

The committee notes that the budget request for this program is

nearly double the amount forecasted in the fiscal year 1999 budget

plan. The committee recognizes the importance of further development of the ground-based electro-optical deep space surveillance

(GEODSS) system now planned in fiscal year 2000. However, the

committee notes that other planned projects can be more moderately paced without impacting the effectiveness of the spacetrack

effort.

The committee recommends $42.5 million in PE 35910F, a decrease of $12.3 million.

Synthetic theater operations research model

The budget request contained $19.3 million in PE 27601F for modeling and simulation, including $2.5 million for the synthetic

theater operations research model (STORM).

The committee notes that the STORM model is the only Air

Force campaign analysis program directed for use by the defense

modeling and simulation office common technical framework. The

program is currently underfunded, resulting in limitations to

planned utilization by Air Force and other service units during

joint exercises.

The committee recommends $21.8 million in PE 27601F, an increase of $2.5 million, including $5.0 million for STORM simulation

efforts.

DEFENSE AGENCIES RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $ 8,887.2 million for Defense Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $9,556.3

million, an increase of $669.1 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Defense

Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major

changes to the Defense Agencies request are discussed following

the table.
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253

Items of Special Interest

Advanced concept technology demonstrations

The budget request contained $118.0 million in PE 63750D8Z for

advanced concept technology demonstrations (ACTD).

The committee notes that while the budget request proposes to

once again reduce the overall Department of Defense research and

development budget, funding for ACTDs is proposed to increase by

almost $30.0 million.

To maintain fiscal year 1999 funding, the committee recommends $88.6 million in PE 63750D8Z for ACTDs, a decrease of $29.4 million, to hold ACTDs to fiscal year 1999 levels.

Advanced moving target indicator radar

The committee has received the results of a Congressionally

mandated study on moving target indicator (MTI) radar developments. This study indicates that MTI radar technology, supported

by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and commercial investments, is rapidly and decisively eclipsing that of U.S. government-funded efforts such as the U–2’s advanced synthetic aperture

radar system improvement program. These advances promise to

provide vastly improved, multi-mode radars at greatly reduced

costs. The committee believes this new-generation MTI technology

should be pursued as quickly as possible.

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to pursue modular, scaleable MTI/SAR radars that have the ability to identify

and image moving targets. This technology should be included in

the Joint Surveillance, Targeting and Reconnaissance System

radar technology improvement program with application for platforms such as the U–2 and Global Hawk.

Aeronautical test facilities

In 1995, the President’s National Science and Technology Council

issued a report, ‘‘Goals for a National Partnership in Aeronautics

Research and Technology,’’ which indicated that, ‘‘newer European

wind tunnels focused on aircraft development testing are generally

superior to comparable U.S. facilities in overall capability’’ and

that, as a consequence, there has been increasing utilization of European facilities for U.S. commercial and military aircraft development. In early 1998, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) established

a National Wind Tunnel Alliance and an Air Breathing Propulsion

Test Facilities Alliance (under the auspices of the Aeronautics and

Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB)), to identify, study, and

implement measures to strengthen the national infrastructure of

aerodynamic and air breathing propulsion test facilities that support NASA and DOD missions and the domestic aeronautics industry.

The committee believes that the United States needs to retain

world leadership in aeronautics. To do so means that the United

States must optimize the utilization and care of its existing aerospace ground test resources among the Department, NASA, and industry in such a way that properly balances the support of the nation’s research and development programs with an efficient and ef-
254

fective aeronautical test facility infrastructure. The committee believes that sufficient resources must be collectively invested to support existing capabilities, productivity enhancements, and a robust

test technology program.

The committee notes that a draft interagency agreement between

the Department and NASA is under consideration which would establish a National Aeronautical Test Alliance and an integrated national strategy for management of U.S. aeronautical test facilities.

The committee believes that the Department and NASA should establish such a mechanism for the strategic management of government-owned aerodynamic, aerothermodynamic, and aeropropulsion

facilities in the United States that would consider military, civilian,

and commercial aerospace interests in making decisions and recommendations affecting such facilities. The committee also believes

that this mechanism could be used to manage from a national perspective the investment of test infrastructure and technology funding for core national facilities and associated computational capabilities, including the maintenance and modernization of key commercial aeronautical test facilities. The committee believes further

that it is desirable that industrial organizations participate with

federal agencies in considering such investments.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination

with the Director, NASA, to report to the Congressional defense

committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request the status of the interagency agreement for establishing a

National Aeronautical Test Alliance and plans for its implementation. The committee recommends that among the first priorities for

the Alliance should be the development of a report which, building

upon the 1997 DOD Core Aeronautical Test Facilities assessment,

outlines national requirements for aeronautical testing capabilities.

The committee expects that from such a report would come funding

recommendations for support and modernization of U.S. aeronautical test facilities in the fiscal year 2002 budget requests for

the Department and for NASA.

Airborne common sensor

The budget request contained $109.5 million for tactical

cryptologic activities in PE 35885G, including $14.7 million for the

Army’s aerial common sensor (ACS).

The committee notes that it has received insufficient information

on the specific plan, concept of operation, and programmatics for

the ACS. Further, the Army has not yet decided on the aircraft it

will use for ACS. Since this decision will directly affect the costs

of procurement, sensors and their integration, and operations and

maintenance, the committee cannot determine the overall value of

the program.

Therefore, the committee recommends $106.8 million in PE

35885G, a decrease of $2.7 million for ACS. However, the committee directs that no funds provided for ACS are to be obligated

or expended until 30 days after the Congressional defense and intelligence committees have been provided a report that includes the

following:

(1) The specific aircraft selected for the ACS;
255

(2) The specific ACS concept of operations and program plan. The

program plan must include the projected funding over the five year

defense plan and expected total cost;

(3) Identification of the generic sensor suites and development/acquisition plan to provide these sensors; and

(4) Certification from the Director, National Security Agency,

that ACS conforms to the requirements of the 2010 Unified

Cryptologic Architecture.

Ballistic missile defense

The budget request contained $3.3 billion for the Ballistic Missile

Defense Organization (BMDO).

The committee notes that the Future Years Defense Program

(FYDP) includes substantial funding increases over what was

planned last year for BMDO. However, the committee also notes

that the military has no effective defenses to current and rapidly

emerging missile threats. The committee believes that ballistic missile defense (BMD) is a critical mission area which continues to

suffer from inadequate funds. The committee urges the Department of Defense to allocate more funds for ballistic missile defense

in subsequent budget submissions to ensure that critically needed

missile defense development and acquisition programs can be completed as expeditiously as possible.

To address this shortfall in the near term, the Congress appro- priated an additional $1.0 billion in H.R. 4328, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–277), for BMD research and development. The committee notes that the President has sought to divert $230.0 million of these funds to implement the Wye River Middle East peace accord. While the committee recognizes the importance of this accord, it opposes such a diversion and continues to

support the use of the funds for BMD research and development. The committee recommends $3.7 billion for BMDO, an increase

of $417.2 million.

Advanced technology development

The budget request contained $173.7 million in PE 63173C for

ballistic missile defense advanced technology development.

The committee notes that funding for advanced ballistic missile

technology has been in steady decline since fiscal year 1992. A robust advanced technology effort is important to meet future threats

both by providing the technical basis for next generation systems

as well as technologies to improve the capabilities of systems now

under development. The committee notes that the technology development budget requested is far short of the goal of 10 to 12 percent

of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) budget set by

BMDO director.

The committee understands that BMDO has identified funding

shortfalls in exoatmospheric interceptor technology (EIT) development. The EIT effort is focused on integration of active and passive

sensors to provide greater interceptor accuracy and reliability, optics, propulsion, advanced focal plane arrays, and other risk mitigation activities, and is key to greater capability in the national missile defense system, the Navy theater wide system, and the theater
256

high altitude area defense (THAAD) system. The committee further

notes that BMDO has identified near term technology infusion programs that show the promise of reducing the cost of TMD systems

now under development.

To improve the technology base for current and future BMD systems, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in

PE 63173C for EIT and near term technology infusion development

efforts.

Applied research

The budget request contained $65.3 million in PE 62173C for

ballistic missile defense applied research.

The committee remains concerned that funding for innovative

ballistic missile technology projects is insufficient to support Ballistic Missile Defense Organization’s (BMDO) future needs. Funding for innovative science and technology (IS&T, project 1651) has

declined from $52.8 million appropriated in fiscal year 1998 to $7.9

million requested in fiscal year 2000. The committee understands

that BMDO has identified a number of high priority technologies

for which no funding was available because of the constrained

IS&T budget. These include high performance, lightweight, affordable optical correlators; high data rate signal processing using conventional and neural networks; novel focal plane array technologies; coherent laser radar miniaturization; and miniature interceptors with innovative guidance and control enhancements. The

committee believes that future BMD technologies must be more

adequately funded if BMD systems are to meet future threats.

The committee also understands that BMDO has identified wideband gap electronic materials for high speed and high temperature

device operation as a high priority that is insufficiently funded. The

committee notes that significant progress has been made in the development of these materials and believes that additional research

offers the opportunity for further progress.

The committee also believes that innovative science and technology is an area in which cooperation with the national security

laboratories of the Department of Energy may be fruitful for both

BMDO and the Department of Energy. The committee encourages

the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to pursue opportunities for

such cooperation and the merits of a jointly funded innovative

science and technology program.

Therefore, the committee recommends $95.3 million in PE

62173C for innovative science and technology efforts, project 1651,

an increase of $20.0 million. The committee also recommends an

increase of $10.0 million to be available for the continuation of

wide-band gap materials research.

The committee recommends a total of $95.3 million in PE

62173C, an increase of $30.0 million.

Atmospheric interceptor technology

The budget request contained $173.7 million in PE 63173C for

ballistic missile defense technologies. Of this amount, $21.1 million

was requested in project 1281 for the atmospheric interceptor technology (AIT) program.
257

The AIT program develops advanced interceptor technologies to

support the theater high-altitude area defense, Navy theater wide,

and Patriot advanced capability-3 configuration 3 (PAC–3) missile

defense systems. The committee understands that additional funding would support a more robust technology effort that could include a continued design of a composite shroud, ground testing of

a full scale divert and attitude control system, ground testing of an

advanced low cost two-color infrared seeker, and completion of the

development of a master frequency generator (MFG) for PAC–3.

The committee believes that the MFG will contribute significantly

to the effort to control PAC–3 missile costs.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

63173C for project 1281 to complete the development and integration of the MFG and other AIT projects that show promise of improving the performance of theater missile defense systems.

Ballistic missile defense test targets

The committee recognizes the rapidly emerging threat posed by

the proliferation of more sophisticated ballistic missile systems and

their associated technologies. The committee also recognizes the

need to flight test ballistic missile defense systems against affordable, threat-representative targets. Therefore, the committee directs that the development and procurement of ballistic missile targets be managed by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(BMDO), Department of Defense’s Reliance Lead for ballistic missile targets. As such, the committee notes that BMDO shall be responsible for centrally managing and budgeting the full spectrum

of ballistic missile targets, from low-fidelity targets used in training

to high fidelity, threat-representative targets used to verify system

performance during operational test and evaluation.

International cooperative programs

The budget request contained $36.7 million in PE 63875C for

international cooperative ballistic missile defense programs.

The committee notes with concern that no funding for the Russian American Observational Satellites (RAMOS) program was requested. RAMOS is a joint Russian-American project to observe

various phenomena from multiple platforms with technologies relevant to early warning and ballistic missile defense applications.

The committee believes that joint missile defense projects are essential to provide Russia with a better understanding of U.S. ballistic missile defense efforts. In light of legislation passed by the

House and Senate mandating the deployment of a national missile

defense, the committee believes that cooperative missile defense

programs with Russia would be an important confidence building

measure that could enhance early warning and shared mutual protection benefits for both sides.

Therefore, the committee recommends $61.7 million in PE

63875C, an increase of $25.0 million for RAMOS.

Low cost launch technology

The budget request contained no funding in PE 63401F or PE

63173C for low cost launch technology.
258

The committee is aware of a number of technologies and concepts

that offer the potential to reduce launch costs dramatically. One of

these, Scorpius, utilizes simplified launch processes and technologies to achieve streamlined, low cost launch. The committee believes that continued research in this area is important to the long

term viability of the U.S. launch industry. The committee is also

aware that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)

needs a liquid fueled target vehicle to mimic the characteristics of

liquid fueled threat missiles during theater ballistic missile defense

testing. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million

in PE 63401F and an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63173C for low

cost launch technologies, including Scorpius. The committee directs

the Secretary of Defense to review the suitability of such launch vehicles to meet BMDO requirements for a liquid surrogate target.

Medium extended air defense system

The budget request contained $48.6 million in PE 63869C for the

medium extended air defense system (MEADS).

The committee notes the restructuring of the MEADS program to

leverage technology developments in other programs, including

PAC–3 and THAAD. This restructuring addresses two of the committee’s concerns related to the MEADS program as it was configured in the past. First, it includes a three year commitment by the

Department to include funding for the MEADS program. The committee has been critical of the Department’s failure to identify outyear funds for MEADS, and believes that such a commitment is a

necessary first step toward a serious program. Second, the approach adopted by the Department holds the promise of reducing

the overall cost of the MEADS program by leveraging current technology investments. The General Accounting Office, in its recent

review of the program, indicated a probable total program cost of

$12 to 14 billion, a figure not supportable by the already constrained Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) budget.

The committee understands that the MEADS program, as now

planned, envisions the development of prototype hardware to be

tested in fiscal year 2003, using the PAC–3 missile, and modifications of THAAD battle management software and the PAC–3

launcher. According to program officials, the development of a 360

degree, mobile radar remains a significant technical challenge. The

committee notes that several U.S. weapon systems are currently

developing electronically steered radars. The committee encourages

the Department to explore means of adapting such radars for use

with MEADS, or alternatively, to examine a system architecture

that would rely on a set of netted missile defense sensors rather

than a system specific radar.

The committee recommends the budget request.

National missile defense

The budget request contained $836.6 million in PE 63871C for

national missile defense (NMD).

The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense

has added outyear funding to the NMD program to support deployment. However, the committee is concerned that the Administra-
259

tion refuses to commit to such a deployment and notes that both

the House of Representatives and Senate have passed legislation

establishing NMD deployment as national policy. The committee

believes that such a commitment is important to provide the ability

to effectively focus the funds identified in the Future Years Defense

Program (FYDP) for completion of development and deployment of

an effective NMD capability.

The committee understands that the NMD program still entails

schedule risk and is aware that past target vehicle failures have

caused a number of significant delays in the NMD and other ballistic missile defense programs. The committee notes that the NMD

program is supported by only one target launch facility and believes that operation of a second launch facility and contemporaneous preparation of two target launch vehicles is a reasonable and

appropriate approach to avoiding costly delays that result from target vehicle failures. The committee recommends an increase of

$15.0 million in PE 63871C for this purpose.

The committee notes that the NMD lead system integrator (LSI)

is contractually obligated to conduct a competitive bid process for

the radars that will support an NMD system capable of defeating

a larger, more sophisticated ballistic missile attack than the initially deployed system. The committee understands that the LSI is

reviewing the radar industrial base and cost and schedule implications to determine whether such a competition is necessary. The

committee believes that competition frequently can provide the

military better technology at lower cost and that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) must assure that the LSI follows appropriate competitive procedures prior to the award of the

NMD radar contract.

Consistent with a request from BMDO, the committee also ap- proves a transfer of $15.7 million in 63871C to military construction for the purpose of supporting early NMD deployment. The committee recommends $835.9 million in PE 63871C for continued NMD development.

Navy area defense

The budget request included $268.4 million in PE 64867C for the

Navy area defense theater missile defense system and $55.0 million for Navy area defense procurement.

The committee understands that the combined technical complexities of upgrading the Aegis weapon system (AWS) computers,

integrating multiple platforms through the cooperative engagement

capability (CEC), and developing the Standard Missile-2 Block IVA

(SM–2 IVA) have led to schedule delays and cost increases in the

Navy area defense program. The Navy now indicates that the first

unit equipped has been delayed from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year

2003, and that an additional $537.0 million over five years will be

needed to keep the program on this delayed schedule.

The committee recognizes that the Navy area defense program is

the Navy’s primary capability to defend against rapidly evolving

theater ballistic missile threats and that further delay to the program will increase risks for deployed U.S. military personnel. At

the same time, the committee is concerned about the dramatic program cost increases the program is experiencing. The Navy and the
260

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) maintain that authorization of low rate initial production is needed in fiscal year

2000 to assure that TMD-configured Aegis destroyers can be

equipped with an early Navy area defense capability. However, the

committee believes that the revised schedule provides inadequate

initial operational test and evaluation of the SM–2 IVA prior to low

rate initial production. The committee also understands that deferring authority for low rate initial production to fiscal year 2001 will

delay Navy area defense deployment by only one to three months.

The committee believes that the program as now laid out is not

executable, based on both the technical complications and the annual increases that the Navy and BMDO agree must be provided

to keep the program on the fiscal year 2003 schedule.

Therefore, the committee recommends no funding in Navy area defense procurement, a decrease of $55.0 million, and $323.4 million in PE 64867C for Navy area defense development, an increase

of $55.0 million. The committee believes that this reapportionment

will provide the best opportunity for the Navy and BMDO to overcome Navy area defense development challenges and allow a more

appropriate alignment of low rate initial production, continued development activities, and initial operational test and evaluation.

The committee expects the Department of Defense to come forward

in its fiscal year 2001 budget request with a more affordable funding profile for the Navy area defense program.

Patriot advanced capability-3 (PAC–3)

The budget request contained $300.9 million for PAC–3 procure- ment and $29.1 million in PE 64865C for PAC–3 engineering and

manufacturing development (EMD).

The committee believes that progress in the PAC–3, while slow

to evolve, has been substantial over the past year. This progress

culminated in a successful ballistic missile intercept test of the

PAC–3 system in March 1999.

However, the committee is concerned about the substantial

growth in the unit procurement cost of the PAC–3 missile and understands that much of the cost growth is attributable to the transfer of procurement funds to offset a cost overrun in the EMD phase

of the program and the major reduction in the number of missiles

to be procured from 1,200 to 560. The committee believes that the

PAC–3 capability will be of major importance and that the number

now planned for procurement is insufficient to meet identified requirements. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide details of plans to the Congressional defense committees by

February 1, 2000, to reduce the cost of the PAC–3 missile.

The committee is also concerned that the PAC–3 funding profile

identified by the Department of Defense is inadequate to sustain

continued procurement at a rate that will keep pace with the rapidly evolving short- and medium-range ballistic missile threat. The

committee believes that the demonstrated technical success and

importance of the program provide more than adequate justification to increase annual procurement funding to correct shortfalls

caused by program cost growth.

Therefore, the committee recommends $300.9 million for PAC–3

procurement, the requested amount, and $77.6 million in PE
261

64865C for PAC–3 engineering and manufacturing development, an

increase of $48.5 million.

Space-based laser

The budget request contained $75.0 million in PE 63173C and

$63.8 million in PE 63876F for the space based laser (SBL).

The committee understands that the SBL program has been restructured, merging competing contractors into a national team

working toward an in-flight experiment in 2012. The committee believes that this restructuring responds to concerns expressed in the

committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105–532) that the SBL

program, as then planned with a launch of a readiness demonstrator in 2005, was not executable at sustainable funding levels

and would unnecessarily restrict technical options. The committee

believes that the restructuring will mitigate technical risk, allow

for the development and incorporation of advanced technologies, is

executable at sustainable funding levels, and provides a potentially

effective management structure.

However, the committee is concerned that the program as currently structured does not provide sufficient emphasis on the development and fabrication of laser optics. The committee understands

that the current program schedule is driven to a substantial degree

by the development of segmented and/or deployable mirrors. The

committee believes that the schedule risk can be mitigated by redirecting program funds to development of prototype actively controlled lightweight optics and through a management structure

which provides appropriate emphasis on the optical payload element.

The committee notes that the SBL restructuring has resulted in

a modest delay in the initiation of program activities. Therefore,

the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in PE

63173C without prejudice, and the budget request in PE 63876F

for SBL.

Technical operations

The budget request contained $190.7 million in PE 63874C for

ballistic missile defense (BMD) technical operations.

The committee understands that the Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization is leveraging commercial internet technologies to improve the utilization of data that is now dispersed among several

data centers. The committee believes that upgrading these centers

and establishing a seamless, wide bandwidth information infrastructure between the centers would allow access by the entire

BMD community, resulting in significant efficiencies. The committee believes that such a network would allow distributed BMD

modeling and simulation, including hardware-in-the-loop simulations, and would enhance flexibility to meet evolving threats more

rapidly.

Therefore, the committee recommends $200.7 million in PE

63874C, an increase of $10.0 million for development of a wide

bandwidth information infrastructure to link current data centers

as well as specific applications to take full advantage of such an

infrastructure.
262

Theater high altitude area defense

The budget request contained $577.5 million in PE 64861C for

the theater high altitude area defense (THAAD) system.

The committee notes with concern that the THAAD system failed

its sixth consecutive attempt to intercept a ballistic missile target.

The committee is encouraged that the last test demonstrated success in missile flight, divert and attitude control system function,

seeker function, and end game maneuver, and supports continuation of that THAAD testing through the next four intercept tests.

The committee understands that the cost-sharing arrangement

negotiated between the THAAD contractor and the Ballistic Missile

Defense Organization last year requires the contractor to reimburse the government $15.0 million as a consequence of the failure

of flight test nine. The committee is also aware that the recent test

failure indicates a continuing need to dedicate budget resources in

programs that demonstrate success. The committee recommends

that PE 64861C be decreased $15.0 million and that another $90.0

million, the estimated cost for three ballistic missile intercept tests,

be transferred to the upper tier program, PE 64218C described

elsewhere in this report.

The committee recommends $472.5 million in PE 64861C, a decrease of $105.0 million, and $90.0 million in PE 64218C for Upper

Tier intercept testing.

Upper tier

The budget request contained no funding in PE 64218C for a new

upper tier program.

The committee notes that the Department intends to provide

funds to this program element starting in fiscal year 2002, after

evaluating the performance of the Navy Theater Wide System

(NTW) and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in December 2000. The system that achieves greater success

in its intercept test program will be funded to achieve a first unit

equipped in fiscal year 2007.

The committee supports the premise that success should be rewarded and that upper tier ballistic missile defense should be deployed as soon as possible. Nevertheless, the committee has serious

concerns about the approach adopted by the Department. First, it

is symptomatic of the serious fiscal constraints imposed on the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) as it attempts to develop and field systems to address virtually the only mission area

in which the growth of the threat is outstripping the military’s ability to defend against it. Second, BMDO has always described NTW

and THAAD as distinct elements in a coherent theater missile defense architecture. The upper tier strategy adopted by the Department fails to address how accelerating one system while delaying

the other will meet the requirements that this coherent architecture is intended to meet. Third, reducing funding to the program

with the more serious technical challenges will not address in a

timely manner those technical challenges. Fourth, the approach

adopted by the Department would compare, as though equal, a limited capability interim NTW that does not meet operational requirements with an objective THAAD design. The appropriate pro-
263

grammatic outcome of such a comparison has not been adequately

clarified to the committee.

To address these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary

of Defense to provide a report to the Congressional defense committees by January 15, 2000, that describes: 1) the Department’s plan

to accommodate success in both NTW and THAAD, 2) how the Department intends to meet the requirements identified in its TMD

architecture if it delays one of its upper tier systems, and 3) coordinated timelines associated with THAAD and NTW in the Department’s upper tier program.

While the committee remains concerned with the Department’s

upper tier ‘‘neckdown’’ strategy, the new upper tier program does

offer the potential to reinforce robust upper tier intercept testing

for the upper tier system most capable of executing additional

funds. Consequently the committee recommends a provision (sec.

231) that authorizes the new program element in fiscal year 2000

and transfers $90.0 million in funding, the estimated cost for three

ballistic missile intercept tests. The committee directs the Secretary to use this funding to support the upper tier program that

demonstrates greater success in intercept tests. The committee expects that this funding would be available to the THAAD program

if it achieves success in tests throughout the reminder of fiscal year

1999.

Biological warfare defense program

The budget request contained $145.9 million in PE 62383E for

the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s (DARPA) applied

research program in biological warfare defense. The request represents an increase of $68.6 million from the original budget estimate for fiscal year 2000 that was contained in the fiscal year 1999

budget request and includes $12.0 million to continue the development and demonstration of consequence management planning and

support systems.

The goal of the DARPA biological warfare defense program is to

thwart the use of biological warfare agents (including bacterial,

viral, and bio-engineered organisms and toxins) by both military

and terrorist opponents through the development of technologies

that are applicable to broad classes of pathogens and toxins (rather

than the agent specific approaches that are currently in use). The

committee is impressed by the progress that has been made

through the program by research in medical countermeasures, advanced diagnostics, sensors for detection of biological and chemical

warfare agents, and technologies for decontamination, and neutralization for air and water. However, notwithstanding the emphasis

by the President and the Congress on responding to threats of the

use of weapons of mass destruction, the committee is concerned

about the large increase in funding for the DARPA program over

such a short period of time. The committee notes the comments regarding ‘‘coordination and integration of the DARPA program

under program management and oversight’’ of the Department’s

chemical and biological defense program in the ‘‘Department of Defense Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC) Defense Annual Report to

Congress, March 1999.’’ The committee expects that such coordination and integration will be maintained on a continuing basis and
264

that increased emphasis will also be placed on coordination of the

DARPA program with corresponding biological research programs

of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease

Control. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to address

these issues in the next annual NBC defense report to the Congress.

The committee understands that DARPA is presently prototyping

its consequence management projects with users and intended to

complete the project in fiscal year 2001. The committee notes, however, that the budget request continues to fund the program at approximately $10.0 million annually. The project also appears to duplicate ongoing work in consequence management planning and

support at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The committee

does not believe that the consequence management project meets

the high risk, high payoff, breakthrough concepts and technologies

criteria normally associated with DARPA programs, and directs the

transfer of the program to the DOD chemical and biological defense

program following completion of the prototype phase.

The committee recommends $133.9 million in PE 62383E for the

DARPA biological warfare defense program, a decrease of $12.0

million for the DARPA consequence management project.

Chemical-biological defense program

The budget request contained $716.9 million for the chemical-biological defense program, including $339.5 million in research, development, test, and evaluation, and $337.4 million in procurement. The budget request also included $145.8 million for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) biological warfare (BW defense program (PE 62383E).

The committee notes that for the fiscal year 2000 to 2005 program period, the Department of Defense (DOD) has added $380.0

million to the program for research and development of biological

warfare defense and vaccines, to complement earlier increases to

the program that totaled almost $1 billion for the fiscal year 1999

to 2003 program. The committee is aware of the progress that has

been made in consolidating, coordinating, and integrating the

chemical-biological (CB) defense requirements of all the military

services into a single DOD CB defense program. Through the Joint

Service Agreement on NBC Defense, the Department has established a viable management structure that should ensure that the

operational needs of the military services and the major

warfighting commanders are fully integrated and coordinated, and

that duplication of effort is eliminated from the program.

The committee notes the establishment of the NBC Defense

Board within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide oversight of the program and fiscal and programming guidance. The

committee believes that the membership of the board should be expanded to include the Secretary of the Army (the DOD executive

agent for the program) and a senior member of the Joint Staff to

represent the views of the major warfighting commanders.

The committee believes that significant progress has been made

in the NBC defense capability of U.S. forces, but recognizes that

continuing emphasis will be required in development and acquisi-
265

tions programs, logistics, and training and readiness to realize the

goals of the program.

The committee makes the following specific recommendations

with respect to the program:

Chemical and biological point detectors

The Congress added $2.0 million in fiscal year 1998 and $7.0 million in fiscal year 1999 for basic and applied research in chemical

and biological point detector technology. The committee notes the

progress that has been made in the development of thin film sensors for chemical agents and of acoustic and fluorescence-based biological sensors. The committee also notes the promise that these

technologies show for the development of small, light-weight, chemical and biological point detectors, and that these technologies

should be competitive with other advanced chemical and biological

agent detection technologies now in basic and applied research. The

committee also notes the potential for using ion mass trap spectrometry in integrated multi-sensor detectors to improve detection

rates and reduce false alarms. The committee believes that these

technologies should compete for funding within the appropriate

program elements of the Department’s chemical-biological defense

program. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE

61384BP and an increase of $5.5 million in PE 62384BP to accelerate basic and applied research in advanced technologies for

chemical and biological point detectors.

Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors

The budget request contained $31.4 million in PE 61384BP for

basic research in medical and non-medical chemical-biological defense.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE

61384BP for basic research in organic and inorganic optical computing device materials for use in standoff sensors for detection

and identification of chemical agents.

Safeguard

The budget request contained $64.8 million in PE 62384BP for

applied research in non-medical and medical chemical-biological defense.

The committee notes the progress that has been made in the

Safeguard technology development and demonstration project for

the use of stand-off optical spectroscopy for the detection of chemical agents and other chemical vapor effluents and is aware of its

potential use on the battlefield and for counterproliferation surveillance. The committee understands that the establishment of an

operational requirements document is being considered and that

the Safeguard technology is to be further demonstrated and evaluated in an advanced warfighting experiment during fiscal year

2000. The committee also understands that a funded development

program in fiscal year 2001 is being considered.

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62384BP to continue the Safeguard technology development and demonstration program.
266

Small unit biological detector and chemical-biological individual sampler

Section 1701 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1995 (Public Law 103–160) requires that the budget of the

Department of Defense reflect a coordinated and integrated chemical-biological defense program for the military departments, that

shall not be included in the budget accounts of the military departments, but shall be set forth as a separate account in the Department’s budget. In the statement of managers which accompanied

the conference report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105–132), the conferees directed the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear,

Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs) to ensure that all research, development, and acquisition for the Department’s Chemical Biological Quick Reaction Force (CBQRF) and its components

(which at that time was understood to include the Marine Corps’

Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF)) are fully integrated and coordinated with the Department’s chemical-biological

defense program. The committee notes recommendations for increased funding in PE 65873M, Marine Corps Program Wide Support, to continue development of a small unit biological detector

and of a chemical-biological individual sampler for the CBIRF. The

committee also notes that applied research, advanced development,

and demonstration of several advanced chemical and biological detector technologies are being conducted in PE 62384BP, PE

63384BP and PE 63884BP.

The committee recommends no separate funding for either the

small unit biological detector or the chemical-biological individual

sampler and directs that these two projects compete for funding

within the appropriate program elements of the Department’s

chemical-biological defense program.

Complex systems design

The budget request contained $10.9 million in PE 63704D8Z for

special technical support, but included no funding for complex systems design.

The Department of Defense currently employs a number of computer based synthesis and analysis tools which advance all phases

of the life cycle of complex defense systems. From concept design,

through development and production, and throughout life cycle

ownership of a complex system, these tools have dramatically improved the efficiency and reduced the costs of each discrete phase.

However, since each tool employs its own unique data representation and data storage mechanism, there exists, with few exceptions, no substantial interoperability between tools at the semantic

level for interchange of similar data structures. This inability to

collaborate results in a development process that remains largely

manual, with no means for even semi-automated configuration

management of the total project design.

The committee recommends $15.9 million for PE 63704D8Z, an

increase of $5.0 million to pursue the development of a complex

systems design program that would allow for an integrated digital

environment for complex systems design. The committee directs

that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of

contracts and other agreements under this program.
267

Cryofracture disposal of anti-personnel landmines

The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63104D8Z for

explosives demilitarization technology, but included no funding for

cryofracture disposal of personnel landmines.

The committee notes the growing issue of explosive demilitarization and supports use of innovative technology to solve this problem.

The committee recommends $13.2 million in PE 63104D8Z, an increase of $2.0 million for cryofracture landmine disposal.

CV–22 Osprey

The budget request contained $106.7 million in PE 116404BB for

special operations tactical systems development.

The CV–22 Osprey will provide critical capability for long-range

special operations, contingency operations and special warfare. The

committee notes that a pre-planned product improvement (P3I) will

add additional capability and refinement to the CV–22 that will

give special forces significant advantage in areas critical to mission

performance. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE

116404BB for the CV–22 Osprey P3I.

Domestic preparedness for response to terrorism involving weapons

of mass destruction

The committee has repeatedly emphasized the need for a more

coordinated program for domestic emergency preparedness for response to terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The Research and Development subcommittee’s hearing in March

1999, which focused on research and development support to WMD

domestic emergency preparedness, provided an understanding of

the plan and programs of the Department of Defense and other federal agencies that support the domestic emergency preparedness

program and how they are coordinated among the federal agencies

and with State and local agencies.

The committee notes, as discussed elsewhere in this report, that

the Attorney General’s ‘‘Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism

and Technology Crime Plan’’ serves as a baseline strategy for coordination of national policy and operational capabilities to combat

terrorism in the United States and against American interests

overseas. Among the goals addressed in the plan are identification

of critical technologies for targeted research and development investments and development of strategies to improve state and local

capabilities for responding to terrorist acts, including WMD- and

cyber-terrorism. The committee understands that the Weapons of

Mass Destruction Preparedness (WMDP) research and development

interagency working subgroup, chaired by the President’s Office of

Science and Technology Policy, is developing a strategic research

and development plan that will clarify and coordinate agency responsibilities, identify gaps and overlaps in the WMDP research

and development program, and guide the preparation and review

of agency WMDP budget requests for fiscal year 2001. The committee expects that fiscal year 2001 budget requests will include

the first coordinated WMDP research and development program

that complies with the Attorney General’s strategic plan.
268

The committee recognizes that coordination and management of

the WMD domestic emergency preparedness program is an evolving process, and supports these initial steps toward developing a

more integrated program. The committee emphasizes that the domestic emergency preparedness program will require continuing

emphasis at the highest levels of government in order to realize the

goal of increasing the effectiveness of Federal, State, and local

agencies to respond to the threat of WMD terrorist incidents. The

committee expects that a summary of actions taken to increase the

overall effectiveness of the program will be included in the domestic emergency preparedness annex to the President’s annual report

on counterterrorism and antiterrorism expenditures that is submitted to the Congress in accordance with section 1051 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law

105–85) and section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261).

Facial recognition technology

The budget request contained $52.2 million for the counter terror

technical support (CTTS) program in PE 63122D8Z.

The CTTS is an interagency program for development and demonstration of surveillance, physical security, and infrastructure protection technology.

The committee continues to support development of advanced

technology for protection of critical infrastructure and other uses,

and recommends $55.2 million in PE 63122D8Z, an increase of $3.0

million for continued development of biometric access control technology.

Flat panel displays

The budget request contained $31.3 million in PE 62708E for the

development and demonstration of high definition display technology.

The committee understands that major components of the flat

panel display initiative include: development of projection, head

mounted and direct view displays, development of equipment and

components required for manufacture of advanced display technologies, and prototyping of display systems.

In 1994, the President and the Department of Defense announced a five-year National Flat Panel Display Initiative (NFPDI)

to establish a viable domestic industrial capability for the manufacture of high definition displays for use by the military services and

to provide the Department with assured access to affordable flat

panel display technology for defense applications. The committee

notes the progress that has been made in the development of a domestic industrial capability for commercial and military applications of flat panel displays and believes that the program has been

successful in meeting the objectives of the initiative.

The committee recommends $40.0 million in PE 62708E, an increase of $8.7 million for the high definition display technology program.
269

Forging lead time technology

The budget request contained $6.7 million in PE 78011S for the

Defense Logistics Agency manufacturing technology research and

development program.

Metal forgings are frequently identified as lead time drivers for

many weapons systems. Traditional forging processes are characterized by trial and error, and can be very expensive when small

quantities of spare parts are needed. In fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense plans to initiate a Forging Lead Time Technology program to develop ways to make small quantities of forgings for spare parts for land, sea, and air weapon systems, quickly

and economically. The committee recommends an increase of $750,000 in PE

78011S to initiate the Forging Lead Time Technology program in

fiscal year 2000.

Ground-based common sensor/prophet

The budget request contained $109.5 million in PE 35885G, in- cluding $12.8 million for the ground-based common sensor (GBCS)/

Prophet tactical signals intelligence (SIGINT) system.

The committee notes that the Army terminated the GBCS program in November 1999 for lack of performance, and that the service wants to move to the new, less complicated Prophet program.

The committee is concerned that the GBCS effort, begun over seven

years ago, was unsuccessful because of a lack of achievable requirements and an overly sophisticated technical approach.

The committee has received limited formal explanation of the

evolving Prophet concept. However, the Army’s approach to Prophet is more simplistic than GBCS, but appears to be inadequate to

properly collect and process modern battlefield SIGINT necessary

to provide useful tactical intelligence. Furthermore, the committee

questions the need for a ground-based tactical SIGINT collection

capability to supplement the Army’s airborne efforts.

The committee directs that no authorized or appropriated funds

be obligated or expended until the Secretary of the Army provides

the Congressional defense and intelligence committees a detailed

concept of operations for Prophet together with a detailed program

definition and technical approach for this ground-based, tactical

SIGINT collection system.

The committee recommends the budget request for the ground

based common sensor (GBCS)/Prophet tactical signals intelligence

(SIGINT) system.

Information systems technology, superiority, and security

The budget request contained $1,003.9 million for information

technology research, development, test, and evaluation. The request also included $279.0 million for research and development in

support of the Department of Defense (DOD) information systems

security program.

The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept. 105–132) and the

statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R.

1119 (H. Rept 105–340) directed the Secretary of Defense to submit

to the Congress a report on the status of the Department of Defense’s information security program and additional actions that
270

should be taken to assure the increased security and integrity of

the defense information infrastructure. The substance of the Secretary’s report was addressed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense,

the Department of Defense’s Senior Civilian for C4I, and the Joint

Staff and military services’ chief information officers in a committee hearing in February 1999. The committee received testimony on implementation of the Department’s information technology and systems architecture, progress in joint information systems interoperability, and measures being taken to protect critical

defense information infrastructure. Among the significant issues

cited by the witnesses were:

(1) The need for resources that would enable the Department

to respond rapidly and flexibly to the dynamic pace of information technology and put emerging and demonstrated information technology into the field quickly;

(2) The need for a flexible and continuous funding mechanism to improve capabilities in critical information systems

and technologies identified by the major theater commanders;

(3) Unfunded requirements for critical information technology development and system upgrades through the end of

the Future Years Defense Program;

(4) Acquisition and retention of uniformed and civilian information technology professionals in the Department;

(5) Requirements for advanced C4I modeling and simulation;

(6) The need to incentivize private industry to achieve higher

levels of information assurance in the private sector;

(7) Accelerated implementation of public key infrastructure

in the Department; and

(8) The increased cost and potential degradation in current

and future military operational capabilities that result from reallocation of DOD-assigned radio frequency spectrum in accordance with Title VI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1993 (Public Law 103–66).

The committee believes that the Department has established an

effective information assurance strategy and taken a number of actions that should improve information assurance for defense information systems. The committee recognizes that a significant and

continuing commitment will be required throughout the Department to insure the success of the strategy and the security of the

defense information infrastructure.

The committee makes the following specific recommendations

with respect to the program:

Global networked information enterprise security

The budget request contained $232.7 million in PE 33140G for

the Information Systems Security Program.

The committee notes the creation of the Department of Defense’s

Global Networked Information Enterprise (GNIE) which will result

in the establishment of a wide-spread, secure, available information systems network to support U.S. information superiority objectives.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

33140G to support the development of advanced security measures

for elements of the GNIE.
271

Information assurance

The committee believes that the Department needs to continue

its efforts to protect the defense information infrastructure from information attacks and to detect and react to information attacks

against the defense information infrastructure through the widespread deployment of intrusion detection capabilities. Continued

development of attack sensing/correlation tools should be pursued

in order to keep national command authorities apprised of ongoing

attacks that could affect national security. The Department should

also accelerate the development of improved capabilities to assure

the security and integrity of the defense information infrastructure. The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE

33140G for the development of enhanced information assurance

tools for protection of the defense information infrastructure and

for real-time detection, collection, and analysis of attack sensing

and warning data.

Information assurance for national critical infrastructures

The committee believes that protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure against strategic information warfare (IW) attacks will

require new tools and technology for information assurance. The

protection of the large-scale telecommunications networks that

comprise a critical segment of the U.S. information infrastructure

will require highly complex and sophisticated, integrated information assurance solutions that are highly automated and operate in

near-real-time. The ability to assess the vulnerability of the domestic electric power grid infrastructure to information attack will require the development of integrated models that possess real-time

functionality and can be used to develop strategies and procedures

to detect and respond to terrorist attacks on the national electric

power grid.

Because the defense information infrastructure is closely linked

and dependent upon the domestic information infrastructure, the

committee believes that government, industry, and academia

should form partnerships to cooperatively develop information assurance solutions to protect the nation’s critical information systems infrastructure. The committee further believes that such partnerships should be guided by a shared concern for the need for

strategic information assurance and strong incentives for industry

participation.

Report on information superiority

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the

Congressional defense and intelligence committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request, a comprehensive report on the Department’s information superiority program. The report shall include, but not be limited to, an assessment of the interoperability, reliability, and security of DOD national and tactical

information systems. The report shall identify the critical information superiority challenges confronting the Department, outline

DOD strategy for maintaining military information superiority, and

identify critical shortfalls, requirements, and related issues, to include any proposed legislation necessary to address perceived problems. The committee requests that measures taken to address the
272

issues raised in its February 1999 hearing be addressed in the report.

Joint theater air and missile defense organization

The budget request contained $17.1 million in PE 65126J for the

joint theater air and missile defense organization (JTAMDO).

The committee is aware that various organizations within the

Department use different models and simulation architectures to

assess the capabilities and effectiveness of specific air and missile

defense systems. The independently derived assumptions and operational parameters built in to these models and simulations make

the comparison of their analyses problematic, resulting in an unsatisfactory basis for major decisions involving funding priority or

key milestones.

The committee understands that JTAMDO is the organization

within the Department of Defense chartered to plan, coordinate,

and oversee joint integrated theater air and missile defense requirements, joint operational concepts, and operational architectures. Consequently, the committee believes that JTAMDO is in

the best position to determine which of the currently used models

has the best fidelity, and that JTAMDO must have the authority

to rationalize the use of models and simulations such that the results are accurate and comparable for all systems.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to designate the

director of JTAMDO as the DOD executive agent for management

of joint models and simulations for air and missile defense programs. The committee directs the director of JTAMDO to establish

a uniform and consistent set of models and simulation architectures which JTAMDO, the services, and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) shall use to assess the effectiveness of

all air and missile defense programs.

The committee is also concerned that the BMDO may be duplicating some of the functions of JTAMDO in its theater air and missile defense project (project 3155, PE 63873). The committee supports JTAMDO’s role in establishing architectures and requirements and BMDO’s role as the acquisition agency for missile defense.

The committee recommends $20.1 million in PE 65126J, an increase of $3.0 million to assist JTAMDO in establishing the use of

uniform models and simulations.

Logistics sustainment technology

The budget request contained $17.3 million in PE 63712S for generic logistic research and development technology demonstrations

and $6.7 million in PE 78011S for the Defense Logistics Agency

manufacturing technology research and development program.

The committee notes that an increasing portion of our defense

budget is being used to support and manage large inventories of

older weapons systems. The committee believes that costs associated with logistics and maintenance must be reduced in order to

free resources to develop and procure modern systems. Leveraging

the best practices of commercial industry in logistics and maintenance planning and management could permit the Department of

Defense to reduce these costs in weapons and supporting systems.
273

Among the many aging weapon systems, aircraft are being kept

in the inventory much longer than originally anticipated, and aircraft parts that were never planned for replacement often must be

procured after the technical data, manufacturing processes, and the

supplier base that originally provided these items are no longer

available. This results in significantly increased costs and unacceptably long logistics response times.

The committee notes that a partnership among the Department

of Defense, the manufacturing industries, and academia is developing a new strategy to address this problem. The strategy encompasses the design associated with reengineering such parts and

manufacturing techniques that can produce very low quantities of

the parts in a cost effective manner. Past models have shown that

lead-times can be reduced from 273 days to 97 days for complex

parts, new suppliers can be added to the production base, and costs

can be significantly reduced. In fiscal year 2001, the Department

of Defense plans to begin a program for the development of aging

aircraft sustainment technology to address these issues.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

78011S to initiate the Aging Aircraft Sustainment Technology program in fiscal year 2000. The committee also recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63712S to establish a competitive

sustainment demonstration aimed at dramatic reductions in

sustainment costs and improved logistics efficiency.

Medical free electron laser

The budget request contained $9.7 million in PE 62227D8Z for

the medical free electron laser program (MFEL).

The committee is aware that the MFEL, which continues to be

managed under rigorous peer review, has demonstrated significant

advances enabling new treatments for burns, eye surgery, and bone

cutting and also shows promise in the area of brain tumor surgery.

The committee supports the MFEL and recommends $15.0 million in PE 62227D8Z, an increase of $5.3 million for MFEL.

National technology alliance

The budget request contained $88.4 million in PE 35102BQ for

Defense Imagery Analysis Program, and included for $8.1 million

for National Imagery Mapping Agency (NIMA) technology investment.

The committee is aware that the NIMA National Technology Alliance (NTA) program continues to demonstrate its value within the

intelligence community while it has expanded to address the needs

of the Department of Defense. NTA innovation in a variety of technologies, with applications that cross department, service and

agency boundaries are reducing costs, increasing performance, and

saving limited funds.

The committee continues to support the NTA’s efforts to provide

solutions based on advances in technology for both the Department

of Defense and the intelligence community. The committee recommends $93.4 million in PE 35102BQ, an increase of $5.0 million

for the NTA.
274

Pilot program for revitalizing the laboratories and test and evaluation centers of the Department of Defense

The committee notes that section 246 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) authorized the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program for revitalizing laboratories and test and evaluation centers of the Department of Defense. The focus of this pilot program is to prove the

effectiveness of cooperative relationships with universities and

other private sector entities for the performance of research and development functions.

Under this provision, the Secretary has designated the Aberdeen

Test Center as the Army’s test and evaluation center to participate

as a pilot center because of its critical ties to the research, development, test, and evaluation community.

The committee also notes that the Arnold Engineering and Development Center was selected as the Air Force candidate based on

proactive and highly successful efforts to maximize use of its facilities by other government and commercial customers, thereby reducing annual operating costs to the Air Force. The Naval Air Warfare Center has also demonstrated efforts to expand relationships

and cooperative ventures with industry and other government

agencies and will provide excellent examples of maximizing efficiencies to other Navy activities.

The committee strongly supports these pilot program initiatives

and encourages the services to document and report the activities

of these pilot centers.

Special operations forces reconnaissance

The budget request contained $1.4 million in PE 116405BB for

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) intelligence research and

development. No funds were requested for the special operations

tactical video system (SOTVS) digital underwater camera.

The committee notes that a commercial camera system for the

joint SOTVS digital still-camera requirement is not available and

that the commercial market has no intention of providing an offthe-shelf solution.

Further, a digital imagery capability would provide near-realtime information support to special operations forces and would not

require a wet-film processing requirement as do the current filmbased cameras. The committee believes this is a capability that

needs to be provided to the SOF forces as quickly as possible, and

that a government-funded digital camera is the only potential nearterm solution to this reconnaissance requirement. The committee

understands that $4.1 million is required to complete development

of a camera that meets all joint requirements.

The committee recommends $3.5 million in PE116405BB, an increase of $2.1 million for the SOTVS digital underwater camera.

Special operations forces small boat improvements

The budget request contained $106.7 million in PE 116404BB for

special operations tactical systems improvements.

Special operations forces (SOF) personnel delivery craft are currently powered by gasoline engines coupled to stern drives and are

transported to deployment on Navy ships. Early in the next cen-
275

tury, the Navy will no longer allow gasoline onboard ships, requiring the gasoline engines on SOF craft to be replaced by engines

that burn mid-distillate or diesel fuel.

The committee notes that a new commercially available propulsion technology has been developed that offers improved performance, simplifies the drive train, and has been used commercially

with a diesel engine. The committee supports evaluation of this innovative propulsion system and diesel engines aboard SOF craft

and notes that suitable SOF craft are available for conducting such

propulsion tests. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

116404BB for small craft propulsion systems testing.

Special operations tactical systems development

The budget request contained $106.7 million for special operations tactical systems development in PE 116404BB, including

$18.3 million for underwater systems.

The committee is aware that the advanced seal delivery systems

(ASDS) will provide a significant new capability for special operations forces. The committee notes that the ASDS program has experienced unexpected cost increases and schedule delays that have

forced program restructuring and that ASDS is now expected to

begin testing and sea trials in the latter part of fiscal year 1999.

The committee is aware that the Special Operations Command has

fully acknowledged the importance of ASDS and committed to internally reprogram funds in order to support the revised schedule.

However, this reprogramming has necessitated the reduction of

funds from other important special operations programs.

The committee supports fielding the ASDS as promptly as possible, with a minimum of reprogramming, and recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 116404BB for ASDS.

Strategic environmental research program

The budget request contained $53.5 million in PE 63716D8Z for

the strategic environmental research program (SERP).

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has taken

steps to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals. The committee supports these efforts and directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate

the use of ethyl lactate, a nontoxic biodegradable solvent as an alternative to toxic solvents for appropriate purposes as part of the

SERP.

The committee recommends $53.5 million in PE 63716D8Z for

SERP.

Thermionics

The budget request contained $203.5 million in PE 62715BR for

development of the technologies relevant to nuclear and other advanced weapons systems, but included no funds to continue the development of thermionic power conversion technology.

The committee notes the requirement for nuclear space power

systems that will support long lifetimes for space satellites, deep

space missions, and future manned exploration. The objective of

the advanced thermionics program is to advance the state of

thermionic power conversion, develop high performance and highly
276

reliable thermionic converters, and demonstrate their feasibility in

thermionic power systems. The committee believes that increased

emphasis in the program should be placed on the development of

components and materials used in thermionic converters, thermionic physics research, and development of coatings to increase surface emissivity.

The committee recommends $206.5 million in PE 62715BR, an

increase of $3.0 million to continue the development of thermionic

power conversion technology.

University research initiatives

The budget request contained $216.7 million in PE 61103D8Z for

university research initiatives (URI), including $10.0 million for the

defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research

(DEPSCoR).

The committee supports continuation of the DEPSCoR program

to strengthen the infrastructure, enhance research, train and motivate scientists and researchers, and to assist the DEPSCoR states

in becoming more competitive for research funding and training

grants.

The committee also notes the importance of advanced high-yield

software development and the rapid pace of software development

required to support advancing computer technology.

The committee recommends $218.3 million in PE 61103D8Z, an

increase of $1.5 million to continue work by the Department of Defense to develop methods for training and developing high yield

software to increase the efficiency of military software programmers. The committee directs that, of the funds authorized in PE

61103D8Z, a total of $25.0 million shall be for DEPSCoR.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SECTION 201—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing

and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 2000.

Section 202—Amount for Basic and Applied Research

This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal year

2000 for technology base programs.

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 211—Collaborative Program To Evaluate And Demonstrate

Advanced Technologies For Advanced Capability Combat Vehicles

This provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish

a cooperative program between the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop future combat vehicle

concepts for the Army.
277

Section 212—Revisions in Manufacturing Technology Program

This section would amend section 2525 of title 10, United States

Code, to include as one of the purposes of the defense manufacturing technology program the development of advanced manufacturing technologies and processes that address broad defense-related manufacturing inefficiencies and requirements. The committee believes that this focus and the focus on the promotion of

dual-use manufacturing processes should result in a more effective

defense manufacturing technology program. The provision would

also remove the requirement that requires the Secretary of Defense

to establish percentage goals for cost sharing in the manufacturing

technology program. With these recommendations, the committee

emphasizes the flexibility that is inherent in the program and

available to the Secretary of Defense in establishing program costsharing guidelines and cost-sharing waivers for individual manufacturing technology projects.

SUBTITLE C—BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Section 231—Additional Program Elements for Ballistic Missile

Defense Programs

This provision would establish three new program elements within the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for the upper tier,

space based infrared system (SBIRS) high, and SBIRS Low.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 241—Designation of the Secretary of the Army as

Executive Agent for High Energy Laser Technologies

This provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to designate

the Secretary of the Army as the Department of Defense executive

agent for oversight of research, development, test and evaluation of

specified high energy laser technologies and mandate that functions as executive agent be carried out through the Army Space

and Missile Defense Command at the high energy laser test facility

at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

OVERVIEW

The committee’s actions throughout the bill reflect a comprehensive legislative and budgetary approach designed to address the

systemic decline in the readiness of U.S. armed forces. The combination of an increasing pace of operations—driven largely by the

expansive and open-ended nature of peacekeeping, peace-making,

peace enforcement and other humanitarian missions—declining defense budgets and shrinking U.S. forces have created a military

that is doing too much with too little and is suffering the inevitable

consequences.

The fiscal year 2000 budget request for operation and maintenance represents an increase in spending of more than $7 billion

over spending levels projected last year for fiscal year 2000. De-
278

spite the fact that this increase is not all readiness related, it is

nonetheless a welcome recognition on the part of the Administration that the military services confront serious readiness shortfalls.

It should be noted that in addition to substantial non-readiness related funding contained in the operation and maintenance title,

more than $1.2 billion is also included for commissary operations

and Pentagon renovation funding. The committee questions why

the department continues to include funding for these programs in

these accounts despite Congressional direction to fund them elsewhere in the budget.

Despite increased operation and maintenance spending, the

budget request falls well short of addressing many of the military

services’ unfunded readiness requirements. Within weeks of the

President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request being submitted to Congress, the service chiefs informed the committee that the defense

budget was at least $3.3 billion short of meeting minimal readiness

requirements. Further, approximately 50 percent of the shortfalls

over the next six years, identified by the service chiefs, are readiness related. Compounding the problem, the shortfalls identified by

the service chiefs earlier this year did not take into account the billions of dollars of direct and indirect readiness shortfalls being created by the high pace and costs of U.S. operations in the Balkan

region.

The committee remains deeply concerned with the continued

under-funding of key readiness accounts and believes that shortages in the field are getting worse. For example, the Air Force unfunded priority list identifies a spare parts shortfall of approximately $200.0 million next fiscal year-a shortfall that follows on

the heels of Congress adding a total of $194.0 million for Air Force

spare parts in the fiscal year 1999 defense authorization bill and

last fall’s supplemental defense appropriations bill. Despite the addition by Congress of approximately $151.0 million in fiscal year

1999 to arrest the backlog of depot maintenance and repair, the

budget request proposes an overall reduction in funding for depot

maintenance and repair, the chiefs’ unfunded priorities list identifies a shortfall of $340 million and the depot maintenance backlog

is more than $1 billion. After the addition by Congress of $300.0

million to the real property maintenance and repair accounts in fiscal year 1999 and the proposal in the budget request for an increase of $245.0 million, the chiefs’ unfunded priorities list still

identifies a real property and repair shortfall of over $1.3 billion in

fiscal year 2000. Despite similar Congressional and Administration

increases for base operations funding over the past year, the services unfunded priority requirements list nonetheless identifies a

base operations shortfall of over $450.0 million in fiscal year 2000.

This year, the committee once again conducted a number of readiness-related field hearings in the United States and overseas in an

effort to obtain a more accurate and detailed assessment of readiness problems. In years past, the overwhelming impression left on

the committee was of an overextended force having to accomplish

more in an environment of declining human and budgetary resources.

In addition to the common complaints about lack of spare parts,

aging equipment, decaying infrastructure and growing equipment
279

and facilities’ backlogs, senior military leaders and even junior

front-line supervisors also repeatedly informed the committee of

the difficulties of conducting quality training and operational deployments with significant personnel shortages. For example, the

aircraft carrier USS Enterprise began a six-month tour with the

U.S. Sixth Fleet 464 people short of its authorized billets. Army officers related the difficulties of training at the National Training

Center with units that were significantly undermanned. Air Force

maintenance personnel told of the difficulties in maintaining equipment without the proper line or supervisory personnel.

In view of the wide range of variables that impact on military

readiness, and because the committee continues to doubt the Department’s ability to create and consistently implement more

meaningful readiness reporting criteria, in the National Defense

Authorization Act for fiscal year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) Congress required that the Secretary of Defense provide a plan to establish a more comprehensive and extensive readiness reporting

system. The committee is disappointed that the Department has

not yet complied with this requirement. As discussed elsewhere in

this report, the committee has nonetheless continued to take constructive action to reform and improve the Department’s readiness

reporting systems.

One area of particular focus for the committee over the past several years has been the disturbing decline in quality training at the

services’ combat training centers. Each of the services informed the

committee that units were arriving at these premier training facilities less prepared, with fewer personnel, and lower equipment

readiness than in the past. Army commanders indicated that personnel turbulence and manpower shortfalls in their units was forcing them to arrive at the training centers without the personnel

necessary to conduct proper training. Air Force officers stated that

training scenarios at their ‘‘Red Flag’’ exercises were being simplified because pilots were not well enough trained to operate in

the more complicated training situations that had formerly been

the norm. Aggressor pilots and instructors also expressed their belief that pilots were not as ready when they arrived for training exercises as they had been just a few years ago. The committee believes that training at the major combat training centers should be

considered premier events in a servicemembers’ training evolution.

Finally, the committee continues to believe that DOD must take

more aggressive steps to reduce costs in non-readiness related accounts. At a time when readiness shortfalls are growing almost exponentially, the committee does not believe that funding for administrative and support activities, such as headquarters management,

should be increasing. Consistent with past practice, the committee

has identified spending that does not directly support readiness

and has reprioritized it into areas that do such as combat training,

depot maintenance, aircraft spares, base operations, and real property maintenance. In making decisions on how best to apply resources to address readiness problems, the committee relied heavily on lessons learned during extensive oversight hearings and on

the unfunded priorities identified by the service chiefs.
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

BUDGET REQUEST INCREASES

Critical Readiness Accounts Increases

Although the committee has significantly increased funding

above the President’s budget request in key readiness accounts by

more than $7 billion during the past four years, readiness continues to decline across the forces. The costs of doing more with

less continue to grow. Once again, the committee recommends significant funding increases above the President’s budget in an effort

to address the most critical unfunded readiness requirements.

The committee’s recommendations have focused on problems

highlighted throughout the extensive hearings and have been guided by the shortfalls identified by the service chiefs.

Aircraft spare parts

Prolonged contingency air operations in Southwest Asia and the

Balkans have added significant unprogrammed flying hours to an

already aging fleet of combat aircraft and have nearly depleted onhand stocks of aircraft spare parts. The service chiefs identified

shortfalls in spare parts funding as one of their highest unfunded

priorities. Based on the recommendations of the service chiefs, the

committee recommends an increase of $271.2 million, the amount

contained in the unfunded priority lists, for aircraft spare parts as

follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 50.0

Air Force ................................................................................................................. 195.2

Air National Guard ................................................................................................ 26.0

Depot maintenance

Operational tempo is at an all time high and aging military

equipment is wearing out. As a consequence, the end of the designed service life for significant elements of the services’ combat

equipment is rapidly approaching and the maintenance of the

equipment is becoming more difficult, time consuming and expensive. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $339.5

million for depot maintenance as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Army ....................................................................................................................... 87.0

Navy (Air) ............................................................................................................... 50.0

Navy (Sea) .............................................................................................................. 25.0

Marine Corps .......................................................................................................... 20.0

Air Force ................................................................................................................. 87.0

Army National Guard ............................................................................................ 41.0

Air National Guard ................................................................................................ 29.5

Training accounts

As part of its focus on the adequacy of military training, the committee conducted specific hearings on how effectively the major

training centers were preparing military units for combat. The

committee found that insufficient funding has been a contributing

factor in the decline in the quality of training at these important

training facilities. Shortages of equipment, parts, decaying infra-
310

structure, and personnel shortages were identified as serious problems and the training equipment and base facilities at many of the

combat training centers is in urgent need of both repair and upgrade. Due to increasing restrictions on the availability of local station training ranges, the committee reiterates its belief that the

military service training centers are national assets that must be

upgraded and better maintained.

Based on information gathered in committee hearings and other

training shortfalls identified by the military services, the committee recommends an increase of $112.1 million to improve training center operations, equipment, and facilities as follows:

[in millions of dollars]

Army:

National Training Center Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance ............ 28.0

Joint Readiness Training Center Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance 2.0

FORSCOM Deployments to National Training Center ............................... 4.0

CMTC Mission Support .................................................................................. 4.0

Korea Training Area ....................................................................................... 4.1

Navy:

Naval Air Strike Air Warfare Center Facility Improvements .................... 2.0

Marine Corps:

Air/Ground Combat Center ............................................................................ 25.7

Air Force:

Air Warfare Center Range Support .............................................................. 6.1

Air Warfare Center Fiber Link ...................................................................... 4.6

Utah Test and Training Range Support ....................................................... 11.7

AETC Mission Essential Equipment ............................................................. 14.0

AETC Range Improvements .......................................................................... 5.9

Real property maintenance and base operations support

The state of the infrastructure at nearly all military facilities has

continued to degrade to the point that the current backlog for repair is $9.6 billion and immediate investment must be made to at

least keep the problem from getting worse. The committee observes

that current funding levels for real property maintenance represent

less than one percent of the plant value of our military installations. At such low funding levels, replacement of facilities will take

more than 100 years.

The committee also notes that shortfalls in base operations accounts—accounts that are regularly used by commanders to address shortfalls in operations and training accounts during the fiscal year—are at or near the top of the service chiefs unfunded priority lists.

To address the backlog of facility maintenance and shortfalls in

base operations funding, the committee recommends an increase of

$1,648.5 million, identified in the unfunded priority lists for real

property maintenance and base operations support, as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Army ....................................................................................................................... 517.0

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 395.5

Marine Corps .......................................................................................................... 86.0

Air Force ................................................................................................................. 529.0

Army National Guard ............................................................................................ 72.0

Navy Reserve .......................................................................................................... 43.2

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................................................... 1.0

Air National Guard ................................................................................................ 4.8
311

Miscellaneous unfunded requirements

The committee also recommends the following $758.4 million in

increased funding for unfunded readiness-related requirements

identified by the service chiefs.

[In millions of dollars]

Army:

DMOSQ/Leader Development ........................................................................ 35.0

Information Operations .................................................................................. 18.0

Institutional Training ..................................................................................... 70.0

Training Area Environmental Management ................................................ 32.0

Navy:

Ashore Force Protection ................................................................................. 12.0

Paperless Acquisition ..................................................................................... 4.7

Marine Aviation Related Logistics ................................................................ 35.0

Marine Aviation Related Engineering .......................................................... 12.0

Marine Corps:

Maintenance of Aging Equipment ................................................................. 37.2

Corrosion Control Coating ............................................................................. 13.8

Initial Issue ..................................................................................................... 20.0

Air Force:

Real Property Support .................................................................................... 49.0

Civil Air Patrol ................................................................................................ 7.5

NBC High Leverage Programs ...................................................................... 18.8

C–130J Logistics ............................................................................................. 6.1

Sustaining Engineering .................................................................................. 95.4

ICBM Prime Contract .................................................................................... 16.3

AC21SR Center Programs ............................................................................. 32.7

AEF/Joint Experimentation (JFEX) .............................................................. 35.6

Mobility CLS Contract ................................................................................... 72.4

Army Reserve:

Army Reserve OPSTEMPO ............................................................................ 77.0

Army National Guard:

Army National Guard OPSTEMPO .............................................................. 23.0

Marine Corps Reserve:

Maintenance of Aging Equipment ................................................................. 1.5

Corrosion Control Coating ............................................................................. 1.5

Initial Issue ..................................................................................................... 10.0

Air National Guard:

F–16 Flight Training Hours .......................................................................... 21.9

Mobility enhancement funding

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to improve the deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies

through investment in en-route infrastructure. These funds are

provided to the United States Transportation Command Mobility

Enhancement Fund (MEF). The committee is aware that the MEF

was established to address strategic mobility shortcomings that revealed themselves during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

The committee believes that this additional funding will improve

the ability of the military services to respond to future contingencies.

Modern Field Kitchen Burner Unit

The committee is aware that the burner unit (M2) that provides

all heat used in the Army’s field kitchens was originally fielded in

1959. Between 1980 and 1997, 90 accidents resulting in 65 injuries

and 2 fatalities involving this unit were reported. M2 units, which

are gasoline-powered, cannot be operated closer than 50 feet from

each other and must be installed while lit in deployed field kitchens. The committee is also aware that the Army began replacing
312

these burners at the beginning of fiscal year 1999 with a modern

burner unit (MBU) that is more fuel efficient, reliable, can be ignited after installation in deployed field kitchens, and will greatly

improve safety. It is estimated that the MBU will save over

$100,000 per 800,000 hours of use and has been operated for over

300 hours without a failure. The committee commends the Army

for taking action to replace the unsafe, unreliable, and costly M2

burner units; however, the committee is concerned that funding for

MBU replacements was not included in the budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the

Army to continue this replacement program.

Army Cold Weather Clothing

The committee is aware that the Army and the Army National

Guard is in need of additional funding for the Extended Cold

Weather Clothing System (ECWCS), which is designed to provide

protection during cold and wet weather. The committee further understands that the Army is equipping only 60 percent of its forces

with ECWCS and the Army National Guard is equipping only 20

percent of its forces. The committee believes that ECWCS is a significant contributor to the combat readiness of the individual soldier and would significantly improve their quality of life. Therefore,

the committee recommends an increase of funding for ECWCS as

follows:

[in millions of dollars]

Army ....................................................................................................................... 19.0

Army Reserve ......................................................................................................... 14.0

BUDGET REQUEST REDUCTIONS

Administration and Support Accounts

The committee notes that at the same time the budget request

contains significantly underfunded readiness accounts, it also proposes spending increases in a number of administrative and support accounts with little or no direct impact on military readiness.

For example, as expressed in more detail elsewhere in this report,

the committee observes that the Department of Defense continues

to not fully comply with section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) which requires an annual five percent reduction in all headquarters and

headquarters support activities. In addition, the committee once

again questions the necessity of funding certain programs in the

support accounts when they are more appropriately funded elsewhere in the budget. For example, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, a working capital fund agency, request contains

nearly $11.9 million for executive and professional training. As it

expressed last year, the committee believes that funding for the

training of working capital funded employees should be charged

against the appropriate working capital fund and managed accordingly.

The committee disagrees with the budget request’s priorities in

a number of administration and support accounts and, therefore,

recommends the following decreases:
313

[in millions of dollars]

Army Administration ............................................................................................. 55.0

Navy Administration ............................................................................................. 35.0

Air Force Administration ...................................................................................... 20.0

Defense Agencies .................................................................................................... 110.0

Advisory and Assistance Services

Consistent with the direction elsewhere in this report on Advisory and Assistance Services, the committee recommends the following decreases:

[in millions of dollars]

Army ....................................................................................................................... 10.0

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 10.0

Air Force ................................................................................................................. 10.0

Defense Agencies .................................................................................................... 10.0

Civilian Personnel Overstatement Reductions

The committee understands that in order to determine civilian

personnel requirements for the budget request, the Department of

Defense relied on the actual fiscal year 1998 personnel levels and

the estimated personnel levels the Department would have on hand

at the end of fiscal year 1999, to forecast civilian personnel levels

for fiscal year 2000. Because the Department was unable to accurately estimate the fiscal year 1999 end strength prior to the submission of the budget request, the General Accounting Office (GAO)

has determined that the Department will employ fewer civilian

personnel at the beginning of fiscal year 2000 than it assumed and

budgeted for in the request.

Therefore, to bring the request in line with GAO’s estimated civilian endstrength levels for fiscal year 2000, the committee recommends decreases in funding as follows:

[in millions of dollars]

Army ....................................................................................................................... 5.0

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 20.0

Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises

Based on testimony, both at home and abroad, the committee remains concerned that requirements for Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)

training exercises were being levied against units that were already overextended with operational deployments, home station

training exercises and training exercises at the services’ major combat training centers. The committee questions whether the benefit

of all of these JCS exercises is worth the price paid by units already suffering the effects of high operational tempo. Therefore, the

committee recommends a 20 percent decrease in the military services’ participation in JCS exercises as follows:

[in millions of dollars]

Army ....................................................................................................................... 10.0

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 2.0

Marine Corps .......................................................................................................... 2.4

Air Force ................................................................................................................. 10.0

Special Operations Command ............................................................................... 2.5

Joint Chief’s of Staff .............................................................................................. 70.0
314

OTHER ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Commercial Activity Studies

The committee endorses the Department of Defense goal of reforming its business practices, and believes there are numerous opportunities to improve the economy and efficiency of the Department’s business practices. However, the committee is concerned

with the assumptions and estimates of outyear savings that the

Department has reported, and indeed, included in its budget requests. Specifically, the committee believes that the Department

has over estimated the savings that will be realized through the A–

76 commercial activity competitive process. Many of these proposed

competitions would represent the first time that a particular business area has been subjected to the A–76 process and, therefore,

automatically assuming the realization of potential savings poses

significant budget risk in a constrained resource environment. The

committee is aware that there are numerous and difficult obstacles

that must be overcome in order to achieve anticipated savings. For

instance, studies are often delayed; studies can take 18 months to

2 years to complete; and the costs associated with civilian transition or military conversion have not always been included in the

proposed savings. In fact, a December 1998 U.S. Army Audit Agency report found that the delay in initiating studies may reduce the

Army’s estimated gross savings by $219 million or 14 percent. The

committee notes that the budget request contains several increases

resulting from attempted privatization efforts, where the anticipated savings failed to materialize.

In order to better understand the Department’s intentions in this

area, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a

report, no later than February 1, 2000, to the House Committee on

Armed Services on the current and proposed commercial activity

studies of each of the military services and defense agencies. The

report shall include:

(1) the savings identified and budgeted for each fiscal year

1997 through 2003;

(2) the savings actually achieved in each fiscal year 1997

through 1999;

(3) the funds requested in fiscal year 2000 and 2001 for savings not achieved;

(4) an evaluation whether the anticipated and budgeted savings can be achieved through the A–76 commercial process;

and

(5) whether other methods of business reform or reengineering will be necessary in order to achieve anticipated

and budgeted savings.

Defense Fuel Surcharges

The committee is aware that the Defense Energy Support Center

(DESC) applies an annual surcharge to the price of fuel that is provided to the Department of Defense to be used in establishing the

fiscal year stabilized fuel price used for the formulation of budget

requests. The DESC requires the surcharge in order to cover its annual operational costs. The General Accounting Office has esti-
315

mated that from fiscal year 1995 through 1999, the budgeted surcharge has exceeded the actual applied surcharge by an average of

$1.49 per barrel. Based on budgeted fuel usage for fiscal year 2000,

and the five year average surcharge that has actually been applied,

the budget request for fuel may be overstated by as much as $108.8

million. The committee is aware of the volatility of fuel prices; however, the committee finds the long standing practice of over-budgeting for the surcharge is inappropriate. The committee urges the

Secretary of Defense to take corrective steps to ensure that the application of DESC surcharges is more clearly aligned with reality.

Information Technology

Information technology has moved from a specialized support

function to becoming the central nervous system of Department of

Defense. The need for common defense-wide information technology

and seamless interoperability is evident. The committee believes,

however, that barriers to joint programs and interoperability cannot be overcome without the unwavering commitment from the

most senior Department officials.

The committee has seen evidence of such leadership. For example, the committee notes the personal involvement of the Secretary

of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense which, coupled

with the additional funding provided by Congress to aggressively

attack the Year 2000 problem, produced an immediate and substantial improvement in Year 2000 preparedness. The committee

also notes the progress made by the department to reduce or eliminate unnecessary or duplicative legacy systems and urges the department to increase its efforts to eliminate the remaining

unneeded legacy systems. Despite these positive efforts, the committee remains unconvinced that the Department has made the

necessary improvements in managing its $26 billion Command,

Control, Communications, and Computers (C4) program. This is

particularly disturbing, given the increasing role of information

technology in the battlefield of today and tomorrow.

The committee believes that the recent top level commitment in

this area should be applied to the management of information technology requirements of the entire Department. The committee

urges the Secretary of Defense to continue to work to overcome efforts by the military services to develop unique information technology systems, instead of single, joint system integrating all logistics, medical, transportation, finance, and personnel systems.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Alternative Technologies for Asbestos Treatment and Disposal

The committee is concerned about the cost of temporary storage

of asbestos and asbestos-contaminated materials at Aberdeen Proving Ground and other defense facilities. The committee directs the

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the House Committee

on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services,

no later than June 1, 2000, on alternative technologies for asbestos

treatment and disposal, including non-thermal methods, that will
316

provide environmentally sound and cost effective treatment and

disposal options.

Environmental Contamination in Watershed Surrounding the

Former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant at McGregor,

Texas

The committee understands that the Department of the Navy is

studying potential environmental contamination in and around the

perimeter of the former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant at

McGregor, Texas. The committee encourages the Secretary of the

Navy to focus this study on the possible presence of perchlorate in

the watershed surrounding this facility. The committee is concerned that perchlorate contamination could affect the quality and

safety of drinking water in the area.

Navy Environmental Leadership Program

The committee continues to support the Chief of Naval Operation’s Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP), with two

designated sites one on the east coast and one on the west coast

of the United States. The primary mission of each site is to identify

and demonstrate new technologies that improve the environmental

compliance, cleanup, conservation, and pollution prevention efforts

within the Navy. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0

million for the Navy Environmental Leadership Program. The committee believes these additional funds are needed to aid the east

coast site in developing technologies to separate aqueous fire-fighting foam and other contaminants in oily water and wastewater, reduce waste generated by the de-painting/painting process, and reduce emissions from fire-fighting training facilities.

MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION ISSUES

Overview

The committee is concerned that ever tightening pressures on the

operations and maintenance budgets of the military services are

causing the Department of Defense to stray from well established

principles of support for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)

programs. These principles include a variety of on-base MWR programs, access to recognizable American products, a real commissary benefit, robust appropriated fund support to MWR programs, and a substantial exchange store savings, especially for deployed forces. The committee addresses many of these issues and

other concerns below and throughout this report.

Appropriated Fund Support of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation

Programs

The committee notes that the military services have not demonstrated a serious commitment to fund Morale, Welfare, and

Recreation (MWR) programs. Although the committee has seen incremental improvements in the percentage of appropriated fund

support provided to category A, mission sustaining programs, these

important programs are supported at the 90 percent level by only

one service, with another service as low as 70 percent. The com-
317

mittee is truly dismayed by the funding provided to category B,

community support programs. Not one service has achieved the Department of Defense goal of 65 percent appropriated fund support

for any of the past four years. Another metric often used is the

amount of appropriated fund support provided per individual service member. Here too, the services vary. In this era of joint operations, each service provides support to service members of all the

uniformed services. The committee believes that individual service

members deserve to find an adequate quality of life infrastructure

wherever they may be assigned. In view of the continued lack of

commitment from all services and the disparate level of funding

among the services, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense

to establish a plan for the military services to achieve DOD funding

goals and parity by individual service member and report to the

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on

Armed Services by December 1, 1999, when all services will

achieve those objectives.

Combined Stores at Closed Installations

The committee notes that the Department of Defense continues

to request additional base realignment and closure (BRAC) authority, yet the Department has done little to ameliorate the impact of

lost commissary and exchange stores on retirees residing near

closed bases. Section 336 of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106) authorized the Secretary of Defense to open 10 combined exchange and commissary

stores near closed bases. To date, only three such stores are operating, even though military retirees around the country have effectively been denied access to commissaries and exchanges through

BRAC action. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the process and criteria used for establishing combined stores,

considering such matters as cost to the Defense Commissary Agency, the viability of combined stores, and the views of the military

services, retirees, and local communities, and report his findings

and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services

and House Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2000.

Commissary Surcharge Fund

The committee is aware that the Defense Commissary Agency’s

(DECA) surcharge fund has been depleted in recent years. The

committee gives special attention to the health of this fund because

it is created with patron dollars and because it pays for new commissary construction. With an infrastructure of nearly 300 commissary stores around the world, DECA needs a construction program of at least 10 new stores annually to replace its inventory in

a 30 year period. Unfortunately, the Department projects building

just 10 stores over the next 3 years. Some of the depletion of the

surcharge fund is due to DECA’s own actions, such as last year’s

failed procurement of a new computer system. The surcharge shortfall is a complex issue and is also related to the significant decline

of DECA’s active and reserve patron base and the addition of other

charges to DECA construction, like site demolition costs. The committee believes that action will be needed in the near future to ad-
318

dress this problem and directs the Secretary of Defense to study

the issue and provide recommended solutions to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services by December 1, 1999.

Military Exchange Privileges for Disabled Veterans

The committee believes that exchanges, commissaries, and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs are inextricably

linked elements of essential installation support. As a general rule,

military patrons who have access to exchanges have substantially

equal access to commissaries and MWR programs. Despite that

view, the committee believes that there may be room for a limited

exception to recognize veterans who were disabled in service to

their country. In that regard, the committee urges the Secretary of

Defense to assess the implications of opening military exchanges to

veterans who have been rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs as at least 30 percent disabled. The committee expects that

this assessment would address such issues as the ability of these

veterans to gain access to military installations, impact on exchange costs and revenue, and local community views. The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs, will report the results of this assessment to the Senate

Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed

Services by January 1, 2000.

Nonappropriated Fund Retirement Plans

The committee has learned that the Department of Defense

(DOD) is reviewing options concerning the several retirement plans

that exist for DOD nonappropriated fund employees. The committee understands that DOD generated this review in order to

apply sound fiscal principles to all of the retirement plans and realizes that the Secretary of Defense understands the sensitivity of

any changes to long established, fiscally solvent, pension plans.

Since these plans represent the only income for thousands of currently retired nonappropriated fund employees, the committee believes that any change should be approached with great caution.

For that reason, the committee directs that the Secretary of Defense not implement any changes to these retirement plans without

consulting with the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

House Committee on Armed Services.

Restrictions on Patron Access to Overseas Commissaries and

Exchange Stores

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has

yet to issue regulations implementing section 365 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–

261) dealing with ration control overseas. The committee included

this provision because the Department had not exercised oversight

in this area, resulting in authorized patrons being denied reasonable access to American goods and services around the world. The

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to publish the implementing instructions by July 1, 1999, and that the first annual report required by section 365 be provided to the Senate Committee
319

on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services

by December 1, 1999.

Sale of Value Brand Products in Commissary Stores

The committee notes that the Defense Commissary Agency

(DECA) is testing customer acceptance of product lines known as

value brands. The committee reminds the Secretary of Defense that

the commissary benefit is intended to provide recognizable, brand

name products to military patrons stationed around the world.

Consequently, the committee expects that any products tested adhere strictly to the rigorous definition of brand name products provided by section 373 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85). Since shelf space is limited

in commissary stores, the committee believes that patron selection

of brand name products would diminish if this test were expanded

to place significant quantities of value brand products into all

stores. Furthermore, the committee has concerns about the validity

of the test procedures. In view of these questions, the committee directs that the Secretary of Defense not implement the results of

this test before consulting with the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services.

Vendor Representatives Overseas

The committee has learned about apparent inconsistencies in the

logistical support provided to certain vendor representatives overseas. The committee believes that vendor representatives to the

commissaries and exchanges perform services critical to the mission of providing quality American made goods to military families

stationed overseas. The committee is concerned that United States

Forces, Japan (USFJ) has changed a long standing interpretation

of treaty requirements and has directed the withdrawal of logistical

support for vendor representatives in Japan. Further, the committee understands that USFJ has determined that other contractor representatives should retain support. The committee urges

the Secretary of Defense to look into the matter and restore support for vendor representatives in Japan.

OTHER ISSUES

Abrams Integrated Management Program

The budget request contains $72.6 million for the Abrams Integrated Management XXI Program (AIM XXI), an innovative partnership between the manufacturer of the Abrams tank (M–1) and

the Department of the Army’s maintenance depot to rebuild the

early versions of these tanks (M1A1) to a ‘‘like new’’ configuration.

The committee is pleased with the Army’s commitment to this vital

program given that 4,300 M1A1 tanks are expected to remain in

the Army for the next 40 years. The committee agrees with the

Army’s position, stated in its 1999 Armored Systems Modernization

Report, that the AIM XXI program is the foundation of a comprehensive recapitalization plan for the Abrams tank, and believes

this program will address readiness, operation and support cost reductions, and ultimately, modernization of the M1A1 fleet.
320

The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to continue to

fully fund this important combat vehicle modernization program at

a minimum of 90 tanks per year.

Apache Helicopter Support

The committee is concerned that the Department of the Army is

proceeding with a Prime Vendor Support (PVS) concept for the

Apache helicopter before completing a full and comprehensive evaluation of its impact on the Army’s logistics operations. Section 346

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

(Public Law 105–261) requires that, prior to entering into any

prime vendor contract for the depot-level maintenance of a weapons

system, the Secretary of Defense provide a notification to the Congress containing, among other things, an analysis of the costs and

benefits of the proposed contract. The committee continues to question whether this concept is a cost-effective solution for improving

logistics support for the Apache helicopter.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a comprehensive

review and assessment of the Army’s PVS concept for the Apache

helicopter and found significant cost and policy uncertainties with

this proposal. Preliminary findings from GAO reveal that the

Army’s June 1998 cost estimate to provide PVS for the Apache

could cost approximately $430.9 million more than the best-case

government estimate. The committee is aware that the Army is

further evaluating the financial impact of the PVC concept, but the

Cost and Economic Analysis Center and the Army Audit Agency

has also raised questions regarding the cost implications of PVS for

the Apache which could be significantly higher than the government’s estimate. In addition, the committee is concerned that the

Army has not included in its cost analysis the impact PVS would

have on the Defense Logistics Agency Working Capital Fund or the

impact it would have on the Army Working Capital Fund. The committee is also aware that the Army is considering including in the

PVS concept enhanced services that may not be needed to meet flying-hour mission requirements. The committee questions the addition of non-required enhanced services in cost comparison calculations.

The committee is also concerned with operational issues associated with the possible use of a PVS concept for the Apache helicopter. These concerns include: whether Army personnel in the

field would be required to operate under two separate logistics and

support systems; whether this concept would be acceptable during

contingency operations; whether this concept would be compatible

with other Army financial and supply systems; and what would be

the impact to other weapons systems that remain in the Working

Capital Fund.

Based on questions of cost uncertainties and operational issues,

the committee believes it would be premature to move forward with

the PVS Apache initiative until all of these issues are fully evaluated and resolved.
321

Army Battery Management Program

The committee is aware of the success of the Department of the

Army’s battery management program which utilizes pulse technology to extend the life and reduce the cost of batteries. In particular, the committee recognizes the efforts of the Army Forces

Command which is expected to produce annual savings of $15.0

million utilizing this new technology, and the Army III Corps battery management program which has produced over $6.9 million in

savings in a two year study program. The committee is pleased

with the Army’s utilization of pulse technology as a means to improve readiness. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to

examine the expansion of pulse technology for battery management

programs throughout all of the military services.

Army Maintenance and Personnel Systems

The committee continues to be concerned that the Department of

the Army lacks a total depot maintenance program for all of its industrial operations, including a rational staffing process. The committee is aware that the Army attempted to develop a total depot

maintenance strategic plan in its National Maintenance Program

(NMP). It is the committee’s understanding that implementation of

the NMP has been delayed because of internal confusion over the

definition of depot maintenance.

The Army’s failure to implement effectively a total depot maintenance program negatively impacts readiness and hinders the service’s overall performance in numerous arenas. First, lack of a total

maintenance program precludes the development of the appropriate mix of equipment maintenance at public facilities. This

causes an unstable workload and staffing system for the industrial

base. In addition, without a total depot maintenance program, the

Army cannot control the proliferation of depot activities throughout

the service.

The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to resolve the

issues that impede the National Maintenance Program, and to address the proliferation of depot level maintenance and repair. The

committee expects the Secretary of the Army to continue to issue

progress reports on these issues.

In addition, the committee is also concerned with problems the

Department of the Army has with the industrial staffing requirements determination process. The committee believes that the

Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS) has improved

the determination process and will facilitate the development of a

stabilized workload system and minimize the turbulence in the civilian workforce. The committee expects the Secretary of the Army

to consider the General Accounting Office’s recommendations to improve the development of AWPS. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to implement AWPS as soon as feasible and believes the Secretary should designate AWPS as the standard functional management system for all industrial operations and fund

the program to accomplish this mission, including the Department

of the Army Decision Support System, by March 1, 2001.
322

Automatic Document Conversion Technology

The committee believes that there is potential for significant savings from automatic document conversion software for use in weapons systems engineering drawing digitization, and that the Department of Defense should increase its efforts to digitize all weapons

engineering drawings. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for engineering drawings and document

storage and retrieval to be directly managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The committee strongly urges the Department to include funding for document conversion technology in future budget

requests.

Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence—Public-Private

Partnerships

The committee is concerned that nearly two years after the enactment of Section 2474 of Title 10, United States Code, establishing Department of Defense Centers of Industrial and Technical

Excellence and promoting public-private partnerships, the Secretary of Defense has failed to implement any policy guidance in

this critical area. The committee believes that promoting public-private partnerships at the Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence will improve readiness, reduce costs and help preserve critical

core capabilities within the Department. While the Department of

Defense continues to provide testimonial support for public-private

partnerships and competitions, the lack of implementing guidelines

and clear support from the Office of the Secretary of Defense has

left each of the military departments to enact a patchwork of very

different and often contradictory policies. The committee therefore

directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a written policy not

later than January 1, 2000 implementing the provisions of section

2474 and provide a report, not later than July 1, 2000, to the

House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on

Armed Services detailing the status of all activities conducted pursuant to such policy, including any proposed pilot projects as authorized in section 2474(a)(3).

Civilian Marksmanship Program

The committee is concerned over findings by the General Accounting Office (GAO) concerning the management of the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. The

Corporation was established by title XVI of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106),

which also provided for the transition of the Civilian Marksmanship Program from the Army to the Corporation. The committee

notes that the GAO found that the Corporation’s policies were insufficient to ensure that firearms were not sold to felons. Further,

the GAO found that the Army has not issued regulations governing

logistical support to the Corporation for the reimbursement of the

Army’s support of the Corporation. The committee understands

that the Corporation revised its background check procedures as a

result of GAO’s review, and has arranged for periodic independent

audits of its procedures. While the committee urges the Secretary

of the Army to issue regulations governing support procedures as
323

required by law, the committee is concerned that the Army will not

be reimbursed for all incremental direct costs. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review the Army’s expenses in support of the Corporation to determine if legislative authority exists for reimbursement of costs such as the lease of real

property and storage of ammunition and supplies, and to recommend to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services any legislation necessary to

ensure the Army receives reimbursement for other direct costs.

Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities

The Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA)

program was created by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 1998

and was designed to bring the most modern and advanced manufacturing capabilities used from commercial industry in DOD maintenance depots and related maintenance activities. CTMA programs allow depot activities to participate in manufacturing technology demonstration projects in collaboration with more than 220

of the leading U.S. manufacturers, under the auspices of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences. The CTMA program is in

direct support of section 361 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), which called on the

military departments to reengineer industrial processes and adopt

best-business practices at their depot-level activities.

The committee is aware that each CTMA project is designed to

deploy the latest technology in a particular area of the depot, train

depot personnel in its use, and then measure the improvements in

cost, time, and efficiency generated by the new technology. Current

DOD funding for the CTMA program provides for the operational

costs associated with each depot’s participation. For every DOD

dollar spent, it is matched on a 2-for-1 basis by the industry partner companies. Past DOD funding has allowed all of the military

services’ depot activities to carry out their missions better, cheaper,

and faster.

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has

not requested funding for the CTMA program in the budget request

despite the Department’s statements that the CTMA is useful in

developing commercial technologies in the depots and that full

funding for this program is a desirable goal. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the Defense Logistics Agency specifically for the continuation of the CTMA program. The committee believes that the continuation of this successful program would directly contribute to increased readiness.

Communicator Automated Emergency Notification System

The Committee is pleased that various components of the Department of Defense have begun to implement the Communicator

Automated Emergency Notification System in order to improve current mobilization and emergency response notification systems.

This state of the art technology is replacing the current antiquated

‘‘phone-tree’’ notification procedures and will provide for an instantaneous and real-time massive mobilization notification response in

the event of war or any other national emergency. The committee
324

believes that the Communicator Automated Emergency Notification

System could be a cornerstone for an effective U.S. mobilization notification or emergency management notification situation, and encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine its utility for use

throughout the Department.

Corrosion Prevention and Control Program

Recent studies conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD)

reveal that corrosion prevention costs the Department roughly $10

billion per year. As an example, the Army’s Tank and Automotive

Command found that corrosion damage annually costs $850 per

truck. The committee is concerned that the cost of damage caused

by corrosion to the Department’s vehicle fleet needs to be significantly reduced by establishing an effective corrosion and prevention control program. Without such a program, the military services will continue to shoulder an unneeded economic burden which

will adversely affect readiness and equipment availability and reliability.

The committee is aware of new technologies in the prevention of

corrosion which can significantly reduce high corrosion costs and

improve readiness. The committee urges the Department to establish specific corrosion control vehicle service centers that could professionally apply and test all new corrosion control technologies

currently available and provide solutions to the military departments as soon as possible. As funding for replacement vehicles continues to be scarce, the committee believes that all efforts must be

taken to extend the service life of existing vehicles.

Department of Defense Dependent Schools

The committee firmly believes that high quality dependent

schools are an important element of military family quality of life.

Indeed, the Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978 (Public

Law 95–561) requires that Department of Defense Dependent

Schools (DODDS) provide ‘‘an education of high quality,’’ and the

committee recommends funding of over $1.3 billion for these

schools in fiscal year 2000. Additionally, the committee strongly

supports impact aid payments to school districts in the United

States which teach large numbers of military children, and the

committee regularly supplements these payments from Department

of Defense funding. The committee, however, was dismayed to hear

testimony this year from several sources critical of DODDS education. In view of that testimony, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review and assessment of the quality

of the primary and secondary schooling provided by the DODDS

program. The following factors, as well as other relevant issues,

should be included in the review and assessment: student-teacher

ratio; adequacy of size and quality of teaching staff; student performance as measured by standardized tests and other indicators;

after school and extra-curricular activities; availability of advanced

placement programs; vocational training opportunities; and parent

satisfaction. The Secretary should provide this report to the Senate

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services by March 31, 2000.
325

Excess Military Property for Law Enforcement Agencies

The committee is aware that not all excess military property is

available for transfer to law enforcement agencies under the program established in section 2576a of title 10, United States Code.

Specifically, materials that have been requested by law enforcement agencies which are intended to enhance the training and

safety of law enforcement officers have been denied because they

were considered construction materials. The committee notes that

section 2576a requires the Secretary of Defense to determine if materials under this program are suitable for use by the agencies in

law enforcement activities. However, the committee believes that

the Department should consider materials that would improve

training and safety for transfer under this program. The committee

urges the Secretary of Defense to modify its policy regarding the

types of equipment and materials made available in so far as they

meet reasonable guidelines set forth in section 2576a. Further, the

committee urges the Department to make every effort to satisfy requests for materials intended to improve the training and safety

programs of law enforcement agencies directly related to the support of law enforcement activities.

Home Schooled Children Overseas

The committee believes that military families who decide to

home school their children should be supported by Department of

Defense Overseas Schools (DODDS) to the extent possible. While

the committee agrees that a commander’s responsibility to manage

an overseas community and a family’s obligation to observe host

nation laws render home schooling overseas more challenging than

when conducted in the United States, the committee supports responsible school choice for military families. The committee is

aware that the Department of Defense Education Activity

(DODEA) claims that it fully supports home schooling. DODEA’s

published material and the actual experience of some parents belie

that claim, however. The committee believes that DODEA should

take a more proactive approach in establishing a clear policy and

providing parents information about available DODEA support for

home schooling overseas, rather than merely directing parents to

the overseas commander. To that end, the committee directs the

Secretary of Defense to develop clear policy on support for home

schooling overseas. That policy, which would officially implement

what DODEA representatives state is actual practice, should specify that home schooled students may be supported with library services, music, sports, single classes, and other programs without having to actually enroll in DODDS. The committee directs the Secretary to provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services with the new policy directive

by October 1, 1999.

Information Systems Security Education

The increasing dependence by the Department of Defense on

computers and computer communications has also increased the

vulnerability of attacks on these information systems. This threat

to a national critical infrastructure mandates the fostering and on-
326

going support of well educated professionals that are able to protect

our critical information system. The President’s Commission on

Critical Infrastructure Protection completed a two-year study that

concluded, in part, that a significant portion of the nation’s infrastructure protection is tied to the development of information security professionals.

The committee is aware that, although there are several postgraduate level educational programs currently available for advanced training in this area, there are no doctorate level programs

currently available. The committee believes that the development

of a doctoral program in information security is required to provide

a flow of individuals with the knowledge and credentials to support

the expanding needs of the Department. The committee urges the

Secretary of Defense to review requirements for doctorate level information systems security professionals within the Department

and, if appropriate, consider sponsoring the establishment of doctorate level education programs in educational institutions capable

of providing this level of training.

Joint Warfare Analysis Center

The committee is aware that the Joint Warfare Analysis Center

(JWAC), a subordinate to the Commander in Chief, Atlantic Command, is currently underfunded in the budget request due to a significant increase in its currently assigned workload. The JWAC,

which assess effects of targeting, and provides planning support to

the Joint Staff and all Unified Commanders, has nearly doubled its

workload due to new, conventional warfare taskings, not envisioned

in the original charter for special access programs. The committee

is concerned that the present employees assigned to JWAC may be

on the verge of early burnout primarily because of a shortage of

highly skilled technical employees. Increases in manpower have

been caused by the military services growing involvement in contingency operations.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

for the JWAC and urges the Secretary of Defense to adequately

fund this important activity in the future. The committee expects

the Secretary of the Navy, who is the executive agent for resources

for this activity, to allocate these additional funds in the appropriate accounts within the JWAC.

Military Affiliate Radio System

The committee reiterates its prior support for the Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) and the civilian amateur radio operators who provide the Department of Defense (DOD) with an auxiliary means of communications in the event of a local, national, or

international emergency. However, the committee is concerned that

the benefits of this volunteer communications service are not fully

appreciated or utilized by the Department.

In its December 31, 1996 report to the committee on the MARS

program, the Secretary of Defense emphasized, ‘‘there is no requirement for a change in the MARS mission.’’ Although its main

mission is to provide emergency communications support, MARS

has been a valuable system for relaying morale and welfare mes-
327

sages between U.S. service personnel stationed abroad and their

families in the United States. This system has operated at virtually

no cost to the Department. As the number, scope, and pace of contingency operations in which the United States participates—including peacekeeping operations—continues to grow, the committee

encourages the Department to support, where feasible, the deployment of a MARS capability to contingency theaters in order to provide an auxiliary communications means for the use of service personnel. In light of reports that DOD communications networks in

Europe are being augmented and improved in connection with the

U.S. and NATO military campaign against Yugoslavia, the committee believes that MARS can play an important role in support

of the military and humanitarian operations being conducted in

support of this mission.

The committee is aware of other existing communications arrangements—including the Defense Switching Network, Mobile

Subscriber Equipment, commercial carriers, and e-mail—which

have been made available to U.S. troops for morale traffic purposes

during limited periods of time. However, the committee notes that

these alternate systems may not always be available and may result in out-of-pocket costs to the users. The committee also encourages the Department to make greater efforts to inform U.S. military personnel of the availability of the MARS service.

Tugboat Operations

The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy’s initiative to outsource its tugboat capability. The Committee is also

aware that private contractors who perform the tugboat mission in

peacetime must agree that if they are unwilling to perform this

mission during times of emergency, they must relinquish command

and control of their tugboats to the Department of Defense to permit the Department to respond to the emergency situation. The

Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide to the

House Committee on Armed Services, by February 1, 2000, an assessment of the Department of the Navy’s current capability and

plan to provide fully trained and qualified military personnel to operate contractor vessels if required.

Urban Warfare Training

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense and

the military services are not placing sufficient emphasis on urban

warfare training, and believes that recent military operations and

deployments to Somalia and Bosnia underscore the need to increase training in urban environments. Over the years, battles

across the world have moved from open fields and jungles to city

streets and urban areas. As this trend continues, the need for a

comprehensive training plan and dedicated operations funding to

implement urban training becomes more important. The committee

believes that U.S. military forces must be prepared to fight all challenges in the future. Meeting that goal requires dedicated planning

and operational funding for urban warfare training.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by Janu-
328

ary 31, 2000, on the current and proposed efforts to provide urban

warfare training for military personnel. Specifically, the report

shall include:

(1) Current and proposed plans to provide urban warfare

training in each of the military services;

(2) Current capabilities available to train personnel to fight

in urban environments; and

(3) Proposed operations funding required to conduct urban

warfare training and the priority given to this training within

the DOD Five Year Budget plan.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding

This section would authorize $1,056.4 million in operations and

maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other activities and

agencies of the Department of Defense.

Section 302—Working Capital Funds

This section would authorize $525.0 million for Working Capital

Funds of the Department of Defense.

Section 303—Armed Forces Retirement Home

This section would authorize $68.295 million from the Armed

Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed

Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s

Home and the Naval Home.

Section 304—Transfer From National Defense Stockpile

Transaction Fund

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer

not more than $150.0 million from the amounts received from sales

in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military services.

Section 305—Transfer to Defense Working Capital Funds to

Support Defense Commissary Agency

This section would transfer funding for the Defense Commissary

Agency (DECA) from the military services’ operations and maintenance accounts into the Defense Working Capital Fund. The committee reminds the Secretary of Defense that section 361 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law

105–261) requires that DECA be funded through the Office of the

Secretary of Defense and not through the military services. The

budget request proposed to return the funding of DECA to the military services, without supporting rationale or request for legislative

relief. The committee notes that intense competition for operations

and maintenance funding throughout the military services could

jeopardize the commissary benefit if the funding were left in the
329

military service accounts and insists that the Secretary of Defense

fund DECA through Defense wide accounts as required by law.

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 311—Reimbursement of Navy Exchange Service Command

for Relocation Expenses

This section would authorize $8.7 million for reimbursement to

the Navy Exchange Service Command (NEXCOM) for costs incurred in connection with the relocation of NEXCOM headquarters

to Virginia Beach, Virginia, and for the lease of headquarters

space.

Subtitle C—Environmental Provisions

Section 321—Remediation of Asbestos and Lead Based Paint

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to use Army

Corps of Engineers indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ)

contracts for the remediation of asbestos material and lead based

paint. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense’s current process of asbestos and lead paint abatement is

wasting scarce readiness funds. The Department is not utilizing existing and competitively awarded Army Corps of Engineers IDIQ

contracts to cover such work. Instead, the Department regularly

issues contract change orders to cover unanticipated remediation

problems, paying significantly higher rates.

Subtitle D—Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources

Section 331—Expansion of Annual Report on Contracting for

Commercial and Industrial Type Functions

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide

Congress with a report on the number of work-year equivalents

performed by private sector employees who provide services under

contract to the Department of Defense, as well as the total dollar

value of these services. The section would also require the Department to categorize the information to be included in the report by

federal supply class or service code, the appropriation from which

the contracts for the services were funded, and the major organizational element of the military department acquiring the services.

Section 332—Congressional Notification of A–76 Cost Comparison

Waivers

This section would require the Department of Defense or any of

the military services to notify Congress when the procedure set

forth in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A–76

for commercial activities is waived. The committee is aware that

the Department and the military services may grant waivers to the

procedures of OMB Circular A–76 for commercial activities. Although current law does not require that an A–76 study be performed, the committee believes that the Congress should be noti-
330

fied when the Department or the military services waive this procedure.

Section 333—Improved Evaluation of Local Economic Effect of

Changing Defense Functions to Private Sector Performance

This section would change the requirement for the Department

of Defense to provide the Congress with an analysis of the impact

of converting a government-performed function to a contractor-performed function if more than 50 DOD employees would be involved,

rather than the current requirement of 75 employees. As the Department analyzes whether to convert a government performed

function to a contractor performed function, the committee believes

that it is important to understand the effect the change will have

on the local economy and community.

Section 334—Annual Report on Expenditures for Performance of

Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads by Public and

Private Sectors

This section would amend section 2466(e)(1) of title 10, United

States Code, to expand the amount of information currently provided to Congress detailing the amount of depot-level maintenance

and repair work that is accomplished in the public and the private

sector.

Section 335—Applicability of Competition Requirement in Contracting Out Workloads Performed by Depot-Level Activities of

Department of Defense

This section would amend section 2469(b) of title 10, United

States Code, in order to clarify that the cost of labor and materials

is to be used when determining the value of workload that would

require a competition if it were to be moved from a public depot.

Section 336—Treatment of Public Sector Winning Bidders for Contracts for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair

Workloads Formerly Performed at Certain Military Installations

This section would amend section 2469(a) of title 10, United

States Code, to reduce reporting requirements and management at

Department of Defense industrial facilities which are performing

work awarded under a public-private competition.

Section 337—Process for Modernization of Computer Systems at

Army Computer Centers

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to provide

the Department of Defense civilian employees at the Logistics Systems Support Center, St. Louis, Missouri, and the Industrial Logistics Systems Center in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, with the opportunity to establish a most efficient organization for the purpose

of establishing a partnership with a private sector entity selected

to develop and implement new computer systems at these locations.

The purpose of this most efficient organization would be to ensure

that the current computer systems remain operational to meet the
331

needs of the Army until replacement computer systems are fully

operational and successfully evaluated.

Section 338—Evaluation of Total System Performance

Responsibility Program

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to Congress that would identify all Air Force programs that are currently managed or presently planned to be managed under the Total System Performance Responsibility Program

(TSPR). The TSPR program is an emerging Air Force acquisition

and support strategy designed to place increased responsibility, accountability, and authority for the performance of a specific weapons system or equipment item in the hands of a single manager.

In addition, the report would include a determination whether or

not the TSPR program would support core maintenance capabilities.

The committee is concerned that the Air Force has chosen an illdefined and unclear policy to support important weapons systems.

While the TSPR program intends to streamline and comprehensively integrate the sustainment responsibility for weapons systems, the committee is concerned that this sustainment concept

has not sufficiently taken into account the long-term implications

for privatizing the sustainment support for major weapons systems

or the implication on the readiness and war fighting capabilities of

the Air Force.

Section 339—Identification of Core Logistics Capability

Requirements for Maintenance and Repair of C–17 Aircraft

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report, not later than February 1, 2000, to Congress that

would identify the core logistics capability requirements for depotlevel maintenance and repair for the C–17 aircraft. The section

would preclude the Secretary of the Air Force from extending the

contract for the C–17 aircraft Flexible Sustainment Program until

60 days after the report is received by Congress. In addition, the

provision would require the General Accounting Office to review

the report once it is submitted and report to Congress with an evaluation of the report and other related issues.

The committee continues to believe that maintaining an in-house

depot maintenance capability is critical for mission essential systems and for other maintenance where it is shown to be more cost

effective. Section 351 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) required the Secretary of

Defense to submit a plan detailing the core logistics capabilities of

the C–17 aircraft. The committee believes that the report submitted by the Department did not adequately respond to the requirements of section 351. The Department of the Air Force has

stated that the core requirements for the C–17 aircraft will not be

considered until 2002, 8 years after the C–17, a key mission essential unique aircraft, achieves initial operational capability. The

committee notes that section 2464 of title 10, United States Code,

requires that the core logistics capabilities for mission essential
332

weapons systems are to be established not later than four years

after a weapons systems achieving initial operational capability.

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents Education

Section 341—Assistance to Local Education Agencies That Benefit

Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of

Defense Civilian Employees

This section would authorize $35.0 million for educational assistance to local education agencies where the standard for the minimum level of education within the state could not be maintained

because of the large number of military connected students. This

section would also modify the procedures used to distribute funds

to local education agencies in order to speed a process much delayed by legal and policy impediments. The operation of current

policy, which is intended to ensure less prosperous local education

agencies receive their fair share of these funds, actually causes

these districts to receive less funding than intended. The committee

directs the Secretary of Defense to review the policy by which

funds are distributed to local education agencies and make adjustments necessary to ensure that funds are distributed equitably and

expeditiously. The committee’s commitment to military children

has provided much needed boosts to the education of military children around the country. Even so, the committee notes that the

Department of Education impact aid program provides supplementary funds to eligible school districts nationwide, and believes

that the Department of Education bears the principal responsibility

for providing support for the education needs of the nation’s children.

Section 342—Continuation of Enrollment at Department of Defense

Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

This section would permit a student who is enrolled in his or her

junior year at a Department of Defense domestic secondary school

to complete the student’s senior year at that same school even if

the student would be otherwise ineligible to attend the school because of a change in the status of the student’s sponsor. With few

exceptions, students whose sponsors move away from the installation or complete their military or civilian service cannot remain in

a Department of Defense domestic school for completion of their

senior year. This provision would provide the Secretary of Defense

the authority to make exceptions for the completion of high school.

The committee notes that the Secretary would retain the authority

to disenroll these students for good cause, and would expect that

students completing their high school career separated from their

parents under this provision would remain productive, disciplined

members of their respective senior classes.

Section 343—Technical Amendments to Defense Dependents’

Education Act of 1978

This section would make a number of technical and clerical

amendments to the Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978

(title XIV of Public Law 95–561).
333

SUBTITLE F—MILITARY READINESS ISSUES

Section 351—Independent Study of Department of Defense

Secondary Inventory and Parts Shortages

Since 1990, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has identified

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) management of secondary inventories as a high-risk area because levels of inventory are too

high and management systems and procedures are ineffective.

GAO has also reported that: approximately 60 percent of the Department’s inventory exceeds current requirements the accuracy of

inventory requirements is questionable; the Department lacks adequate visibility over operating materials and supplies; and the Department has been slow in adopting best management practices in

this area. In response to GAO reports, the Department has asserted that much of its current inventory is needed to support operations or that it is economically prudent to retain in stock.

In testimony before the committee, the military departments testified that due to a lack of funding, in part, significant spare part

shortages exist and continue to have a negative impact on readiness. The committee is concerned that the cost to store large quantities of old and inactive secondary supply items limits funding that

could be used to purchase parts that would improve readiness by

reducing maintenance times and increasing mission capable rates.

The committee believes that an analysis of the Department’s secondary inventory and parts shortages should be conducted to identify the actual causes and the extent of parts shortages, as well as

to determine the impact on current readiness.

Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to

provide for an independent analysis of current secondary inventory

levels, including wholesale and retail inventories. This analysis

should determine how much of DOD inventory, retained for economic, contingency, and potential reutilization over the past five

years, has actually been used, and how much should be classified

as excess to the Department’s needs. The analysis would also include recommendations that the Department should consider for

the disposal or other disposition of excess inventory. This section

would also require the Secretary of Defense to review the results

of the independent analysis and provide to the Congress an assessment of the analysis. In addition, the Secretary of Defense would

be required to provide to the Congress a plan that would address:

(1) The elimination of excess inventory;

(2) The issues of inactive inventory;

(3) Chronic part shortages; and

(4) Recommendations for improvement to the departmentwide inventory management system.

Section 352—Independent Study of Adequacy of Department Restructured Sustainment and Reengineered Logistics Product Support Practices

Based on extensive testimony received and from visits to the

field, the committee is aware of severe and chronic spare parts

shortages in all services. For instance, the Air Force has testified

that fighter squadrons are deploying with less than 50 percent of
334

the deployment parts needed to sustain themselves. Repair parts

stocks are at extremely low levels throughout the military services.

The committee understands that the ability of U.S. forces to successfully conduct a large, focused air campaign and other relatively

small contingency type operations, actually masks the difficulty of

sustaining a force capable of fighting two major regional contingencies. The committee has heard from the military services that

they are increasingly resorting to cannibalization of equipment for

repair parts to sustain ongoing operations, which increases costs in

terms of equipment and manpower. Based on testimony by the

service chief’s concerning their current and future unfunded requirements, and the current high pace of military contingency operations, the committee is concerned that national emergency

sustainment stocks may not currently exist, and there may not be

sufficient funding in the future years defense budget projections for

sufficient stocks to be purchased.

The committee understands that the Defense Logistics Agency

(DLA) currently has funding authority sufficient to meet only 85

percent of expected yearly requisitions. This equates to nearly

300,000 requisitions each year being refused or placed on ‘‘back

order’’ until funding is provided. During a time of national emergency, it is expected that parts will be made available when it

comes time to mobilize. Based in part by the current high use of

parts due to contingency operations in the Balkans, particularly

aviation parts, the committee has little confidence that there will

be sufficient stocks of parts and supplies to support the necessary

mobilization for one major theater war much less the two required

by the National Military Strategy.

Department of Defense agencies and the service components are

all working hard to use better business practices to sustain

logistical support to operational units. The committee commends

these efforts to cut costs and become more efficient but has concerns that these practices are driven by funding constraints without adequate consideration of the operational units’ needs during

war.

Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to

provide for an independent study of the Department’s current efforts to restructure sustainment of required inventory and the impact these efforts will have on the logistics community’s ability to

provide adequate logistical support during the conduct of two major

theater wars.

Section 353—Independent Study of Military Readiness Reporting

System

This section would provide for an independent study of requirements for a comprehensive readiness reporting system for the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense was directed to establish such a system by section 117 of title 10, United States

Code, as added by section 373 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261). The committee

is concerned by the Department of Defense’s delays in implementing provisions of the law, and believes that there is a need for

an independent study to provide a benchmark against which to
335

measure the Department of Defense’s efforts at reform of the readiness reporting system.

As indicators of declining readiness increase, the urgency for an

improved readiness reporting system, capable of measuring the

complex variety of factors that influence unit readiness, also has

increased. In fact, even had the Department of Defense implemented the provisions of the law in a timely way, the committee

believes an independent assessment of the requirements for such

a readiness reporting system is warranted. The committee has

been discouraged to learn that bureaucratic intransigence, opposition to reform, and the persistence of outmoded practices are placing the prospects for improving the readiness reporting system in

doubt.

Section 354—Review of Real Property Maintenance and its Effect

on Readiness

Based on testimony received by the committee, reports from the

field, and other information provided, the committee is concerned

that the backlog of real property maintenance has continued to

grow with no apparent overall strategic plan for its elimination in

the foreseeable future. The committee is encouraged that the Administration and the military service chiefs finally admit that there

is a problem and recognize the need to stop the growth in the

maintenance backlog. However, the additional funding included in

the budget request would only stop the backlog from increasing but

would not reduce the real property maintenance backlog.

This section would require the Department of Defense to assess

what the impact of the continued lack of adequate funding for real

property maintenance in all of the military services is having on

readiness. The assessment should determine the funding required,

by service, to eliminate the real property maintenance backlog, and

to improve facilities to acceptable standards for optimum utilization to support readiness and quality of life requirements.

Section 355—Establishment of Logistics Standards for Sustained

Military Operations

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish

standards for spare parts and other logistics needs of deployable

units of the armed forces in order to allow these units to sustain

themselves adequately in performing their assigned missions. This

section would further direct the Secretary of Defense to consider

these standards when establishing the Department of Defense’s

budget, with the expectation that these standards will be considered as the minimum requirement for spare parts. Finally, the Secretary of Defense would be directed to include an analysis of the

logistics and sustainment requirements of the armed forces in his

annual report to the Congress.

The committee believes these measures are essential to improving the sustainment capabilities needed to execute the missions assigned to the armed forces under the National Military Strategy.

Through its hearings and oversight activities, the committee

learned that many units lack the spare parts and other logistics

equipment required to conduct sustained operations, including the
336

combat missions assigned to these units by the theater commanders-in-chiefs in their war plans. In some cases, units currently

expected to sustain themselves in a combat environment, under

austere conditions, are reporting an inability to fully perform their

assigned missions beyond a week to 10 days rather than the expected 30 days.

Absent a realistic reevaluation of the support standards required

of units—matched by a sufficient level of funding for spare parts

and similar needs—in the current strategic environment, the inability to adequately sustain deploying units in contingency and

combat operations may prove to be a serious shortcoming for U.S.

armed forces. The committee believes the Secretary of Defense

must move rapidly to establish sustainment standards, provide sufficient funding to eliminate sustainment shortfalls, and quantify

and highlight these standards in the annual report to the Congress.

SUBTITLE G—OTHER MATTERS

Section 361—Discretionary Authority to Install Telecommunication

Equipment for Persons Performing Voluntary Services

This section would provide the service secretaries with the authority to install telephone lines and necessary telecommunication

equipment in the private residences of unit volunteer coordinators

and pay usage fees. Currently, no such authority exists in law. Although the committee expects that service secretaries would exercise this authority sparingly and would apply appropriate control

measures on the use of this equipment, the committee recognizes

that selected volunteers have become critical links to maintaining

communication between families and deployed units and vessels.

Section 362—Contracting Authority for Defense Working Capital

Funded Industrial Facilities

This section would amend section 2208(j) of title 10, United

States Code, to clarify the requirements for working capital funded

industrial facilities to manufacture articles and sell these articles

to persons outside the Department of Defense.

Section 363—Clarification of Condition on Sale of Articles and

Services of Industrial Facilities to Persons Outside Department

of Defense

This section would amend section 2553(g) of title 10, United

States Code, to define the term ‘‘not available’’ with respect to

goods or services sold by Department of Defense industrial facilities.

Section 364—Special Authority of Disbursing Officials Regarding

Automated Teller Machines on Naval Vessels

This section would amend section 3342 of title 31, United States

Code, relating to disbursing officials check cashing authority to

allow the Department of Defense to provide operating funds to

automated teller machines (ATM) on naval vessels, and to accept

for safekeeping deposits made through these ATMs to shipboard ac-
337

counts. The provision supports the Department of the Navy’s

‘‘ATM-On-Line’’ and ‘‘ATMs-At-Sea’’ programs which will result in

a significant quality of life enhancement for service members serving on navel vessels.

The committee believes that the Secretary of the Navy should

evaluate the most efficient means to maintain and update the automated teller machines (ATM) necessary for the ATM-at-Sea program. This includes considering whether the banking industry,

which benefits from this program, should pay a portion of the funds

needed to maintain and update the needed ATMs on the Naval vessels.

Section 365—Preservation of Historic Buildings and Grounds at

United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home, District of Columbia

This section would permit the Chairman of the Retirement Home

Board and the Director of the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s

Home to apply and accept a direct grant from the Secretary of the

Interior under section 101(e)(3) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 United States Code 470a(e)(3)) for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, and preserving the historic buildings and

grounds of the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home included

on the National Register of Historic Places. The committee is aware

that four buildings located on six acres at the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Retirement Home in Washington, D.C. are included on the

National Register of Historic places. Currently, amounts in the

Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund, which consists primarily of deductions from the pay of members of the armed forces,

are insufficient to maintain, repair, and preserve these historic

buildings and grounds.

Section 366—Clarification of Land Conveyance Authority, United

States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home

This section would clarify section 1053 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201), concerning the authorization for the United States Soldiers’ and Airman’s Home, located in the District of Columbia, to sell approximately 49 acres of excess land. The section would establish the specific manner, terms and conditions for the conveyance of this land

by sale or lease within 12 months of enactment of the provision.

The section would also preclude the conveyance of this excess property through any public/private partnership, and would give the

Catholic University of America, located adjacent to the excess land

in the District of Columbia, the right to match any bona fide offer

received for the sale or lease of the property.

Section 367—Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in Defense

Household Goods Moving Programs

This section would exclude the states of Alaska and Hawaii, and

the territory of Guam from being included as points of origin in any

test or demonstration program of the Department of Defense

(DOD) regarding the moving of household goods of members of the

armed forces. The provision would also establish Hawaii and Guam
338

as international destinations for the purpose of household goods

shipments by the DOD.

MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW

In mid-1998, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the

Joint Chiefs concluded that the Armed Forces were fighting, and

losing, two-front war to recruit and retain sufficient people. That

war continues today, and much of what is provided for in the military personnel titles of this bill is directed at reversing the losing

fight.

On the retention front, all the services for several years have incurred unsustainable losses among pockets of highly qualified, experienced personnel. More recently, the most severe retention problems are in the Navy and the Air Force where officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted persons across the force are leaving at

rates that threaten the future viability of each service. In the Army

and Marine Corps, although retention problems remain localized—

principally among pilots—they are, nonetheless, of concern. Adding

to the debilitating effects of the unanticipated losses of experienced

personnel, the Army, Navy and Air Force also are encountering

sharp increases above historical levels in the attrition of new personnel who fail to complete their first term of enlistment. As

threatening as are the downward retention rates and increased attrition, military leaders within each of the services are even more

concerned about their inability to develop responses to effectively

reverse the trends. For example, no matter what the Air Force has

tried, unacceptable pilot retention rates continue.

On the recruiting front, three of the services, beginning with the

Army, then the Navy, and finally the Air Force, have failed, or expect to fail, to meet production goals for new recruits. Not only do

these recruiting shortfalls exist among most of the active components, but they also are appearing among the reserve components—most notably in the Army and Naval Reserves. In addition,

some sources of officer commissions, specifically Army and Air

Force Senior Reserve Officer Training (ROTC) programs, are failing

to produce the required numbers of new officers. Furthermore, despite compelling testimony from mid-grade enlisted leaders that

the low quality of new recruits has already reached a level that

threatens the readiness of the force, the civilian leadership within

the services refuse to commit adequate resources to recruiting.

Rather, the Army and the Navy moved to reduce their quality

standards by enlisting fewer high school graduates; and some services continue to surface new strategies for reducing recruit quality.

These trends alarm the committee.

As a result of continuing recruiting shortfalls and reduced retention, senior military leaders find themselves compelled to deploy

forces to crises and contingencies at manning levels well below the

100 percent or better standard that heretofore had been their goal.

With reduced manning levels among deployed forces, senior leaders

are reluctantly accepting higher operational risks, reduced readiness, and increased stress on both deployed and non-deployed

forces.

Reflecting the December 1998 commitment of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff and the Secretary of Defense to address the retention and re-
339

cruiting problems in the services, the Budget request proposed a

range of pay and retirement reforms, as well as new bonus and

special pays authority, and increased funding for recruiting. The

committee commends the Secretary and the Joint Chiefs for their

forceful, public resolve to advocate for these reforms and initiatives.

The Committee is convinced that without the unanimous support

of these initiatives by the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary, they

would not have been included in the budget request, nor politically

supported by the Congress.

Using the pay and retirement reforms of the budget request as

a starting point, the committee undertook an in-depth assessment

of the underlying causes of the services’ retention and recruiting

problems in an effort to determine the adequacy of the Department’s budget proposals.

With regard to retention the committee found numerous and

complex factors that determined why people and their families either remain in the military or return to civilian life. Clearly, as emphasized by the proposed Department of Defense’s pay and retirement reforms, dissatisfaction with military basic pay and retirement was found to be a factor influencing retention. However, the

committee also found that the Department’s proposals addressed

only a narrow range of the actual pay and compensation concerns

of service members. Based on what men and women, officer and enlisted, told the committee, further reforms were needed to help relieve the financial stress experienced by most enlisted personnel

with families. Some flexibility and choice in retirement options was

desired, including the option to participate in a thrift savings plan.

They also sought improvements in their ability to afford adequate

housing and to reduce out-of-pocket housing costs. Finally, service

members’ testimony made clear to the committee that enhanced

bonus and special pays were a critical factor for many military personnel, not only as recognition of their training and skills, but also

as a way to reduce the attractiveness of salary and bonus offers

being made to them by civilian employers.

Notwithstanding the testimony the committee heard about the

need for pay, compensation and retirement reform that was broader, more diverse, and more focused than that contained in the

budget request, the committee also understood from that testimony

that if the services were going to solve their retention problems,

then a broad range of reforms outside those of military pay and

compensation and retirement would also be required. For example,

the committee repeatedly heard about the damaging impact on retention caused by unrelieved high operations tempo and the tension and disruptions to families resulting from the unpredictability

of no-notice, last minute deployments. Equally damaging to retention was the corrosive effect on a highly professional military due

to their inability, and the inability of their leaders to obtain the required resource to train and maintain themselves, their equipment

and their units at a level of readiness they know is required to be

successful in war. Such frustration, the result, in part, of significantly underfunded operations and maintenance accounts, will not

be relieved by any amount of increased spending in the military

personnel accounts.
340

With regard to the recruiting proposals contained in the budget

request, the committee’s assessment found an increased level of effort being made by each service to achieve recruiting goals. In general, the committee is pleased with the effort. However, given the

current and growing interdependability of the active and reserve

components, the committee is concerned that the budget request

did nothing to address the recruiting shortfalls in some of the reserve components. The budget request neither did anything to correct the officer production shortfalls in the Senior Reserve Officer

Training Program nor did it provide new ways to address manning

shortfalls that exist in all the services.

Based on its in-depth assessment, the committee recommends a

broad range of initiatives to address the retention and recruiting

issues that are confronting the military services. These initiatives,

which build upon and expand those proposed in the budget request,

are reported in detail in the military personnel titles below. In

summary, however, the committee recommendations contained in

the military personnel titles:

(1) Directly and aggressively address many of the causes of

recruiting and retention shortfalls, but balance the cost of addressing those problems against the reality that pay and retirement reform are only a part of what is required to improve

recruiting and retention. Resources, in a constrained defense

budget, must remain available this year and in subsequent

years to address readiness and modernization, which also are

keys to fixing recruiting and retention.

(2) Provide a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise, compared

to the 4.4 per cent raise in the budget request; halt the growing pay gap for all by mandating that future basic pay raises

are based on the full employment cost index (ECI), not ECI

minus .5 percent; and provide targeted pay raises above 4.8

percent for mid-grade officers and non-commissioned officers,

as part of a reform of the pay tables to ensure pay increases

are tied more to promotion than to years of service.

(3) Reform the military retirement system by providing service members the option of choosing either the pre-1986 retirement, or remain in the post-1986 retirement system and receive a $30,000 payment at 15 years of service.

(4) Extend current pay and bonus authorities, create new

bonus authorities, and expand recruiting and retention bonus

and special pay authorities to address poor retention and

shortages in specific skills. These skills include aviators, Navy

surface warfare officers, Navy special warfare officers, Navy

nuclear trained officers, reserve components critical skills, Air

Force air battle managers, career enlisted flyers, linguists, divers, first-team members with families, and judge advocates.

(5) Reduce service member out-of-pocket housing costs by 3

per cent, and accelerate by three years the full implementation

of new Basic Allowance for Housing rates, by adding $442.5

million to the services’ military personnel accounts.

(6) Direct the Secretary of Defense to begin paying the

Women, Infants and children (WIC) program benefits overseas.

(7) Maintain active end strength floors; provide $91.5 million

to fully fund the Army National Guard and Army Reserve mili-
341

tary technicians requested in the budget; and increase by 800

the full time manning in the Army National Guard,

(8) Provide creative new ways to address the services’ manning shortfalls by expanding the number of military retirees

who can voluntarily return to active duty; authorizing the Air

Force to test the use of voluntarily recalled retirees in critical

staff positions, thereby returning aviators to flying duties; and

delegating to the Secretary of Defense authority to waive, on

a case-by-case basis, the requirement that military retirees forfeit a portion of their retired pay when re-employed in the Department of Defense.

(9) Eliminate the services’ recruiting resource shortfalls by adding nearly $200 million to the budget request for both active and reserve component needs, and encourage state and

local officials to provide military recruiters the same access to

high school students that is provided to other prospective employers.

(10) Address the officer recruiting shortfall by adding nearly $24.0 million to the Army Senior Reserve Officer Training

Corps (ROTC) funding, and increasing the monthly subsistence

allowance paid to Senior ROTC cadets of all services from $150

to $200.

(12) Modify the framework for training and integrating reservists into the active force by providing adequate per diem

to military technicians supporting contingency operations, authorizing recalled reservists to continue to hold civil offices for

a full active duty tour, authorizing unit funding of housing

during training tours, adding new options for active duty medical care for reservists, and authorizing reservists priority

transportation when transportation options are limited.

(13) Attend to key retiree and veterans issues by guaranteeing veterans’ burial benefits, providing retirement flags for

reservists and all the uniformed services, restoring equity to

widows entitlements, and directing that the Secretary of Defense pay severely disabled military retirees a monthly stipend

to offset reductions in military retired pay.

(14) Continue the reform of Department of Defense pharmacy system.

The committee believes that these and other initiatives it is recommending will help to address the severe retention and recruiting

challenges facing the military services. The committee also believes, however, that the severe retention and recruiting problems

of the military services will not be solved by a one year’s effort.

Rather, several years effort, at least, will be needed to restore the

manpower readiness of the armed services. Therefore, the committee strongly urges the senior military and civilian leadership of

the Department of Defense to continue to advocate for the additional resources to sustain and win the two-front war of retention

and recruiting. To that end, the committee pledges its support.
(342)

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL

AUTHORIZATIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—ACTIVE FORCES

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces

This section would authorize the following end strengths for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 30, 2000.

Service FY 1999 authorized and floor FY 2000 request

FY 2000 committee recommendation

Change from FY

2000 request

Army ............................................................................... 480,000 480,000 480,000 0

Navy ................................................................................ 372,696 371,781 372,037 256

USMC .............................................................................. 172,200 172,148 172,518 370

USAF ............................................................................... 370,882 360,877 360,877 0

DOD ................................................................................ 1,395,778 1,384,806 1,385,432 626

Based on a critical unfunded requirement identified by the Chief

of Naval Operations, the committee recommends an increase of

$5.0 million and 256 personnel over the requested end strength for

the Navy. This additional funding and strength would preclude anticipated undermanning in naval underway replenishment ships.

The committee also recommends an increase of 370 over the requested end strength of the United States Marine Corps to meet

an unfunded need identified by the Commandant of the Marine

Corps for additional guards at U.S. embassies. To support the increased manpower, the committee recommends an additional $6.6

million for the Marine Corps personnel account, and an additional

$4.1 million for the Marine Corps operations and maintenance account.

Section 402—Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum

Levels

The committee believes that it remains necessary to retain end

strength floors, not only because of a long-standing concern, reinforced by widespread testimony of witnesses appearing before the

committee that forces are inadequate to support the national military strategy, but also because of the propensity of the services to

accelerate manpower reductions to achieve savings, regardless of

the actual manning requirements of the operational forces. This

section, therefore, would amend section 691 of title 10, United

States Code, to establish end strength floors for the active forces

at the end strengths contained in the budget request.

In addition, the committee is disturbed to learn that the Army

and Air Force are projected to end fiscal year 1999 with nearly
343

11,500 personnel less than required by the floor established by the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public

Law 105–261). In the case of the Air Force, the shortfall will significantly exceed the statutory flexibility. These shortfalls are illustrated below.

Service

FY 1999 Projected actual FY 1999

end strength

Change from

FY 1999 floor DOD request Authorized

and floor Floor with flex

Army ...................................................................... 480,000 480,000 477,600 478,050 ¥1,950

Navy ....................................................................... 372,696 372,696 370,883 372,700 +4

USMC ..................................................................... 172,200 172,200 171,339 172,200 0

USAF ...................................................................... 370,882 370,882 369,028 361,331 ¥9,551

DOD ....................................................................... 1,395,778 1,395,778 1,388,850 1,384,281 ¥11,497

These projected shortfalls are surprising since the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261)

and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year

1999 (Public Law 105–262) provided the full funding requested by

the Department of Defense to sustain active end strength at the requested levels. While continuing recruiting challenges contribute in

part to the projected shortfalls, the committee believes that the

fundamental cause of the projected fiscal year 1999 end strength

shortfall is an inadequate commitment by the Army and the Air

Force to sustain required manpower levels with adequate resources.

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that future budget requests comply with the requirements of section 691

of title 10, United States Code, and provide the full funding required to sustain the active end strengths at the required levels.

The committee estimates that because the active manpower will

end fiscal year 1999 below statutory levels, there will be $152.9

million in fiscal year 2000 end strength underexecution savings

that the committee has reallocated to support a range of high priority initiatives that were not included in the budget request.

Section 403—Appointments to Certain Senior Joint Officer

Positions

Section 525(b)(5) of title 10, United States Code, provides a temporary exemption for general and flag officers who are serving in

certain senior joint officer positions from being counted against the

statutory limits on the numbers of three- and four-star general and

flag officers. This section would make permanent the exemption

which expires September 30, 2000. The section would also prohibit

the use of the exemption from increasing the total numbers of general officers on active duty, and from increasing the numbers of

four-star general officers by mandating that the exemptions be

used to fill joint three-star positions that, without the exemption,

would otherwise not be filled. Finally, the section would make permanent the requirement that each service secretary nominate a

candidate to the Secretary of Defense to fill vacancies in four-star

joint officer command positions. The current requirement expires

on September 30, 2000.
344

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve

This section would authorize the following end strengths for the

selected reserve personnel, including the end strength for reserves

on active duty in support of the reserves, as of September 30, 2000:

Service FY 1999 authorized FY 2000 request

FY 2000 committee recommendation

Change from FY

2000 request

Army National Guard ...................................................... 357,223 350,000 350,000 0

Army Reserve .................................................................. 208,003 205,000 205,000 0

Naval Reserve ................................................................ 90,843 90,288 90,288 0

Marine Corps Reserve .................................................... 40,018 39,624 39,624 0

Air National Guard ......................................................... 106,992 106,678 106,678 0

Air Force Reserve ........................................................... 74,243 73,708 73,708 0

Coast Guard Reserve ..................................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 0

Total .................................................................. 885,322 873,298 873,298 0

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in

Support of the Reserves

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

2000:

Service FY 1999 authorized FY 2000 request

FY 2000 committee recommendation

Change from FY

2000 request

Army National Guard ...................................................... 21,986 21,807 22,563 +756

Army Reserve .................................................................. 12,807 12,804 12,804 0

Naval Reserve ................................................................ 15,590 15,010 15,010 0

Marine Corps Reserve .................................................... 2,362 2,272 2,272 0

Air National Guard ......................................................... 10,931 11,091 11,025 ¥66

Air Force Reserve ........................................................... 992 1,078 1,078 0

Total .................................................................. 64,668 64,062 64,752 +690

The committee recommends an increase of 800 active guard and

reserve personnel (AGRs) in the Army National Guard to recognize

a validated shortfall in Army National Guard AGRs. The increase

reflects the committee’s belief that such full time personnel make

a direct contribution to the readiness of the selected reserve. Furthermore, the increase enhances the ability of the national guard

to assist, supplement, and in many cases substitute for, the active

components in meeting peacetime contingency requirements. To

provide for the AGR increase, the committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million in the national guard military personnel accounts.

The committee notes that the budget request neither sought to

increase the limit on the number of AGRs who can serve in assignments related to the weapons of mass destruction program (a limit

imposed by section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105–261), nor did the budget request provide the justification for such an increase that is required

by section 511. For that reason, the committee’s recommendation

on AGR end strength does not recognize the 110 additional AGRs

(44 in the Army National Guard and 66 in the Air National Guard)
345

included in the budget request to support new requirements connected with the weapons of mass destruction program. The committee looks ‘forward to receiving the Department of Defense’s subsequent request to justify the increase.

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

This section would authorize the following end strength floors for

military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2000:

Service FY 1999 authorized (floor) FY 2000 request

FY 2000 committee recommendation

(floor)

Change from FY

2000 request

Army National Guard ...................................................... 23,125 21,361 23,125 +1,764

Army Reserve .................................................................. 5,395 5,179 6,474 +1,295

Air National Guard ......................................................... 22,408 22,247 22,247 0

Air Force Reserve ........................................................... 9,761 9,785 9,785 0

Total .................................................................. 60,689 58,572 61,631 +3,059

The committee’s recommendation for higher end strengths than

contained in the budget request reflects the requirements of section

10216 of title 10, United States Code, that provides that military

technician (dual status) end strength authorizations shall only be

reduced in connection with military force structure reductions, and

a recognition that in the Army Reserve all technician positions

must be filled by military technicians (dual status).

The committee is disturbed to learn that, for the second year in

a row, the Secretary of the Army, contrary to law, sought reductions in military technicians (dual status) that were not justified by

force structure reductions. Moreover, the Secretary of the Army appears to have ignored the committee’s admonishment, contained in

the committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rpt. 105–532), that he ensure that future budget requests complied with the law when proposing reductions in military technicians (dual status). Such disregard for Congressional guidance is incomprehensible. Therefore,

the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report to the

committee, by December 30, 1999, the reasons why the Army failed

to comply with the law regarding military technician (dual status)

end strength reductions, and to report the measures he has taken

to prevent a reoccurrence of such a violation. In addition, the committee urges the Secretary of the Army to fully cooperate with the

study by the Secretary of Defense that would be required by section

526 of this bill. The purpose of that study is to reform the Army’s

methodology and process for costing civilian personnel and technician requirements to ensure those requirements are fully

resourced. Finally, in an effort to restore some of the military technician (dual status) funding and end strength shortfalls in the

Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, the committee recommends an increase of $56.5 million to Army National Guard operations and maintenance accounts, and $35.0 million to Army Reserve operations and maintenance accounts.
346

Section 414—Increase in Number of Army and Air Force Members

in Certain Grades Authorized to Serve on Active Duty in Support

of the Reserves

This section would authorize increases in the grades of reserve

members authorized to serve on active duty or on full-time national

guard duty for the administration of the reserves or the national

guard. The provision would authorize 33 additional lieutenant colonels, 52 additional majors, 8 additional E–9s, and 32 additional E–

8s in the Air Force. The provision would also authorize 33 additional colonels, 71 additional lieutenant colonels, and 22 additional

E–9s in the Army. The committee believes these increases are necessary to support the additional missions now being performed by

the reserve components.

Section 415—Selected Reserve End Strength Flexibility

This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to vary by

not more than two percent the selected reserve end strength authorized in a fiscal year for any of the reserve components.

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Authorization of Appropriations for Military

Personnel

This section would authorize $72,115.8 million to be appropriated

for military personnel.

This authorization of appropriations reflects both reductions and

increases to the President’s budget request.

[In millions of dollars]

Military

personnel

accounts

O&M Accounts

RECOMMENDED INCREASES

Active End Strength:

Navy AOE–1 End Strength Buyback ....................................................................................... 5.0 ....................

USMC Increased Security Guard Battalion Detachments End Strength ................................ 6.6 4.1

Reserve Component End Strength

Army National Guard Military Technician Underfunding ....................................................... .................... 56.5

Army National Guard 800 Additional AGR’s .......................................................................... 26.0 ....................

Army Reserve Military Technician Underfunding ................................................................... .................... 35.0

Compensation:

4.8% Military Basic Pay Raise .............................................................................................. 156.0 ....................

Overseas Military WIC program .............................................................................................. 2.0 ....................

Accelerate Phase-in of New BAH Rates ................................................................................. 225.0 ....................

Buy-down Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs (3%) ....................................................................... 217.5 ....................

Adjust General and Flag Officer Pay Cap .............................................................................. 1.0 ....................

Judge Advocate General Career Continuation Pay ................................................................. 10.0 ....................

Concurrent Receipt ................................................................................................................. 45.0 ....................

Army Recruiting:

Enlistment Bonus ................................................................................................................... 15.0 ....................

Selective Reenlistment Bonus ................................................................................................ 21.4 ....................

Advertising .............................................................................................................................. .................... 16.4

Recruiter Support .................................................................................................................... .................... 15.5

Army National Guard Recruiting:

Advertising .............................................................................................................................. .................... 18.0

Recruiter Support .................................................................................................................... .................... 13.0

Army Reserve Recruiting:

Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus ...................................................................................... 2.2 ....................

Prior Service Enlistment Bonus .............................................................................................. 1.0 ....................
347

[In millions of dollars]

Military

personnel

accounts

O&M Accounts

Montgomery GI Bill—Selected Reserve Kicker ....................................................................... 6.7 ....................

Student Loan Repayment Program ......................................................................................... 1.5 ....................

Health Professions Loan Repayment ...................................................................................... 15.9 ....................

Retention & Transition Division Retention ............................................................................. 1.9 2.6

Recruiter Support .................................................................................................................... .................... 2.0

Advertising .............................................................................................................................. .................... 26.7

Naval Reserve Recruiting

Enlistment/Reenlistment Bonuses .......................................................................................... 6.2 ....................

Montgomery GI Bill Kicker ...................................................................................................... 1.5 ....................

Selected Reenlistment Bonus for Full-time Support .............................................................. 0.7 ....................

Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship ....................................................................... 3.9 ....................

Additional Recruiters .............................................................................................................. 5.2 ....................

Advertising .............................................................................................................................. .................... 1.0

Recruiter Support .................................................................................................................... .................... 4.0

USMC Recruiting:

Advertising .............................................................................................................................. .................... 8.1

Recruiting Operations and Support ........................................................................................ .................... 1.0

Air National Guard Recruiting:

Advertising .............................................................................................................................. .................... 4.1

Air Force Reserve Recruiting:

Advertising .............................................................................................................................. .................... 1.5

Recruiter Support .................................................................................................................... .................... 1.0

Senior ROTC: Increase Monthly Stipend ($150-$200) (Reserve Personnel Accounts):

Army ........................................................................................................................................ 5.9

Navy ........................................................................................................................................ 2.2

Air Force .................................................................................................................................. 3.3

Army Senior ROTC:

Marketing & Advertising ......................................................................................................... .................... 5.5

Scholarships ........................................................................................................................... .................... 15.0

Operations and Training ......................................................................................................... 1.4 1.8

Junior ROTC:

Army ........................................................................................................................................ 1.4 2.0

USMC ...................................................................................................................................... .................... 2.0

Air Force .................................................................................................................................. .................... 19.0

Defense Health Program:

Waive CHAMPUS Deductibles for Dependents of Mobilized Reservists ................................. .................... 4.0

Start-up Cost for Trauma Center ........................................................................................... .................... 4.0

Navy Medical Equipment & Property Maintenance ................................................................ .................... 5.0

Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines ................................................................................. .................... 5.0

Army Maintenance & Repair .................................................................................................. .................... 1.0

Other:

International Student Program for Senior Military Colleges .................................................. .................... 2.0

Retirement Flags for Reservists ............................................................................................. .................... 5.0

USMC Voluntary Education Tuition Assistance ...................................................................... .................... 3.0

Total Increase ................................................................................................................ 791.4 284.8

RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS

Retirement Reform ........................................................................................................................... 392.0 ....................

Active 1999 End Strength Underexecution:

Army ........................................................................................................................................ 31.9 ....................

Navy ........................................................................................................................................ 9.0 ....................

Air Force .................................................................................................................................. 112.0 ....................

USMC Reprogramming ..................................................................................................................... 16.0 ....................

Innovative Readiness Training ........................................................................................................ .................... 15.0

Total Reduction .................................................................................................................. 560.9 15.0
(348)

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Backlog in Requests for Replacement of Military Awards and

Decorations

The committee is aware of delays in fulfilling requests from veterans for replacement awards and decorations within each of the

armed services. For example, the Army estimates the backlog for

requests from veterans to be 98,000 going back over 2 years. The

committee believes that our veterans deserve more timely responses to their requests.

The committee understands that the armed services are hopeful

that new agreements authorizing the National Personnel Records

Center (NPRC) to verify entitlement of veterans to awards and

decorations will expedite the process and eliminate backlogs. The

committee desires to accelerate the recovery process and allocate

the resources necessary to provide timely service to veterans.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in

coordination with the secretaries of the military departments, to

study the process by which veterans are provided replacement

awards and decorations and determine what resources and procedures are required to provide veterans more timely responses. The

Secretary shall submit a report with the findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March

31, 2000.

Commissioning of Ms. Ella E. Gibson

The committee notes that when the First Wisconsin Heavy Artillery Regiment selected Ms. Ella E. Gibson to be their chaplain in

1864, the Army denied the request. Notwithstanding that disapproval, Ms. Gibson faithfully performed her duties as chaplain

for the unit without pay. Although the Congress enacted private relief legislation in 1869 that provided her full pay and emoluments

of a chaplain, she was never commissioned as an officer. The committee does not understand why Ms. Gibson was denied a commission that she appears to have earned.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to

review the request for Ms. Ella Gibson to be commissioned and determine if the request was properly disapproved and whether that

disapproval would be sustained today. The Secretary shall submit

a report with the findings and recommendations resulting from this

review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000. The report

should include the Secretary’s judgment as to whether he possesses

the authority and justification to commission Ms. Gibson a captain,
349

and any recommendations concerning the need for legislation to authorize a commission for Ms. Gibson.

Electronic Transmission of Certificates of Release or Discharge

from Active Duty

The committee is aware that Certificates of Release or Discharge

from Active Duty (DD Form 214) are not transmitted by direct electronic means from the armed services to the Defense Manpower

Data Center (DMDC) or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Although procedures governing the preparation of the DD Form 214

authorize computer generation and electronic transfer of the DD

Form 214, the armed services do not employ electronic transfer.

The committee believes that manual preparation and transmission of DD Forms 214 increases errors, wastes resources, and

contributes to delays in the transmission of information vital to the

welfare of veterans.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination

with the secretaries of the military departments, to study the electronic transfer of DD Forms 214 and determine the reasons why

electronic transfer is presently not being implemented. The Secretary shall submit a report with the findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March

31, 2000.

Enlisted Promotions

The committee is concerned that the inability of enlisted members to be promoted in a timely manner has become a disincentive

for service members to remain in the military for a career. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military departments, to study enlisted promotion rates within the services. The study should include analysis of historical data, future projections, service promotion goals, and factors that influence promotion rates. The Secretary shall submit a report with the findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March

31, 2000. The committee is particularly interested in recommendations for legislation to improve the timeliness of promotions.

Junior Reserve Officer Training Program (JROTC)

The committee understands from testimony provided by Department of Defense witnesses that 40 percent of the graduates of the

JROTC program eventually join the military services. Although the

committee understands that the JROTC program is not a military

recruitment program and has no desire to turn it into one, the committee strongly believes that additional funding provided to the

program will serve well the long term manpower interests of the

Department of Defense. For that reason, the committee recommends an increase of $24.4 million for the JROTC program. The

details of the recommended increase are contained in the report

language for section 421 of this bill.
350

Merchant Marine Academy Midshipmen

The committee is aware that the Navy has begun to issue reserve

identification cards to midshipmen at the Merchant Marine Academy. The committee believes that it is appropriate and beneficial

for midshipmen to serve as members of the Naval Reserve while

attending the Merchant Marine Academy. The committee hopes

that the initial issue of reserve identification cards to midshipmen

will be expedited and that future midshipmen will be issued reserve identification cards routinely when entering the Merchant

Marine Academy.

Recruiting

The committee continues to be concerned that the services are

not able to attract sufficient high quality recruits to maintain the

quality force so critical to readiness. The committee recognizes that

the services face a difficult recruiting environment. The lowest unemployment rate since the creation of the all volunteer force, higher college enrollments and reduced awareness of the advantages of

military service have all contributed to a decline in the inclination

for America’s youth to choose the military as their first employer.

As a result, the services must work very hard to remain competitive.

During the last two years, the committee has added over $300.0

million to recruiting operations, advertising and incentives. The

committee asked the services to identify recruiting requirements

not funded in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. To the committee’s surprise despite long-standing, well-known, and continuing recruiting challenges that the committee believes should have been

better anticipated, the services’ recruiting programs are underfunded in fiscal year 2000 by $198.0 million. The size of this shortfall suggests that either the estimating process used by the services

is highly inaccurate, or the services are only marginally funding,

perhaps even underfunding, their recruiting efforts. In any case,

the committee urges the services to take corrective action to ensure

recruiting resources presented in the budget more closely match requirements. With regard to the fiscal year 2000 shortfall, the committee recommends increases, detailed in the report language to accompany section 421 of this bill, to eliminate the shortfall.

During the last two years, the services have reduced recruit quality standards. The Army and the Navy have reduced their respective goals for accession of high school diploma graduates. The Air

Force and Marine Corps have experienced a steady erosion in the

quality of recruits.

The committee believes that further reductions to recruit quality

standards present a very costly and dangerous risk to military

readiness. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military departments, to study the minimum quality standards established by the

Department of Defense for new recruits and determine if those

standards remain valid. The Secretary shall submit a report with

the findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on

Armed Services by March 31, 2000. If the Secretary determines
351

that a reduction in recruit quality standards is appropriate, the report should include a discussion of the implications of such a reduction for personnel training costs, retention, and force readiness.

The committee is concerned that the growth in funding allocated

to recruiting advertising over the past three years has resulted in

increased advertising competition between the services and a

wasteful escalation in advertising costs. The committee is also concerned that the effectiveness of advertising programs has not been

evaluated to confirm that advertising resources are employed in the

most efficient manner possible. Accordingly, the committee directs

the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the

military departments, to study the competitive nature of recruiting

advertising and determine if advertising funds have been increased

due to competition between the services. In this regard, the Secretary should examine the need to centrally manage recruiting advertising spending by the services to avoid wasteful competition.

The Secretary should also review all advertising programs and confirm that each program is an efficient use of resources within the

context of the total advertising budget in each service. The Secretary shall submit a report with the findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March

31, 2000.

Senior Reserve Officers Training Program (SROTC)

The committee is concerned that the SROTC programs of two

services are projected to fall short of their officer production quotas.

The Army will miss its goal by 513 officers, or 14 percent, and the

Air Force will miss its goal by 95 officers, or 4 percent. Such shortfalls are symptomatic of broad recruiting difficulties that exist

across the military services. Within the SROTC program, the shortfalls appear to be related to two major issues: an inadequate subsistence allowance provided to students enrolled in the SROTC program, and insufficient resources for the Army program, especially

with regard to scholarship funding. To help reverse the shortfalls,

the committee recommends an increase from $150 to $200 in the

monthly SROTC subsistence allowance, and recommends, as detailed in the report language for section 421 of this bill, an increase

of $23.7 million for the Army SROTC program.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY

Section 501—Recommendations for Promotion by Selection Boards

This section would authorize at least one below the promotion

zone promotion for warrant officer competitive categories where the

entitlement to a below the promotion opportunity is calculated as

less than one. The section would align warrant officer procedures

with the procedures already in place for officers.
352

Section 502—Technical Amendments Relating to Joint Duty

Assignments

Section 619a of title 10, United States Code, requires that an officer serve a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment as a prerequisite to promotion to brigadier general or rear admiral (lower

half). Section 619a also provided authority to the Secretary of Defense until January 1, 1999, to waive this requirement for some officers under certain conditions, and waived the requirement, until

January 1, 1997, for nuclear propulsion officers. This section would

amend section 619a to reflect the expired status of this waiver authority, but would retain the requirement that officers who received waivers before January 1, 1997 and January 1, 1999 must

complete a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment as a prerequisite for appointment to lieutenant general or vice admiral.

SUBTITLE B—MATTERS RELATING TO RESERVE COMPONENTS

Section 511—Continuation on Reserve Active Status List to

Complete Disciplinary Action

This section would authorize the service secretaries to retain a

reserve officer in an active status until completion of a court-martial action.

Section 512—Authority to Order Reserve Component Members to

Active Duty to Complete a Medical Evaluation

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to

order a reserve member to active duty to receive medical care, to

be medically evaluated for disability or other purpose, or to complete a required Department of Defense health care study. The section would require the member to consent to the recall.

Section 513—Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion

This section would authorize reserve officers serving in an educational delay status due to government sponsored attendance at

institutions of higher education to be made ineligible for promotion

during the period of educational delay. The section would also authorize promotion nonselections to be expunged when nonselection

occurred while the officer served in an educational delay status

after October 1, 1996.

Section 514—Retention until Completion of 20 Years of Service for

Reserve Component Majors and Lieutenant Commanders Who

Twice Fail of Selection for Promotion

This section would authorize reserve officers with more than 20

years of service to remain in an active status for 6 months after

being notified of their second nonselection for promotion.

Section 515—Computation of Years of Service Exclusion

This section would exclude time served in a college student commissioning status from the computation of years of service for reserve officers. The section would align the procedures used to com-
353

pute years of service for reserve officers with the procedures used

to compute years of service for active duty officers.

Section 516—Authority to Retain Reserve Component Chaplains

until Age 67

This section would authorize reserve chaplains in the Army and

the Air Force to be retained 7 additional years to age 67 to address

manning shortages in certain religious denominations.

Section 517—Expansion and Codification of Authority for SpaceRequired Travel for Reserves

This section would authorize reserve members to travel in a

space required status on military aircraft between the member’s

home and place of reserve duty when there is no road or railroad

transportation between those locations.

Section 518—Financial Assistance Program for Specially Selected

Members of the Marine Corps Reserve

This section would reform the financial inducements used in the

Platoon Leaders Class (PLC) program, the principal source for

United States Marine Corps officers. As currently operated, a college graduate who completes the PLC program and is commissioned as a second lieutenant gets longevity credit, for purposes of

calculating military basic pay, for the years spent in the PLC program. The new Marine lieutenant also incurs an 8 year service

commitment, with at least 42 months of that time served on active

duty. This section would abolish the longevity credit for lieutenants

commissioned after the date of enactment. Instead, the Secretary

of the Navy would be authorized to provide $5,200 per academic

year for a maximum of three years to a college student enrolled in

the PLC program who continues to meet certain prerequisites

while in college, and who agrees to be commissioned with an eightyear service commitment, five of which must be served on active

duty.

Section 519—Options to Improve Recruiting for the Army Reserve

The committee is concerned that the Army Recruiting Command,

which provides new enlistees for both the Army and Army Reserve,

will miss its Army Reserve fiscal year 1999 recruiting objectives by

as much as 9,500 soldiers. Such a shortfall, if it occurs, would mark

the second consecutive year that the Army Recruiting Command

has failed to produce the required number of Army Reserve recruits. Reversing such trends is critical to the health of the Army

Reserve. Consequently, the committee believes that an in-depth review of the Army’s system of recruiting for the Army Reserve is required. This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to conduct such a review, to include examining, as a possible course of

corrective action, whether the responsibility for Army Reserve recruiting should be placed under the control of the Chief, Army Reserve.
354

SUBTITLE C—MILITARY TECHNICIANS

Section 521—Revision to Military Technician (Dual Status) Law

This section would clarify section 10216 of title 10, United States

Code, pertaining to military technicians (dual status), and extend

the time from 6 months to up to 12 months that a person may remain employed as a technician in the Army and Air Force Reserve

following loss of status as a military technician (dual status).

Section 522—Civil Service Retirement of Technicians

Beginning with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106), and continuing through the National Defense Authorization Act for 1997 (Public Law 104–201),

and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998

(Public Law 105–85), the Congress has given repeated direction to

the secretaries of the military departments to transform the technician workforce. Among other objectives, the Congress directed the

military services to make maximum use of military technicians

(dual status) and to reduce the numbers of non-dual status technicians.

To that latter end, this section would require the retirement of

retirement-eligible Army or Air Force Reserve military technicians

(dual status) upon loss of dual status. The section would also establish procedures for the continued employment of certain non-retirement eligible technicians in the Army or Air Force Reserve who

had been hired on or before February 10, 1996, as well as for the

re-employment and separation of non dual-status technicians hired

subsequently.

The section also would make a non-dual status technician in the

Army or Air Force Reserve ineligible for a voluntary personnel action involving a military technician (dual status) position. The section would define ‘‘voluntary personnel action’’ as one involving the

hiring, entry, appointment, reassignment, or transfer into a military technician (dual status) position other than the one occupied

by the non-dual status technician; or promotion in grade in a current position, if the non-dual status technician occupies a position

which the Secretary of the Army or Air Force, as appropriate, has

designated as requiring a military technician (dual status). The

section would take effect one year after the date of enactment of

this bill.

The section would create a new early retirement criteria for any

technician hired after February 10, 1996 who becomes a non-dual

status technician. The new criteria would make a military technician (dual status) eligible for immediate retirement after completing 25 years of service, or after becoming 50 years of age and

completing 20 years of service. The committee believes that such

revised retirement criteria will help to ensure the sustainment of

the youthful, vigorous technician force that will be required in the

21st Century.

The section would also permit Army and Air Force Reserve technicians who qualify for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS)

to be provided a disability retirement—something that, heretofore,

only national guard technicians under CSRS were qualified for.
355

Section 523—Revision to Non-Dual Status Technicians Statute

The committee recognizes that the national guard, as well as the

Army and Air Force Reserves, require a limited number of nondual status technicians to operate effectively. Therefore, this section would limit the total number of non-dual status technicians in

the national guard to no more than 1,950 on and after October 1,

2001, and the total in the Army and Air Force Reserves to no more

than 175, on or after October 1, 2007. If at any time after the effective dates the numerical limits are exceeded, the section would require that the Secretary of Defense take action to require the appropriate secretaries of the military services to immediately reduce

the excess.

Section 524—Revision to Authorities Relating to National Guard

Technicians

This section would amend section 709 of title 32, United States

Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of

the Air Force to employ non-dual status technicians in the national

guard.

Section 525—Effective Date

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998

(Public Law 105–85) required the Secretary of Defense to provide

to the Congress by May 1998, a plan for the elimination of all nondual status technicians by September 30, 2007. For reasons that

the committee is unable to understand, the Secretary of Defense

has failed to provide the required plan. This section would delay

the non-dual status technician employment authority provided to

the Department in sections 523 and 524 in this bill until 180 days

after the Secretary of Defense meets the fiscal year 1998 requirement or provides an alternative plan for non-dual status technicians.

Section 526—Secretary of Defense Review of Army Technician

Costing Process

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to review,

and if necessary direct revisions to, the procedures and processes

employed by the Army to develop budget estimates of the required

annual authorizations and appropriations for civilian personnel,

and especially Army National Guard and Army Reserve military

technicians (dual status).

Section 527—Fiscal Year 2000 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual

Status Technicians

This section would establish numerical limits on the number of

non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2000.
356

SUBTITLE D—SERVICE ACADEMIES

Section 531—Waiver of Reimbursement of Expenses for Instruction

at Service Academies of Persons from Foreign Countries

Current law permits the Secretary of Defense to waive the full

cost of attendance for international students admitted to the service academies, for up to 5 students at a time at each academy, and

to waive up to 35 percent of the cost of attendance for all other

international students. This section would increase the Secretary’s

authority by allowing the full cost waivers for up to 20 students at

a time at each academy, and by permitting the waiver of up to 50

percent of the cost of attendance for all other international students.

Section 532—Compliance by United States Military Academy with

Statutory Limit on Size of Corps of Cadets

Section 511 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1992 (Public Law 102–190) limits to 4,000 the authorized

strength of cadets at the United States Military Academy, as well

as the other service academies, for class years beginning after

1994. The number of cadets at the United States Military Academy

has exceeded the authorized number since September 30, 1997.

This section would require the Secretary of the Army to bring the

academy into compliance with the law by the day prior to the graduation date of the first, or senior class, in June 2002. The section

would also provide authority for the Secretary of the Army in 1999,

2000 and 2001 to vary the cadet end strengths from the statutory

limit. The section would also repeal section 511, add the strength

limitations of that section to title 10, United States Code, and require that compliance with the cadet and midshipmen strength

limitations will be measured annually as of the day before graduation for each of the service academies.

Section 533—Dean of Academic Board, United States Military

Academy, and Dean of the Faculty, United States Air Force

Academy

This section would authorize the Dean of the Academic Board,

United States Military Academy, and Dean of the Faculty, United

States Air Force Academy to hold the rank of brigadier general.

The section would also require that these two general officers be

counted against and not increase either the statutory limits on the

total number of general officers.

Section 534—Exclusion from Certain General and Flag Officer

Grade Strength Limitations for the Superintendents of the Service Academies

This section would exempt officers while serving as the superintendents of the service academies, when serving in the grades of

lieutenant general or vice admiral, from counting against the limits

imposed by section 525(b) of title 10, United States Code. That section limits the number of generals and admirals serving above the

grade of major general or rear admiral in each service to no more
357

than 15 percent of the total number of generals and admirals for

that service.

SUBTITLE E—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Section 541—Establishment of a Department of Defense

International Student Program at the Senior Military Colleges

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in furtherance of the objectives of the Department of Defense’s existing international student and military-to-military programs’ objectives, to

establish and fund a program to facilitate the enrollment and instruction of international students at the Senior Military Colleges

(SMC). The Secretary of Defense would also be authorized to underwrite, in whole or in part, the cost of the international students’

attendance at the SMCs.

Section 542—Authority for Army War College to Award Degree of

Master of Strategic Studies

This section would authorize the commandant of the United

States Army War College, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, to confer the degree of master of strategic studies upon graduates of the college who meet the requirements for

the degree.

Section 543—Authority for Air University to Award Graduate-Level

Degrees

This section would authorize the commander of the Air War College to confer the degree of master of strategic studies upon graduates of the Air War College, and to confer the degree of master

of airpower art and science upon graduates of the Air Command

and Staff College.

Section 544—Correction of Reserve Credit for Participation in

Health Professional Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program

Section 2126(b) of title 10, United States Code, authorizes the

Secretary of Defense to award reserve retirement credit to a person

for time spent in an educational program under the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP). This provision would amend

that section by requiring a person to complete satisfactory service

in the selected reserve in order to gain the retirement credit. In addition, the provision would repeal the authority of the Secretary to

award years of service credit for the purposes of calculating military basic pay to a person for time spent in the HPSP.

Section 545—Permanent Expansion of ROTC Program to Include

Graduate Students

This section would make permanent the authority of the service

secretaries to provide financial assistance to graduate students who

participate in a senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program. The current authority, which enabled the service secretaries

to test the desirability and effectiveness of an ROTC scholarship

program for graduate students, expires September 30, 1999.
358

Section 546—Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for Senior

ROTC Cadets Selected for Advanced Training

This section would increase the monthly subsistence allowance of

senior ROTC cadets from $150 per month to $200 per month.

Section 547—Contingent Funding Increase for Junior ROTC

Program

This section would require that any funds appropriated annually

for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program in excess of $62.5

million would be provided to the Junior Reserve Officer Training

Corps (ROTC) program.

Section 548—Change from Annual to Biennial Reporting under the

Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to submit

a report on the reserve component Montgomery GI Bill on a biennial basis in lieu of the current requirement to submit the report

on an annual basis.

Section 549—Recodification and Consolidation of Statutes Denying

Federal Grants and Contracts by Certain Departments and

Agencies to Institutions of Higher Education that Prohibit Senior

ROTC Units or Military Recruiting on Campus

This section would consolidate and recodify three provisions of

law related to colleges and universities that prohibit senior Reserve

Officers Training Corps units or military recruiting on campus.

SUBTITLE F—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Section 551—Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain

Decorations to Certain Persons

This section would waive the statutory time limitations for the

award of military decorations to individuals who have been recommended for award of the decorations by the secretaries of the

military departments.

Section 552—Sense of Congress Concerning Presidential Unit

Citation for Crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis

The committee believes that the courageous and skilled performance of the crew of the USS Indianapolis throughout World War II

prior to the tragic sinking of the cruiser on July 30, 1945 is deserving of the award of the Presidential Unit Citation. From her participation in the earliest offensive actions in the Pacific in World

War II, to her pivotal role in delivering the weapon that brought

the war to an end, the USS Indianapolis and her crew left an indelible imprint on our nation’s struggle to eventual victory.

Accordingly, this section would express the sense of Congress

that the President should award a Presidential Unit Citation to the

crew of the USS Indianapolis.
359

SUBTITLE G—OTHER MATTERS

Section 561—Revision in Authority to Order Retired Members to

Active Duty

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997

(Public Law 104–201) severely curtailed both the numbers of military retirees that the Secretary of Defense might recall to active

duty, as well as the period of time recalled retirees might serve.

Having considered the current significant manning shortfalls in all

the armed forces, the committee believes that an expansion of the

Secretary’s authority to employ additional recalled retirees is necessary. Therefore, this section would permit the Secretary to recall

up to 150 retired officers to active duty, and permit a recalled officer to serve up to 36 months. The committee believes that judicious

use of this expanded authority could provide each of the military

services with critical manpower resources to help address personnel shortfalls.

Section 562—Temporary Authority for Recall of Retired Aviators

The committee is concerned that recent pilot shortages have

caused vacancies in staff positions requiring aviation expertise. Accordingly, this section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, to

conduct a pilot program to recall to active duty officers with aviation expertise to serve in aviation staff billets. The section would

authorize a maximum of 500 officers throughout the Department of

Defense to be recalled to active duty during the period October 1,

1999 through September 30, 2002. The section would require the

Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the results of the pilot

program to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 31,

2002. The section would require the Secretary of Defense to include

in the report his recommendation concerning extension of the authority.

Section 563—Service Review Agencies Covered by Professional

Staffing Requirement

This section would clarify that the requirement for legal and

medical professional staff specified in section 1555 of title 10,

United States Code, apply to the Navy Council of Personnel Boards

and the Board for Correction of Naval Records as if the staff of

those organizations were combined.

Section 564—Conforming Amendment to Authorize Reserve Officers and Retired Regular Officers to Hold a Civil Office while

Serving on Active Duty for Not More than 270 Days

This section would increase the number of days that reserve

members and retired regular officers may serve on active duty and

continue to hold a civil office from not more than 180 to not more

than 270 days. The section would align the limit on the number of

days that can be served on active duty while continuing to hold a

civil office to the number of days that the President may call a re-
360

serve member to active duty under section 12304 of title 10, United

States Code.

Section 565—Revision to Requirement for Honor Guard Details at

Funerals of Veterans

Section 567 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) required the Secretary of Defense,

in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to convene

a conference to determine means of improving and increasing the

availability of military burial honors for veterans, and to report the

findings and recommendations resulting from the conference to the

Congress. The section also required the secretaries of the military

departments to provide, upon request, honor guard details for the

funerals of the veterans comprised of not less than three persons

with the capability to play a recording of Taps for funerals after

December 31, 1999.

The conferees intended that the requirement to provide a threeperson burial detail upon request of a veteran to be effective only

if the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

did not recommend an acceptable alternative proposal in the required report. This section would implement the alternative plan

submitted by the Secretary of Defense. The section would require

the secretaries of the military departments to provide, upon request, honor guard details for the funerals of veterans. The section

would specify that the honor guard details be comprised of not less

than two persons with the capability to play a recording of Taps.

At least one member of the honor guard detail would be a member

of the same service as the deceased veteran. The Secretary of Defense would be required to establish procedures for coordinating

and responding to requests for honor guard details, establishing

standards and protocol, and providing training and quality control.

The Secretary would also be authorized to provide financial support, material, equipment, and training to support nongovernmental organizations, as necessary to support honor guard activities.

The section would also provide incentives to facilitate the participation of reservists by providing retirement credit, reimbursement

for transportation costs, and a $50 stipend to reservists who volunteer to provide funeral honors.

The Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments would be authorized to waive the requirements of this

section only to meet the demands of contingency operations or

other military requirements, and only after the Congress has been

advised that a waiver has been granted.

The committee believes that the alternative outlined in this section would meet the high standard for providing appropriate honors to those Americans who unselfishly answered the call to arms.

Section 566—Purpose and Funding Limitations for National Guard

Challenge Program

This section would clarify that the National Guard Challenge

Program must consist of a 22-week residential program, and a 12-

month post residential mentoring period. The section would also
361

expand the range of supervised work experience that Challenge

students might experience, in addition to the community service

work experience currently provided. Finally, the section would increase the limit on the annual amount of federal funds that can be

spent on the program from $50.0 million to $62.5 million.

Section 567—Access to Secondary School Students for Military

Recruiting Purposes

The committee strongly believes that military recruiters should

not be disadvantaged, compared to other prospective employers,

with regard to access to secondary school students. Therefore, this

section would emphasize the committee’s position by requesting

that each local educational entity with responsibility for secondary

school education provide military recruiters the same access to students as is provided to other prospective employers.

Section 568—Survey of Members Leaving Military Service on

Attitudes Toward Military Service

Increasingly, the services are experiencing difficulty retaining career officer and enlisted personnel. In testimony before the committee, service personnel cited pay, reduced benefits, increased operations and deployment tempo, and a good economy as reasons

they are leaving the military. The committee is concerned about

the decreasing retention rates and feels it is imperative to get beyond the anecdotes contained in testimony to better understand the

reasons for such trends. Therefore, this section would require the

Secretary of Defense to conduct a one-time survey of military personnel leaving the services between January 1, 2000 and June 30,

2000 to determine military members’ attitudes on a variety of subjects which may be affecting retention. Among the topics to be surveyed are: service members’ attitudes toward civilian and military

leadership, the effect of a constrained fiscal environment on the

force, and military members’ views on overall job satisfaction. The

Secretary of Defense would be required to provide a report of the

survey results to the Congress by October 1, 2000.

Section 569—Improvement in System for Assigning Personnel to

Warfighting Units

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to review the military personnel assignment system under

their jurisdiction and identify those policies which prevent

warfighting units from being fully manned. It also requires the

service secretaries change or modify those policies in order to raise

the priority of warfighting units in the manpower manning system

and report on the changes to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2000.

The committee continues to be concerned about the shortage of

manpower in combat units throughout the force. In almost every

hearing held, service leaders told the committee that one of the

most serious readiness problems facing the military was a lack of

personnel in combat units. The committee heard testimony about

aircraft carriers deploying with over 400 billets vacant. At the
362

Army’s National Training Center, the opposing force commander

testified that undermanned units participating in training rotations

were not able to handle the high intensity scenarios and did not

receive the maximum benefit from the exercise.

The committee is concerned that the service personnel systems

do not make manning combat units a priority. The constant requirement to man billets in the supporting establishment and external agencies often means that combat units are not manned to

the levels necessary for maximum combat effectiveness. The committee understands the importance of the services manning billets

on the Joint Staff, recruit training battalions, drill instructor duty,

White House support duty and other high-visibility, non-combat

units. However, the committee also believes that the manpower

systems should be modified so that combat units receive a higher

priority in allocating critical manpower resources.

Section 570—Requirement for Department of Defense Regulations

to Protect the Confidentiality of Communications Between Dependents and Professionals Providing Therapeutic or Related

Services Regarding Sexual or Domestic Abuse

This section would require the Comptroller General to conduct a

study of the policies regarding confidentiality between military dependents and their psychotherapists. The Secretary of Defense

would be required to prescribe regulations to protect confidentiality

90 days after receiving the Comptroller General’s report.
(363)

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

OVERVIEW

The committee remains deeply concerned about the level of compensation provided to service members and their families. The committee believes that enhanced compensation, to include military retirement, is pivotal to reversing the negative retention trends that

plagued the services as the drawdown of military forces came to an

end. By spring of 1998, retention problems that had alarmed the

committee since 1995 had developed into serious retention shortfalls that commanded the attention of senior military and civilian

leaders in the Department of Defense.

The committee notes that the budget request included a number

of initiatives that respond to the committee’s previous recommendations for improving compensation programs to address

the retention challenges confronting the military. The committee is

pleased to support the following triad of major compensation initiatives that have finally been included in the budget request after

years of delay:

(1) Full Employment Cost Index (ECI) pay raises.

(2) Pay table reform to recognize individual effort and increase retention.

(3) Reform of the military retirement system.

While the committee is generally impressed with the comprehensive compensation package included in the budget request, the

committee is disappointed that the military pay raise was limited

to 4.4 percent. Accordingly, the committee recommends that an additional $156.0 million be allocated to increase the pay raise to 4.8

percent.

The committee is also concerned that future pay raises remain

sufficient to preclude further erosion of military pay when compared to pay raise trends in the private sector. Accordingly, the

committee would require that future pay raises be calculated using

the full ECI.

The committee recognizes that retention of a quality force requires a competitive retirement system. Accordingly, the committee

would enhance military retirement and offer mid-career service

members choices to give them more control over their retirement

plan. The committee would also require the Secretary of Defense

to examine tax deferred savings plan options that could be used to

expand the list of retirement options available to service members

in the future.

The committee recognizes that this bill does not address all military compensation concerns. However, the committee remains committed to improving the compensation programs that are critical to

retaining a quality force. The committee hopes the budget request
364

reflects a new commitment by the Administration to properly support service members and their families that will be reflected in future budget requests.

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Tax Deferred Savings Plans

The committee believes that tax deferred savings plans offer the

military services cost effective opportunities for enhancing retention that should be explored. Accordingly, the committee directs the

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the

military departments, to examine the potential for implementing a

variety of options for tax deferred savings plans as supplements

and alternatives to current military retirement systems. The Secretary should consider options that include government matching

contributions, time-delayed vesting schemes, and plans designed to

increase retention within select segments of the force, to include

those members with more that 20 years of service. For each of the

options being evaluated, the Secretary should consider authorizing

the participation of members of the reserve components. The Secretary shall submit a report with the findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 601—Fiscal Year 2000 Increase in Military Basic Pay and

Reform of Basic Pay Rates

This section would provide a 4.8 percent military pay raise effective January 1, 2000. This is four-tenths of one percent more than

the pay raise called for in the budget request. To provide for this

enhanced pay raise, the committee recommends an increase of

$156.0 million over the amount requested in the President’s request.

This section would also restructure the pay tables to reduce pay

compression between grades, eliminate inconsistencies in the pay

table, and increase incentives for promotion effective July 1, 2000.

This section would also adjust the cap on military pay levels to

level III of the Executive Schedule to bring the standards for maximum pay in line with the standards established for federal civilian

employees.

Section 602—Pay Increases for Fiscal Years after Fiscal Year 2000

This section would require that the rate of military pay increases

for fiscal years after fiscal year 2000 be calculated using the full

Employment Cost Index. The committee believes it is critical that

military members know that they can expect future military pay

increases to keep pace with the rate of pay increases in the private

sector.
365

Section 603—Additional Amount Available for Fiscal Year 2000

Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States

The committee is concerned that military families are not receiving sufficient reimbursement for housing and that many families

are electing to live in less than adequate housing in an effort to

save money. The committee has had a long standing interest in reducing the out-of-pocket cost of housing for service members to correct the problem. The committee was disappointed that the Secretary of Defense abandoned a multi-year strategy to restore outof-pocket housing costs to the Congressionally established standard

of 15 percent after just one year following its introduction in the

fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee continued the program for one additional year until the basic allowance for housing

(BAH) program was reformed in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85). Now that the

new basic allowance for housing system is operational, the committee desires to resume a program to reduce out-of-pocket housing

costs for military families.

The committee also desires to accelerate the schedule set by the

Secretary of Defense for achieving market based BAH rates as required by the BAH reform legislation cited above. The committee

believes that adopting the higher rates immediately will provide

much needed relief to military families in high cost areas.

Accordingly, this section would increase the funding available for

basic allowance for housing by $442.5 million. The committee recommends that $217.5 million be allocated for the purpose of reducing out-of-pocket housing costs for service members, and that

$225.0 million be allocated to accelerate implementation of marketbased BAH rates.

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Section 611—Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay

Authorities for Reserve Forces

This section would extend the authority for the special pay for

health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve in critically short wartime specialties, the selected reserve reenlistment

bonus, the selected reserve enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve assigned to certain high priority units, the selected reserve affiliation bonus, the ready reserve

enlistment and reenlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment bonus until December 31, 2000. The provision would also extend the authority for repayment of educational loans for certain

health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve until

January 1, 2001.

Section 612—Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and

Nurse Anesthetists

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for registered

nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists until

December 31, 2000.
366

Section 613—Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of

Other Bonuses and Special Pays

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer

retention bonus, reenlistment bonus for active members, enlistment

bonus for persons with critical skills, Army enlistment bonus, special pay for nuclear qualified officers extending the period of active

service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus to December 31, 2000.

Section 614—Aviation Career Incentive Pay for Air Battle

Managers

This section would authorize air battle managers to be paid either aviation career incentive pay (ACIP) or hazardous duty pay

under section 301(a)(11) of title 37, United States Code, whichever

is greater.

Section 615—Expansion of Authority to Provide Special Pay to

Aviation Career Officers Extending Period of Active Duty

This section would expand the authority to pay Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) to aviation officers in grades below 0–7

through their twenty-fifth year of service. The section would also

extend the $25,000 maximum annual amount of the bonus to all

contracts, regardless of length.

Section 616—Diving Duty Special Pay

This section would increase the maximum amount of monthly

pay for diving duty from $200 to $240 for officers, and from $300

to $340 for enlisted members. The section would also repeal the restriction limiting recipients of diving duty pay to one additional

hazardous duty pay under section 301 of title 37, United States

Code. Service members performing diving duty would be authorized

to receive two hazardous duty pays under section 301 of title 37,

United State Code.

Section 617—Reenlistment Bonus

This section would reduce the number of months of service required before reaching eligibility to receive a reenlistment bonus

from 21 to 17. The section would also increase the formula for determining the amount of the bonus from 10 to 15 times the rate

of monthly basic pay and the maximum bonus authorized from

$45,000 to $60,000.

Section 618—Enlistment Bonus

This section would increase the maximum enlistment bonus authorized from $12,000 to $20,000 and authorize the payment of the

bonus to be a single lump sum or periodic installments.

Section 619—Revised Eligibility Requirements for Reserve

Component Prior Service Enlistment Bonus

This section would expand the eligibility for the payment of a reserve component prior service enlistment bonus to service members
367

who achieve a level of qualification commensurate with their grade

and years of service following training or retraining in a critically

short specialty skill.

Section 620—Increase in Special Pay and Bonuses for NuclearQualified Officers

This section would increase the maximum amount of annual special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of active

service from $15,000 to $25,000; the maximum amount of the nuclear career accession bonus from $10,000 to $20,000; the maximum amount of the nuclear career annual incentive bonus for officers who received naval nuclear power plant training as officers

from $12,000 to $22,000; and the maximum amount of the nuclear

career annual incentive bonus for officers who received naval nuclear power plant training as enlisted members from $5,500 to

$10,000.

Section 621—Increase in Authorized Monthly Rate of Foreign

Language Proficiency Pay

This section would increase the maximum amount of monthly

foreign language proficiency pay from $100 to $300.

Section 622—Authorization of Retention Bonus for Special Warfare

Officers Extending Period of Active Duty

This section would authorize the annual payment of a maximum

retention bonus of $15,000 to special warfare qualified officers in

the grades of 0–3 or 0–4 (not selected for promotion) for each year

the officer agrees to serve on active duty from the sixth through

the fourteenth year of service.

Section 623—Authorization of Surface Warfare Officer

Continuation Pay

This section would authorize the payment of a maximum retention bonus of $50,000 in prorated annual payments to qualified surface warfare officers who agree to serve on active duty to complete

tours of duty to which the officers may be ordered as department

heads afloat. The section would require that officers must be selected for assignments as department heads on surface ships and

must complete any service commitment incurred through the officer’s original commissioning program before being eligible for the

retention bonus.

Section 624—Authorization of Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay

This section would authorize continuous payment of a maximum

monthly incentive pay of $400 to enlisted members who serve in

skills that require career-long operational flying duties. The section

would require the service members to perform flying duties for 6

of the first 10, 9 of the first 15, and 14 of the first 20 years of aviation service up to a maximum of 25 years of aviation service.
368

Section 625—Authorization of Judge Advocate Continuation Pay

The committee has observed a growing problem in recruiting and

retaining judge advocates in the armed services.

Accordingly, this section would authorize the service secretaries

to pay officers serving as judge advocates a career continuation pay

of up to $60,000 over the course of a career. The service secretaries

would establish the payment schedules and amounts.

The section would also require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries concerned, to study the need for additional incentives to improve the recruitment and retention of

judge advocates. At a minimum, the Secretary would be required

to include in the study assessments of constructive service credit

for basic pay, educational loan repayment, and federal student loan

relief initiatives. The Secretary shall submit a report with the findings and recommendations resulting from this study to the Senate

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services by March 31, 2000.

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 631—Provision of Lodging in Kind for Reservists Performing Training Duty and Not Otherwise Entitled to Travel and

Transportation Allowances

This section would authorize the use of operations and maintenance funds to provide lodging in kind to reservists performing active duty or inactive duty for training when transient government

housing is not available.

Section 632—Payment of Temporary Lodging Expenses for

Members Making their First Permanent Change of Station

This section would authorize the payment of temporary lodging

expenses to enlisted members upon assignment to their first permanent duty station from the member’s home of record or training

installation.

Section 633—Emergency Leave Travel Cost Limitations

This section would expand the authority for members and dependents stationed overseas to return at government expense during family emergencies. In addition to providing transportation to

the closest airport of embarkation, the section would authorize

transportation to any airport in the continental United States to

which travel can be arranged at the same or lower cost as transportation provided to the closest airport of embarkation.

SUBTITLE D—RETIRED PAY REFORM

Sections 641–644—Redux Retired Pay System Applicable Only to

Members Electing New 15-Year Career Status Bonus

The committee is concerned that the retirement plan adopted in

the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–348),

commonly referred to as the Redux plan, is inadequate to attract

mid-career members to remain in the armed services for a 20-year
369

career. The committee believes that a successful strategy to reverse

current unfavorable retention trends must include a modification of

the Redux retirement plan.

Accordingly, this subtitle would authorize members covered by

Redux the option to elect to retire under the pre-1986 military retirement plan with the same cost-of-living adjustment mechanism

used under the Federal Employees Retirement System, or to accept

a one-time $30,000 lump sum bonus and remain under the Redux

retirement plan. Service members who elect to accept the lump

sum bonus would be obligated to serve the remaining five years to

become retirement eligible.

The committee believes that providing members the option to select the cash bonus or the pre-1986 retirement plan is an effective

way to restore the power of the retirement system as an important

positive factor in the decision of service members to remain in the

armed services.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER RETIRED PAY AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS

MATTERS

Section 651—Effective Date of Disability Retirement for Members

Dying in Civilian Medical Facilities

The committee notes that there have been cases where the benefits paid to survivors of members who die on active duty have been

reduced because civilian medical facilities have determined a date

and time of death that is different from that that would have been

determined in a military treatment facility. The committee notes

that military treatment facilities are sensitive to the increased survivor benefits derived when the member dies in retired status and

will prolong life, when possible, to allow the member to be medically retired. This section would authorize service secretaries to

specify a later time of death for disability retirement purposes for

members of the armed services who die in civilian medical facilities. The section would require that the time of death determined

by the service secretary be consistent with the time of death that

would be determined if the member had died in a military facility.

The section would require that the time of death determined by the

service secretary not be later than 48 hours after the time of death

determined by the civilian medical facility.

Section 652—Extension of Annuity Eligibility for Surviving

Spouses of Certain Retirement Eligible Reserve Members

This section would authorize surviving spouses of reserve retirees who died prior to October 1, 1978 to receive the annuity authorized for surviving spouses by section 644 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85).

The section would align the entitlement provided to reserve surviving spouses with the entitlement provided to similarly situated

surviving spouses of active duty members.
370

Section 653—Presentation of United States Flag to Retiring

Members of the Uniformed Services Not Previously Covered

This section would authorize the presentation of a United States

flag upon retirement to uniformed members of the reserve components, the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The section would align the entitlement

concerning the uniformed service members indicated above with

the entitlement authorized for active duty members by section 644

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

(Public Law 105–261).

Section 654—Accrual Funding for Retirement System for Commissioned Corps of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

This section would convert the present pay-as-you-go retirement

system for the NOAA officer corps to an accrual accounting methodology. This would be achieved by integrating the NOAA officer

corps retirement system into the military retirement system and

requiring the Department of Commerce to make annual payments

into the Military Retirement Fund representing the future cost of

retirement for those officers currently serving in NOAA. The committee believes this initiative is a cost effective method to account

for future retirement costs.

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 671—Payments for Unused Accrued Leave as Part of

Reenlistment

This section would authorize enlisted members to receive payment for unused accrued leave when reenlisting, regardless of the

timing of that reenlistment.

Section 672—Clarification of Per Diem Eligibility for Military Technicians Serving on Active Duty Without Pay Outside the United

States

This section would clarify that military technicians serving on active duty without pay while in civilian leave status, as provided by

section 1039 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106), may be paid a per diem allowance

in lieu of commutation for subsistence and quarters.

Section 673—Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program

Section 1060a of title 10, United States Code, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide supplemental food benefits similar to

those provided under the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program to members of the armed forces, their families, and civilian

employees of the armed forces residing at overseas locations. The

committee is disappointed that the Secretary has not elected to implement a supplemental food program at overseas locations.

This section would mandate that the Secretary of Defense implement the program and allocate Department of Defense funds to

carry out the program. The section would require the Secretary of
371

Agriculture to provide technical assistance to the Secretary of Defense.

Section 674—Special Compensation for Severely Disabled

Uniformed Services Retirees

This section would authorize the service secretaries to pay a

monthly allowance to military retirees with service connected disabilities rated at 70 percent or greater. The section would authorize

the payment of $300 a month to retirees with disabilities rated as

100 percent, $200 a month to retirees with disabilities rated as 90

percent, and $100 a month to retirees with disabilities rated as 80

percent or 70 percent.

Section 675—Tuition Assistance for Members Deployed in a

Contingency Operation

This section would authorize members serving in a contingency

operation and participating in an education program to receive full

payment of tuition expenses under the tuition assistance program.
(372)

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE MATTERS

OVERVIEW

For the past two years, the committee has worked aggressively

to put into place a wide range of legislative authorities and demonstration projects designed to stop the erosion of health care benefits available to military beneficiaries. Generally speaking, the committee is pleased with the efforts undertaken by the Department

of Defense to take advantage of these authorities or to implement

directed changes.

The committee, however, is disturbed by the trend on the part

of the Department to ignore Congressional report due dates. As a

result, the committee is limited in its ability to address some of the

Department’s most vexing problems. The committee is particularly

concerned that the Department failed to produce a required report

on the redesign of the Department’s pharmacy program by March

1, 1999. As a result, the Department’s pharmacy program remains

uncoordinated, potential savings are forfeited, portions of the beneficiary population remain underserved, and the Department’s atrisk contractors continue to accrue unexpectedly high, and to date

unreimbursed, pharmacy costs. The Department’s failure to provide

the required report in a timely manner notwithstanding, the committee believes strongly that the status quo approach to the

TRICARE pharmacy benefit can no longer be tolerated. Therefore,

the committee provides specific direction to the Department to

begin improving the pharmacy system.

The committee also recognizes the need for some measure of stability in the dynamic and continually evolving TRICARE program.

In the last two years in particular, the committee has directed the

Department to initiate several important demonstration projects

designed to improve access, control costs, or otherwise improve the

management of the military health care system. These demonstrations continue apace. Other demonstration projects are nearing

their evaluation phase and the committee awaits the prompt arrival of the reports on their performance in meeting the intended

goals.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Automated Clinical Practice Guidelines

The committee understands that the Department of Defense is

currently developing automated clinical practice guidelines which

proactively present information to caregivers, measure guideline

compliance and patient outcomes, and examine cost benefits. This

collaborative initiative has identified diabetes management as its

first focus of activity. Additional guidelines will be automated for

clinical conditions with the potential to significantly reduce the cost
373

of military and civilian health care, and could substantially assist

the Department’s prevention and health promotion programs. The

committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to provide for

the funding of a collaborative automated clinical practice guideline

program.

Defense Health Program Unfunded Requirements

The committee recommends the following increases to provide for

unfunded requirements in the Defense Health Program: Army, $1.0

million for real property maintenance; Navy, $5.0 million for medical equipment and real property maintenance; and Air Force, $4.0

million for private sector care.

Report on Portability of TRICARE Prime Benefits

A common theme among military health services beneficiaries

enrolled in the Prime option of the Department of Defense

TRICARE program is the lack of portability of their TRICARE

Prime benefits when they are temporarily out of their own

TRICARE provider network area and must seek care from a different TRICARE contractor. While the committee appreciates the

need for actuarial stability in the management of the TRICARE

program, it is concerned that the Department has taken little action to remedy this problem. The committee directs the Secretary

of Defense to provide a report by March 31, 2000 to the Senate

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services on plans to improve the portability of the TRICARE Prime

benefit for those enrollees who are only temporarily out of the

TRICARE network in which they are enrolled, but need to exercise

their TRICARE Prime benefits.

Report on Preventive Healthcare Services

The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense’s emphasis on Force Health Protection as a strategy for maintaining the

health of its uniformed service members. These same strategies

might help prevent many of the diseases and injuries experienced

by other military health services beneficiaries and especially military family members. The committee is disappointed that the Department cannot clearly articulate the scope of preventive services

programs available to military health services beneficiaries.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by March 1, 2000, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services

and the House Committee on Armed Services which describes the

scope of preventive health care benefits provided to all eligible

TRICARE beneficiaries. The report should include a comparison of

the Department of Defense preventive health service benefit to the

preventive health service programs recommended by the American

Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. The report should also:

(1) Explain the Department’s progress on implementing the

‘‘Put Prevention into Practice’’ initiative set forth in March

1998 for all military treatment facilities;
374

(2) Describe the programs in place and those planned for instructing the Department’s health care providers on the preventive health services benefits available to TRICARE beneficiaries; and

(3) Describe the mechanisms for recording a beneficiary’s receipt of age-appropriate preventive benefits, including electronic medical records, and any improvements planned for

these records.

Study on the Effect of TRICARE Cost Sharing on the Financial

Status of Enlisted Service Members in Pay Grades E–1 Through

E–4

The committee is concerned that the cost sharing requirements

of the Department of Defense TRICARE program may be creating

or exacerbating financial burdens for some high risk military families. However, the anecdotal evidence the committee has received

to date has not been supported by any serious analysis of this potentially significant problem. Therefore, the committee directs the

Secretary of Defense to provide to the Senate Committee on Armed

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March

31, 2000, the report of a study on the effect of TRICARE cost sharing through annual deductible amounts and co-payments on the financial status of enlisted members of the armed forces in pay

grades E–1 through E–4. At a minimum, the study should address:

(1) Whether it costs more to administer the system of co-pays

for the E–4 and below population than the collected revenues

from these co-pays themselves generate;

(2) The effect on demand for health care services if cost

shares were reduced or eliminated for enlisted personnel and

their families in pay grades E1 to E4;

(3) The extent to which E–4s and below with family members are at greater risk for financial problems as a result of

these cost sharing arrangements than other similarly ranked

enlisted personnel without families;

(4) The extent to which the Department of Defense uses

grade-differentiated payments for other, non-health care services;

(5) The number of E4’s and below on food stamps and whether relief from cost sharing arrangements would reduce that

number; and

(6) Programs the services employ to assist financially at risk

families with paying the cost sharing associated with use of

some TRICARE services.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Section 701—Provision of Health Care to Members on Active Duty

at Certain Remote Locations

This section would expand the provisions of the Department of

Defense TRICARE Remote program by allowing active duty service

members assigned to duties in areas remote from military treatment facilities to receive care from designated providers.
375

Section 702—Provision of Chiropractic Health Care

The chiropractic health care demonstration program being conducted by the Department of Defense at 13 locations is scheduled

to end September 30, 1999. This section would direct the Department to terminate the demonstration phase of the program, complete data collection and analysis, submit the report to the Congress as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85). This section would also accelerate the date the report is required from May 1, 2000 to January 31, 2000. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to

ensure that the Oversight Advisory Committee, established by the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public

Law 103–337), shall be full participants in the collection and analysis of data and preparation of the final report. The committee expects the Department to make provisions for a minority report to

be forwarded as part of its final report if the Oversight Advisory

Committee deems it necessary. Additionally, this section would direct the Department to maintain, as a minimum, the current level

and scope of chiropractic care services at the present locations until

at least September 30, 2000.

This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense to prepare

and submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2000, a plan to

implement chiropractic health services throughout the military

health services system beginning in fiscal year 2001 if this course

of action is recommended in the final report on the Chiropractic

Health Care Demonstration Project. The plan should also address

other chiropractic service options the Secretary may recommend.

The committee expects the Oversight Advisory Committee would be

full participants in the development of the implementation plan.

Section 703—Continuation of Provision of Domiciliary and

Custodial Care for Certain CHAMPUS Beneficiaries

The Department of Defense has conducted a wide range of health

care demonstration programs under the general authority provided

in section 1092 of title 10, United States Code. Since domiciliary

and custodial care services are specifically excluded as covered benefits by section 1076 of title 10, United States Code, the Department has exercised this demonstration authority to experiment

with alternate strategies for providing care to beneficiaries requiring those services. Based on the results of several demonstration

projects, the Department has implemented a case management program which will provide for the medical management of most persons who need custodial or domiciliary care, while not establishing

a de facto benefit currently excluded in law. This section would provide for the equitable treatment and protection of approximately 25

beneficiaries who have been receiving custodial care services

through demonstration programs which are due to expire and who

will not be eligible for that care under the Department’s case management program.
376

Section 704—Removal of Restriction on Use of Funds for Abortions

in Cases of Rape or Incest

Under current law, funds available to the Department of Defense

may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the

mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. This

section would include among the abortions funded by the Department those in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible

rape or incest which has been reported to a law enforcement agency.

SUBTITLE B—TRICARE PROGRAM

Section 711—Improvements to Claims Processing under the

TRICARE Program

The committee received testimony from TRICARE contractors

and the General Accounting Office (GAO) which highlighted significant provider and institutional claims processing problems. While

the Department of Defense’s claims processing contractors are

doing a respectable job with small claims like those for pharmacy

prescriptions, the larger and more costly claims from providers and

institutions take too long to process and often result in questionable payments. This section would seek to correct such problems,

and others, by directing the Secretary of Defense to implement

changes to the TRICARE claims processing system recommended

by GAO. The changes directed by this section would also bring

TRICARE claims processing more in line with commercial best

business practices and the procedures used by Medicare. Additionally, when contracts are re-awarded to other than the existing

managed care support contractor, this section would require additional contract start-up time to ensure a smoother phase in of the

new contract.

Section 712—Authority to Waive Certain TRICARE Deductibles

TRICARE eligible individuals and families are required to pay

certain amounts each year before TRICARE begins sharing the cost

of medical care. This payment, called the TRICARE deductible, is

accumulated on an annual basis without regard to the amount of

time spent on active duty by the sponsor. This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive the TRICARE deductible

requirement for the families of guardsmen and reservists recalled

to active duty for less than one year.

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 721—Pharmacy Benefits Program

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

(Public Law 105–261) directed the Secretary of Defense to submit

a plan by March 1, 1999, to the Congress that would provide for

a system-wide redesign of the Department of Defense military and

contractor retail and mail-order pharmacy system by incorporating

‘‘best business practices’’ from the private sector. The committee expected this report to describe how the Department intended to implement a uniform formulary for military medical treatment facili-
377

ties, TRICARE contractors’ retail pharmacies, and the national

mail-order pharmacy program. Moreover, and despite committee

cautions against it, the Department proposed, as part of its fiscal

year 2000 legislative proposal, extending Defense Acquisition and

Purchasing Agreement prices to pharmaceuticals dispensed by the

TRICARE contractors. In light of the Department’s failure to

produce the requested report on comprehensive pharmacy reform

in a timely manner, the committee cannot agree to the Department’s request. Unfortunately, the report did not arrive in time to

serve any useful purpose to the committee this year. However, the

Department has moved forward with installation of the Pharmacy

Data Transaction Service. The committee is pleased with this action and looks forward to similar action on the other important

parts of pharmacy reform including adoption of a uniform formulary for all elements of the military health system’s pharmacy

benefit. To that end, this section would improve the committee’s

ability to oversee the Department’s pharmacy reform by requiring

the Department to report periodically on its efforts to improve

management of the military pharmacy system.

The committee is also disappointed to note that the Secretary of

Defense did not fully comply with Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261)

which required a plan for redesign of the military pharmacy system. Within this redesign, the Secretary was to include a systemwide drug benefit for certain beneficiaries who were entitled to care

under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, and under Part

A and Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, otherwise

known as Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. However this plan was

not transmitted to the Congress. It was the committee’s intention

that the pharmacy redesign required by Section 721 of this bill is

a necessary precursor to any system-wide pharmacy benefit for the

Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Therefore, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a design of a comprehensive pharmacy benefit for these beneficiaries to the Congress by

April 15, 2001.

Section 722—Improvements to Third-Party Payer Collection

Program

This section would make two changes to the third party collection program under section 1095 of title 10, United States Code,

which allows military treatment facilities to collect from health insurance carriers and other third party payers. First, this section

would allow Department of Defense facilities to bill third party

payers on reasonable charges. These reasonable charges would be

based on current payments rates under the Civilian Health and

Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), which

uses diagnosis related group (DRG) based rates for inpatient care

and CHAMPUS maximum allowable charge (CMAC) rates for professional services. This change would be consistent with similar

changes implemented for the Veterans Health Administration in

1997. The change would also simplify and improve claims processing by permitting the Department to bill for outpatient care on

the same medical procedure basis prevalent in the health insurance

industry.
378

The second change made by this section would expand the definition of ‘‘third party payer’’ to match the definition of ‘‘other insurance’’ in the CHAMPUS double coverage program. This action

would further coordinate military treatment facility third party collection provisions and procedures with those of the CHAMPUS

counterpart.

Section 723—Authority of Armed Forces Medical Examiner to

Conduct Forensic Pathology Investigations

This section would clarify authorities of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner (AFME) to conduct forensic pathology investigations,

including autopsies, in cases of deaths for which the Department

of Defense, or a supported agency, has investigative responsibility.

Sections 4711 and 9711 of title 10, United States Code, provide for

investigations when a person is found dead in a place garrisoned

by Army or Air Force personnel and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. No similar authorities exist for the Navy

or Marine Corps. There also is no express authority for access to

evidence in the case of a military dependent overseas. This section

also ensures access by the AFME to evidence that might not be

available under current law and clarifies the jurisdictional hierarchy in those cases in which primary authority does not rest with

the AFME.

Section 724—Trauma Training Center

Section 742 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) authorized the Department of the

Army to establish a Level 1 Trauma Training Center. The committee is disappointed that the budget request did not include

funds to provide the Army with this much needed trauma training

capability. This section would once again recommend an increase

of $4.0 million in the Defense Health Program to support the Army

Medical Department in establishing a Trauma Training Center up

to Level 1.

Section 725—Study on Joint Operations for the Defense Health

Program

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a

study of areas where the Defense Health Program could improve

its joint operations. This study shall be submitted to the Congress

by October 1, 2000.
(379)

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION

MANAGMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 801—Sale, Exchange, and Waiver Authority for Coal and

Coke

The committee is aware that section 2404 of title 10, United

States Code, provides the Secretary of Defense authority to sell, exchange, or waive provisions of law in the purchase of petroleum

and natural gas when it would be in the public interest to do so.

The committee believes the rationale for such authority equally applies to coal and coke. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 801) that would amend section 2404 of title 10, United

States Code, to include coal and coke.

Section 802—Extension of Authority to Issue Solicitations for Purchases of Commercial Items in Excess of Simplified Acquisition

Threshold

This section would extend by three years the expiring pilot authority to allow the application of simplified acquisition procedures

to commercial items below a $5 million threshold.

Section 803–Expansion of Applicability of Requirement to Make

Certain Procurements From Small Arms Production Industrial

Base

This section would amend section 2473(d) of title 10, United

States Code, by adding the M2 and M60 machine guns to the list

of weapon systems included in the small arms industrial base.

Section 804—Repeal of Termination of Provision of Credit Towards

Subcontracting Goals for Purchases Benefiting Severely Handicapped Persons

This section would make permanent existing authority to credit

purchases from qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or the severely handicapped toward meeting subcontracting goals for defense contractors.

Section 805—Extension of Test Program for Negotiation of

Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans

This section would extend by three years the expiring pilot authority to allow Department of Defense prime contractors to negotiate small and disadvantaged business subcontract plans that establish goals for their participation in subcontracts awarded by the

prime contractor on a company-wide basis.
380

Section 806—Facilitation of National Missile Defense System

This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with the

needed flexibility to proceed with production of a National Missile

Defense (NMD) system prior to the completion of formal operational, test and evaluation requirements. The provision would also

require the Secretary to successfully complete operational, test and

evaluation of this system as soon as practicable following the application of any such exemption.

The committee believes that the rapidly evolving long-range missile threat demands expeditious deployment of a national missile

defense, and that authorizing the Secretary of Defense to allow

NMD production would provide the flexibility to respond to these

emerging threats. The committee expects that any national missile

defense system would undergo sufficient ground and flight testing

prior to a deployment decision to provide the Department of Defense high confidence that the system would perform effectively,

whether or not initial operational test and evaluation had been

completed.

Section 807—Options for Accelerated Acquisition of Precision

Munitions

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report to

the Congressional defense committees existing inventories of precision munitions against the requirements of each of these munitions

for two Major Theater Wars (MTW). For those precision munitions

whose inventories fall short of the two-MTW requirement, the section would also direct the Secretary to create teams of experts to

recommend to him options for accelerating their acquisition. Finally, the section would further require the Secretary to report to

the Congressional defense committees his selected options for acceleration and the Department’s plan to implement these options.

Section 808—Program to Increase Opportunity for Small Business

Innovation in Defense Acquisition Programs

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish

a program to increase the opportunities for small business companies with innovative technology to participate in acquisition programs of the Department of Defense.
(381)

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION AND REFORM

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 901—Limitation on Amount Available for Contracted

Advisory and Assistance Services

The committee is aware the Department of Defense has partially

implemented section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) and made significant efforts to improve the management of both Advisory and Assistance

Services (A&AS) and miscellaneous contract services object classifications. However, the committee notes with concern that the report required by section 911 has not been submitted. The committee is concerned that prior year erroneous reporting of A&AS as

miscellaneous services has resulted in underreporting of A&AS and

has frustrated Congress’ ability to fulfill its oversight responsibilities in this area. The committee notes the dramatic reductions

within the budget request for fiscal year 2000 in miscellaneous contract services at the same time A&AS has increased $1.4 billion

over last year’s request.

While the committee continues to believe the Department’s acquisition structure is too large and costly, the committee maintains

its support for a technically proficient workforce. Specifically, section 912 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1998 (Public Law 105–85) directed the Secretary of Defense to

evaluate the opportunities to improve the capability of the acquisition system in fulfilling the needs of the military services and agencies.

The committee contends many of the functions currently performed by A&AS contracts can and should be performed within the

Department’s acquisition structure. The committee further believes

such an approach would yield similar results with less cost overall

to the government. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 901) that would reduce A&AS funding by $100.0 million

in fiscal year 2000 and withhold an additional 10 percent of A&AS

funding until the Department complies with the previously mentioned reporting requirement.

Section 902–Responsibility for Logistics and Sustainment

Functions of the Department of Defense

The committee is aware that the costs associated with equipment

logistics and sustainment support represents one of the largest and

fastest growing categories of expenditures within the Department

of Defense. During fiscal year 1999, these types of logistics costs

are estimated to exceed $80 billion. The committee believes that
382

several factors, including an aging inventory of weapons systems,

increased operational tempo, and underfunded modernization accounts will continue to demand increased attention to the issues of

logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and sustainment support across the Department.

To provide appropriate emphasis to this important functional

area, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 902) that would

establish and clarify responsibility for logistics and sustainment

functions within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. First, the

provision would rename the current position of Under Secretary of

Defense for Acquisition and Technology to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, reflecting the increased importance of the logistics function. The provision would

also create the new position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

for Logistics and Materiel Readiness to provide this function the organizational stature and visibility that it deserves. The new position would be subject to confirmation by the United States Senate,

a requirement intended to enhance the quality of the individuals

nominated for this job and increase congressional oversight of this

critical area.

The committee believes that, among other duties assigned by the

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics and Material Readiness must address such critical areas as establishing policies regarding life-cycle, sustainment support of weapons systems and

combat support equipment, as well as policies regarding the logistics systems and facilities necessary to provide such support. The

committee strongly believes that competition and public-private

partnerships are important tools for reducing costs and improving

efficiency. As such, the Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics and

Material Readiness would be responsible for policies regarding the

acquisition of services to support the above requirements and to

promote a competitive environment for the provision of

sustainment services, while preserving a cost efficient, core capability within the Department of Defense that ensures the military

readiness of weapons systems, combat support equipment and

other critical materiel. In addition, the Deputy Under Secretary for

Logistics and Material Readiness would fill a vital role in the review and approval of logistics support and sustainment plans for

current and future weapon systems and combat support equipment,

including necessary materiel acquisition and modifications to ensure cost effectiveness while protecting military readiness.

Section 903—Management Headquarters and Headquarters

Support Activities

The committee remains troubled by the lack of compliance of the

Department of Defense with section 911 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) that

mandates annual reductions in management headquarters personnel. The General Accounting Office (GAO), in a February 1999

report, stated that ‘‘DOD does not have a plan to reduce management headquarters and headquarters support personnel DOD-wide

by 25 percent by the end of fiscal year 2002, as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.’’ The com-
383

mittee reiterates its strong support for the statutorily required personnel reductions.

The committee notes that the Department has made progress in

complying with the submission of reports on management headquarters as required in section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201) and section

911 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998

(Public Law 105–85). Furthermore, the committee is aware that

the Department has recognized the current management headquarters personnel directive is inadequate and that proposed revisions to the directive in question have been drafted. The committee

believes the existing directive dramatically understates the actual

size of the Department’s management headquarters. In its February 1999 report on management headquarters, GAO stated ‘‘In

our review of selected subordinate organizations, nearly three of

every four of them were primarily performing management or

headquarters support functions and should have been reported to

Congress by DOD.’’

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 903) that

would require the Department to implement a revised directive, to

be applied uniformly throughout the Department, that accounts for

management headquarters personnel by function rather than organization.

Section 904—Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and

Support Workforce

The committee continues to believe that the Department of Defense must significantly reorganize and streamline its acquisition

structure for the purposes of reducing overhead and improving

interoperability and jointness among the military services. The

committee has pressed the Department for years to produce an implementation plan to achieve the aforementioned objectives but has

been disappointed with the result. While the Defense Science

Board (DSB), in response to section 912 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), produced a report that identified a variety of opportunities for realignment of the defense acquisition system, the Department has committed only to study the DSB’s findings rather than to implement

any of its recommendations. The committee strongly believes the

Department must make broad organizational changes to its acquisition structure, including adoption of a smaller, more flexible

workforce. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec.

904) that would reduce the defense acquisition workforce, as defined in section 931(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261), by a total of 25,000 in

fiscal year 2000.

Section 905—Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs

This section would establish a Center for the Study of Chinese

Military Affairs at the National Defense University. In the committee’s judgment, the establishment of such a center is an essential

element for assessing what will be a central strategic relationship

for the United States in the coming century. China’s sustained eco-
384

nomic growth, expanding security interests, growing military

power, and historical importance would make it a worthy subject

of constant Department of Defense study under any conditions.

However, the increasingly tense relations between the People’s Republic of China and the United States in recent years seems to underscore the requirement for such a center.

Currently, the Department of Defense lacks an organization

whose primary mission is to provide comprehensive analysis and

promote broader understanding of Chinese military affairs and

strategy. The primary mission of the Asia-Pacific Center, by contrast, is to engage with the officer corps of Asian military forces

and to help inculcate American values such as civilian control of

the military. In the committee’s judgment, the Asia-Pacific Center

is not structured to provide the needed perspectives on Chinese

military affairs, has a broader purpose, and is not well sited to provide senior policy-makers with timely analysis. Moreover, few in

the academic or intelligence community combine knowledge of military affairs and strategy with a genuine expertise in Chinese language, history, and culture. The committee intends that the establishment of a Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs

should begin to provide the Department of Defense with a critical

capability not currently available.

Section 906—Responsibility Within Office of the Secretary of

Defense for Monitoring OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to monitor

personnel tempo and operations tempo of the armed services. It

also directs the Secretary work toward a common definition to

measure personnel tempo and operations tempo to the maximum

extent practicable in order to have a more accurate measurement

system.

The committee notes that that to date, there has been no single

standard within the Department of Defense (DOD) used to measure

personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) and operations tempo

(OPTEMPO). Currently, service cultures, mission characteristics,

deployment timelines, and sustainment requirements account for

most of the differences in service definitions and hamper efforts to

establish a universal definition. Difficulties arise in evaluating

PERSTEMPO measurements because each service defines levels of

unit and individual activity differently and they each have a different definition of what constitutes high activity. Deployments are

also defined differently by each service; for example training rotations to the National Training Center do not figure in the Army’s

measurement of deployments yet are clearly an activity that contributes to PERSTEMPO. According to a 1996 Government Accounting Office report titled Military Readiness: A Clear Policy is

Needed to Guide Management of Frequently Deployed Units:

It is difficult for DOD to determine the actual time that either military personnel or their units are deployed. This

information is important to planning and managing contingency operations. Although all services now have systems

to measure PERSTEMPO, each service has different (1)

definitions of what constitutes a deployment, (2) policies or
385

guidance for the length of time units or personnel should

be deployed, and (3) systems for tracking deployments.

The committee believes that a common definition is essential to

present a more accurate evaluation and management of the

PERSTEMPO and OPTEMPO problem.

Section 907—Report on Military Space Issues

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to

the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee by March 1, 2000 a report on U.S. military space

policy.

The committee believes that the future security environment will

be marked by profound technological change that will transform

the conduct of war. This transformation will necessitate a fuller integration of land, air, sea, and space operations. The committee believes that the Department of Defense must be appropriately organized to exploit fully the opportunities offered by this transformation, and directs the Secretary to address in this report current and projected U.S. efforts to fully exploit space in preparation

for possible conflicts in 2010 and beyond.

Section 908—Employment and Compensation of Civilian Faculty

Members of Department of Defense African Center for Strategic

Studies

This section would authorize the Department of Defense to hire

civilian faculty members for the EUCOM African Center for Strategic Studies.

Section 909—Additional Matters for Annual Report on Joint

Warfighting Experimentation

This section would add to the matters to be discussed in the annual report on joint warfighting experimentation established section 435(b) of title 10, United States Code. The committee believes

that it is appropriate to take recommendations gleaned from insights resulting from joint warfighting experimentation into consideration when joint requirements are established.
(386)

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Overview

The committee notes with concern the many challenges confronting the Department of Defense counter-drug program in fiscal

year 2000. With the planned closure of Howard Air Force Base in

Panama as a result of the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty, the United

States will lose a premier airfield for conducting counter-drug aerial detection and monitoring missions. To ensure the Department

of Defense complies with its tasking by the National Drug Control

Strategy to provide detection and monitoring support to U.S. law

enforcement, U.S. Southern Command has spearheaded an initiative to base reconnaissance and support aircraft at four locations

throughout the source and transit zones, notably Ecuador, Curacao,

Aruba, and eventually Costa Rica. The implementation of the

Canal Treaty has additionally necessitated the realignment of the

Joint Interagency Task Force—South, previously located in Panama, to Key West, Florida where it has merged with the Joint

Interagency Task Force—East. Notwithstanding these challenges,

the committee is hopeful that the near-term initial operating capability of the Relocatable Over-The-Horizon Radar based in Puerto

Rico will greatly enhance the effectiveness of the interagency effort

to curtail the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States.

The committee remains deeply concerned that the eastern Pacific

Ocean continues to be an under-resourced transit area for detection

and monitoring assets despite its increased usage by drug traffickers. To address this problem, last year the committee recommended the restoration of a promising program known as Caper

Focus intended to disrupt the eastern Pacific drug flow. While

$10.5 million was authorized and $6.0 million appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for Caper Focus, implementation has unfortunately

been slow and no maritime patrol aircraft have been dedicated to

the program in fiscal year 1999 as required in section 1023(b) of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261). The committee finds this lack of progress unacceptable and directs the Department to execute this program as expeditiously and effectively as possible.

The Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 2000

contained $788.1 million for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $166.5 million for operational tempo which

is included within the operating budgets of the military services.

This represents a net increase of $60.5 million from the fiscal year

1999 budget request of $727.6 million, and an increase of $11.2
387

million for operational tempo from the fiscal year 1999 request of

$155.3 million. The committee understands that the increase is attributed to realignment activities required by implementation of

the Panama Canal Treaty and specifically the establishment of forward operating locations.

The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 2000

Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:

[In thousands of dollars]

FY99 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request ........................................ 788,100

Educate America’s Youth ......................................................................... 16,800

Increase Safety of Citizens ...................................................................... 82,900

Reduce Health & Social Costs ................................................................. 72,200

Shield America’s Frontiers ...................................................................... 327,400

Break Drug Sources of Supply ................................................................ 288,800

Recommended Decreases:

Tethered Aerostat Radar System (Project #4110) .................................. 8,800

Air National Guard Fighter Operations (Project #7404) ....................... 4,000

Costa Rica FOL (Project #9500) ..................................................................... 6,700

Recommended Increases:

Operation Caper Focus ............................................................................ 6,000

Wide Aperture Radar Facility ................................................................. 17,500

Southwest Border Fence .......................................................................... 6,000

Joint Interagency Task Force-West ........................................................ 1,000

Other Joint Military Intelligence Programs ........................................... 8,000

P–3 Forward Looking Infrared Radars ................................................... 2,700

Observation Aircraft ................................................................................. 8,000

Ground Based Radar in Tres Esquinas, Colombia ................................ 10,000

Mothership Operations ............................................................................ 5,000

C–130 Sensor Packages ........................................................................... 15,000

Program Transfers:

Forward Operating Locations (Military Construction) .......................... 36,100

Recommendation ...................................................................................... 811,700

Items of Special Interest

Air National Guard fighter operations

The committee is concerned with the usage of Air National

Guard F–16s in support of the counter-drug mission. While the

committee recognizes the value of forward deployed alert interceptors for quick reaction and early identification of suspected drug

trafficking aircraft, the committee does not believe premier tactical

fighter aircraft are appropriate for such missions. Rather, the committee supports the transfer of the intercept mission to the United

States Customs Service which operates aircraft more optimally

suited to the mission. The committee notes the high operational

tempo throughout the fighter community in part due to ongoing

world-wide contingencies. Therefore, the committee recommends a

decrease of $4.0 million in this program.

Colombian detection and monitoring

The committee recognizes the value of increased airborne surveillance over Colombia, the world’s leading producer of cocaine, in the

overall effort to reduce the flow of narcotics into the United States.

Through enhanced monitoring of coca fields and production sites in

Colombia, timely and actionable intelligence can be relayed to Colombian government forces for seizure and eradication purposes.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million

for the operation of leased observation aircraft to be based and operated in Colombia. Additionally, the committee notes the need to
388

improve aerial surveillance in the vicinity of Tres Esquinas, Colombia, a major coca cultivation area. The committee supports the establishment of a ground based radar in Tres Esquinas to assist in

Colombia’s interdiction program and recommends an increase of

$10.0 million for this purpose.

Joint interagency task force-West

The committee is aware that the Joint Interagency Task ForceWest (JIATF-West) retains an insufficient intelligence capability focused on narcotics and money laundering in Southwest Asia, notably Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Southeast Asia, specifically

Burma and China. In addition, the committee recognizes that

JIATF-West is significantly under-resourced to provide adequate

tactical and strategic intelligence with regard to its increased responsibility for counter-drug and interdiction activities in the Eastern Pacific and Mexico. Therefore, the committee recommends an

additional $1.0 million to support these intelligence shortfalls.

Other joint military intelligence programs

The committee is aware that the effectiveness of operation Caper

Focus has been degraded by the shortage of maritime patrol aircraft in the eastern Pacific transit zone. The committee understands that a fully operational Wide Aperture Radar Facility could

provide the same radar capability against low altitude light aircraft

as approximately five P–3B’s with radar domes. The committee

notes the many pressing world-wide demands placed upon DOD

aircraft and flight crews and strongly believes that any defense resources used in the counter-drug effort should be used to their fullest potential. However, the committee is aware that many of the

Department’s detection and monitoring flights yield little, if any,

actionable information on narcotics production and transportation.

The committee contends DOD assets can and should be more optimally utilized in the war on drugs and believes enhanced signals

intelligence and collections programs could improve the overall effectiveness of the DOD counter-drug effort. The budget request contained $12.9 million for four valuable signals intelligence, collections, and translation support programs designed to assist in the

disruption of drug flow within source and transit zones. The committee believes these programs are funded below the levels necessary to achieve their stated objectives. Therefore, the committee

recommends an increase of $8.0 million for programs within the

Joint Military Intelligence Program. A discussion of these programs

is located in the classified annex accompanying this report.

Requirement for report on forward operating locations

The committee remains concerned about the effectiveness of

counter-drug detection and monitoring activities in the source and

transit zones in light of the cessation of U.S. military operations in

Panama. Accordingly, the committee directs the Department of Defense to submit to Congress, no later than July 1, 2000, a report

detailing the status of negotiations regarding the formal agreements on each of the proposed Forward Operating Locations (FOL)

and the infrastructure and operational requirements of each FOL.

The report shall also include an analysis of the feasibility and ef-
389

fectiveness of resuming, after fiscal year 2000, the counter-narcotics mission from bases in Panama, should the government of

Panama consent to renewed U.S. military presence in its country.

Southwest border fence

The committee remains concerned with the continued smuggling

of narcotics across the Southwest border in the San Diego County,

California region. Recognizing the continuing presence and operations of a major drug cartel located in proximity to the border, the

committee believes that existing fence and road-building operations

must continue. The committee notes the success of the previous

fence projects in preventing much of the unimpeded, vehicular

drug-smuggling that prevailed in the region as recently as five

years ago. Therefore, the committee recommends $6.0 million for

the continuation of the construction of a 14 mile, multiple-barrier

fence and primary border fence in addition to patrol roads immediately adjacent to the Southwest border in the vicinity of San

Diego County, California.

Tethered aerostat radar system

The committee has long been aware of the operational difficulties

involved with the aerostat program. Specifically, the committee understands that minimal counter-drug detection and monitoring capability is provided by the aerostat program along the Southwest

border. The committee is aware that the budget request for the

aerostat program contains an increase of $8.8 million over the previous year for purposes of upgrading existing aerostats as well as

purchasing spares. The committee believes such decisions should

be postponed pending the review by the Secretary of Defense of the

Wide Aperture Radar Facility capability that would be required by

April 15, 2000 pursuant to section 1021 of this bill. Therefore, the

committee recommends a decrease of $8.8 million in the aerostat

program.

Transfer of military construction funding for forward operating locations

The committee notes the budget request for Department of Defense counter-drug activities contained $36.1 million for military

construction for forward operating locations at Manta, Ecuador and

Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. Consistent with the established

statutory framework for military construction, the committee recommends the transfer of $36.1 million from the Central Transfer

Account to Military Construction, Defense-Wide.

Transit zone detection and monitoring

The committee is concerned with the continued exploitation of

the Caribbean Sea corridor by narcotics traffickers. The committee

is aware that 32 percent of the cocaine destined for the United

States in 1998 was shipped through the Caribbean, of which 85

percent moved by maritime means. The committee supports a

strong maritime detection and monitoring program in the Caribbean and recommends $15.0 million to operate and configure two

C–130 aircraft for ocean surveillance purposes. Additionally, the

committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for so-called
390

Mothership Operations and $2.7 million for upgrading the forward

looking infrared radar capability of three Navy P–3 aircraft.

OTHER MATTERS

Counterterrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass

Destruction

The committee continues to recognize that the threat of terrorist

activity within the United States, including the use of weapons of

mass destruction (WMD), is a potentially serious one and continues

to support efforts to enhance domestic preparedness against this

threat. Numerous federal agencies have a role to play in combating

this threat, including the Department of Defense (DOD).

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2000 budget request for

counterterrorism activities across the federal government exceeds

the fiscal year 1999 levels by 14 percent, excluding additional

amounts provided in the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations

bill. Likewise, the requested amount for combating WMD terrorism

reflects a 13 percent increase, excluding supplemental funding,

above the fiscal year 1999 appropriated base levels. For the national security community, including the Department, the budget

request reflects a 7 percent increase for counterterrorism activities

and a 40 percent increase in WMD counterterrorism efforts over

the fiscal year 1999 base amounts. This increase is intended largely

for domestic preparedness capabilities such as training and equipment for state and local ‘‘first responders,’’ and research and development efforts that have potential applications to civilian domestic

preparedness. The committee addresses the research and development portion of the request elsewhere in this report.

The committee recalls that Presidential Decision Directive 62

stresses the need for greater coordination of federal efforts to deal

with the consequences of WMD terrorism. To this end, the Congress mandated the creation of a National Coordinator for Security,

Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism to oversee this effort as part of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction

Act of 1996 (title XIV of Public Law 104–201). Unfortunately, despite the federal government’s attempts to consolidate and better

coordinate counterterrorism efforts among the various federal,

state, and local agencies involved in this mission, substantial confusion remains over the appropriate agency roles. As a November

1998 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded, the

individual efforts among federal agencies to coordinate an effective

approach to consequence management ‘‘are not guided by an overarching strategy.’’ The result has been an apparent piecemeal, uncoordinated approach to this issue.

Congress has taken several actions to improve the coordination

and integration of the domestic preparedness program. As part of

‘‘The Domestic Emergency Preparedness Act of 1998’’ of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law

105–261), the Congress required the President to increase the effectiveness of domestic emergency response preparedness programs at

the federal, state, and local levels and to report to the Congress on

the actions taken to develop an integrated program to respond to

terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. Section
391

1051 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1998 (Public Law 105–85), as amended by section 1403 of Public

Law 105–261, required the President to provide a report on government expenditures to combat terrorism and terrorist incidents involving WMD. In addition, the committee notes that the statement

of managers accompanying the conference report on the fiscal year

1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill (H. Rept. 105–405) required the

Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the

Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of

the FBI, and the Director of Central Intelligence to develop and

submit to the Congress a Five-Year Interagency Counterterrorism

and Technology Crime Plan, which would be updated annually and

serve as a baseline strategy for coordination of national policy and

operational capabilities to combat terrorism in the United States

and against American interests overseas. These reports have provided the Congress with greater insight into the government’s overall plan for combating terrorism and appear to reflect a good-faith

effort to address the lack of an overarching strategy identified by

GAO.

In its support role to other federal agencies, the Department of

Defense has provided expertise, equipment, and training to first responders in communities nationwide, and has assumed the role of

lead federal agency with respect to this program since its inception

as part of its responsibilities under Public Law 104–201. The committee notes the Department’s intention to transfer this program to

the Department of Justice by October 1, 2000, which will at that

time assume lead federal agency funding and program responsibilities.

Although the committee has encouraged the Department of Defense to accelerate its efforts to build a comprehensive and coordinated plan for integrating its program into the overall federal

counterterrorism effort, progress has been slow. The Department is

examining ways to improve its support to civil authorities in response to a WMD-related terrorist incident. One option being considered is standing up a Joint Task Force to plan, fund, and coordinate DOD support for consequence management activities. However, a number of issues related to implementation of such an option remain to be decided within the Department. Moreover, the

committee notes that the Department’s budget includes funding to

support five National Guard Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams, in addition to the 10 RAID teams already previously authorized. Consistent with section 511 of Public Law 105–

261, the committee would expect to receive a separate legislative

request from the Department to increase the statutory limit on the

number of National Guard full-time personnel in support of the

RAID teams. Finally, the committee notes that although the Congress mandated that the report required by section 1402 of Public

Law 105–261 be a Presidential report, authority for its preparation

was delegated to the Department by the National Coordinator for

Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism. This suggests additional confusion over the role of the National Coordinator

and the overall federal government coordination effort.

The committee believes that the Department should continue to

play a critical support role in the overall counterterrorism effort,
392

but remains troubled by the difficulties in coordination and implementation noted above. The committee encourages the Secretary of

Defense to make greater efforts to ensure that the Department’s

support to this effort is thoroughly coordinated and effective.

Department of Defense Responsiveness to Congressional Questions

for the Record

The committee is concerned over the Department of Defense’s inadequate responsiveness to questions for the record submitted as

a result of hearings. The committee finds the Department’s current

level of compliance with the request to provide timely and complete

answers to be unacceptable and a serious impediment to the committee’s commitment to produce timely, complete, and accurate

records of these proceedings for public and official use. The committee also notes that attempts to address this matter with the Department have not led to any perceptible improvement. In fact, this

problem has persisted for several years without regard to the committee’s continued interest in resolving it.

The committee reminds the Department that a continued lack of

confidence in the ability of the committee to secure requested information that may be not immediately available to a Department

witnesses could lead to a need to resort to a more formal process

for securing information from the Department. The committee

urges the Secretary of Defense to closely examine how the Department currently tracks and manages the committee’s questions for

the record with the intent of making the necessary changes to ensure more timely and complete compliance. The committee stands

ready to work with the Secretary to arrive at a mutually acceptable

process that ensures that the information requested is provided in

a manner that addresses the committee’s needs without unduly increasing the Department’s administrative burden.

Illegal Immigration to Guam

The committee is aware that Guam faces an increasing influx of

illegal immigrants from the People’s Republic of China. While 600

illegal aliens were apprehended in Guam last year, this year, in the

past four months alone, over 700 have been apprehended and detained. Through May 1999, sixteen ships have made their way to

Guam carrying an average of 50 to 100 illegal immigrant passengers each. The United States Coast Guard, with the assistance

of the United States Navy, has interdicted less than half of these

ships. The Coast Guard has led this effort despite having a single

C–130 aircraft and two boats. The committee notes that the Navy

has managed to provide assistance to this mission despite the diversion of military assets to the Balkans. The committee commends

both of these services for their response to this difficult problem

and supports and encourages continued cooperation in this effort.

Pentagon Reservation Renovation Security Upgrades

The Department of Defense has brought to the attention of the

committee the need for improved physical security at the Pentagon

Reservation. Given recent world events as well as the physical dimensions, geographic location and size of the workforce of the Pen-
393

tagon, increasing the level of security poses significant challenges.

The committee believes that in addition to ongoing initiatives being

undertaken to increase security in and around the Pentagon, two

additional initiatives identified by the Department should be incorporated into ongoing renovation efforts. Accordingly, the committee

supports the construction of more secure secretarial office and support facilities and security related changes to the Pentagon Reservation subway entrance. The committee recommends that these

new security upgrades be incorporated in the Pentagon Renovation

and Maintenance Program and understands that the Department

plans to pay for these two initiatives from within existing Pentagon

renovation funds. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense

to submit to the congressional defense committees revised cost adjustments for the planning, design, construction and installation of

equipment for the Pentagon by January 1, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—Transfer Authority

This section would permit the transfer of amounts of authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any fiscal year to

any other authorization made available in Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such a transfer would

be in the national interest. The provision would provide the authorization for reprogramming involving the transfer of authorization

between amounts authorized as set out in bill language.

The authority to transfer could only be used to provide authorization for higher priority items than the items from which authorization was transferred and could not be used to provide authorization

for an item that was denied authorization by the Congress. The

Secretary of Defense would be required to notify the Congress

promptly of transfers. The total amount of transfers would be limited to $2.0 billion. Historically, the transfer authority authorized

has changed as follows:

[By fiscal years; in billions of dollars]

1985–88 ................................................................................................................... $2.00

1989–91 ................................................................................................................... 3.00

1992 ......................................................................................................................... 2.25

1993 ......................................................................................................................... 1.50

1994–99 ................................................................................................................... 2.00

Section 1002—Incorporation of Classified Annex

This section would incorporate the classified annex prepared by

the Committee on Armed Services into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

Section 1003—Authorization of Prior Emergency Military

Personnel Appropriations

This section would extend authorization to prior emergency military pay and benefits appropriations provided in section 2012 of

the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations act.
394

Section 1004—Repeal of Requirement for Two-Year Budget Cycle

for the Department of Defense

This section would repeal the requirement for the Department of

Defense to submit a detailed two-year budget in the first session

of each Congress.

Section 1005—Consolidation of Various Department of the Navy

Trust and Gift Funds

This section would amend certain sections of title 10, United

States Code, to allow consolidation of five Department of the Navy

gift and trust funds into two funds, in order to manage the funds

more efficiently and reduce administrative costs.

Section 1006—Budgeting for Operations in Yugoslavia

The committee has long been concerned with the significant

drain that the conduct of under or unbudgeted contingency operations has had and continues to have on the Department of Defense’s resources and budgets. Beginning with Somalia and continuing to present day operations in the Former Yugoslavia, the

Administration continues to deploy military forces at an unprecedented rate, while often failing to properly budget for such operations in advance. This unfortunate practice has exacerbated already serious quality of life, readiness, and modernization shortfalls in the President’s defense budgets and has also led to the diversion of a significant percentage of additional funds the Congress

has authorized and appropriated for critical defense shortfalls over

the past four years to pay for unbudgeted contingency and peacekeeping operations.

The committee and the Congress have repeatedly attempted to

address this problem over the past several years and have adopted

a number of provisions designed to induce the Administration to

more properly manage the costs and budgeting of unplanned or

unbudgeted contingency operations. In 1995, the House-passed

version of H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1996, contained a number of provisions restricting the

ability of the Department of Defense to use funds authorized for

the Department’s baseline operations to pay for contingency operations, requiring instead that the President seek supplemental appropriations to pay for such operations. In 1997, the Congress approved and the President enacted in two different bills, section

1203 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1998 (Public Law 105–85) and section 8132 of the Department of

Defense Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–56),

provisions restricting the use of the Department’s baseline operations funds to pay for the costs of the then-anticipated commitment of U.S ground forces for peacekeeping operations in BosniaHerzegovina. Both provisions required the President to submit a

supplemental appropriations request to pay for any unbudgeted

costs of Bosnia peacekeeping operations. In 1998, the Congress

once again included and the President enacted a provision in the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (section

1004 of Public Law 105–261) that was likewise intended to protect

the baseline operations budget of the Department from being used
395

to pay for any unbudgeted costs of contingency and peacekeeping

operations. This provision recognized that the budget request for

the coming fiscal year (fiscal year 1999) contained funds necessary

to conduct such operations, but restricted the Department’s ability

to exceed the requested amount and required the submission of a

supplemental appropriations request if the costs of the operation

were determined to exceed the authorized amount.

At present, the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are entering the third month of hostilities against the

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The committee notes that the Administration’s declared policy is quite likely to result in continued

military operations—either combat or peacekeeping—in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia next fiscal year. However, the committee further notes that the budget request contains no funds for

either combat or peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic

of Yugoslavia next fiscal year.

Consistent with the committee’s longstanding efforts to protect

the Department’s baseline operations budget from being used to

pay for unbudgeted operations, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1006) that would prohibit the use of the funds authorized

for appropriation by this bill for the conduct of combat or peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during

fiscal year 2000. In the event that military operations are conducted in Yugoslavia next fiscal year, the provision would require

that the President submit to the Congress a supplemental appropriations request to pay for the costs of any such operations. The

committee notes, consistent with current and past direction on how

the Administration should budget and account for the costs of contingency operations, that the provision’s limitation applies only to

incremental costs and not to costs for which the Department would

otherwise already be obligated or programmed to pay.

The committee recommends this provision as a matter of fiscal

management and is not rendering judgment on the merit of the Administration’s current Yugoslavia policy or on the merit of any potential combat or peacekeeping operation in Yugoslavia in the future. With this provision the committee intends only to ensure that

the funds authorized by this bill are applied against the Department’s baseline operations as provided in the President’s budget request and as subsequently authorized by the committee. The committee believes that the spending authorized in this bill to address

serious quality of life, readiness, and modernization shortfalls that

continue to plague the U.S. military must be spent for the intended

purposes and not diverted to pay for the costs of unbudgeted operations. Consistent with a number of previous initiatives, the committee believes that the incremental costs associated with military

operations in Yugoslavia during fiscal year 2000 should be paid for

with funds that are in addition to those authorized by this bill.

The committee notes that senior Administration officials have, on

numerous occasions, indicated an intent to submit an amendment

to the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request to pay for the

costs of any future military operations in Yugoslavia. In the event

that combat or peacekeeping operations are likely to occur next fiscal year, the committee urges the President to submit a budget

amendment in time for the Congressional defense committees to
396

address any policy and budgetary issues as part of their deliberations on the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization and appropriations bills.

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Section 1011—Revision to Congressional Notice-and-Wait Period

Required Before Transfer of a Vessel Stricken from Naval Vessel

Register

This section would modify the requirement that sixty days of continuous session of Congress transpire before transfer of a naval

vessel to thirty days.

Section 1012—Authority to Consent to Retransfer of Former Naval

Vessel

This section would permit the President to consent to the retransfer of a former U.S. naval vessel from the government of

Greece to the USS LST Memorial, Inc., a not-for-profit organization, for use as a memorial.

Section 1013—Report on Naval Vessel Force Structure

Requirements

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report on the naval vessel force structure required to carry out the

National Military Strategy and the force structure that is provided

for in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2001.

Section 1014—Auxiliary Vessels Acquisition Program for the

Department of Defense

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to contract for the long-term lease or charter of newly constructed surface

vessels. Such leases or charters would apply to the Navy’s combat

logistics force and strategic sealift programs, as well as other auxiliary support vessels of the Department of Defense.

Section 1015—Authority to Provide Advance Payments for the

National Defense Features Program

This section would amend section 2218 of title 10, United States

Code, to permit advance payments for the modification and lifecycle maintenance costs of National Defense Features (NDF) program vessels. This change would make the financing practices of

the NDF consistent with those of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program.

SUBTITLE C—MATTERS RELATING TO COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES

Section 1021—Support for Detection and Monitoring Activities in

the Eastern Pacific Ocean

The committee remains deeply concerned with the lack of detection and monitoring assets in the eastern Pacific Ocean despite the

large volume of cocaine that moves through the area. The committee notes the continuing lack of adequate maritime patrol aircraft to implement operation Caper Focus in fiscal year 1999 as re-
397

quired. The committee continues to support an aggressive program

to disrupt narcotics trafficking in the eastern Pacific area and

therefore recommends a provision (sec. 1021) that would provide

$6.0 million to continue this valuable program.

The committee understands that an additional Over-The-Horizon

Radar (OTHR) located in the United States could provide adequate

coverage of the eastern Pacific transit area. The committee is

aware that a test bed OTHR facility known as the Wide Aperture

Radar Facility (WARF) exists in southern California that could be

operationalized for use in detecting and tracking both air and maritime targets in the eastern Pacific and Mexico. The committee believes this capability will greatly enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies of both the United States and Mexico to interdict

and disrupt shipments of narcotics destined for the United States.

The committee is aware that the effectiveness of operation Caper

Focus has been degraded by the shortage of maritime patrol aircraft in the eastern Pacific transit zone. The committee understands that a fully operational Wide Aperture Radar Facility could

provide the same radar capability against low altitude light aircraft

as approximately five P–3B’s with radar domes. Moreover, an operational WARF is approximately five times more cost-effective than

maritime patrol aircraft.

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1021) that would provide $17.5 million to modify WARF from research to

operational status and perform all-weather, 24-hour-a-day coverage

of light aircraft movements in the eastern Pacific, Mexico, and

along the Southwest border. In addition, the provision would direct

WARF to conduct testing to validate its capability against ‘‘go fast’’

boats and other maritime craft. The provision would also require

the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the effectiveness

of the WARF in these areas by April 15, 2000. Finally, the provision would direct the Department of the Air Force to make available the use of two currently mothballed Over-The-HorizonBackscatter (OTH–B) Continental 100 KW transmitters and available spare parts for use at the WARF facility. The committee notes

that two such transmitters were located at the southern California

facility from 1986–1988 for purposes of cruise missile tests and

that significant structural modifications were made to the facility

at that time.

Section 1022—Condition on Development of Forward Operating Locations for United States Southern Command Counter-Drug Detection and Monitoring Flights

The committee remains concerned by the loss of Howard Air

Force Base in Panama as a premier staging area for the conduct

of counter-drug detection and monitoring flights. While the committee generally supports the U.S. Southern Command’s forward

operating location (FOL) concept to forward base aircraft in the region, the committee is concerned that the budget request does not

accurately represent the costs associated with the establishment of

the four proposed FOLs. Specifically, the committee is aware that

the U.S. Southern Command and the Department of the Air Force

have undertaken a series of site surveys but have not reached a

consensus as to the total costs to improve the capabilities of the
398

airfield facilities in Ecuador, Curacao, or Aruba to necessary specifications. In addition, the committee is aware that FOL discussions

with the government of Costa Rica were significantly delayed pending the signing of a bilateral maritime counter-drug agreement

with the United States. Accordingly, it appears highly unlikely that

the budget request for $6.7 million for infrastructure improvements

to the airfield at Liberia, Costa Rica can be executed in fiscal year

2000. Therefore, the committee recommends redirecting the funding in question to higher priority counter-drug programs and has

included a provision (sec. 10X) that would prohibit the expenditure

of funds for the purpose of improving physical infrastructure at any

forward operating location until a formal agreement is signed by

both the host nation and the United States.

The committee strongly believes the forward operating location

concept should remain expeditionary in nature and involve minimal infrastructure improvements except as necessary to ensure

mission requirements, adequate quality of life and force protection

for U.S. military personnel. Therefore, to the extent practicable, the

Department of Defense should endeavor to maximize the local host

nation facilities in the way of housing, food service, medical care,

and aircraft service support. Implementation of an effective National Drug Control Strategy requires the full cooperation of all involved U.S. agencies and the committee expects that the United

States Customs Service can and should play a larger role in the

source zone detection and monitoring mission as it expands its fleet

of P–3 reconnaissance aircraft.

Section 1023—United States Military Activities in Colombia

The committee is aware of the growing presence of U.S. military

personnel in Colombia as part of a coordinated bilateral counterdrug program. The Secretary of Defense recently committed the

Department of Defense to train and partially equip an unusually

large Colombian army battalion of up to 950 soldiers with the stated intention of conducting counter-drug operations. The committee

understands that the number of U.S. military personnel associated

with training Colombian counter-drug forces is projected to increase. While the committee supports more direct involvement by

the Colombian government in the war on drugs, the committee is

concerned with the expanding role of the U.S. military in domestic

Colombian affairs. The committee notes that Colombia has become

a major recipient of military hardware assistance and training ostensibly for counter-drug purposes at the same time the government of Colombia is engaged in a protracted war against a widescale guerrilla insurgency. The committee is concerned that

counter-drug training and assistance provided by the Department

of Defense to Colombian forces may be redirected or used for noncounter-drug activities.

The committee supports continued U.S. cooperation with the government of Colombia to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the

United States but remains concerned over the prospect of U.S. military personnel being drawn into Colombia’s civil war. Therefore,

the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1023) that would require the Department of Defense to provide an annual report to the

Congress detailing the number of U.S. military personnel deployed
399

or otherwise assigned to duty in Colombia at any time during the

preceding year, the length and purpose of the deployment or assignment, and the costs and force protection risks associated with

such deployments and assignments.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1031—Identification in Budget Materials of Amounts for

Declassification Activities and Limitation on Expenditures For

Such Activities

This section would require that any future budget request submitted to the Congress by the Department of Defense (DOD) specifically identify as a budgetary line item funds being requested

that would be used to declassify records to carry out Executive

Order 12958, or to comply with any subsequent statutory declassification requirements. This section would also limit the expenditure of funds by the Department of Defense for declassification of

records during fiscal year 2000 to no more than $20 million.

Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton on April 17,

1995, requires the automatic declassification of documents after 25

years, subject to narrow exceptions such as the inclusion of nuclear

weapon design information. The documents must be reviewed before they are declassified to determine if any of the exceptions

apply. Presently, the Department of Defense holds millions of pages

of classified documents that will need to be reviewed for declassification.

The Department of Defense recently reported to the committee

that DOD declassification activities related to Executive Order

12958 are costing the Department approximately $200 million per

year, and will continue at this rate through fiscal year 2002. The

Department projects that at this rate of expenditures, the backlog

of classified documents over 25 years old will be eliminated some

time during fiscal year 2003, and after that, the declassification effort will continue to cost $100 million per year as more documents

reach the 25 year point.

The committee is concerned over the significant drain on operation and maintenance resources resulting from the planned annual expenditure of $200 million due to this accelerated declassification process. The operation and maintenance accounts and

key readiness accounts in particular have been dramatically underfunded for years, a serious problem that it exacerbated by

unbudgeted contingency operations. The committee believes that

record declassification is a significantly lower priority for already

scarce O&M funds and believes these funds should be spent addressing shortfalls in higher priority areas such as maintenance,

training, spare parts, and other key readiness activities. The committee understands that the services have not been explicitly budgeting for this declassification effort, and vital readiness requirements have therefore had to compete with records declassification

for funding.

Consequently, this section would also limit the amount of funds

available for the Department’s fiscal year 2000 records declassification effort to $20 million. The committee has redirected the resulting $180 million savings to a number of critical readiness related
400

accounts identified as suffering from unfunded requirements by the

military service chiefs.

Section 1032—Notice to Congressional Committees of Compromise

of Classified Information within Defense Programs of the United

States

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to notify the

Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the Armed Services

Committee of the House of Representatives whenever the Secretary

receives information that indicates that classified information relating to U.S. defense operations, systems, or technologies has been

disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a foreign power or an

agent of a foreign power.

This section extends to the Department of Defense the same congressional notification requirement that section 31xx mandates for

the Department of Energy. Since the Armed Services Committees

of the Senate and the House of Representatives are the congressional committees responsible for the authorization and oversight

of the defense programs and operations of the Department of Defense, its associated agencies, and the military services, it is necessary that these committees be kept informed of any compromise

of classified information to foreign powers through espionage, or

willful or accidental release by U.S. citizens. This information is essential so that these oversight committees can determine if the

source of the unauthorized disclosure has been identified and

closed, if a damage assessment has been conducted, and if remedial

action is necessary and is being carried out. If such a disclosure of

classified information caused significant damage to a U.S. defense

program or operation, it would be vital for these authorizing committees be made aware of the damage, so that program redirection

or remedial actions could be authorized in a timely manner.

Section 1033—Revision to Limitation on Retirement or

Dismantlement of Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems

The committee understands that the Department of Defense

seeks relief from existing statutory limitations on the retirement of

strategic nuclear delivery systems in order to have greater flexibility in structuring U.S. nuclear forces and to allow for the retirement of up to four Trident ballistic missile submarines. Even

though Russia has not yet ratified the Strategic Arms Reduction

Treaty II (START II), the Department’s position is driven primarily

by concern about the cost of sustaining delivery systems at current

START I force levels.

The committee believes that while cost issues are important, security and wider strategic and arms control issues ought to be

paramount in determining strategic nuclear force levels and force

structure. The committee has been, and remains, concerned that

any significant restructuring of U.S. strategic nuclear forces prior

to Russian ratification of the second Strategic Arms Reduction

Treaty (START II) could reduce the effectiveness of U.S. deterrent

forces while also undermining pending arms control agreements.

The committee notes that reductions in strategic nuclear delivery

systems will almost certainly also reduce flexibility with respect to
401

the operation and deployment of U.S. strategic forces and potentially reduce the number of warheads on alert at any given time.

The committee is convinced that maintaining a robust triad of

strategic nuclear forces remains in the vital national security interest. Although overall Russian nuclear force levels have declined,

Russia continues to aggressively modernize its strategic forces with

newer, more capable systems. China is also modernizing its strategic forces, North Korea recently tested a missile with intercontinental range, and Iran seeks to develop long range missiles. The

committee believes that, as the strategic threat diversifies, deterrence becomes more complex and deterrence requirements harder

to assess. Accordingly, the committee notes that under such conditions, reducing strategic delivery systems simply to reduce fiscal

costs is far from a cost-free option for the United States.

To address these concerns, this section would amend section

1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1997 (Public Law 104–201), as amended, by permanently extending

the prohibition on the obligation of funds for the retirement of strategic nuclear delivery systems. The provision would allow the

President to waive the prohibition provided he first certifies that

any proposed reduction of strategic nuclear delivery systems would

still allow U.S. strategic requirements to be met and that such reductions would not be detrimental to U.S. arms control objectives.

The provision would require the President, if he exercises this

waiver, to nonetheless sustain a force structure of strategic nuclear

delivery vehicles such that it would be capable of employing at

least 98 percent of the 6,000 warhead limit imposed by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). Consistent with current

law, the provision would give the President the authority to waive

the prohibition on retirement of U.S. strategic nuclear delivery systems or warheads if Russia ratifies START II.

Section 1034—Annual Report by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff

on the Risks in Executing the Missions Called for Under the National Military Strategy

This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff to assess the strategic and military risks involved in executing the full range of missions called for under the National Military Strategy and to submit that assessment to the Secretary of

Defense not later than January 1 each year. In addition, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to review the assessment, comment upon it and forward the assessment and comments

to the Congress along with plans to mitigate the risks enumerated

in the assessment.

Since September, 1998, the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified repeatedly to the committee and the Congress that the ability of the

armed forces to execute the missions required under the National

Military Strategy of the United States carries with it ‘‘moderate to

high’’ risk. In testimony before the committee this year, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military service chiefs of staff,

and several regional commanders-in-chief have confirmed that assessment and elaborated on the nature of the risks involved. These

senior leaders have stated that scarcities of ‘‘low-density, high-demand’’ personnel and equipment are likely to mean increased num-
402

bers of U.S. and allied casualties in the event of war, delays in

achieving the deployment and other timelines established by the

theater commanders-in-chief in their war plans, and increased

threats to U.S. national security interests. Marine Commandant

Gen. Charles Krulak summarized the situation in his testimony to

the committee February 24, 1999, saying, ‘‘In terms of risk to [the

ability to execute] the National Military Strategy, I think we’ve

gone too far; I think we’re there now. If we don’t do something

about this, we’re going to be back into the hollow armed forces and

this nation can’t have that, can’t take that, because the world is

changing so rapidly, is so dangerous, the we need to stop this now.’’

The committee also has noted a disturbing trend to these statements. The risks assessed are no longer couched solely in terms of

risks related to the ability to rapidly and decisively win two nearly

simultaneous major theater wars. Although the capability to perform such a mission remains at the core of U.S. National Military

Strategy, senior officers now speak of increased risk in conducting

smaller-scale contingencies. In addition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff

have yet to conduct a formal risk assessment accounting for the

massive deployment of U.S. forces in support of Operation ‘‘Allied

Force’’ in Yugoslavia.

In sum, the committee has long believed that the gap between

strategic ends and military means has grown dangerously large.

While the committee commends the effort by the Joint Chiefs of

Staff to come to grips with the nature and extent of the risk

through the Joint Monthly Readiness Review, the committee believes that the mismatch between ends and means must be considered at the same time that U.S. National Military Strategy is articulated, and that a ‘‘high-risk’’ strategy—one lacking sufficient

military force to execute—is not a credible strategy, nor one befitting the critical security interests of the United States.

Section 1035—Requirement To Address Unit Operations Tempo

and Personal Tempo in Department of Defense Annual Report

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to report on

various aspects of operations tempo (OPTEMO) and personnel

tempo (PERSTEMO) in his Annual Report to Congress. The committee understands that the services have different definitions as

to what constitutes a deployment and have different policies or regulations limiting these deployments. In order to gain a better understanding of how the services address OPTEMPO and

PERSTEMPO, this section would request the Secretary to outline

individual service polices in the report. In addition, the department

is to report by service a comparison of the average number of personnel on active duty during the period covered by the report

against the average number of personnel deployed as defined by

that service.

The committee is also concerned about increases in the number

of officially designated exercises and contingencies that the services

are required to support. In addition, the committee is concerned

about the average number of days service personnel are deployed

and whether the services are meeting their OPTEMPO/

PERSTEMPO goals. The committee is also concerned about those

units listed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as high
403

demand, low density units. Traditionally, these units have experienced higher OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO rates than other units.

Section 1036—Preservation of Certain Defense Reporting

Requirements

The committee notes that section 3003 of the Federal Reports

Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–66) provides

that all statutory requirements for annual, semi-annual, or periodic

reports by federal agencies to the Congress that are contained in

a 1993 report issued by the Clerk of the House shall cease to be

effective as of December 21, 1999. The committee has been aware

of this impending requirement and has identified those reports

within its jurisdiction subject to termination under section 3003.

Furthermore, the committee has conducted an extensive review of

the merits of each report in question. As a result of this examination, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1036) that would

authorize the continuation of specific reports that are essential in

the execution of the committee’s oversight responsibilities.

Section 1037—Technical and Clerical Amendments

This section would make a number of technical and clerical

amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis.

Section 1038—Contributions for Spirit of Hope Endowment Fund of

United Service Organizations, Incorporated

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide

a grant of $25.0 million to the United Service Organizations, Incorporated (USO) for the purposes of helping to capitalize the Spirit

of Hope Endowment Fund. The provision would require that the release of the authorized funds be contingent on the ability of the

USO to match the authorized funds with funds raised from private

sector sources. The committee recognizes the valuable and lengthy

service that the USO has provided to members of the Armed Services and is concerned about the long-term financial health of the

USO. This provision is intended to help ensure that the USO remains a viable service organization by assisting in its transition to

a more established financial base.

Section 1039—Chemical Defense Training Facility

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer

non-stockpile quantities of chemical agent to the Attorney General

to support first responder training at the Department of Justice

Center for Domestic Preparedness at Ft. McClellan, Alabama. It

would also require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with

the Attorney General and the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency, to report annually to the Congress regarding

the disposition of these agents.
(404)

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN

PERSONNEL

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1101—Increase of Pay Cap for Nonappropriated Fund

Senior Executive Employees

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense and the

secretaries of the military departments to fix the pay of Senior Executive Service (SES) nonappropriated fund employees at the same

level as that of appropriated fund SES employees. Currently, nonappropriated fund SES employees are capped at Executive Level

IV, while appropriated fund SES employees are capped at Executive Level III. This section would rectify this pay inequity.

Section 1102—Restoration of Leave for Certain Department of Defense Employees who Deploy to a Combat Zone Outside the

United States

This section would restore excess annual leave lost by certain Department of Defense employees deployed in support of the armed

forces during hostilities. Section 6304 of title 5, United States

Code, sets limits on the accumulation of annual leave by civilian

employees, and does not except emergency essential civilian employees deployed in support of the armed forces during hostilities.

This section would provide an exception to those limits in recognition of the increased support provided our deployed forces by Department of Defense civilian employees.

Section 1103—Expansion of Guard-and-Reserve Purposes for which

Leave under Section 6323 of Title 5, United States Code, May be

Used

This section would expand the permitted uses of military leave

by members of the reserve components who are also federal civilian

employees. Currently, section 6323 of title 5, United States Code,

provides that federal civilian employees may use military leave for

periods of active duty or field or coastal defense training. This section would add periods of inactive duty for training to the categories for which military leave could be used. This change would

recognize the increased and varied contributions made by today’s

reserve members and would allow them the flexibility to use this

leave within the current 15 day annual ceiling to further the military readiness of their reserve units.
(405)

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER

NATIONS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Arms Control Implementation

The fiscal year 2000 budget request contained $249.7 million for

arms control implementation programs, representing an increase

from the fiscal year 1999 level of $227.3 million. The committee

recommends $236.2 million, a decrease of $13.5 million from the

budget request.

As in past years, the Department of Defense’s requested level of

funding is predicated in large measure on optimistic assumptions

regarding the entry into force of a number of treaties, including

START II, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and the

Open Skies Treaty. For example, the Defense Threat Reduction

Agency (DTRA) operation and maintenance budget request for

START II implementation is $2.9 million, compared to only $0.2

million in fiscal year 1999. Moreover, the justification documents

submitted with the budget request assume START II entry into

force during the first or second quarter of fiscal year 1999. However, the second quarter of fiscal year 1999 has already passed, the

Russian Duma shows no sign of ratifying the treaty anytime soon,

and the Department has stated that the Protocol to the START II

Treaty signed by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in September 1997

must be ratified by the Senate prior to the treaty’s entry into

force—a development that does not appear likely in the near future. Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $2.0

million for START II implementation activities.

In addition, the Department’s planning assumption regarding

entry into force of the Open Skies Treaty is the second or third

quarter of fiscal year 1999. As Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have

yet to ratify the treaty, this assumption also appears optimistic.

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.5 million

for Open Skies Treaty implementation.

Finally, the CTBT is unlikely to enter into force anytime soon.

Among the 44 countries whose ratification is required for the treaty

to take effect, 28 have not yet ratified it and three of those 28—

North Korea, India, and Pakistan—have not even signed it. Consequently, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million

for CTBT-related implementation activities.

The budget request also includes $9.0 million to reimburse the

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for

costs associated with inspections and escort activities at DOD facilities under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC). The committee notes that the Department currently does

not have the legal authority to pay the salary and other costs of
406

CWC inspectors, and that this cost—as well as other CWC-related

costs—has previously been assumed by the State Department. The

committee also recalls that the Congress disapproved a similar

DOD request last year. Accordingly, the committee does not believe

that these costs are appropriately borne by the Department of Defense and recommends no funds for this activity.

Ballistic Missile Defense Discussions With Russia

The committee believes that discussions between the United

States and Russia outside the framework of the 1972 U.S.-Soviet

Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty would be useful in managing

a transition from a strategic relationship based exclusively on offensive deterrence to a more stable one that includes ballistic missile defenses. The committee notes that such discussions have been

held in the past but were suspended by the United States in January 1993. The committee also notes that in 1998, the United States

engaged in early discussions with Russia concerning the possible

deployment of a U.S. national missile defense. These discussions

occurred outside the Standing Consultative Commission, the structure set up by the ABM Treaty to deal with questions of treaty

compliance and to ‘‘consider possible changes in the strategic situation which have a bearing on the provisions of the Treaty.’’

The committee notes that the ABM Treaty was signed in 1972

when the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United

States was adversarial. In the intervening 27 years, the strategic

relationship that gave rise to the treaty has changed profoundly,

rendering many of its underlying assumptions obsolete and opening

up the possibility of a cooperative transition to a new strategic relationship. Moreover, while some maintain that the treaty still

rests on a legitimate legal basis, the committee notes that several

recent legal analyses conclude that the treaty legally lapsed when

the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. In light of the changed

strategic situation and the emergence of ballistic missile threats

posed by regional nuclear powers such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and India, the committee believes that the United States and

Russia can mutually benefit from missile defenses.

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to renew, broaden,

and deepen discussions with the Russian Ministry of Defense intended to facilitate a cooperative transition to a strategic relationship that meets the requirements of both nations for active defenses against emerging missile and nuclear threats. The committee believes that such discussions would be an important confidence-building measure during the development and deployment

of ballistic missile defense systems, help maintain strategic stability, and enable further opportunities for Russian-American cooperation.

Department of Defense Review of Satellite Licenses

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) established a process for ensuring that the licensing and export of satellites does not

undermine United States national security. Section 1513 of Public

Law 105–261 transferred the licensing jurisdiction for satellite ex-
407

ports from the Commerce Department back to the State Department and required the Secretary of State, in consultation with the

Secretaries of Defense and Commerce, to submit a report to the

Congress on the steps taken to implement the transfer in a manner

that would permit the timely and orderly processing of license applications. That report was submitted on January 21, 1999.

The report notes that the Departments of State and Defense

‘‘have agreed on the goal of providing a timely and transparent

process’’ for satellite export licensing, within existing statutory and

regulatory frameworks and ‘‘the constraints of each department’s

available resources.’’ The committee believes that the Department

of Defense should review all satellite license applications in an expeditious fashion in order to avoid unnecessary delays in the licensing process and urges the Department to continue exploring opportunities to ensure that this goal is realized as rapidly as possible.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1201—Report on Strategic Stability Under START III

Nuclear deterrence continues to be a cornerstone of United

States national security. Key to the credibility of that deterrent is

strategic stability: an assured United States capability to maintain

robust nuclear options under a broad range of scenarios. Over the

past decade, the nuclear posture of the United States has changed

significantly as a consequence of a number of factors, including:

deep reductions under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

(START I) and pending reductions under START II; the de-alerting

of United States strategic bombers and half of the United States

force of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); the unilateral

and virtual elimination by the United States of its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons; and unilateral downsizing by the United

States of its strategic command and control capabilities. Although

the Russian Duma has not yet ratified the START II treaty, it is

anticipated that Russia and the United States will both meet the

terms of that treaty, and that a START III treaty will be negotiated requiring additional significant reductions and alterations in

the nuclear posture of the United States.

While the committee recognizes that the end of the Cold War afforded the opportunity to streamline nuclear force structure, it nevertheless views a robust nuclear deterrent capable of maintaining

strategic stability as indispensable to the national security of the

United States. The emerging threat environment, characterized by

an unstable and unpredictable Russia that retains thousands of nuclear weapons, China’s rapid modernization of its nuclear forces,

and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology to rogue

states and Third World nations, makes maintaining nuclear deterrence both imperative and more complicated than during the Cold

War.

The committee also views a robust nuclear deterrent capable of

maintaining strategic stability as a critical prerequisite for further

nuclear arms reductions under any START III regime. Strategic

stability would not be possible if a potential adversary, or combination of adversaries, could gain a significant advantage from striking
408

first or from exploiting asymmetries in the strategic balance resulting from a START III treaty.

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, to be prepared by the Defense Science Board in cooperation

with the Director of Central Intelligence in classified and unclassified forms, on the strategic stability of the future nuclear balance

between the United States and Russia and other potential nuclear

adversaries.

Section 1202—One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities for Support of United Nations Weapons Inspection Regime in

Iraq

This section would extend the authority through fiscal year 2000

of the Department of Defense to provide support to the UN Special

Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), or any successor weapons monitoring and inspection regime in Iraq, under the Weapons of Mass

Destruction Control Act of 1992.

The committee notes with growing concern that Iraq continues to

conceal and develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In response to the crisis last year over weapons inspections conducted

by UNSCOM, precipitated by Iraq’s continued refusal to grant

UNSCOM complete and unfettered access to suspected WMD related facilities, the United States carried out a series of air strikes

against Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) in December, 1998 with the intent of degrading Iraq’s capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction and to threaten its neighbors. The committee notes that

despite these strikes, Iraq has succeeded in stymieing all internationally-sanctioned efforts to monitor its ongoing WMD programs. In the wake of Iraq’s expulsion of all UNSCOM inspectors

and its cessation of cooperation with the UN monitoring regime, no

significant WMD monitoring and inspection program has existed

since October 1998.

The committee believes that preventing Iraq from possessing ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction must remain a high

national priority. The committee is also troubled that ongoing military operations against Iraq in enforcing the northern and southern ‘‘no-fly zones’’—conducted under expanded rules of engagement—have neither diminished Iraq’s WMD capability nor had any

effect in coercing Saddam Hussein’s regime to accept a resumption

of the weapons monitoring and inspection regime.

The committee supports continued DOD participation in any

international effort to monitor and verify Iraq’s ongoing WMD programs. Consequently, the committee agrees to a one-year extension

of DOD’s authority to provide support to UNSCOM, or its successor, for the purposes of monitoring, inspecting, verifying, and

eliminating Iraq’s proscribed weapons and delivery systems.

Section 1203—Military-to-Military Contacts with Chinese People’s

Liberation Army

This section would establish the policy for the conduct of military-to-military contacts between the U.S. armed forces and the

People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China. First,

the section would provide that such policy be governed by the prin-
409

ciples of reciprocity and transparency. Second, the section would establish limits that would prevent members of the People’s Liberation Army from inappropriate access to advanced technologies and

capabilities of the U.S. armed forces. Third, the section would require the Secretary of Defense to certify prior to the start of any

year that military-to-military contacts with the People’s Liberation

Army will be conducted in accordance with such principles of reciprocity and transparency, that such contacts are in the national security interest of the United States, and would prohibit members

of the U.S. armed forces from participating in any military-to-military contacts until such a certification was given to the Congress.

Finally, the section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed annual report to the Congress that provides an assessment of the military-to-military contacts with the People’s Liberation Army.

The committee strongly believes that such policies and limitations are warranted by the pattern of Chinese efforts to improve

the strength of its armed forces by acquiring advanced technologies

and developing advanced military operational concepts and organizations based upon the model established by the U.S. armed forces

over the past two decades. Through a coordinated pattern of activities ranging from official, high-level visits through outright espionage, it is clear to the committee that the People’s Liberation Army

is embarked upon a broad modernization effort that has the potential to compromise the advantages enjoyed by U.S. forces, not merely in relation to Chinese forces but other armed forces as well. Past

Department of Defense reports demonstrate to the committee that

the Chinese seek to develop capabilities for force projection, nuclear

operations, space operations and other advanced military operations in large part through understanding and emulating American practices.

In addition, the committee has been increasingly concerned by

the pattern of military-to-military contacts between U.S. forces and

members of the People’s Liberation Army. In the committee’s judgment, the Administration has not taken adequate steps to protect

U.S. operational practices and technological advantages. In general,

the U.S. pattern of openness contrasts markedly with the restrictions placed upon American access to Chinese facilities and installations, personnel and units, and events such as major exercises.

The committee is also disturbed to learn that U.S. policy for military-to-military contacts between U.S. armed forces and members

of the People’s Liberation Army has not been controlled by the Department of Defense, but rather by other elements of the Administration, and that military objections to such policy have been overruled in deference to the Administration’s larger policy of strategic

engagement with the People’s Republic of China. In sum, the committee believes that the principles of transparency and reciprocity

have not been observed by the Chinese and that programs of military exchange have been one-sided, to the detriment of U.S. national security interests.
410

Section 1204—Report on Allied Capabilities to Contribute to Major

Theater Wars

It has long been a tenet of U.S. national military strategy and

defense planning to acknowledge that American military forces are

most likely to operate as members of coalition forces. This tenet

has been reinforced by the strategic reviews conducted by the Department of Defense since the end of the Cold war, including the

1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, which assumes in its analysis

of the core mission of U.S. armed forces that major theater wars

will be fought ‘‘in concert with regional allies.’’

However, the Quadrennial Defense Review also postulates a

‘‘changing strategic environment’’ that ‘‘requires that we reassess

. . . the degree to which we rely on allies . . . in major theater

wars.’’ In the committee’s view, such a reassessment is overdue.

Like U.S. armed forces, the armed forces of our major allies have

been significantly reduced through the post-Cold War period. Also

like U.S. armed forces, the pace of contingency operations for our

major allies has been high. The French and British, for example,

who provided supporting formations during the Persian Gulf War,

including participating in the main ground attack of that conflict,

are ‘‘doing more with less’’ as are U.S. armed forces. After undergoing substantial force reductions over the past decade, both

French and British forces are today operating in the air campaign

against Yugoslavia, provide substantial ground forces in Bosnia,

and would play a large role in any ground operations in Kosovo,

either in a combat or peacekeeping role. In addition to ongoing operations in the Gulf and in the Balkans, both France and Britain

have been involved in substantial contingency operations that are

solely in their own security interests such as in Africa and Northern Ireland. In sum, the ability of France and Britain, perhaps the

United States’ most militarily capable allies, to surge large forces

in the event of a major theater war, is increasingly open to question.

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to prepare a

report, in both classified and unclassified form, describing the current capabilities and commitment of the allied forces anticipated to

support U.S. operations in major theater wars and to determine the

risk to the successful conduct of those wars resulting from any

shortfalls in anticipated allied forces.

Section 1205—Limitation on Funds for Bosnia Peacekeeping

Operations for Fiscal Year 2000

This section would limit the amount of funds available for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia to the amounts contained in the

budget request, $1,824.4 million. The provision would also permit

the President to waive this limitation by submitting to the Congress a certification of national security interest, a report, and a request for supplemental appropriations to cover the associated additional costs.
(411)

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET UNION

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $475.5 million for cooperative threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing an increase of $35.1

million over the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The request included $330.0 million for destruction and dismantlement,

$119.7 million for fissile materials and nuclear weapons safety and

storage, $20.0 million for reactor core conversion in Russia, $2.0

million for biological weapons proliferation prevention in Russia,

and $3.8 million for other program support, including defense and

military contacts. The committee recommends a total of $444.1 million for CTR activities in fiscal year 2000, a decrease of $31.4 million from the

budget request and an increase of $3.7 million over the amounts

appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends the

request of $9.3 million for warhead dismantlement processing in

Russia; $15.2 million for weapons transportation security in Russia; $20 million for reactor core conversion in Russia; $2.0 million

for biological weapons proliferation prevention activities in Russia;

and $1.8 million for other program support. The committee recommends the following decreases to the budget request: $105.8 million for chemical weapons destruction; $3.6 million for a fissile material storage facility in Russia; and $2.0 million for defense and

military contacts. The committee recommends the following increases to the budget request: $20.0 million for strategic offensive

arms elimination activities in Russia; $10.0 million for strategic

nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine; and $50.0 million for weapons storage security in Russia. The discussion below provides the

rationale for these recommendations and raises other matters of interest and concern to the committee.

In general, the committee notes that the Congress’ consistent

support for the CTR program since its inception has been predicated upon certain assumptions and assurances by the Department

of Defense that are increasingly subject to challenge. These include

a belief that the effort to assist in the elimination of former Soviet

weapons would be cooperative in a fiscal as well as a practical

sense—with the costs of the effort being shared by the parties concerned and not borne exclusively by the United States.

Eight years after the CTR program was inaugurated, the committee notes that the economic decline of the states of the former

Soviet Union—in particular, Russia—has resulted in a reduced financial commitment by those states to a variety of CTR projects.

This situation has placed the Department in the position of having

to absorb significant additional costs that previously were not

planned to be borne by the United States. While the committee un-
412

derstands and has supported the national security rationale underlying the Department’s CTR efforts, current economic conditions

suggest that this assistance will cost the United States billions of

dollars more than previously anticipated. Moreover, the committee

is concerned that the United States’ willingness to absorb these additional costs may, in turn, further dampen any incentive for the

recipient countries to invest their own resources in weapons dismantlement and destruction activities.

For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision (sec.

1308) that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by December 31, 1999 that explains the Department’s strategy

for encouraging CTR recipient states to contribute financially to

the threat reduction effort, that prioritizes the Department’s CTR

projects on the basis of their national security benefit to the United

States, and that identifies any limitations that the United States

has imposed or will seek to impose, either unilaterally or through

negotiations, on the U.S. level of assistance for each of these

projects.

In addition, the committee notes that the scope of the CTR program has expanded since its inception into areas beyond its original focus of reducing the nuclear threat to the United States. As

a result, the committee questions whether some CTR activities are

appropriately the responsibility of the Department of Defense.

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1307) that

would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report no later

than December 31, 1999 explaining why the Department of Defense is the appropriate funding authority for each of the CTR

projects for which funding is requested, identifying those activities

that might be more appropriately funded by other agencies, and

presenting a plan to migrate these projects to other non-DOD agencies.

Finally, the committee notes that the seven-year ‘‘umbrella’’

agreement that provides the authority under which CTR projects

are implemented in Russia will expire on June 17, 1999. Without

its extension or renewal, all CTR work in Russia will cease after

that date. According to the Department, Russia has been unwilling

so far to renew the agreement without modifications that could affect taxation, audits and examinations, and other aspects of the

CTR program. The committee strongly urges the Department not

to agree to any modifications that would compromise the protections granted the CTR program under the original umbrella agreement.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Arms Elimination Projects in Russia

The budget request contained $157.3 million for strategic offensive arms elimination projects in Russia, a ten percent increase

from the fiscal year 1999 appropriated amount of $142.2 million.
413

The committee reiterates its support for the accelerated elimination of strategic offensive weapons in Russia in accordance with

the START I Treaty, notwithstanding the concerns mentioned

above, and recommends an additional $20.0 million for this task.

However, the committee remains concerned with Russia’s continuing non-ratification of the 1993 START II Treaty and its apparent inability or unwillingness to move forward with START I Treaty-mandated reductions in the absence of additional U.S. CTR assistance. In the committee’s view, Russia is legally obligated to reduce its strategic offensive forces according to the provisions of

START I. This obligation is not conditioned upon the receipt of U.S.

assistance. For Russia to refuse to carry out these reductions without CTR assistance places the United States in the position of having to buy Russian compliance with its arms control commitments

and sets an objectionable precedent.

In particular, the committee notes that the budget request in- cludes more than $15.0 million to support the complete elimination

of 26 SS–18 ICBM silo launcher sites. However, although Russia

is legally obligated under START I to eliminate at least 22 SS–18

ICBM launchers each year, it has failed to do so on the grounds

that it could not afford the cost of these dismantlements. The committee is concerned that the Department’s willingness to relieve

Russia of some of the financial burden associated with its treatymandated reductions will allow Russia to devote a greater proportion of its scarce resources to the development of newer and more

sophisticated strategic offensive arms. In fact, the committee notes

that Russia continues to invest in the production and deployment

of the new SS–27 ‘‘Topol–M’’ ICBM.

In this regard, the committee notes that the Russian government

has acknowledged a linkage between the elimination of older systems through the CTR program and the development of newer missile systems. Yuri Maslyukov, First Vice Premier of the Russian

Federation, stated in December 1998 that ‘‘the funding of arms

elimination under Nunn-Lugar [the CTR program] is now comparable with our annual expenditure on modernizing the strategic

nuclear forces and deploying the grouping of Topol–M missiles. In

other words, since the present missiles will anyhow have to be dismantled. the absence of the Nunn-Lugar program. will compel Russia to take for these purposes the money currently planned for the

deployment of new missile complexes, since there is simply nowhere to obtain any more money.’’ The committee does not believe

that the CTR program should relieve Russia of the necessity to

choose between funding its legally-binding disarmament obligations

and its strategic modernization program.

Because of the concerns noted above, the committee directs the

Secretary of Defense to submit a report by December 31, 1999 that

identifies:
414

(1) the number of SS–18 missile and launcher eliminations that have occurred since the START I Treaty

entered into force in 1991;

(2) the Department’s assumptions regarding Russia’s

willingness and ability to eliminate at least 22 SS–18

ICBM launchers per year with the CTR assistance

currently being provided and proposed for this task

and in the absence of such assistance;

(3) whether additional CTR assistance for SS–18 eliminations establishes a precedent whereby the United

States will pay for Russian arms control compliance;

and

(4) what Russia has spent and is expected to spend on

the strategic offensive arms elimination effort, including the value of any ‘‘in-kind’’ Russian contribution to

the elimination process.

In addition, the report should discuss under what circumstances

the Department might consider using CTR funds to eliminate Russia’s stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons.

Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine

The budget request contained $33.0 million for strategic nuclear

arms elimination projects in Ukraine, a reduction of $14.5 million

from the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level. This decline reflects

the achievement of certain project objectives. The budget request

would support the elimination in Ukraine of ICBMs, ICBM silos,

and heavy bombers. The committee supports this effort and recommends an additional $10 million for strategic nuclear arms

elimination in Ukraine.

Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia

The budget request contained $2.0 million for collaborative research projects with scientists at Russian institutes where biological weapons work has been carried out. The request is identical to

the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level. The Department has justified this project as an effort to employ in civilian-oriented research

Russian scientists formerly involved in biological weapons work

and to keep them from selling their expertise to potentially hostile

countries such as Iran.

The committee notes that this effort is part of the multi-agency

‘‘Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative’’ initially announced by

President Clinton in his January 1999 State of the Union address.

Although the Department proposes to fund its share of this effort

at $2.0 million in fiscal year 2000, Administration projections forecast an increase in the DOD CTR budget for these activities to

$34.8 million in fiscal year 2004. In addition, significant funding

for similar initiatives is being proposed within the State Department budget.

The committee approves the requested amount for this purpose.

The committee recognizes the threat posed by the proliferation of

biological weapons and supports efforts to counter that threat.

However, those efforts are complicated by the magnitude and expansiveness of the former Soviet Union’s biological weapons activi-
415

ties, the continuing lack of transparency with respect to Russia’s

military biological weapons research and development programs,

and the ambiguous line that separates civilian research from military research. The committee does not believe that increased funding and collaborative efforts with Russian scientists should be a

prerequisite for greater Russian transparency. In addition, the

committee is troubled by the prospect that such collaborative programs could result in the perpetuation of a knowledge base and a

set of skills among Russian scientists that could be useful for biological weapons production and that might actually make them

more attractive candidates for recruitment by states seeking a biological weapons capability in the future.

With these concerns in mind, the committee notes that section

1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1999 (Public Law 105–261) requires the Secretary of Defense to

submit, prior to the obligation of any fiscal year 1999 CTR funds

for biological weapons proliferation prevention projects, a report on

the use of CTR funds at biological institutes in Russia and on the

development of any new strains of anthrax. Moreover, section 1308

of Public Law 105–261 required the Secretary to submit by March

1, 1999 a report on biological weapons programs in Russia. The

committee has not received either of these reports and therefore

recommends a provision (sec. 1306) that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of any fiscal year 2000 CTR funds for biological

weapons proliferation prevention activities in Russia until the requirements of Public Law 105–261 have been met.

Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia

The budget request contained $130.4 million for chemical weapons destruction activities in Russia, a 47 percent increase over the

fiscal year 1999 appropriated level of $88.4 million. The request

would be used to support continued optimization of the chemical

agent elimination process, procurement of equipment, and design

and construction activities for a chemical weapons destruction facility to be built near Shchuch’ye, Russia. This project has fallen more

than two years behind schedule.

CTR officials have justified funding for the Shchuch’ye project on

three grounds: that it would assist Russia in meeting the chemical

weapons elimination deadlines established by the CWC; that it

would encourage other countries to contribute to Russia’s chemical

weapons destruction effort; and that it would advance U.S. nonproliferation objectives. The committee believes that these arguments do not stand up well under scrutiny.

The committee recommends $24.6 million for chemical weaponsrelated activities in Russia—a decrease of $105.8 million from the

request—and directs that these funds be used to initiate security

enhancement projects at Russian chemical weapons storage sites.

In addition, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1305) that

would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of any fiscal year 2000

CTR funds for activities related to the planning, design, or construction of the Shchuch’ye chemical weapons destruction facility.

Further, the committee directs the Department to use unobligated

prior year balances to provide for an orderly close-out of existing
416

planning and design activity and not to use these funds for construction activity at Shchuch’ye.

There are a number of long-standing concerns that lead the committee to this recommendation. First, according to the Department,

the United States is not prepared to fund completion of this project

until Russia makes significant improvements to the local community infrastructure, including roads, worker housing, public service

facilities, and other social development projects. These infrastructure improvements have been estimated by CTR officials to cost at

least $200.0 million. Russia is unlikely to be able to pay for these

improvements and the United States has stated that it has no intention of absorbing these costs.

Second, only 14 percent of Russia’s declared stockpile of chemical

weapons is located at Shchuch’ye. Moreover, these munitions are

ground-launched, not air-launched, and, consequently, pose a lesser

threat to the United States and the West due to their shorter deliverable range.

Third, Russia’s desire for CTR assistance to help eliminate aging

chemical weapons owes more to the fact that these weapons pose

an environmental problem for Russia than a security threat to the

United States.

Fourth, as a pilot project, the Shchuch’ye facility would have an

initial destruction capacity of 500 metric tons annually. In an April

1999 report, the General According Office (GAO) concluded that

‘‘the Shchuch’ye pilot facility’s limited capacity and delayed start of

operations will prevent Russia from destroying the Shchuch’ye depot’s nerve agent stocks before Russia’s Chemical Weapons Convention deadline of 2007.’’ The facility is expected to begin destroying

nerve agents by 2006 and at the initial elimination rate would not

finish destroying most of the Shchuch’ye depot’s stockpile until ‘‘10

years after the expiration of Russia’s Convention deadline and 5

years after the expiration of an extension to that deadline.’’ The

United States has stated that it does not plan to pay the estimated

$250.0 million costs associated with increasing the facility’s capacity to 1,200 metric tons annually, and the Russians are unlikely to

do so. This raises doubt as to whether the facility will ever reach

its full elimination potential.

Fifth, Russia has chemical weapons stored at at least six other

sites and would need to build at least six additional destruction facilities to destroy the 40,000 tons of chemical weapons in its declared stockpile. Although the total cost of eliminating Russia’s declared arsenal of 40,000 tons of chemical weapons has been estimated at between $5.0 and $7.5 billion, Russia reduced its fiscal

year 1998 budget for chemical weapons elimination from $83 million to approximately $13 million. In fiscal year 1999, Russia has

budgeted $63.0 million for all chemical weapons elimination activities and is expected to actually spend only a fraction of that

amount. The total non-U.S. international contribution to Russia’s

chemical weapons elimination effort amounts to only $18 million.

For a number of reasons, the GAO concludes that ‘‘the Shchuch’ye

project cannot achieve its broader national security objectives unless Russia receives a large infusion of additional funding.’’

Sixth, the U.S. share of the costs to build the Shchuch’ye facility

has been estimated by DOD at approximately $750.0 million, yet
417

there is no indication that Russia will be willing or able to absorb

the annual costs of operating the facility, which are likely to be

substantial and which the United States may be asked to assume.

Finally, even the Department apparently believes this project to

be a lower priority than other initiatives, as it reduced its planned

budget for Shchuch’ye by approximately $85 million in fiscal years

2000 and 2001 in order to reallocate the funds elsewhere. The committee believes that there are higher priority CTR efforts that are

likely to provide a greater security return on investment and encourages the Department to focus its attention and resources on

such efforts. These include efforts to enhance security at Russia’s

existing chemical weapons depots, which will contribute to U.S.

non-proliferation objectives.

Fissile Material Storage Facility

The budget request contained $64.5 million for equipment and

construction of a fissile material storage facility in Russia to house

materials from dismantled strategic nuclear weapons. This is an increase from the $60.9 million appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends a decrease of $3.6 million for this

project. Although the committee reiterates its support for the safe

and secure storage of fissile materials removed from Russian nuclear weapons, the construction of the facility at Mayak, Russia has

been marked by significant schedule delays and mounting costs.

The completion of the facility has been delayed by at least three

years, from 1999 to 2002.

According to an April 1999 GAO report, ‘‘Russian reluctance to

share critical information with the United States may limit

Mayak’s national security benefits . . .’’ In addition, GAO noted

that it ‘‘will cost more than previously estimated and take longer

than previously scheduled. Unless Russia and other foreign nations

take certain steps, [the facility] will not provide the United States

with all the national security benefits that it sought.’’

The committee continues to have concerns over the total cost of

the Mayak facility, and the appropriate U.S. share of these costs.

In Congressional testimony in 1995 and 1996, DOD officials stated:

‘‘The United States is willing to provide up to half the cost of the

facility.’’ This would have capped the U.S. share of Mayak costs at

approximately $275.0 million. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), the Congress reinforced this cost cap by requiring a cost-sharing agreement with

Russia. However, last year Russia indicated that it does not plan

to provide the funds for its share of the costs to complete this

project. Consequently, the Department agreed to pay for most of

Russia’s costs for the Mayak facility. The committee notes that this

decision was taken without Congressional consultation. In January

1999, the Department concluded an agreement with Russia’s Ministry of Atomic Energy to cap U.S. funding at $412.6 million—a

$137.6 million increase in the U.S. cost with the United States now

estimated to be paying for roughly 90 percent of the project’s total

cost.

Moreover, while the United States has agreed to absorb this substantial cost increase, the facility itself will be only one half the

size it was originally intended to be. According to GAO, completion
418

of the second wing of the Mayak facility—which was originally included in the Department’s $275.0 million cost cap—‘‘would cost

the United States another $230 million—raising total U.S. Mayak

design and construction costs to about $642 million’’—roughly 125

percent more than the Department’s 1996 cap. Additional costs

may raise the U.S. costs for this project to more than $1.2 billion.

The committee is also concerned by the lack of a transparency

agreement with Russia that will allow the United States to verify

that the fissile materials stored at Mayak have been removed from

dismantled nuclear weapons. The committee notes that the Congress’ prior support for this project was predicated on the Department’s position that the Mayak facility would house fissile materials removed from former Soviet nuclear weapons (so-called ‘‘weapons-origin’’ materials) and not simply weapons-grade fissile materials previously stored elsewhere. The committee notes that section

1407 of Public Law 105–85 required the Secretary of Defense to notify the Congress once a transparency agreement had been reached

with Russia. In requiring this notification, the Congress specifically

intended to encourage the Department to negotiate a written agreement containing specific measures and procedures for verifying the

weapons origin of the materials to be stored at Mayak. On April

8, 1999, the Secretary notified the committee that ‘‘the Department

of Defense and the [Russian] Ministry of Atomic Energy have also

reached agreement incorporating the principle of transparency with

respect to the storage facility.’’ However, the Secretary’s notification references a 1996 agreement on the ‘‘requirement for transparency measures’’ and a transparency ‘‘Protocol’’ that has not yet

been finalized. No written agreement with the Russians has been

concluded to date that specifies the transparency measures and

procedures that will be used, in accordance with the clear intent

of the section 1407 limitation.

The committee strongly encourages the Department to continue

to seek an agreement that would ensure the ability of the United

States to verify the weapons origin of any fissile materials stored

at Mayak. However, the committee reminds the Department that

as construction of the facility continues without such an agreement,

U.S. negotiating leverage diminishes.

As a result of these concerns, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1304) that would prohibit funding for construction of the

second wing at Mayak until the Secretary of Defense certifies to

Congress that the additional storage capacity is required and submits a detailed cost estimate for the second wing. In addition, this

provision would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2000 CTR funds for

construction of the second wing and would prohibit the obligation

or expenditure of these funds until 15 days after the Congress is

notified that a written agreement detailing the specific transparency measures to be implemented has been reached.

Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion

The budget request included $20.0 million for nuclear reactor

core conversion projects in Russia, a reduction of $9.8 million from

the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. This activity is intended

to support of goal of eliminating Russian plutonium production by

2000. However, the core conversion project has been restructured
419

in light of a lack of Russian funding and will take longer and cost

more than previously planned. As a result, DOD funding for this

activity is expected to increase steadily through fiscal year 2003.

The committee recommends the requested amount for this

project. However, the Department of Energy (DOE) initiated nuclear reactor core conversion efforts several years ago and remains

the agency of primary responsibility for its execution. The committee believes that nuclear reactor core conversion is an activity

that is more appropriately the responsibility of DOE and urges the

Secretary of Defense to migrate funding and oversight responsibility for this effort back to DOE.

Nuclear Warhead Dismantlement Processing in Russia

The budget request contained $9.3 million to assist Russia in

processing the fissile components of dismantled nuclear warheads

in preparation for long-term storage. This is slightly less than last

year’s appropriated amount of $9.4 million. The committee recommends the budget request.

Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia

The budget request included $40.0 million for nuclear weapons

storage security in Russia, a slight decrease from the appropriated

level of $41.7 million in fiscal year 1999.

The committee supports the objective of ensuring the safe and secure storage of Russian nuclear weapons. However, the committee

continues to have concerns regarding Russia’s willingness to allow

the United States access to certain nuclear weapons storage sites

for the purposes of auditing U.S. CTR assistance. Moreover, Russia

recently indicated that there are at least 70 additional sites requiring security enhancements than the United States previously believed.

To assist Russia with security enhancements at these additional

sites and to encourage Russian cooperation in agreeing to effective

audit and examination procedures, the committee recommends

$90.0 million for this activity, an increase of $50.0 million.

Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security

The budget request contained $15.2 million for nuclear weapons

transportation security in Russia, roughly a 50 percent increase

from the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends the budget request.

The committee has previously expressed concern over U.S. funding for these initiatives, which until last year had been Russia’s responsibility. The committee reiterates its belief that the Department should seek to resolve transportation security issues with

Russia in a manner that does not commit the United States to pay

the future costs of rail transportation of nuclear weapons from

operational deployment sites to storage facilities.

Other Support Programs and Assessments

The budget request included $2.0 million for defense and military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union and $1.8 mil-
420

lion for other assessments, including management and administrative costs, project development, and audits and examinations, a reduction of $4.2 million from the appropriated levels in fiscal year

1999.

The committee recommends no funds for defense and military

contacts. The committee notes that the Department has more than

$25.0 million available in prior-year unobligated balances for such

initiatives. The committee recommends the request of $1.8 million

for other assessments.

Prohibition of Specified Activities

The committee reiterates its belief that the focus of the CTR program should be on facilitating the elimination of former Soviet

weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles. For this

reason, the committee has consistently resisted attempts to expand

the program beyond its core objectives. Accordingly, the committee

recommends a provision (sec. 1303) that would make permanent

long-standing prohibitions on the use of CTR funds for peacekeeping-related activities, housing, environmental restoration, job

retraining, and defense conversion, and would prohibit the use of

CTR funds for the elimination of conventional weapons or their delivery vehicles.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction

Programs and Funds

This section would specify the kinds of programs to be funded

under this title and would make fiscal year 2000 CTR funds available for obligation for three years.

Section 1302—Funding Allocations

This section would allocate fiscal year 2000 funding for various

CTR purposes and activities.

Section 1303—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified Purposes

This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for specified activities, including peacekeeping-related, housing, environmental

restoration, job retraining, and defense conversion purposes. It

would also prohibit the use of CTR funds for conventional weapons

elimination purposes.

Section 1304—Limitations on Use of Funds for Fissile Material

Storage Facility

This section would prohibit the use of certain CTR funds for construction of an additional fissile material storage facility until various reports and certifications are submitted to Congress and would

restrict fiscal year 2000 CTR funding for this purpose until a transparency agreement with Russia is signed.
421

Section 1305—Limitation on Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons

Destruction

This section would prohibit the use of funds for activities related

to a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia.

Section 1306—Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological Weapons

Proliferation Prevention Activities

This section would limit the use of funds for this purpose until

the Secretary submits to the Congress reports required by Public

Law 105–261.

Section 1307—Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of

Report and Multiyear Plan

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of any

fiscal year 2000 CTR funds until the Secretary submits the update

to the multiyear plan required by section 1205 of Public Law 103–

337 and a report detailing the appropriate role of the Department

in funding CTR programs.

Section 1308—Requirement to Submit Report

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report on the fiscal and cost-sharing aspects of the CTR program.

Section 1309—Report on Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative

This section would require the President to submit a report by

December 31, 1999 describing the multi-agency Expanded Threat

Reduction Initiative and how interagency coordination will be

achieved to eliminate program redundancies.

(423)

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

PURPOSE

The purpose of Division B is to provide military construction authorizations and related authority in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2000. As approved by the committee,

Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of

$8,590,243,000 for construction in support of the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies for fiscal year 2000.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW

The military construction authorization request for fiscal year

2000 was introduced by request as division B of H.R. 1401 on April

14, 1999.

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropria- tions of $5,438,443,333 for fiscal year 2000 for military construction, including $705,911,000 for activities associated with base closure and realignment, and $3,115,687,000 for family housing construction and support. The committee reallocated $51,800,000 within the budget request of the Department of Defense to support military construction requirements related to the drug interdiction and

counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense and planning

and design activities for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

The committee recommends $4,988,012,000 for military construction, including $705,911,000 for activities associated with base closure and realignment, and $3,602,231,000 for family housing construction and support for fiscal year 2000.

The committee restates its deepening concern about the condition

of the Nation’s military installations and facilities and continues to

be troubled by the continuing and persistent underinvestment by

the Administration in military facilities and infrastructure. The

budget request for the authorization of appropriations for fiscal

year 2000 for the military construction and military family housing

programs of the Department of Defense, if enacted, would represent a 36 percent reduction from current spending levels and a

38 percent reduction from the budget estimates for the coming fiscal year presented to the Congress one year ago.

To address the serious shortfalls in the Administration’s budget

request, the committee recommends an increase in new budget authority for these programs of $3,100,000,000. The committee notes

that the increase in new budget authority would not address completely the funding deficit created by the budget request. The committee considers the full funding of justified military construction

and military family housing projects, with a particular emphasis

upon housing for unaccompanied military personnel and military

families, facilities that enhance the quality of life for military per-
424

sonnel, and facilities to enhance the training and readiness of the

Armed Forces, to be a critical readiness priority. Additionally, the

committee recommends a limited number of additional military

construction projects with a special emphasis on facilities that enhance the training and readiness of the Armed Forces. In limited

instances, where large construction projects could be funded in

phases, consistent with the well-established statutory and regulatory framework for such projects, the committee recommends

such a funding approach.

The committee recommends funding for the base closure and realignment activities of the Department of Defense at the amount

requested for authorization of appropriations for the coming fiscal

year. The committee notes the assurances of the Department of Defense that the requested amount of $705,911,000 is adequate to address requirements in fiscal year 2000. Consistent with those assurances, the committee expects no delay in the timely environmental remediation of realigning or closing installations and no deferral in the reuse of affected military installations.

In an effort to improve the quality of life for military personnel

and their families, the committee reiterates its support for the authorities provided in subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10, United

States Code. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative remains

a central component of the ultimate resolution of the military housing crisis. The committee, however, reiterates its view that this initiative should not be viewed by the military departments as a substitute for military family housing construction projects where

those projects are necessary to alleviate immediate housing problems or in those locations where the privatization initiative is not

economically or otherwise feasible.

In that context, the committee is deeply concerned about the

budget request of the Department of the Army for military family

housing construction. The Army requested no funds for military

family housing construction at military installations in the United

States. While the committee strongly supports the requirement to

improve living conditions for military families outside the United

States, the committee does not believe divestment in military family housing construction is appropriate given the scope of the housing crisis and the slow pace of execution under the initiative. The

committee urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that future

budget requests for the military family housing programs of the

military departments adequately address current and anticipated

requirements.

STRUCTURE OF THE BUDGET REQUEST

The committee is concerned about the structure of the budget request for fiscal year 2000. The Administration proposed two significant changes in the management of the military construction and

military family housing programs.

First, the Administration requested $3,060,830,000 in authorization of advance appropriations for fiscal year 2001 to support military construction projects contained in the budget request for the

coming fiscal year. The committee notes that every military construction and military family housing project, with the exception of

projects affecting certain classified programs and the programs of
425

the defense agencies, were subject to incremental funding on an

outlay-rate basis. Second, the Administration requested the separation of funds for supervision, overhead, and inspection (SIOH)

charges totaling $154,281,000 from specific military construction

projects and to annualize those charges over a five-year period. The

committee strongly opposes both changes to the management of the

Department’s military construction and military family housing

programs.

The committee notes that no precedent exists for the broadbased, incremental funding of military construction as proposed by

the Administration. The committee is concerned that the Administration’s proposal would negatively affect the timely execution of

the military construction program for the coming fiscal year. Execution would be dependent upon the development of new, possibly

costly, business practices. Management uncertainty and the spread

of project costs over multiple fiscal years would likely lead to increased costs and a delay in the delivery of needed facilities. The

committee is also concerned that extensive incremental funding on

an outlay-rate basis would reduce the flexibility of the military departments to meet unforeseen requirements or address contract difficulties due to a lack of funds. There is no evidence to suggest that

either proposal would benefit the taxpayer, and both proposals

would, over the long term, likely cost the taxpayer more.

A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in Division B

for fiscal year 2000 follows:
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441

A tabular summary of the military construction projects included

with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for the

BRAC IV account follows:
442
443
(444)

TITLE XXI—ARMY

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $656,003,000 for Army military construction and $1,112,083,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2000. The committee recommends authorization of $1,214,405,000

for military construction and $1,170,012,000 for family housing for

fiscal year 2000.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Improvements to Military Family Housing

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

improvements to military family housing and facilities, the Secretary of the Army execute the following project: $2,800,000 for

Whole Neighborhood Revitalization, Phase V (26 units) at Fort

Campbell, Kentucky.

Environmental Remediation at Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant,

Chattanooga, Tennessee

The committee notes the efforts of the Department of the Army

to implement expeditiously the conveyance of the Volunteer Army

Ammunition Plant, Chattanooga, Tennessee, authorized by section

2844 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1999 (division B of Public Law 105–261). The committee recognizes

recent management practices of the Army in dedicating funds deposited into the special account established pursuant to section

485(h)(2) of title 40, United States Code, for the environmental remediation of real property at specific locations beyond the 50 percent of such deposits as required by law. The committee urges the

Secretary of the Army to continue this practice where such funds

are required to complete remediation in a timely manner. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report on the schedule

for completion of remediation activities at the Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant concurrent with the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2001.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Army construction

projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized amounts are listed on

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.
445

Section 2102—Family Housing

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2000.

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2000.

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item contained in the Army’s budget for fiscal year 2000. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Army may

spend on military construction projects.
(446)

TITLE XXII—NAVY

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $319,786,000 for Navy military

construction and $959,675,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2000. The committee recommends authorization of $933,022,000 for

military construction and $1,151,085,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2000.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Headquarters, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific

The budget request contained $15,870,000 for the first increment

of an $86,050,000 military construction project to develop a headquarters to support the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific, and associated command elements at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii. The committee recommends deferral of this project. The committee notes

the authority recommended in section 2802 of this bill to further

the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, for the support of the military activities of the Department of the Navy and other military activities of the Department of Defense. The committee directs the

Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to study the viability of the relocation of the headquarters,

Commander-in-Chief, Pacific, to Ford Island and to assess the adequacy of those authorities provided in section 2802 of this bill to

support the development of appropriate headquarters facilities on

Ford Island. The committee further directs the Secretary of the

Navy to complete the study and assessment as part of the master

plan for the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, required by that

section.

Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities,

Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida

The committee notes the recent approval by the Secretary of Defense of a waiver of the current moratorium on land acquisition for

the purchase of the afloat prepositioning maintenance facilities at

Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida, currently operated under lease

by the Marine Corps. The committee notes that these facilities are

critical to the prepositioning support of the Marine Corps. The committee has noted previously that ownership of these facilities could

save the Department of the Navy between six and seven million

dollars annually. The committee acknowledges again the analysis

of studies previously required by law which concluded that the

Army and the Marine Corps should maintain and operate separate,

but complementary, prepositioning facilities in Charleston, South

Carolina, and Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida, respectively. In
447

an effort to ensure the continued readiness of the Marine Corps,

the need for strategic placement of prepositioning facilities, and the

desire to obtain the most cost-effective solution to prepositioning

operations, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Navy

to proceed with those actions necessary to bring this acquisition to

completion at the earliest possible time.

Improvements to Military Family Housing

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

improvements to military family housing and facilities, the Secretary of the Navy execute the following project: $9,100,000 for

Whole House Revitalization (91 units) at Marine Corps Base, Camp

Lejeune, North Carolina.

Unspecified Minor Construction

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Navy execute

the following project: $950,000 for an aircraft parts staging facility

at Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville, Florida.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction

projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized amounts are listed on

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2202—Family Housing

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2000.

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2000.

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Navy’s budget for fiscal year 2000. This section also

provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy may spend on

military construction projects.

Section 2205—Authorization to Accept Electrical Substation

Improvements, Guam

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to accept

electrical utility system improvements valued at $610,000 from the

Guam Power Authority at Agana Substation and Harmon Substation at Public Works Center, Guam.
448

Section 2206—Correction in Authorized Use of Funds, Marine

Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia

This section would correct the authorized use of funds authorized

for appropriation for fiscal year 1997 for a military construction

project at Marine Corps Command Development Command,

Quantico, Virginia. This section would permit the use of previously

authorized funds to carry out a military construction project involving infrastructure development at that installation.
(449)

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $179,479,000 for Air Force military construction and $923,683,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2000. The committee recommends authorization of $713,165,000 for

military construction and $1,160,888,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2000.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Air Force construction

projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized amounts are listed on

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2302—Family Housing

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year

2000.

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2000.

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Air Force’s budget for fiscal year 2000. This section also

would provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force may

spend on military construction projects.
(450)

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $193,005,000 for defense agencies

military construction, $705,911,000 for activities associated with

base closure and realignment, and $120,246,000 for family housing

for fiscal year 2000. The committee recommends authorization of

$792,808,000 for military construction, $705,911,000 for activities

associated with base closure and realignment, and $120,246,000 for

family housing.

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Military Construction in Support of Base Closure and Realignment

Activities

The committee is concerned that the total cost of military construction projects in support of the base closure and realignment

activities of the Department of the Navy were not included in the

budget request. The committee is concerned that less than full

funding of such projects may place at risk the requirement to meet

statutory deadlines for the beddown of operational and other missions at Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, California,

Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia, and Naval Air Station, Oceana,

Virginia. The committee directs that, within amounts authorized

for base closure and realignment activities, the Secretary of Defense ensure the timely execution of each of the military construction projects in support of the base closure and realignment activities of the military departments specified in this report. The list is

intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at

each location.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects

This section contains the list of authorized defense agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2000. The authorized amounts are

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Section 2402—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make

improvements to existing units of family housing for fiscal year

2000 in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000.
451

Section 2403—Military Housing Improvement Program

This section would authorize appropriations of $78,756,000 for

credit to the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement

Fund.

Section 2404—Energy Conservation Projects

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry

out energy conservation projects.

Section 2405—Authorization Of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Defense Agencies’ budget for fiscal year 2000. This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount the Defense

Agencies may spend on military construction projects.

Section 2406—Increase in Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization for Military Construction Projects at Pueblo Chemical Activity, Colorado

This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division

B of Public Law 104–201) to provide for an increase in the amount

authorized for military construction projects to support chemical

weapons and munitions destruction at Pueblo Chemical Activity,

Colorado.

Section 2407—Condition on Obligation of Military Construction

Funds for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities

This section would prohibit the obligation of funds authorized for

appropriation for military construction to support the development

of forward operating locations for the drug interdiction and

counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense in Manta, Ecuador, and Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, until after the end of the

30–day period beginning on the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to the Congress a report describing in detail the purposes for which such funds will be obligated and expended.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit future

requests for specific military construction projects for the support

of the drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense on a line-item basis, consistent with the requirements for major military construction projects, as part of the budget request for the military construction and military family housing

programs of the Department of Defense for the fiscal year in which

such military construction projects are required.
(452)

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $191,000,000 for the NATO infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for fiscal year

2000. The committee recommends authorization of $191,000,000.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security

investment program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount

specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill and the amount

of recoupment due to the United States for construction previously

financed by the United States.

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

This section would authorize appropriations of $191,000,000 as

the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment program.
(453)

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES

FACILITIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $77,572,000 for fiscal year 2000 for

guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorization of $437,701,000 to be distributed as follows:

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $123,878,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 151,170,000

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 92,515,000

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 48,564,000

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 21,574,000

Total ................................................................................................. $437,701,000

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and

Land Acquisition Projects

This section would authorize appropriations for military construction for the guard and reserve by service component for fiscal

year 2000. The state list contained in this report is intended to be

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.
(454)

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF

AUTHORIZATIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required

to be Specified by Law

This section would provide that authorizations for military construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family

housing projects and facilities, contributions to the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will expire on October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal

year 2001, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to

authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated

before October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.

Section 2702—Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year

1997 Projects

This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal

year 1997 military construction authorizations until October 1,

2000, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for

military construction for fiscal year 2001, whichever is later.

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year

1996 Projects

This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal

year 1996 military construction authorizations until October 1,

2000, or the date of the enactment of the Act authorizing funds for

military construction for fiscal year 2001, whichever is later.

Section 2704—Effective Date

This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV,

and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1, 1999, or the

date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
(455)

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty

Organization Security Investment

This section would amend section 2806 of title 10, United States

Code, to clarify that contributions by the Secretary of Defense to

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program may be made for construction projects in support of the actual implementation of an approved military operations plan.

Section 2802—Development of Ford Island, Hawaii

This section would authorize a series of special authorities for

the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, by the Secretary of the

Navy. The authorities would authorize the Secretary to convey or

lease excess real or personal property in the State of Hawaii for the

purpose of facilitating such development and would authorize the

Secretary to accept a lease of any facility constructed under this

authority in lieu of cash payment for the sale or lease of real property under this authority. In general, no lease entered into by the

Secretary under this section could exceed ten years and, upon the

termination of any lease, the Secretary would have the right of first

refusal to acquire the property. This section would require the Secretary to use competitive procedures when exercising any of the authorities provided by this section.

As consideration for the sale or lease of real or personal property,

the Secretary may accept cash, real property, personal property,

services, or any combination thereof, and in no case shall the

amount received be less than the fair market value of the real or

personal property conveyed or leased. This section would establish

an account on the books of the Treasury known as the Ford Island

Improvement Account to carry out improvements and obtain property support services for property or facilities on Ford Island.

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit

a master plan for the development of Ford Island to the appropriate committees of Congress not later than 30 days prior to exercising any of the authorities provided by this section. The section

would also require the Secretary, 30 days prior to the commencement of any lease, sale, or exchange of real property, to submit to

the Congressional defense committees a report detailing the terms

and conditions of any transaction. This section would prohibit the

Secretary from acquiring, constructing, or improving military family housing or unaccompanied personnel housing under this author-
456

ity in lieu of the authority provided by subchapter IV, chapter 169

of title 10, United States Code. The provision would authorize the

Secretary to transfer funds from the Ford Island Improvement Account to the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement

Fund and the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied

Housing fund for such purposes.

Section 2803—Restriction on Authority to Acquire or Construct

Ancillary Supporting Facilities for Housing Units

This section would amend section 2881 of title 10, United States

Code, to restrict the development of ancillary supporting facilities

in military housing projects undertaken under the authority of subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, which may

be in direct competition with any resale activities provided by the

Defense Commissary Agency or the Army and Air Force Exchange

Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, Marine Corps exchanges, or any other nonappropriated fund instrumentality which

is conducted for the benefit of the morale, welfare, and recreation

of members of the armed forces.

Section 2804—Planning and Design for Military Construction

Projects for Reserve Components

This section would amend section 18233 of title 10, United States

Code, to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Defense to contribute to the States funds for the design of facilities to support the

Federal mission of the reserve components.

Section 2805—Limitation on Authority to Carry Out Small Projects

for Acquisition of Facilities for Reserve Components

This section would amend section 18233 of title 10, United States

Code, to increase the threshold for unspecified minor construction

projects for the support of the reserve components from $1,500,000

to $3,000,000 and the threshold for projects funded with operations

and maintenance funds from $300,000 to $1,000,000 solely for construction and maintenance projects to remediate serious life,

health, and safety deficiencies. The section would not increase the

budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.

Section 2806—Expansion of Entities Eligible to Participate in Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement of Military

Housing

This section would amend subchapter IV, chapter 169, of title 10,

United States Code, to expand the entities eligible to participate in

the alternative authorities for the acquisition and improvement of

military housing to include any individual, corporation, firm, partnership, company, State or local government, or housing authority

of a State or local government.
457

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2811—Extension of Authority for Lease of Land for Special

Operations Activities

This section would amend section 2680 of title 10, United States

Code, to extend, until September 30, 2005, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to lease real property to support special operations activities.

Section 2812—Utility Privatization Authority

This section would amend section 2688 of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize the secretaries of the military departments to

enter into a contract for the receipt of utility services in connection

with the conveyance of a utility system for a period not to exceed

50 years. The Section would further amend section 2688 of title 10,

United States Code, to clarify that the secretaries of the military

department may convey associated real property, in addition to

easements and rights-of-way, if such property is required to further

the privatization of a utility system. The section would further

amend section 2688 of title 10, United States Code, to permit the

secretaries of the military departments, in lieu of carrying out a

military construction project to construct, repair, or replace a utility system, to use funds authorized and appropriated for such a

project to make a contribution toward the cost of construction, repair, or replacement of the utility system by the entity to which the

utility system is being conveyed.

Section 2813—Acceptance of Funds to Cover Administrative

Expenses Relating to Certain Real Property Transactions

This section would authorize the secretary of a military department to accept reimbursement from non-federal entities for the cost

of administrative expenses relating to the disposal of real property

of the United States for which the secretary will be the disposal

agent.

Section 2814—Study and Report on Impacts to Military Readiness

of Proposed Land Management Changes on Public Lands in Utah

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a

study to evaluate the impact upon military training, testing, and

operational readiness of any proposed changes in land management

on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in the State of Utah that are adjacent to or near the Utah

Test and Training Range and Dugway Proving Ground or beneath

the military operating areas, restricted areas, and airspace that

make up the Utah Test and Training Area. The Secretary of Defense would conduct the study in cooperation with the Secretary of

the Air Force and the Secretary of the Army and coordinate the

study with the Secretary of the Interior.
458

SUBTITLE C—DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT

Section 2821—Continuation of Authority to Use Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990 for Activities Required to Close

or Realign Military Installations

This section would amend section 2906 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (division B of Public Law 101–

510), as amended, to extend the Treasury account known as the

‘‘Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990.’’ The account

would be the sole source of funds to carry out environmental restoration and mitigation activities and other caretaker activities associated with real property resulting from the closure or realignment of a military installation pursuant to the a base closure law

after the termination of the authority of the Secretary of Defense

to carry out a closure or realignment under such authority.

SUBTITLE D—LAND CONVEYANCES

Part I—Army Conveyances

Section 2831—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Fort Sam Houston, Texas

This section would authorize the transfer of, and exchange of jurisdiction on, a parcel of unimproved real property consisting of approximately 152 acres at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, between the

Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The

parcel is to be incorporated into the Fort Sam Houston National

Cemetery.

Section 2832—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Kankakee,

Illinois

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements to the City of Kankakee, Illinois. The property is to be used

for the economic development and other public purposes. The cost

of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the

City.

Section 2833—Land Conveyance, Fort Des Moines, Iowa

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements to the Fort Des Moines Black Officers Memorial, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized in the State of Iowa. The property is

to be used for the purpose of a memorial and for educational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would

be borne by the Corporation.

Section 2834—Land Conveyance, Army Maintenance Support

Activity (Marine) Number 84, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately five acres, to the Borough of

Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. The property is to be used for rec-
459

reational or economic development purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Borough.

The section would also provide for the reversionary interest of the

United States in the conveyed real property and any improvements

thereon in the event the Secretary determines that the conveyed

property is not used in accordance with the condition of conveyance.

Section 2835—Land Conveyances, Army Docks and Related

Property, Alaska

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of less than one-tenth of an acre, to the City and

Borough of Juneau, Alaska. The property is to be used for the furtherance of navigation-related commerce. The cost of any surveys

necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the City. The section would also authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey,

without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,

consisting of approximately 6.13 acres in Whittier, Alaska, to the

Alaska Railroad Corporation. The property is to be used for economic development purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for

the conveyance would be borne by the Corporation.

Section 2836—Land Conveyance, Fort Huachuca, Arizona

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 130 acres at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, to the Veterans Services Commission of the State of Arizona.

The property is to be used for the establishment of a State-run veterans’ cemetery. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Commission.

Section 2837—Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Cannon

Falls, Minnesota

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements to the Cannon Falls Area Schools, Minnesota, Independent

School District Number 252. The property is to be used for educational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the District.

Section 2838—Land Conveyance, Nike Battery 80 Family Housing

Site, East Hanover Township, New Jersey

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 13.88 acres near East Hanover,

New Jersey, to the Township Council of East Hanover. The property is to be used for the development of affordable housing and for

recreational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the

conveyance would be borne by the Township.
460

Section 2839—Land Exchange, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey

a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately one-third of an acre at the Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, to

the City of Moline, Illinois. The property is to be used for the purpose of construction by the City of an entrance and exit ramp for

the bridge crossing the southeast end of the island containing the

Arsenal. As consideration for the conveyance, the City would convey to the United States a parcel of real property consisting of approximately two-tenths of an acre located in the vicinity of the real

property to be conveyed by the Secretary. The cost of any surveys

necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the City.

Section 2840—Modification of Land Conveyance, Joliet Army

Ammunition Plant, Illinois

This section would amend section 2922 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B of Public

Law 104–106) to place additional conditions on the conveyance of

certain real property at Joliet Army Ammunition Plant to Will

County, Illinois, for a landfill. The section would require that the

landfill may only contain waste generated in Will County or waste

generated in municipalities located at least in part in Will County.

The section would also require that the landfill be closed and

capped after 23 years of operation.

Section 2841—Land Conveyances, Twin Cities Army Ammunition

Plant, Minnesota

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey

a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately four acres, at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,

Minnesota, to the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. The property is

to be used for the purpose of permitting the City to construct a city

hall complex. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance

would be borne by the City. The section would also authorize the

Secretary of the Army to convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 35 acres, at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Minnesota, to Ramsey County, Minnesota. The property is to be used for the purpose of permitting the

County to construct a maintenance facility. The cost of any surveys

necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the County. As

consideration for the conveyances, both the City and the County

would make the facilities to be constructed available for use by the

Minnesota National Guard at no cost.

Part II—Navy Conveyances

Section 2851—Land Conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial

Reserve Plant No. 387, Dallas, Texas

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey

a parcel of real property with improvements consisting of approximately 314 acres and including the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant No. 387, Dallas, Texas, to the City of Dallas. The prop-
461

erty is to be used for economic development or other public purposes. The Secretary would be authorized to convey other fixtures

located on the property if the Secretary determines such fixtures

are not required by the Navy for other purposes. The section would

authorize the Secretary to make the conveyance without consideration if determined to be in the best interest of the United States.

If the City conveys any portion of the parcel to a private entity, the

City shall pay the United States an amount equal to the fair market value as determined by the Secretary of the portion conveyed

at the time of its initial conveyance.

Section 2852—Land Conveyance, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve

Center, Orange County, Texas

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey,

without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,

consisting of approximately 2.4 acres in Orange County, Texas, to

the Orange County Navigation and Port District. The property is

to be used for economic development, educational purposes, and the

furtherance of navigation-related commerce. The section would also

provide for the reversionary interest of the United States in the

conveyed real property and any improvements thereon in the event

the Secretary determines that the conveyed property is not used in

accordance with the condition of conveyance.

Section 2853—Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry

Point, North Carolina

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey,

without consideration, a parcel of unimproved real property, consisting of approximately 20 acres at Marine Corps Air Station,

Cherry Point, North Carolina, to the State of North Carolina. The

property is to be used for educational purposes. The conveyance

would be subject to the condition that the State grant easements

and rights-of-way necessary to ensure that the use of the parcel is

compatible with the operations of Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry

Point. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would

be borne by the State.

Part III—Air Force Conveyances

Section 2861—Conveyance of Fuel Supply Line, Pease Air Force

Base, New Hampshire

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to

convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 14.87 acres at the former

Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire and containing a deactivated fuel supply line, to the Pease Development Authority. The

property is to be used for the support of the New Hampshire Air

National Guard. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Authority.

Section 2862—Land Conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to

convey a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of
462

approximately 33.07 acres, to the City of Panama City, Florida.

The property is to be used for economic development or other purposes. As consideration for the conveyance, the City would pay to

the United States an amount equal to the fair market value of the

property as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary would use

the funds paid by the City for the improvement or maintenance of

military family housing units at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.

The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be

borne by the City.

Section 2863—Land Conveyance, Port of Anchorage, Alaska

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force and

the Secretary of the Interior to convey, without consideration, two

parcels of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately 14.22 acres in Anchorage, Alaska, to the Port of Anchorage.

The property is to be used for economic development purposes. The

cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne

by the Port.

Section 2864—Land Conveyance, Forestport Test Annex, New York

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to

convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements of approximately 164 acres in Herkimer County, New

York, and approximately 18 acres in Oneida County, New York, to

the Town of Ohio, New York. The property is to be used for economic development purposes and for other public purposes. The

cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne

by the Town.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2871—Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery

This section would authorize the transfer of real property, and

exchange of jurisdiction, between the Secretary of Defense and the

Secretary of the Army to provide for the expansion of Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia. The property to be transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army consists of

three parcels, totaling approximately 36.5 acres, located at the

Navy Annex of the Pentagon. The provision would also require the

Secretary of the Army to modify the boundary of Arlington National Cemetery to include two parcels of real property, totaling approximately eight acres, situated in Fort Myer, Virginia, contiguous

to the Cemetery.
(463)

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $12.4 billion for Department of Energy national security programs, including $4.5 billion for weapons

activities, $5.8 billion for defense environmental restoration and

waste management, $1.8 billion for other defense activities, and

$73.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal. The committee

recommends $12.3 billion, a decrease of $75.5 million. The following table summarizes the request and the committee recommendations:
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative

The budget request contained $341.0 million for the Accelerated

Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI).

ASCI is an effort to develop a computer capable of 100 trillion

operations a second by 2004. This computer will be powerful

enough to conduct three dimensional simulations of nuclear explosions as a means of assuring the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of U.S. nuclear weapons in the absence of actual testing. The

committee understands the significance of ASCI for science-based

stockpile stewardship and is encouraged by the technical progress

demonstrated to date. However, the committee remains concerned

by the very aggressive program schedule. The committee notes that

the program request is 14 percent higher than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The budget request also includes $34.0

million in new ASCI-related construction and $67.3 million for the

Numeric Environment for Weapons Simulation (NEWS), a 138 percent increase compared to the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Directly related to ASCI, NEWS is an effort to develop visualization

tools to allow nuclear weapons scientists to understand the vast

amounts of data generated by ASCI simulations.

The committee is also concerned with ASCI’s pace compared to

other science tools the Department of Energy needs to support

science based stockpile stewardship. Ignition experiments in the

National Ignition Facility, for example, are projected to start in

2006. Also, advanced radiographic images of the initial phases of

a nuclear weapon explosion will not be available under current

planning until 2005.

The Department justifies ASCI’s aggressive schedule in part on

the fact that nuclear weapons designers with the testing experience

needed to interpret the results of ASCI simulations are aging and

retiring. However, the most recent data provided by the Department shows that the decline in this population is expected to level

out from 2004 to 2007. Further, the committee believes that the

Department could have access to such expertise if they sought it.

In light of these considerations, the committee believes that an

aggressive but more moderately paced ASCI program is justified.

Therefore, the committee recommends $316.0 million for ASCI, a

decrease of $25.0 million.

Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative Construction Projects

The budget request contained $8.0 million for construction of a

terascale simulation facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and $26.0 million for the strategic computing complex at

Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Both of these facilities will house supercomputers being developed in the ASCI program. They are very similar in size, scope,

and purpose yet the total estimated cost of the Los Alamos facility

is 20 percent higher than the Lawrence Livermore facility. Although the committee recommends the requested amounts, it directs the Secretary of Energy not to obligate any of the funds for

the Los Alamos strategic computing complex until a full and inde-
477

pendent review of the cost and schedule of this project has been

completed and the results of the review have been transmitted to

the Congressional defense committees.

Arms Control and Nonproliferation

The budget request contained $296.0 million for arms control, a

$39.1 million increase to the amount appropriated for fiscal year

1999.

The committee notes that the Department of Energy was not

able to expend all fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds for arms control and, as a result, $144.1 million of these funds were brought

forward into fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1999 appropriation of

$256.9 million was added to this amount, totaling $401.0 million of

funds available for arms control during fiscal year 1999. Based on

this program’s expenditure rate for the first half of fiscal year 1999

and the program’s historical expenditure rate for the second half of

prior fiscal years, the General Accounting Office (GAO) projects

that the carryover balance for this program will increase to $162.5

million and will exceed the Department’s 15 percent target carryover balance going into fiscal year 2000.

Consequently, the committee recommends $206.0 million, a decrease of $90.0 million. The committee further recommends that

$20.0 million of this decrease should be assessed to the Initiatives

for Proliferation Prevention program and the Nuclear Cities Initiative. The committee believes that the carryover balance for arms

control is excessive and that, before initiating new projects with fiscal year 2000 funds, the Department should complete ongoing programs with prior year funds.

Commercializing Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention

The Department of Energy’s Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program was established to develop employment opportunities for Russian scientists to avoid risking the marketing of

their weapons of mass destruction knowledge to countries of proliferation concern or terrorist organizations. The objectives of the

IPP program are initially to engage these weapons scientists in

productive nonmilitary work and to then transition this work into

long-term employment in the high-technology commercial marketplace. This long-term employment would be self-sustaining and not

dependent on continued U.S. financial assistance.

According to a February, 1999 report by the General Accounting

Office (GAO), none of the 79 IPP projects has been a commercial

success. The first step in a IPP process is the identification and

verification of technologies and skills possessed by the institutes

and scientists that can have commercial applications. However,

most of the IPP projects never progress past this stage. As acknowledged by the director of the IPP program, commercializing

science and engineering projects is very difficult in the United

States and much more difficult in Russia.

The committee believes that due to the lack of commercial success of the IPP projects, the program has been, and will be reliant

on financial support by the U.S. government. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare a report on ef-
478

forts of the Department to make IPP projects commercially viable.

The report should discuss projects the Department is pursuing

within the IPP program that utilize more commonly held production technologies with the major emphasis on the manufacture of

commercially marketable products, versus current attempts at utilizing high technology. The report should also contain information

on the Department’s criteria and timetable for terminating IPP

projects that have shown little chance of commercial success. The

report should be submitted to the Armed Services Committee of the

Senate and the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives by April 1, 2000.

Commission to Review Nuclear Policy and Management

The committee believes a broad, high level review of issues pertaining to the management and oversight of nuclear weapons policy

is timely. Since the last such review in the 1980s, the Cold War

has ended, U.S. nuclear forces have been reshaped and resized, the

nuclear weapons programs at the Department of Energy (DOE)

have changed in scope and structure, and nuclear weapons budgets

have declined dramatically. Several studies, including those by the

Commission on Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise in

1999 and the Institute for Defense Analyses in 1997, have noted

a need for better coordination between the Department of Defense

(DOD) and DOE. The recent reorganization of the Office of Secretary of Defense also suggests a lack of focus on nuclear matters

within DOD. Consequently, a top level commission to review the

management and oversight of nuclear policy, requirements, forces,

and budgets in the context of these changed circumstances would

be very useful.

Therefore, the committee recommends a series of provisions (sections 3151–3159) that would establish a commission to conduct

such a review and report its results to the Congressional defense

committees by January 1, 2001.

Comptroller General Audit of Department of Energy Contract

Management Practices

The committee is aware of the results of the February 1999 Defense Contract Audit Agency report to the Congress which indicated that the cost accounting practices of the prime contractor at

the Hanford site were within acceptable standards. However, the

committee is also aware of additional allegations of possible fraud

and abuse regarding subcontractor management practices at the

Hanford site.

Consequently, the committee continues to be concerned about the

Department of Energy’s management of contract activities, particularly at the Hanford site. Therefore, the committee requests that

the Comptroller General conduct an investigation of these activities

and report the findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services.
479

Construction Projects

The budget request contained $61.0 million for core stockpile

stewardship construction projects and $94.7 million for core stockpile management construction projects.

The conference report for the Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Act, 1999 (Rept. 105–749) forbade the obligation of

funding for new construction starts authorized in fiscal year 1999

until an independent assessment validated the cost and schedule

for those specific projects. Most of these independent assessments

have not been completed, and those that are complete have identified some difficulties that should be addressed before the projects

proceed. Given these early results, the committee believes that the

remaining independent assessments could find similar difficulties

that would lead to delays in the release of fiscal year 1999 funds,

and thus would reduce the fiscal year 2000 requirement. Consequently, the committee recommends $51.0 million for core stockpile stewardship construction, a decrease of $10.0 million, and

$84.7 million for core stockpile management construction, a decrease of $10.0 million.

The committee notes that the budget request contained no funds

in Stockpile Management designated for infrastructure construction but that such a request was made in Stockpile Stewardship,

providing a more stable foundation for sustaining infrastructure at

the national laboratories. The committee recommends that the Department include funding for Stockpile Management infrastructure

construction in its fiscal year 2001 budget request.

Education

The budget request contained $29.8 million for educational activities, including funding for math and science education for local

schools near the national weapons laboratories, the National Atomic Museum, the Los Alamos County School District, and the Northern New Mexico Educational Enrichment Foundation.

The committee understands the importance of primary and secondary education in math and science, but believes that funding of

these activities by the Defense Programs account provides no direct

benefit to the Department’s core national security mission. Consequently, the committee recommends no funding for these education programs.

However, the committee notes that the Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise recommended that

the Department’s laboratories and production plants ‘‘establish and

implement plans on a priority basis for replenishing essential personnel.’’ The commission noted that significant downsizing of the

nuclear weapons complex has led to an aging workforce, a trend

that will lead to ‘‘a crisis of talent within the next 15 years’’ unless

reversed.

The committee believes that encouraging talented young Americans to contribute to the nuclear weapons effort is important to the

nation’s long term security. Therefore, the committee recommends

amendments to revitalize the Department of Energy fellowship program for graduate and post doctoral students who are specializing

in physical sciences relevant to the needs of the nuclear weapons
480

complex authorized in section 3140 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106). The committee recommends $5.0 million for this fellowship program.

Eligibility to Bid on Excess Department of Energy Equipment at

the Savannah River Site

The committee understands that McDuffie County, Georgia, is

currently not on the list of counties whose residents are eligible to

submit bids for the purchase of surplus Department of Energy

equipment at the Savannah River Site. Therefore, the committee

recommends that the Department add McDuffie County to that list.

Environmental Management Science Program

The budget request contained $32.0 million for the Environmental Management Science Program, a decrease of $15.0 million

from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999.

The committee recognizes the importance of developing advanced

environmental cleanup and remediation technologies that can both

reduce long-term costs and lessen the damage resulting from nuclear waste. Consequently, the committee recommends $42.0 million, an increase of $10.0 million to maintain a more robust environmental management science program.

Environmental Management, Environmental, Safety and Health

The budget request contained $20.0 million for public health activities for the Department’s Office of Environmental Management,

an $8.0 million increase to the amount appropriated for fiscal year

1999. The committee believes that this increase has not been adequately justified and, therefore, recommends $12.0 million, a decrease of $8.0 million. In addition, the committee directs that the

$12.0 million be transferred to the Department’s Office of Environment, Safety and Health in order to provide more effective oversight of these programs.

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)

The national defense budget function (budget function 050) request contained $150.0 million for the FUSRAP. The committee acknowledges the importance of remediating these former Manhattan

Project sites and notes that the Army Corps of Engineers has been

tasked to perform this service. However, because the sites are commercially owned, the committee believes it is more appropriate for

this program to be funded by the civil Army Corps of Engineers

portion of the budget (budget function 301).

Accordingly, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) contained a Sense of Congress

provision recommending that this program be funded within the

Army Corps of Engineers budget. Since the Department chose to ignore this recommendation, the committee recommends no funding

for FUSRAP within budget function 050, a decrease of $150.0 million.
481

Hanford Site Tri-Party Agreement Compliance

The budget request contained $376.3 million for environmental

management at the Hanford site. The committee recommends an

increase of $3.9 million in order to achieve four compliance deadlines established by the tri-party agreement among the Department, the State of Washington’s Department of Ecology, and the

Environmental Protection Agency.

Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant Deactivation

The budget request contained $136.2 million to stabilize, repackage, and remove all remaining plutonium materials from the Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) and to deactivate the plant

complex. The committee understands that the large quantity of

plutonium stored at the PFP is a significant safety hazard and,

therefore, recommends $146.4 million, an increase of $10.2 million

to accelerate the stabilization and repackaging of the plutonium for

permanent storage.

Hanford Reactor Decontamination and Decommissioning

The budget request contained $10.8 million for facility decommissioning at the Hanford Site. The committee recommends $22.2 million, an increase of $11.4 million to accelerate progress on the

cocooning of the reactor cores. The committee believes that safe

storage of these reactor cores on an interim basis will permit the

Department of Energy to more effectively use its remediation funds

for decontaminating and decommissioning ancillary buildings at

Hanford, thereby saving millions of dollars in annual maintenance

and surveillance costs.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

(INEEL) Post 2006 Completion

The budget request contained $291.3 million for the INEEL Post

2006 Completion account, including $7.0 million for the Idaho

Waste Management Complex (IWMC) project. The committee understands the funding requested for the IWMC is to be augmented

by $43.0 million in prior year carryover balances from the Pit Nine

project within this account and notes that the resultant $50.0 million in available funds would represent a $26.3 million increase to

the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

The committee believes that the available prior year carryover

balance from the Pit Nine project is excessive and, therefore, recommends a decrease of $26.3 million from the INEEL Post 2006

Completion account. The committee makes this reduction without

prejudice and believes that it should not have a negative impact on

this project.

Inertial Confinement Fusion

The budget request contained $217.6 million for inertial confinement fusion (ICF) operations and maintenance, including $30.5

million for the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser

Energetics (LLE).
482

The ICF program includes the development and construction of

the National Ignition Facility (NIF), which will use a large array

of lasers focused to achieve a fusion reaction in a small quantity

of hydrogen. The program will provide experimental data to scientists, allowing them to confirm computer models on the behavior

of nuclear weapons explosions.

The committee understands that the budget request does not include sufficient funding to initiate design work for a cryogenic target needed to achieve hydrogen ignition or to provide diagnostics

that will allow NIF to measure the physical results of testing. The

committee believes that additional funding would reduce schedule

and technical risk for these important aspects of the NIF effort,

and therefore recommends $227.6 million for ICF operations and

maintenance, an increase of $10.0 million. Further, the committee

believes that LLE’s Omega laser continues to make important contributions to the ICF program and directs that the Department

fund this facility at the requested level.

In-Tank Precipitation Process

The budget request contained $42.1 million for the high-level

waste treatment at the Savannah River Site. The committee notes

that as a result of equipment problems associated with the release

of explosive benzene that occurred in start-up testing, the Salt

Processing Plant must be redesigned. Accordingly, the committee

recommends $92.1 million, an increase of $50.0 million to initiate

redesign and avoid further delays to the vitrification program.

International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting

The budget request contained $145.0 million for International

Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A), a $4.9

million increase to the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

The objective of this program is to improve the protection of nuclear weapons-usable materials at facilities and institutions in the

former Soviet Union. The committee believes that the MPC&A program is one of the most important of the Department’s arms control efforts.

Therefore, the committee recommends $172.0 million for International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting, an increase

of $27.0 million.

International Nuclear Safety

The budget request contained $34.0 million for International Nu- clear Safety, a $4.0 million increase to the amount appropriated for

fiscal year 1999. The objective of this program is to improve the

safety of Soviet-designed nuclear reactors in countries of the former

Soviet Union.

The committee notes that the Department was not able to expend all fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds for International Nuclear Safety and, as a result, $93.6 million of these funds were

brought forward into fiscal year 1999. Adding the fiscal year 1999

appropriation of $30.0 million to this amount, a total of $123.6 million of funds are available for International Nuclear Safety during

fiscal year 1999. Based on this program’s expenditure rate for the
483

first half of fiscal year 1999 and the program’s historical expenditure rate for the second half of prior fiscal years, the General Accounting Office projects that the carryover balance for this program

will exceed the Department’s 15 percent target carryover balance

by $23.7 million going into fiscal year 2000. Therefore, the committee recommends $15.3 million, a decrease of $18.7 million. The committee believes that the carryover balance

for International Nuclear Safety is excessive and that, before initiating new projects with fiscal year 2000 funds, the Department

should complete ongoing programs with prior year funds. In addition, the committee understands that the Agency for International

Development may supplement the Department’s fiscal year 2000

International Nuclear Safety program by amounts that have not

yet been identified.

Naval Reactors

The budget request contained $665.0 million for the naval reactors program.

The committee believes that the program office has done an excellent job of managing the development, construction, maintenance, and disposal of naval nuclear reactors. However, the committee is concerned that the budget request appears insufficient to

fully support planned non-pressure vessel removal at the Kesselring site in New York and remediation efforts at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Therefore, the

committee recommends $681.0 million, an increase of $16.0 million

to fund these activities.

Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex

On December 21, 1998, the Secretary of Energy announced that

he was deferring for a year a decision on whether to consolidate existing stockpile management contracts for the Kansas City, Pantex,

and Y–12 plants. While the committee supports the motivation underlying the consolidation proposal, the committee believes that the

decision to defer resolution of this issue is justified.

The Department expressed interest in contract consolidation

based on the belief that it would offer greater efficiencies in coordinating plant activities, cleaner lines of authority and responsibility,

reduced personnel levels, and cost savings. However, the committee

notes that a consolidated contract could undermine competition for

plant management in the future; few savings have been identified,

the costs of implementing the modified contract structure could be

considerable, and Departmental oversight of and leverage over a

single contractor managing virtually the entire production complex

could be problematic. While remaining open to the idea of consolidation where it makes sense, the committee believes that these

issues must be thoroughly addressed and presented to the Congress before any decision to consolidate the production complex contracts is made.

Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reserve

The Commission on Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise,

in its March 1999 report, noted that the nuclear weapons workforce
484

is aging rapidly and that expertise in a number of technical areas

is in dangerously short supply. The commission also pointed out

that, as these experts retire and leave the nuclear workforce, the

Department of Energy is doing an inadequate job of transferring

specific and detailed knowledge related to the nuclear weapons

stockpile to a new generation of experts. Further, the commission

argued that the nuclear weapons complex is deficient in its ability

to reconstitute the expertise required in the event of an emergency

or an urgent need to resume testing.

The committee concurs with the commission’s conclusion that

personnel with critical skills who leave the nuclear weapons program represent an unexploited national asset, and endorses the

commission’s recommendation that the Department establish a nuclear weapons personnel reserve to be composed of current or

former employees of the nuclear complex with skills critical to the

Department’s mission. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary to establish such a reserve.

Oak Ridge Operations Compliance Obligations

The budget request contained $530.6 million for the Oak Ridge

Operations site. The committee notes that several environmental

cleanup and remediation project milestones that have been missed

or delayed due to insufficient funding. Consequently, the committee

recommends $539.2 million, an increase of $8.6 million to ensure

that these compliance requirements are met.

Office of Counterintelligence

The budget request contained $18.6 million for the Office of

Counterintelligence to be augmented by an additional $12.6 million

contributed by the DOE nuclear weapons laboratories.

The committee recommends $31.2 million for the Office of Counterintelligence, an increase of $12.6 million. The committee is very

concerned over reports of espionage activities at the DOE laboratories and believes that the Director of the Office of Counterintelligence needs to have the full $31.2 million available for obligation

at the beginning of the fiscal year rather than waiting for 40 percent of the requirement to become available at some later date, if

at all.

Pit Production

The committee understands that substantial progress has been

made to reestablish a near-term plutonium pit production capability at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and to define the

longer-term pit production capacity required to support the nuclear

weapons stockpile. The committee also notes that the pit production manufacturing process has been designed, established by, and,

in the current production plan, will be performed at Los Alamos.

Based on Department of Energy analysis, the committee believes

that the requirement for additional pit production capacity in the

future is unambiguous. However, the committee also believes that

a science oriented laboratory is not the best institution to retain responsibility for pit manufacture or to expand pit manufacturing capacity. The committee strongly urges the Secretary of Energy to
485

maximize the ability of industry to manage both the production

process and the expansion effort by planning to transition pit production from laboratory to industrial operations prior to expansion

of pit production capacity.

Program Direction for Defense Programs

The budget request contained $246.5 million for Defense Programs program direction.

The committee notes that the request includes a $10.0 million increase in salaries, benefits, travel, and advisory and support services compared to funding appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

The committee recommends $236.5 million, a decrease of $10.0

million. Of this amount, the committee directs that $15.0 million

may only be obligated for voluntary separation incentive payments.

Program Direction for Environmental Management

The budget request contained $349.4 million for environmental

management program direction, which includes salaries, personnel,

contractor support, and advisory and assistance funding. This

amount represents a $12.3 million increase to the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The committee finds no justification for

such an increase, and notes that the program direction request for

defense programs has been reduced from fiscal year 1999 levels.

Consequently, the committee recommends $327.1 million, a decrease of $22.3 million.

Records Declassification

The budget request contained $15.9 million for records declassification, a $7.4 million increase to the amount appropriated for

fiscal year 1999.

The committee believes that there are more compelling uses for

national defense funds than for declassifying historical records.

Therefore, the committee recommends $8.5 million, a decrease of

$7.4 million.

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Closure Project

The budget request contained $657.2 million for the Rocky Flats

Environmental Technology Site Closure Project. For the last three

years, the committee has emphasized the importance of providing

adequate funding for the cleanup efforts at sites that are nearing

closure. The Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site was originally scheduled to close in 2010, but the Department of Energy is

working to accelerate its closure by 2006. The committee notes that

the Department and the associated contractors have confidence in

the accelerated closure schedule, which would save an estimated

$1.3 billion. The committee supports the accelerated closure plan

and, therefore, recommends $695.2 million, an increase of $38.0

million for this purpose.

Savannah River Site Infrastructure Investment

The budget request contained $14.5 million for operating projects

at the Savannah River Site. The committee is concerned that both
486

capital equipment and safety and security systems equipment

needs at this site have gone unmet due to funding shortfalls.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million

to upgrade fire protection and security systems, to replace domestic

water and telephone systems, and to support engineering facilities

for health physics, analytical chemistry, and environmental monitoring.

Security Investigations

The budget request contained $30.0 million for security investigations.

The Security Investigations Program funds background investigations for Department of Energy (DOE) federal staff and DOE

contractors at the Department’s headquarters. The committee notes

that the budget request assumes that DOE program offices will offset or contribute $20.0 million of this expense for background investigations of their staff members and headquarters contractors

resulting in a total of $30.0 million in available funds to execute

the fiscal year 2000 security investigation program. Therefore, the

committee recommends $10.0 million, a decrease of $20.0 million

and assumes the transfer of $20.0 million from DOE program offices to the Security Investigations Program.

Stockpile Management

The budget request contained $2.0 billion for stockpile management, including $240.8 million for the Pantex plant, $287.5 million

for the Kansas City plant, $374.2 million for the Y–12 plant, and

$127.4 million for the Savannah River Site.

The committee notes that the request represents a decrease of

four percent compared to the amount appropriated for fiscal year

1999. This decrease was imposed even though the required workload at the nuclear weapons production complex has been increased. While greater efficiencies and intelligent planning at the

plants can meet some of the increased demand at lower funding

levels, the committee believes that serious problems in the complex

will remain. The Committee on Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons

Expertise identified multiple ‘‘fragile skill areas’’ and a limited ability of the plants to retain and replenish personnel with the proper

skills as overall employment levels continue to fall. The plants

must also continue to reduce their size and modernize their physical infrastructure. The committee notes that while stable funding

for infrastructure improvements to the national laboratories has

been identified, no such funding has been programmed for the

plants. Finally, advanced technologies will be required to improve

processes, increase efficiency, and meet future workload requirements.

Therefore, the committee recommends $270.8 million for the

Pantex plant, an increase of $30.0 million to meet increased surveillance, assembly and disassembly workload demands, to fund

the Enhanced Surveillance Program and the Advanced Manufacturing, Design and Production Technologies (ADAPT) initiatives,

and to support necessary infrastructure improvements and recapitalization projects.
487

The committee also recommends $317.5 million for the Kansas

City plant, an increase of $30.0 million to support increased workload, ADAPT initiatives and necessary infrastructure improvements and recapitalization projects.

The committee further recommends $404.2 million for the Y–12

plant, an increase of $30.0 million to support a site-wide environmental impact statement necessary to modernize Y–12 facilities

and necessary infrastructure improvements and recapitalization

projects.

Finally, the committee recommends $134.4 million for the Savannah River Site, an increase of $7.0 million to support additional

tritium reservoir testing and necessary capital investments.

Stockpile Management Fissile Material Storage and Disposition

The budget request contained $200.0 million for fissile materials

control and disposition. It also contained, within Stockpile Management, $22.0 million for storage of excess special nuclear material

at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Y–12 plant; $10.0 million for storage and surveillance of excess plutonium pits at the

Pantex plant; $3.0 million for a pit disassembly conversion demonstration project at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and $4.0

million for the Parallax Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Based on discussions with senior Department of Energy officials,

the committee believes these projects fall outside of the Stockpile

Management mission of production and surveillance and are more

appropriately funded within the Other Defense accounts for fissile

materials control and disposition. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $39.0 million to the Stockpile Management

account, and $239.0 million for fissile materials control and disposition, an increase of $39.0 million.

Technology Partnerships

The budget request contained $22.2 million for technology partnerships.

Technology partnerships are intended to provide Defense Programs expertise to a variety of commercial partners through

projects that enhance Defense Programs capabilities. The Department of Energy believes, and the committee concurs, that the

projects funded in this program are of lower priority than activities

funded in the core stockpile stewardship mission.

However, the committee is mindful that the Department has

made certain commitments in the past to its commercial partners

concerning shared funding responsibilities in joint projects. One

such commitment is with the American Textile (AMTEX) Partnership; however, no funding for AMTEX is contained in the budget

request. The committee believes that another year of funding for

this project would satisfy the Department’s obligation to its partners in the commercial textile industry. Another such commitment

is with the Amarillo Plutonium Research Center and the committee

believes that the Secretary of Energy should consider continuation

of this cooperative effort beyond fiscal year 2000.

Consequently, the committee recommends $14.5 million for technology partnerships, a decrease of $7.7 million. Of this amount,
488

$5.0 million is for AMTEX and $5.0 million is for the Amarillo Plutonium Research Center.

Worker and Community Transition

The budget request contained $30.0 million for Worker and Community Transition, a $1.8 million increase to the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

The committee notes that the Department of Energy was not

able to expend all fiscal year 1998 appropriated funds for Worker

and Community Transition, and, as a result, $72.1 million of these

funds were carried forward into fiscal year 1999. Adding the fiscal

year 1999 appropriation of $28.2 million to this amount leaves a

total of $100.3 million available for Worker and Community Transition during fiscal year 1999. Based on this program’s expenditure

rate for the first half of fiscal year 1999 and the program’s historical expenditure rate for the second half of prior fiscal years, the

General Accounting Office projects that the carryover balance for

this program will exceed the Department’s 15 percent target carryover balance by $53.0 million going into fiscal year 2000.

Therefore, the committee recommends $20.0 million, a decrease

of $10.0 million. The committee further recommends that none of

this decrease should come from the amounts specifically requested

for fiscal year 2000 for the Idaho Operations Office, the Ohio Field

Office, the Oak Ridge Operations Office, and the Richland Operations Office. The committee believes that the carryover balance for

Worker and Community Transition is excessive and that, before

initiating new projects with fiscal year 2000 funds, the Department

should complete ongoing programs with prior year funds.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 3101—Weapons Activities

This section would authorize Department of Energy weapons activity funding for fiscal year 2000.

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management

This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy environmental restoration and waste management activities for fiscal

year 2000.

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities

This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy

other defense activities for fiscal year 2000.

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear waste disposal activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2000.
489

Section 3105—Defense Environmental Management Privatization

This section would authorize funds for privatization initiatives in

carrying out environmental restoration and waste management activities necessary for Department of Energy national security programs.

SUBTITLE B—RECURRING GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 3121—Reprogramming

This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in excess

of 110 percent of the amount authorized for the program, or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for the program

until the Secretary of Energy has notified the Congressional defense committees and a period of 60 days has elapsed after the date

on which the notification is received.

Section 3122—Limits on General Plant Projects

This section would limit the initiation of ‘‘general plant projects’’

authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost for any project

exceeds $5.0 million. However, if the Secretary of Energy finds that

the estimated cost of any project will exceed $5.0 million, the Congressional defense committees must be notified of the reasons for

the cost variation.

Section 3123—Limits on Construction Projects

This section would permit any construction project to be initiated

and continued only if the estimated cost for the project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the amount authorized for the

project, or (2) the most recent total estimated cost presented to the

Congress as justification for such project. To exceed such limits, the

Secretary of Energy must report in detail to the Congressional defense committees and the report must be before the committees for

30 legislative days. This section would also specify that the 125

percent limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost

under $5.0 million.

Section 3124—Fund Transfer Authority

This section would permit funds authorized by the bill to be

transferred to other agencies of the government for performance of

work for which the funds were authorized and appropriated. The

provision would permit the merger of such funds with the authorizations of the agency to which they are transferred. This section

would also limit to no more than five percent the amount of funds

that may be transferred between accounts in the Department of

Energy that were authorized by the bill.

Section 3125—Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design

This section would limit the Secretary of Energy’s authority to

request construction funding until the Secretary has certified a

conceptual design has been completed, except in the case of emergencies.
490

Section 3126—Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and

Construction Activities

This section would permit, in addition to any advance planning

and construction design otherwise authorized by the bill, the Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design utilizing available

funds for any Department of Energy national security program construction project whenever the Secretary determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to protect the public health and

safety, to meet the needs of national defense, or to protect property.

Section 3127—Funds Available for All National Security Programs

of the Department of Energy

This section would authorize, subject to section 3121 of this bill,

amounts for management and support activities and for general

plant projects to be made available for use, when necessary, in connection with all national security programs of the Department of

Energy.

Section 3128—Availability of Funds

This section would allow amounts appropriated for operation and

maintenance or for plant projects to remain available until expended. This section would provide an exception for program direction funding which would remain available until the end of fiscal

year 2000.

Section 3129—Transfers of Defense Environmental Management

Funds

This section would provide the manager of each field office of the

Department of Energy with the limited authority to transfer defense environmental management funds from a program or project

under the jurisdiction of the office to another such program or

project.

SUBTITLE C—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 3131—Limitation on Use at Department of Energy Laboratories of Funds Appropriated for the Initiatives for Proliferation

Prevention Program

This section would establish a limitation that not more than 25

percent of the funds appropriated for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program for any fiscal year could be spent at

Department of Energy laboratories.

The IPP program was established to provide employment for the

thousands of unemployed and underemployed Russian nuclear

weapons scientists in projects with commercial applications, thereby providing them with an incentive to remain in Russia and resist

the temptation to emigrate to countries of proliferation concern.

The committee notes that the Department of Energy’s laboratories are involved in the IPP program to assist in designing and

monitoring IPP research projects. However, the General Accounting

Office has reported that 51 percent of IPP funds are consumed by
491

the laboratories and that a majority of those expenditures are used

for administrative support fees. The committee believes that the

amount of IPP funds spent at the laboratories should be limited so

that more funds are spent in Russia for the intended purpose of the

program.

Section 3132—Prohibition on Use for Payment of Russian Government Taxes and Customs Duties of Funds Appropriated for the

Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program

This section would prohibit the payment of Russian taxes or customs duties with funds appropriated for the Department of Energy’s Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program.

The IPP program was established to provide employment for the

thousands of unemployed and underemployed Russian nuclear

weapon scientists. The intent of the program is to provide salaries

to these scientists for working on commercial research projects,

thereby persuading them to remain in Russia and to refrain from

emigrating to countries or projects of proliferation concern.

However, the effectiveness of the program is severely diminished

by the amount of IPP funds that are taxed by the Russian government. According to a November 1998 DOE report, 53 percent of the

IPP funds that are sent to Russia are extracted by the Russian government in the form of a variety of taxes, customs duties, and fees.

As a result, the Russian scientists receive less than 50 percent of

those IPP funds actually spent in Russia.

Section 3133—Modification of Laboratory Directed Research and

Development to Provide Funds for Theater Ballistic Missile Defense

This provision would amend section 3132 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510) by reducing the maximum laboratory directed research and development

(LDRD) surcharge from six percent to three percent. It would also

establish a three percent surcharge to fund theater ballistic missile

defense (TMD) development projects at the national weapons laboratories. The provision would require that such projects be established and executed consistent with the memorandum of understanding between the Secretaries of Energy and Defense that was

required by section 3131 of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85). For fiscal year 2000, the

provision would direct funds available for TMD to the development

and test of kinetic energy theater ballistic missile defense warheads based on advanced explosive technology.

The committee strongly believes that the development of effective

ballistic missile defenses remains a critical national security requirement. The committee recognizes the national laboratories as

a valuable, multi-mission, national security resource and believes

that the high priority of meeting ballistic missile defense requirements dictates the use of their technical expertise.

The committee believes that kinetic energy warheads based on

advanced explosive technology could be a valuable technical adjunct to hit-to-kill technology and notes that such a program would

take advantage of the Department of Energy’s expertise and pre-
492

vious research in advanced explosive technology. The committee expects that this effort would focus on liquid metal jets produced by

precisely initiated explosives, multiple pellet generation aimed by

phased initiation, and a smart pellet projector.

Section 3134—Support of Theater Ballistic Missile Defense

Activities of the Department of Defense

This section would authorize $30.0 million for stockpile stewardship for theater ballistic missile defense technology development,

concept demonstration, and integrated testing to improve reliability

and reduce risk in hit-to-kill interceptors for theater ballistic missile defenses; for science and engineering teams to address technical problems identified by the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) which are critical to the acquisition of

a theater ballistic missile defense capability; and for other research, development, and demonstration activities that support the

mission of BMDO. The section would also require that any such activities conform to the memorandum of understanding between the

Secretaries of Energy and Defense required by section 3131 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public

Law 105–85) and be funded either through direct contributions or

through a waiver of a federal administrative charge, overhead

costs, or other indirect costs of the Department of Energy or its

contractors.

The budget request contained no funds for research related to

ballistic missile defense. The committee continues to believe that

the Department of Energy’s national weapons laboratories possess

substantial technical expertise relevant to the challenge of theater

ballistic missile defenses and that the laboratories can enhance the

core competencies required to sustain the nation’s nuclear weapons

stockpile.

The committee understands that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been signed by the Secretaries of Energy and

Defense on cooperative research and development activities between the DOE laboratories and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and that funds for specific projects based on this

MOU have been requested by BMDO for fiscal year 2000. The committee believes that an expansion of this effort is justified.

SUBTITLE D—COMMISSION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS MANAGEMENT

Sections 3151–3159—Commission to Examine Nuclear Weapons

Policy Management and Oversight

These sections would establish a ‘‘Commission on Nuclear Weapons Management,’’ the procedures by which members of the commission would be selected, general rules governing the operation of

the commission, the duties of the commission, the commission’s reporting requirements, and the commission’s powers.
493

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 3161—Procedures for Meeting Tritium Production

Requirements

Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen necessary for the

proper functioning of U.S. nuclear weapons and due to a short half

life, must be periodically replenished. Despite the fact that U.S.

tritium production ceased in 1988, the committee notes that a new

source of tritium is required by 2005 to meet tritium requirements

imposed by nuclear warhead levels consistent with Strategic Arms

Reduction Treaty I force levels. In December 1998, the Secretary

of Energy designated commercial light water reactor technology to

be the Department’s primary tritium production technology and

designated accelerator production of technology (APT) as the

backup production technology.

The committee notes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) will have to issue amended licenses to the Tennessee Valley

Authority’s Watts Bar and Sequoya light water reactors, selected

by the Secretary as the preferred facilities for tritium production.

The committee understands that the NRC licensing process is often

very lengthy and is concerned that delays in issuing amended licenses to the preferred tritium production facilities could jeopardize

the ability of the Department to meet tritium requirements. The

Department’s tritium production implementation plan indicates

that the amended licenses will be granted by the first quarter of

fiscal year 2003, and senior Department of Energy officials have informed the committee that they expect the amended licenses will

be issued at an earlier date. Because the committee strongly believes that renewed production of tritium is essential to U.S. security requirements, it directs the Department to initiate the licensing process promptly.

To mitigate the risks inherent in a potentially lengthy licensing

process, this provision would require the Secretary of Energy to

prepare a plan to expedite APT design completion and construction.

If amended licenses for the operation of commercial light water reactors for tritium production have not been completed by December

31, 2002, the provision would also require that the Secretary designate APT as the primary technology for tritium production and

implement the APT plan.

Section 3162—Extension of Authority of Department of Energy to

Pay Voluntary Separation Payments

This provision would extend the Department of Energy’s authority to pay voluntary separation incentive payments for one year beyond its current authority and would require the Department to

submit a report on the Department’s use of this authority. The

committee believes that this authority is a key tool available to Defense Programs to shape its future workforce as it downsizes.

The committee notes that several recent reports, including ‘‘The

Organization and Management of the Nuclear Weapons Program,’’

issued by the Institute for Defense Analyses in February 1997, and

the report of the Commission on Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons

Expertise, issued March 15, 1999, have concluded that the Depart-
494

ment of Energy Weapons Activities program is overstaffed in its

management and oversight functions. In spite of these conclusions,

Defense Programs personnel levels have remained steady since fiscal year 1998 and are projected to remain steady through fiscal

year 2000.

Section 3163—Fellowship Program for Development of Skills

Critical to the Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex

This provision would amend section 3140 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106) by

authorizing the establishment of a fellowship program for graduate

and postdoctoral students who are U.S. citizens specializing in

physical sciences with relevance to the nuclear weapons complex;

requiring recipients to accept a postdoctoral-level appointment of at

least one year, if offered, at one of national weapons laboratories

or plants of the nuclear weapons complex; and requiring the Secretary of Energy to submit to the congressional defense committees

by January 1, 2000 a plan that would establish criteria for the

awarding of fellowships and a description of service obligations to

be incurred by fellowship recipients. The provision would also authorize $5.0 million for the fellowship program.

Section 3164—Department of Energy Records Declassification

This section would require that any future budget request submitted to the Congress by the Department of Energy continue to

specifically identify as a budgetary line item funds that would be

used to declassify records pursuant to Executive Order 12958 or to

comply with any subsequent statutory declassification requirements. This section would also limit the expenditure of funds by

the Department of Energy for declassification of records during fiscal year 2000 to no more than $8.5 million.

Section 3165—Management of Nuclear Weapons Production

Facilities and National Laboratories

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to assign to

the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs direct authority over, and responsibility for, the nuclear weapons production

facilities and national laboratories with respect to strategic management, policy development and guidance, budget guidance and

formulation, resource requirements determinations and allocations,

administration of contracts, environmental safety and health operations, integrated safety and management, safeguard and security

operations, and relations with government agencies. It would also

establish that the nuclear weapons production facilities, national

laboratories, and operations offices report directly to the Assistant

Secretary for Defense Programs. Finally, it would allow the Assistant Secretary to delegate to the operations offices a number of support functions, including operational activities, program execution,

personnel, contracting and procurement, facility operations oversight, and integration of production and research activities.

The committee notes that a 1997 study, entitled ‘‘The Organization and Management of the Nuclear Weapons Program (120

Study),’’ found that Defense Programs suffers from confused lines
495

of authority and weak integration of programs, budgets, and functions. The Commission on Sustaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise, established by section 3162 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201), recently completed its report and repeated those conclusions. This

provision would address these concerns by clarifying the lines of

authority for the national laboratories, nuclear weapons production

facilities, and operations offices.

Section 3166—Notice to Congressional Committees of Compromise

of Classified Information within Nuclear Energy Defense Programs

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to notify the

Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the Armed Services

Committee of the House of Representatives whenever the Secretary

has any knowledge that classified information relating to military

applications of nuclear energy has been disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Since the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the

House of Representatives are the congressional committees responsible for the authorization of the nuclear energy defense programs

of the Department of Energy, it is necessary that these committees

be kept informed of any compromise of classified information to foreign powers either through espionage or through willful or accidental release by U.S. citizens. This information is essential so that

these oversight committees can determine if such a disclosure of

classified information caused significant damage to U.S. nuclear

energy defense programs, so that program redirection or remedial

actions can be authorized in a timely manner.
(496)

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION

Section 3201—Authorization

This section would authorize $17.5 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board during fiscal year 2000.
(497)

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3301—Definitions

This section would provide specific definitions of the National Defense Stockpile and the National Defense Stockpile Transaction

Fund.

Section 3302—Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds

This section would authorize $78.7 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2000. The

provision would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions after a notification to the Congress.

Section 3303—Elimination of Congressionally Imposed Disposal

Restrictions on Specific Stockpile Materials

This section would repeal sections 3303 and 3304 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–

106) pertaining to restrictions on the disposal of manganese ferro

from the National Defense Stockpile.
(498)

TITLE XXXIV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Great Lakes Maritime Academy

The budget request contained $7.161 million for State Maritime

Schools, representing an increase of $411,000 over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The committee understands that

the training simulator at the Great Lakes Maritime Academy

(GLMA) requires maintenance upgrades in order to continue to

support cadet training and certification. The committee is concerned that the GLMA, the only State school without a federally

supported training vessel, may not be able to continue to train its

cadets to international maritime standards without the use of this

simulator. Therefore, the committee directs that $190,000 of the

$411,000 increase requested for State maritime schools be used to

upgrade and repair the GLMA simulator.

Merchant Marine Academy

The budget request contained $34.1 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). The committee is concerned

about the deteriorating material condition of the physical plant and

campus infrastructure at the USMMA. The plant and facilities are

in such need of repair and replacement that they have become a

health and safety hazard to the midshipmen and the staff. The

budget request contained $150,000 for a feasibility study for the design of a replacement utility system. The committee directs the

Secretary of Transportation to provide by October 31, 1999, a report to the House Committee on Armed Services summarizing the

findings of this feasibility study as well as a detailed outline of estimated costs necessary to repair and restore the facilities at the

USMMA. In addition, the committee recommends $41.7 million, an

increase of $7.6 million, for deferred capital maintenance projects

for fiscal year 2000.

Repair and Maintenance of Maritime Administration Vessels

The committee understands that Ready Reserve Force vessels

managed by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) but operated

under the Military Sealift Command when activated for exercises

or crisis, must be maintained according to U.S. Coast Guard standards. The committee expects that non-emergency repairs and maintenance to these vessels will be made in U.S. shipyards, except in

cases of national emergency or unless the national security readiness of the vessel may be adversely affected. In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to provide a report

to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Com-
499

mittee on Armed Services, by February 1, 2000, detailing the type,

cost, and location of all non-emergency maintenance or repairs to

these vessels since 1990. The report should also define ‘‘emergency

repairs’’ and indicate the official reason for any repairs or maintenance performed in a shipyard outside of the Unites States or

Guam.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3401—Short Title

This Section would establish the Act as ‘‘The Maritime Administration Act for Fiscal Year 2000.’’

Section 3402—Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000

This section would authorize $213.4 million for fiscal year 2000. Of the funds authorized, $98.7 million is for the Maritime Security

Program and $79.8 million is for operations and training programs,

including $41.7, an increase of $7.6 million, for capital maintenance at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. In addition, $31.0

million, an increase of $25.0 million, is for the costs, as defined in

section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of loan guarantees authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936,

as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) and $3.9 million is for

administrative expenses related to these loan guarantee commitments.

Section 3403—Amendments to Title XI of the Merchant Marine

Act, 1936

This section would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

place all Title XI bond proceeds in escrow to protect the government’s interest during vessel construction. In addition, this section

would prohibit the Secretary from releasing funds from the escrow

account until the Secretary determines that the obligor has paid its

portion of the actual cost of construction or reconstruction and that

the funds to be released are needed to cover payments to the shipyard or other approved vessel related costs.

This section would also authorize the Secretary of Transportation

to deposit funds into the Treasury which are earned by an obligor

and required to be paid into such an account by the terms of the

obligor’s agreement with the Secretary under a reserve fund or

other collateral account agreement. The Secretary shall have a security interest in such deposits. In addition, this section would authorize the Secretary to invest and reinvest the funds on deposit

with the Treasury in obligations of the United States with income

from the account to be paid to the obligor in the absence of a default by the obligor. In the event of a default, the Secretary could

retain and offset all of the funds in the account for the benefit of

the United States. In no event could funds be withdrawn for this

without the consent of the Secretary.

Section 3404—Extension of War Risk Insurance Authority

This section would extend through June 30, 2005, the current authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation, under Title XII
500

of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, to provide policies for vessel

war risk insurance to vessel operators, without premium, at the request of the Secretary of Defense whenever it appears that such insurance cannot be obtained on reasonable terms and conditions

from commercial underwriters.

Section 3405—Ownership of the JEREMIAH O’BRIEN

This section would amend the Federal Maritime Commission Act

of 1990 (46 U.S.C. Sec. 3302) to clarify the ownership status of the

JEREMIAH O’BRIEN. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996

(Public Law 104–324) authorized the conveyance of title of the

JEREMIAH O’BRIEN to a nonprofit corporation for use as a merchant marine memorial. Under this authority, the National Liberty

Ship Memorial, Inc. received title to the ship on October 10, 1998.

Nothing in this section would amend or alter the terms and conditions set forth in either the Federal Maritime Commission Act of

1990 or the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 as they relate

to this vessel.
(501)

TITLE XXXV—PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3501—Short Title

This section would establish the Act as the ‘‘Panama Canal Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.’’

Section 3502—Authorization of Expenditures

This section would authorize the Panama Canal Commission (the

Commission) to make expenditures from the Panama Canal Commission Revolving Fund within existing statutory limits for the

final period of U.S. operation of the Panama Canal, from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 to noon on December 31, 1999. The Commission does not draw from U.S. taxpayer funds for the operation

of the Canal, but receives funding to cover its operating, administrative, and capital improvement expenses from tolls and other revenues collected. The Commission’s total operating costs, including

depreciation and interest payments, in fiscal year 2000 are estimated to be $156.9 million. Due to the numerous official activities

that will precede and accompany the transfer in this final period,

the committee is recommending the same amount that was authorized for fiscal year 1999.

Section 3503—Purchase of Vehicles

This section would authorize the Commission to purchase passenger motor vehicles built in the United States provided that the

purchase price is less than $26,000 per vehicle.

Section 3504—Office of Transition Administration

This section would authorize the Office of Transition Administration (OTA), established by section 1305 of the Panama Canal Act

of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3714a) to expend or obligate funds from the Panama Canal Commission Dissolution Fund established by that same

provision. This authority would be in effect from enactment until

the Fund terminates by law on October 24, 2004. This section

would also set forth certain operating parameters of OTA. Specifically, it would deem the director of OTA as the head of the agency

for purposes of the exercise of procurement authority, clarify that

the relevant provisions of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 will govern OTA’s operation, and establish Panama and Washington, D.C.

as OTA’s locations. Finally, this section would confirm that the

OTA office in Panama will be subject to normal Chief of Mission

authority exercised by the United States Embassy in Panama.
(502)

DEPARTMENTAL DATA

The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance

with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL,

Washington, DC, March 23, 1999.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense proposes the enclosed draft of legislation, ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal

years 2000 and 2001 for military activities of the Department of

Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal years

2000 and 2001, and for other purposes.’’

This legislative proposal is part of the Department of Defense

Legislative Program for the First Session of the 106th Congress

and is necessary to carry out the President’s budget plans for fiscal

years 2000 and 2001. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this proposal

to the Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with

the program of the President.

The bill proposes several important initiatives needed for the efficient operation of the Department of Defense. It contains two additional rounds of base closures that would provide a fair process for

eliminating unnecessary infrastructure while saving billions of dollars needed for increased modernization costs to replace aging

weapon systems. It also would authorize appropriations for construction at certain military installations for fiscal years 2000 and

2001, and for other military construction activities of the Department.

The bill’s 4.4 percent increase in basic pay, targeted pay increases, restoration of retirement pay, and extensions and increases in certain special pays and bonuses, would enable the Department to recruit and retain qualified members in the uniformed

services. Finally, the bill would contribute to the smooth management of the Department by providing many other improvements

and additions to the authorities under which we operate.

Sincerely,

JUDITH A. MILLER.

Enclosures.
503

COMMITTEE POSITION

On May 19, 1999 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum

being present, approved H.R. 1401, as amended, by a vote of 55 to

1.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

Washington, DC, May 20, 1999.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN SPENCE: Thank you for working with me in your

development of H.R. 1401, National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, specifically:

1. Section 341, Assistance to Local Education Agencies that

Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees;

2. Section 343; Technical Amendments to Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978;

3. Section 549, Re-codification and Consolidation of Statutes

Denying Federal Grants and Contracts by certain Departments

and Agencies to Institutions of Higher Education that Prohibit

Senior ROTC Units or Military Recruiting on Campus;

4. Section 567, Access to Secondary School Students for Military Recruiting Purposes; and

5. Section 673, Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program.

As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction of the

Education and the Workforce Committee.

While I do not intend to seek sequential referral of H.R. 1401,

the Committee does hold an interest in preserving its future jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of

this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We would expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions should a conference with the Senate

arise.

Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the

amendments to H.R 1401 and look forward to working with you on

these issues in the future.

Sincerely,

BILL GOODLING, Chairman.
504

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee on Government Reform

has decided not to assert its jurisdiction over the following provisions in H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, that fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the

Committee on Government Reform.

Title V—Military Personnel Policy

Section 521: Revision to Military Technician (Dual Status) Law.

Section 522: Civil Service Retirement of Technicians.

Section 523: Revision to Non-Dual Status Technicians Statute.

Section 524: Revision to Authorities Relating to National Guard

Technicians.

Title VI—Compensation and other Personnel Benefits

Section 672: Clarification of per diem eligibility for military technicians serving on active duty without pay outside the United

States.

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

Section 802: Extension of Authority to issue solicitations for purposes of commercial items in excess of simplified acquisition

threshold.

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management

Section 902: Responsibility for logistics and sustainment functions of the DOD.

Title XI—Department of Defense Civilian Personnel

Section 1101: Increase of pay cap for non-appropriated fund senior executive employees.

Section 1102: Restoration of leave for certain DOD employees

who deploy to combat zone outside U.S.

Section 1103: Expansion of Guard & Reserve purposes for which

leave may be used.

Title XXVIII—General Provisions

Section 2802: Development of Ford Island, Hawaii.

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs

Section 3156: Personnel matters.

Section 3157: Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions.

Section 3162: Extension of authority of DOE to pay voluntary

separation incentive payments.

As you know, House Rule X, Establishment and Jurisdiction of

Standing Committees, grants the Government Reform Committee

wide jurisdiction over government management issues including
505

matters related to Federal civil service, procurement policy, and

property disposal.

This committee also oversees legislation regarding holidays and

celebrations. This waiver is not intended or designed to limit our

jurisdiction over any future consideration of related matters.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your consultation with the Government Reform Committee to ensure that these provisions address

the legislative goals of both Committees as well as the American

taxpayer.

I look forward to working with you in the on this and other

issues throughout the 106th Congress.

Sincerely,

DAN BURTON, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that on Wednesday, May 19,

1999, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably reported

H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2000. The bill includes a number of provisions that fall within the

legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations

pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of Representatives.

The specific provisions within our committee’s jurisdiction are:

(1) Section 1023, United States Military Activities in Colombia; (2)

Section 1201, Report on Strategic Stability under START III; (3)

Section 1202, One-Year Extension of Counter-Proliferation Authorities for Support of United Nations Weapons Inspection Regime in

Iraq; and (4) Title XIII, Cooperative Threat Reduction with States

of the Former Soviet Union.

With respect to Section 1006, Limitation on Operations in Yugoslavia, and Section 1206, Limitation on Funds for Bosnia Peacekeeping Operations for Fiscal Year 2000, it is my understanding

that the Parliamentarians have not made a final determination regarding our jurisdictional claim on these provisions. Because of our

Committee’s strong interest in these provisions, which we believe

are at the heart of our Committee’s jurisdiction regarding decisions

governing intervention abroad, we will continue to seek jurisdiction

over these provisions as we move toward conference committee on

H.R. 1401.

Pursuant to Chairman Dreier’s announcement that the Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule for H.R.

1401 and your desire to have the bill considered on the House floor

next week, the Committee on International Relations will not seek

a sequential referral of the bill as a result of including these provisions, without waiving or ceding now or in the future this committee’s jurisdiction over the provisions in question. I will seek to have

conferees appointed for these provisions during any House-Senate

conference committee.
506

I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of the report on H.R. 1401 and as part of the record during consideration

of the bill by the House of Representatives.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have reviewed H.R. 1401, the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, as reported by the

Committee on Armed Services for provisions within the jurisdiction

of the Committee on Resources. Based on my reading, I believe the

Committee on Resources has a jurisdictional interest in sections

365, 601, 653, 654, 2814 and 2863, all dealing with the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps, public lands or

historic preservation.

Because I have no objection to these provisions and because of

the excellent working relationship our committees have enjoyed

these last three Congresses, I will not seek a sequential referral of

the bill based on their inclusion. However, I do ask that you support my request to have the Committee on Resources represented

on any conference on this measure or any similar measure for

those provisions, and that you include this letter in the report for

the bill.

Thank you for keeping me and my staff apprized of the progress

of H.R. 1401; Robert Rangel, Philip Grone, Peter Steffes and Michael Higgins of your Committee staff were especially helpful. I

look forward to seeing H.R. 1401 enacted soon.

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1401 and the

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of provisions of the

bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course,

is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this

legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, re-
507

duces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee, that every effort will be made to include any agreements worked out by staff of our two Committees

in amendments as the bill is taken to the House Floor, and that

a copy of this letter and of your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as

part of the record during consideration of this bill by the House.

In addition, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reserves the right to be included as conferees on any matter within

its jurisdiction should this legislation go to a House-Senate conference.

Pursuant to Rule X, clause 1 (q), of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction over oil and other pollution of navigable waters, the nonmilitary activities of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee

Valley Authority, as well as the Coast Guard. Our environmental

jurisdiction includes provisions which amend or affect the Clean

Water Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Coastal Zone Management

Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the Oil Pollution Act

of 1990, (including the double hull phase-out schedule), and the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

In particular, our Committee has a jurisdictional interest in Section 321, ‘‘Remediation of asbestos and lead-based paint’’, which requires the Secretary of Defense to use the Army Corps of Engineers

to remediate asbestos and lead-based paint at military installations. Nonmilitary activities of the Corps are within the jurisdiction

of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and this

additional program will impact the Corps’ ability to carry out its

existing missions. Similarly, our Committee has jurisdiction over

the Tennessee Valley Authority, and accordingly, the Committee

has a jurisdictional interest in Section 3161, ‘‘Procedures for Meeting Tritium Production Requirements.’’

Furthermore, the Committee has an interest in the following sections, as well as any other section in the reported version of the

bill, affecting Coast Guard pay or personnel matters:

361. Discretionary Authority to install telecommunications

equipment for persons performing voluntary services.

367. Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in defense

household goods moving programs.

411. End Strengths for Selected Reserve.

511. Continuation on Reserve active status list to complete

disciplinary action.

515. Computation of years of service exclusion.

517. Expansion and codification of authority for space-required travel for Reserves.

601. Fiscal year 2000 increase in military basic pay and reform of basic pay rates.

602. Pay increase for fiscal years after fiscal year 2000.

611. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities

for reserve forces.

613. Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and special pays.

614. Aviation career incentive pay for air battle managers.
508

615. Expansion of authority to provide special pay to aviation career officers extending period of active duty.

616. Diving duty special pay.

617. Reenlistment bonus.

618. Enlistment bonus.

619. Revised Eligibility requirements for reserve component

prior service enlistment bonus.

621. Increase in authorized monthly rate of foreign lanuage

proficiency pay.

622. Authorization of retention bonus for special warfare officers extending period of active duty.

624. Authorization of career enlisted flyer incentive pay.

625. Authorization of judge advocate continuation pay.

631. Provision of lodging in kind for Reservists performing

training duty and not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation allowances.

632. Payment of temporary lodging expenses for members

making their first permanent change of station.

633. Emergency leave travel cost limitations.

641. Redux retired pay system applicable only to members

electing new 15–year career status bonus.

642. Authorization of 15–year career status bonus.

651. Effective date of disability retirement for members

dying in civilian medical facilities.

653. Preservation of United States flag to retiring members

of the uniformed services not previously covered.

654. Accrual funding for retirement system for commissioned

corps of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

671. Payments for unused accrued leave as part of reenlistment.

672. Clarification of per diem eligibility for military technicians serving on active duty without pay outside the United

States.

674. Special compensation for severely disabled uniformed

serviced retirees.

721. Pharmacy benefits program.

722. Improvements to third-party payer collection program.

3404. Extension of war risk insurance authority.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to

continuing to work with you on H.R. 1401 and other matters of mutual interest to our two Committees.

Sincerely,

BUD SHUSTER, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, DC, May 21, 1999.

Hon. BUD SHUSTER,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1999

regarding H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000.
509

I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to

request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration

of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will

be included in the Committee report on the bill.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

FLOYD D. SPENCE, Chairman.

(511)

FISCAL DATA

Pursuant to clause 3(d) Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2000 and the four

years. The results of such efforts are reflected in the cost estimate

prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under

section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(c)(3).

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of

Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional

Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:

MAY 21, 1999.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Earlier today, the Congressional Budget

Office (CBO) transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Please note,

that for a variety of reasons, the estimates contained in the transmittal are not directly comparable with the total for the national

defense function specified in the budget resolution. For example,

H.R. 1401 contains a few items that do not fall under the national

defense function. If appropriate adjustments were made to place

the cost estimate of H.R. 1401 on a comparable basis with the

amounts contained in the budget resolution, the budget authority

for H.R. 1401 would be $288,800 million (compared to $288,812

million in the budget resolution), and the outlays would be

$274,534 million (compared to $276,567 million in the budget resolution).

I hope this clarifies the information provided in CBO’s cost estimate of H.R. 1401.

Sincerely,

DAN L. CRIPPEN.

MAY 21, 1999.

Hon. FLOYD SPENCE,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1401, the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Also enclosed are
512

two tables with comparisons among the budget request, the bill,

and the budget resolution.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them.

Sincerely,

DAN L. CRIPPEN.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

Summary: H.R. 1401 would authorize appropriations totaling

$291.0 billion for fiscal year 2000 for the military functions of the

Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy

(DOE). It also would prescribe personnel strengths for each active

duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. CBO

estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts for 2000

would result in additional outlays of $287 billion over the 2000–

2004 period. In addition, the bill contains provisions that would

raise the costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2001–

2004 period by about $2.6 billion.

The bill contains provisions that would affect direct spending,

primarily through changes to military retirement programs. We estimate that the direct spending resulting from provisions of H.R.

1401 would total about $7 million over the 2000–2004 period and

$186 million over the 2000–2009 period. Over the long run, the provisions to change the military retirement system would raise the

costs of that entitlement program by about 6 percent. Under current law, spending for that program will amount to about $32 billion in 1999. Because it would affect direct spending, the bill would

be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.

One section of the bill may contain an intergovernmental and

private-sector mandate, but the costs of the mandate would not exceed thresholds established by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA). UMRA excludes from application of the act legislative

provisions that are necessary for the national security or for the

ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations.

CBO has determined that all other provisions of this bill either fit

within that exclusion or do not contain private-sector or intergovernmental mandates as defined by UMRA.

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1401 is shown in Table 1, assuming that the

bill will be enacted by October 1, 1999.

Basis of Estimate:

Authorizations of Appropriations

The bill would authorize specific appropriations totaling $291.0

billion in 2000 for military programs of DOD and DOE (see Table

2). These costs would fall within budget function 050 (national defense). The estimate assumes that the amounts authorized will be

appropriated for 2000. Outlays are estimated based on historical

spending patterns. In addition, H.R. 1401 would authorize appropriations of $80 million for the Maritime Administration (function

400) and $68 million for the Armed Forces Retirement Home (function 700).
513

TABLE 1.—BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 1401 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law for Defense Programs:

Budget Authority 1 ....................................... 279,421 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ....................................... 273,507 93,107 34,029 13,420 5,808 2,850

Proposed Changes:

Authorization Level ...................................... 0 291,031 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ....................................... 0 192,959 61,061 21,367 7,880 3,462

Spending Under H.R. 1401 for Defense Programs:

Authorization Level 1 .................................... 279,421 291,031 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ....................................... 273,507 286,066 95,090 34,787 13,688 6,312

DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority ................................. 0 1 2 0 2 2

Estimated Outlays ................................................ 0 1 2 0 2 2

1 The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.

Note.—Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 050 (national defense), except for certain items noted in the text.

TABLE 2.—SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2000, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]

Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Military Personnel:

Authorization Level ................................................. 72,116 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................. 69,520 1,587 505 144 0

Operation and Maintenance:

Authorization Level ................................................. 106,008 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................. 79,667 20,598 3,202 1,324 545

Procurement:

Authorization Level ................................................. 55,599 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................. 13,122 18,995 13,158 5,229 2,438

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:

Authorization Level ................................................. 35,836 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................. 19,638 13,332 2,012 547 142

Military Construction and Family Housing:

Authorization Level ................................................. 8,590 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................. 2,488 3,173 1,716 653 324

Atomic Energy Defense Activities:

Authorization Level ................................................. 12,285 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................. 7,903 3,336 835 11 10

Other Accounts:

Authorization Level ................................................. 523 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................. 274 93 59 32 23

General Transfer Authority:

Authorization Level ................................................. 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................. 280 ¥60 ¥120 ¥60 ¥20

Total:

Authorization Level ................................................. 290,957 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays .................................................. 192,892 61,054 21,367 7,880 3,462

The bill also contains provisions that would affect various costs,

mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the fiscal year 2000

authorization and by authorizations in future years. Table 3 contains estimates of these amounts. In addition to the costs covered

by the authorizations in the bill for 2000, these provisions would

raise estimated costs by $2.6 billion over the 2001–2004 period.
514

The following sections describe the estimated authorizations shown

in Table 3 and provide information about CBO’s cost estimates.

Multiyear Procurement Programs. In most cases, purchases of

weapon systems are authorized annually, and as a result DoD negotiates a separate contract for each annual purchase. In a small

number of cases, the law permits multiyear procurement; that is,

it allows DoD to enter into a contract to buy specified annual quantities of a system for up to five years. In those cases DoD can negotiate lower prices because its commitment to purchase the weapons

gives the contractor an incentive to find more economical ways to

manufacture the weapon, including cost-saving investments. Funding would continue to be provided on an annual basis for these

multiyear contracts, but termination costs would be covered by an

initial appropriation.

H.R. 1401 would authorize DoD to enter into multiyear contracts

for six weapon systems: Javelin missiles, Bradley fighting vehicles,

Apache Longbow attack helicopters, upgrades to the Abrams main

battle tank, Wolverine heavy assault bridges, and F/A–18 E/F aircraft. The Javelin missile and Bradley fighting vehicle contracts

would cover four years of production while contracts for the F/A–

18E/F, Apache Longbow helicopters, Abrams tank upgrades, and

Wolverine bridges would cover five years.

CBO estimates savings from buying the five Army systems with multiyear contracts would total $870 million, an average of $174

million a year, over the 2000–2004 period. Funding requirements

through 2004 would total $7.2 billion instead of the $8.0 billion

needed under annual contracts. Multiyear procurement of the Javelin would raise costs in 2000 because that system did not receive

advance procurement funding in 1999 in anticipation of multiyear

procurement starting in 2000. Similarly, CBO estimates that the

Navy would save $706 million, or about $140 million a year,

through 2004 under a multiyear contract for the F/A–18E/F, which

under current law would cost about $15.8 billion over that period.

Those estimates are based on the assumption that annual production will be at the levels planned by the Administration for each

of the six programs.

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R.

1401 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]

Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Multiyear Procurement:

Javelin Missile System ..................................................... 33 ¥106 ¥73 ¥84 ¥9

Bradley Fighting Vehicle .................................................. ¥1 ¥31 ¥36 ¥33 0

Apache Longbow Helicopters ........................................... ¥2 ¥77 ¥97 ¥112 ¥96

Tank Upgrades ................................................................. 0 ¥29 ¥29 ¥30 ¥19

Wolverine Bridge .............................................................. 0 ¥7 ¥8 ¥9 ¥16

F/A–18 E/F Aircraft .......................................................... ¥148 ¥163 ¥166 ¥124 ¥106

Military Endstrengths:

Department of Defense .................................................... ¥511 ¥531 ¥551 ¥570 ¥589

Coast Guard Reserve ....................................................... 74 0 0 0 0

Grade Structure ................................................................ 1 1 1 1 1

Compensation and Benefits (DoD):

Military Pay Raise in 2000 .............................................. 204 278 287 297 306

Pay Table Reform ............................................................. 195 809 838 864 893

Enlistment/Reenlistment Bonuses (active) ...................... 266 182 91 59 35
515

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R.

1401 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES—Continued

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]

Category 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Aviation and Nuclear Special Pay ................................... 40 43 33 25 20

Various Bonuses (Reserve) .............................................. 45 52 37 26 18

Special Pay for Nurses ..................................................... 7 3 0 0 0

Increases in Special Pays ................................................ 34 55 50 45 43

New Special Pays ............................................................. 52 53 54 55 55

Travel and Transportation Allowances ............................. 21 21 22 22 22

Reserve Components ........................................................ 5 5 6 6 6

Military Academies and Education Benefits .................... 15 15 15 15 15

Other Military Benefits ..................................................... 22 22 22 22 22

Military Retirement:

Changes to REDUX System .............................................. 443 596 1,136 1,137 1,187

Payments to Disabled Retirees ........................................ 45 45 45 45 46

Other Provisions:

Acquisition Workforce ....................................................... ¥28 ¥492 ¥1,047 ¥1,146 ¥1,184

Agency Retirement Contributions ..................................... 2 3 3 4 4

DOE Separation Incentives ............................................... 0 0 6 0 0

Domiciliary and Custodial Care ....................................... 7 7 7 7 7

Bill Total:

Estimated Authorizations ................................................. 821 754 646 523 663

Notes.—For every item in this table except one, the 2000 impacts are included in the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated

in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Only the authorization of endstrength for the Coast Guard Reserve is additive to the

amounts in Table 2.

Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve

endstrengths for 2000 and would lower the minimum endstrength

authorization under permanent law. The authorized endstrengths

for active-duty personnel and personnel in the Selected Reserve

would total 1,385,432 and 865,298, respectively. The bill would specifically authorize appropriations of $72.1 billion for military pay

and allowances in 2000. Current law sets the minimum

endstrength for active-duty personnel at 1,395,698 but the bill

would lower that figure for future years to 1,384,806. The reduction

in authorized personnel would decrease future costs by more than

$500 million annually.

Also the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in 2000 for

the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost about $74

million and would fall under budget function 400, transportation.

Grade Structure. Section 414 would change the grade structure

of active duty personnel in support of the reserves. This change

would not increase the overall endstrength, but would result in

more promotions. The provision would cost about $1 million a year.

Compensation and Benefits. H.R. 1401 contains several provisions that would affect military compensation and benefits.

Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 4.8 percent at

a total cost of about $2.0 billion in 2000. Because this pay raise

would be 0.5 percent above what is projected under current law,

CBO estimates that the incremental costs would be $204 million in

2000 and average about $290 million over the next four years.

In addition to the across-the-board pay raise, section 601 would

authorize additional pay raises for individuals with specific ranks

and years of service. These raises would become effective after July

1, 2000. They would cost $196 million in 2000 and about $900 million annually by 2004.
516

Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would extend

for one year DoD’s authority to pay certain bonuses and allowances

to current personnel. Under current law, these authorities are

scheduled to expire in December 1999, or three months into fiscal

year 2000. The bill would extend these authorities through December 2000. CBO estimates that payment of enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would cost $266 million in

2000 and $182 million in 2001. The cost of extending special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel would be $40

million in 2000 and $43 million in 2001. Payment authorities for

various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would cost $45

million in 2000 and $52 million in 2001. We estimate that authorities to make special payments to nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists would cost $7 million in

2000 and $3 million in 2001. Most of these changes would result

in additional, smaller costs in subsequent years because payments

are made in installments.

Increases in Special Pays and Bonuses. Sections 614 through 621

would revise certain eligibility criteria and pay rates for personnel

with special skills. Under those provisions, pay would be increased

for aviators, nuclear-qualified naval officers, servicemembers performing diving duty, and individuals with proficiency in foreign

languages. In addition, the maximum payments for enlistment and

reenlistment bonuses for personnel on active duty would increase

and limits on receiving only one hazardous duty incentive pay

would be removed. Those changes would cost $34 million in 2000

and larger amounts in subsequent years.

New Special Pays. Sections 622 through 625 would authorize four

new special compensation categories. These include a retention

bonus for special warfare officers, continuation pay for surface warfare officers, and incentive pay for career enlisted flyers, which

would replace a similar pay for certain enlisted personnel. Continuation pay would also be extended to personnel serving as judge advocates. Additional costs for these provisions would total $52 million in 2000 and similar amounts in subsequent years.

Travel and Transportation Allowances. Section 631 would require

DoD to cover the lodging expenses of reservists on training duty

when they are not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation

allowances and when government housing is not available. Because

the services have already been providing lodging as needed, CBO

attributes minimal additional costs to this provision. Section 632

would allow enlisted personnel reporting to their first permanent

duty station to receive temporary lodging expenses. Estimated costs

for increased lodging expenses would total about $21 million annually.

Reserve Components. Several provisions would affect

servicemembers in the reserves. Section 512 would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to order a member of the reserves to active

duty for the purpose of receiving authorized medical care, receiving

a disability evaluation, or participating in a health care study.

Costs would total about $1 million a year. Section 518 would authorize a financial assistance program for certain members of the

Marine Corps Reserves at an estimated cost of $4 million annually.
517

Military Academies and Education Benefits. Section 531 would

increase DoD’s authority to waive some of the reimbursement that

it receives for the expenses for foreign students to attend the military academies. CBO estimates additional waivers would total $3

million a year. Section 546 would increase the monthly subsistence

allowance for senior ROTC cadets selected for advanced training.

The estimated costs are $12 million annually.

Other Military Benefits. The bill contains several additional provisions pertaining to pay and benefits.

Overseas Special Supplemental Food Program. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

(WIC), operated by the Food and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture, provides food assistance and nutrition services

to pregnant and post-partum women and children up to five years

of age who meet income and nutrition eligibility guidelines. The bill

would require DoD to operate a similar program for personnel living overseas. CBO estimates that about 5,100 women and children

would participate in an average month under the program, increasing discretionary costs by $2 million each year.

The bill would require DoD to use the eligibility criteria that

apply to the WIC program, to the extent practicable, with the specific exception that the value of in-kind housing benefits be included in calculating a household’s income. Based on data from

DoD on personnel living overseas, CBO assumes that about 4,800

children under the age of five would meet the requirements for age

and household income. Assuming that 1,400 of the eligible children

are up to one year old, program data suggest that 1,900 pregnant,

post-partum, and breast-feeding women would be eligible based on

income. Thus, a total of 6,700 women and children would meet the

income criteria for assistance. CBO estimates that about 80 percent

of those 6,700 individuals would be determined to be at nutritional

risk, and assumes that 95 percent of those eligible would participate. We therefore project a total of 5,100 participants in an average month.

CBO estimates that the average monthly food cost would be

about $28 for each participant, based on a DoD estimate of the cost

of an average WIC food package in military commissaries, adjusted

for inflation. In addition to supplemental foods, participants would

receive nutrition services. Nutrition services and other administrative costs are typically about 25 percent of the total cost in WIC.

Based on the estimated food costs, administrative costs would be

about $7 per month per participant.

Other Provisions. Section 566 would increase funding limitations

for the National Guard Challenge Program. Section 671 would

allow payment of accrued leave to servicemembers upon immediate

reenlistment. Section 675 would allow the Secretaries of the military departments to waive tuition charges for servicemembers deployed in a contingency operation. CBO estimates the cost of these

increased authorities would total about $20 million a year.

Military Retirement. H.R.1401 contains provisions that would increase retirement benefits for various military retirees.

Changes to the REDUX System. The bill would increase retirement benefits for members who entered the service after July 31,

1986, and are covered under the system known as REDUX.
518

Background. The Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986

(REDUX) governs the retirement of military personnel who initially

entered the armed forces after July 31, 1986. Under REDUX a retiree’s initial annuity ranges from 40 percent to 75 percent of the

individual’s highest three years of basic pay. Retirees with 20 years

of service will receive 40 percent, and the fraction will grow with

each additional year of service and reach the maximum at 30 years

of service. When the retiree is 62 years old, the annuity is raised

in most cases to equal 2.5 percent of the average of the highest 36

months of basic pay for each year of service up to a maximum of

75 percent. Also, under REDUX, retirees receive annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) equal to the change in the Consumer

Price Index (CPI) less 1 percentage point. When the retiree reaches

age 62, the annuity is raised to reflect all of the CPI growth until

that point, but thereafter annual COLAs continue to equal the CPI

less one percentage point.

Current law provides two different formulas for other individuals

who become eligible for a nondisability retirement benefit but are

not covered by REDUX. Military personnel who first became members of the armed forces before September 8, 1980, receive retired

pay equal to a multiple of their highest amount of basic pay; the

multiple is 2.5 percent for every year of service up to 75 percent.

Retirees who first became members of the armed forces between

September 8, 1980, and July 31, 1986, receive retired pay based on

the average of the highest 36 months of basic pay and the multiplier of 2.5 percent for each year of service (the so-called high three

plan). Annuities for both of these groups are fully adjusted for

changes in the CPI.

Changes Under H.R. 1401. Under section 642, members who

under current law would retire under REDUX would face a choice

upon reaching 15 years of service. They could elect to receive a

lump-sum bonus of $30,000 and retire under the REDUX plan or

they could forgo that payment and upon retirement receive annuities under the high three plan. Section 641 would establish a floor

for COLAs under both of those options—1 percent for those retiring

under REDUX and 2 percent for those selecting the other option.

Accrual Costs. Prior to 2009 the primary budgetary impact would

stem from the payments that DoD would make to the military retirement trust fund. The military retirement system is financed in

part by payments from appropriated funds to the military retirement trust fund based on an estimate of the system’s accruing liabilities. Repealing REDUX would increase payments from the

military personnel accounts to the military retirement fund (a DoD

outlay in budget function 050) to finance the increased liability to

the fund resulting from additional years of service under a more

generous system. CBO estimates that the resulting increase in discretionary spending from the accrual payments would be $443 million in 2000 and would average about $600 million by 2004. The

costs to DoD would increase annually by projected increases in

basic pay. Accrual charges are reestimated by DoD every year depending upon endstrengths, projected years of service at the time

of retirement, grade structures, and projected rates of military pay

raises, inflation, and interest rates. CBO’s assumption about these

factors are consistent with the ones currently used by the DoD’s ac-
519

tuaries. These estimates assume that annual pay raises are between 3 and 4 percent, the CPI grows at 3.5 percent a year over

the long term, and the trust fund’s holdings of Treasury securities

earn interest at a rate of 6.5 percent annually.

Lump-Sum Payments. In addition to the higher accrual charges, CBO estimates that DoD would spend about $500 million a year

for lump-sum bonuses, assuming 50 percent of enlisted personnel

and about 40 percent of officers would elect to receive the lower annuity in retirement. That estimate is based on DoD’s experience

with two buyout programs in recent years and the distribution of

years of service among military personnel. Those expecting to retire

with long terms of service and a relatively high REDUX annuity

would tend to take the bonus. Those who expect to retire with 20

years of service would be more likely to take the other option. The

members who would be affected by this provision entered service

in 1986; thus, they would not be eligible for the lump-sum payment

until 2001.

Direct Spending. These provisions would raise direct spending for annuities by about $185 million over the 2000–2009 period, as discussed below with other provisions affecting direct spending.

Payments to Disabled Retirees. Under current law, disabled veterans who are retired from the military, the Coast Guard, the Public Health Service (PHS), or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) cannot receive both full retirement annuities and disability compensation. Such veterans usually forgo a

portion of their retirement annuity equal to the nontaxable veterans’ benefit. Section 674 would allow retirees to receive additional payments if they receive nondisability annuities, completed

at least 20 years of service, and have service-connected disabilities

rated as 70 percent or greater within four years of their retirement.

The potential costs of section 674 depend on the number of beneficiaries, their disability levels, and the benefit amounts. CBO estimates that in 1999 about 20,000 retirees meet the criteria under

the bill, assuming that 80 percent of the estimated 25,000 retirees

who meet the other criteria had their disability rated as at least

70 percent within four years of retirement. Nearly all beneficiaries

would be military retirees, but about 300 retired members of the

Coast Guard, NOAA, and PHS would be eligible for payments.

CBO projects the potential caseload for future years using expected mortality rates and expected rates of growth in the population of new beneficiaries. On this basis, we expect that the number of beneficiaries would change only slightly over the next several

years.

CBO estimated the distribution of those beneficiaries among disability levels using data from a report prepared by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1995. According to information from the

Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans with disabilities rated 70

percent or greater generally receive that rating soon after leaving

military service. Veterans with service-connected disabilities may

have their ratings reevaluated over time, but those veterans whose

ratings are increased usually have low-rated disabilities. Also, veterans with psychiatric disabilities may have highly rated disabilities, but most reevaluations of their disabilities lead to reductions

rather than increases.
520

The bill would define the additional benefit as follows: $300 per month for a retiree whose disability is rated as total, $200 per

month for a retiree whose disability is rated as 90 percent, and

$100 per month for a retiree whose disability is rated as 70 percent

or 80 percent. CBO estimates that the provision would cost about $45 million in 2000 and $226 million over the 2000–2004 period, assuming that

the bill would be enacted and implemented by October 1, 1999. The

benefits would be paid out of discretionary appropriations for pay

and benefits, and the bill specifies how each Secretary would allocate funding that is insufficient to pay all eligible beneficiaries.

Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce. The bill would

limit the size of the acquisition workforce and would require a reduction of 50,000 military and civilian personnel during fiscal years

2000 and 2001. Because the total number of military personnel is

determined by endstrength requirements, CBO assumes that the

provision would lead to their transfer to other activities rather

than separation from the services. Separations of civilian personnel, who comprise about 80 percent of the acquisition workforce,

would account for the remaining reductions. CBO estimates that

these changes in the acquisition workforce would save $28 million

in 2000, $492 million in 2001, and over $1.1 billion a year once the

reduction is fully accomplished. Savings would be relatively small

during the first few years because the cost of separation payments

offsets most of the initial savings in salaries. Savings accumulate

more rapidly once employees are off the payroll for a full year and

the government no longer pays separation costs.

Agency Retirement Contributions. Section 522 of the bill would

change the early retirement provisions that apply to dual status

military technicians who are covered by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) and lose their membership in the Selected

Reserve. Under current law, these technicians can retire early if

they are at least 50 years old and have at least 25 years of service.

The bill would allow technicians hired after February 10, 1996, to

retire early if they are at least 50 years old and have 20 years of

service, or at any age if they have 25 years of service.

Under FERS, combined employee and agency retirement contributions to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund

(CSRDF) are equal to the normal cost of providing retirement benefits. The current normal cost for dual status military technicians is

11.9 percent of basic pay. The technicians contribute 0.8 percent of

basic pay, and DoD pays the rest. According to the Office of Personnel Management, section 522 would increase the normal cost for

affected technicians to 12.6 percent of basic pay by allowing additional technicians to take early retirement. Since employee contributions would be unchanged, DoD’s contribution for these technicians would increase from 11.1 to 11.8 percent of basic pay.

According to DoD, about 60,000 technicians are also members of

the Selected Reserve. Based on information from the National

Guard and the Reserves, CBO estimates that the number of technicians that would be affected by this provision would rise from

about 10,000 in 2000 to 15,000 by 2004. CBO estimates that the

additional DoD retirement contributions for these technicians

would total $16 million over the 2000–2004 period.
521

DOE Separation Incentives. Under current law, the Department

of Energy (DOE) has the authority to offer buyouts to employees

who voluntarily retire or resign. Section 3162 of the bill would extend this authority, which is scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2000, through calendar year 2001. DOE would be required to make two payments for each employee who accepts a

buyout: a lump-sum payment to the employee of up to $25,000 and

a deposit into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund

(CSRDF) equal to 26 percent of the employee’s final pay.

Because DOE plans to use this buyout authority between October and December 2001, the payment of the separation incentives

would occur in fiscal year 2002. According to DOE, approximately

150 employees are projected to accept a buyout. Based on past

buyout experience at DOE, CBO assumes that each employee

would receive a buyout payment of $25,000. CBO estimates that

total DOE payments for separation incentives, including the deposits to the CSRDF, would total $6 million in 2002.

Military Health Care Programs and Benefits. Title VII contains

several provisions that would affect DoD health care and benefits,

although only a few would have a budgetary impact.

Domiciliary and Custodial Care. Section 703 would authorize

DoD to continue to waive the custodial care exclusion under

TRICARE for certain individuals. The beneficiaries would be those

who were receiving coverage for ongoing custodial care when the

benefit was reduced significantly under a new program. According

to DoD, this provision would not affect more than 25 people. CBO

estimates that the average annual cost of the provision would be

about $300,000 per person and that section 703 would cost about

$7 million a year.

Other Health Care Provisions. The bill contains two other health

care provisions that could have budgetary impacts that CBO cannot estimate. Section 721 would require the Secretary of Defense

to establish a uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents by October 1, 2000. Although savings from economies of scale in purchasing drugs and other efficiencies are possible, CBO cannot estimate the budgetary impact of a uniform formulary because it has

no information about how the new formulary would compare with

the system DoD operates under current law.

Section 722 would alter the criteria used by DoD to calculate

charges to third-party insurers. Although CBO cannot estimate the

precise budgetary impact of this provision, it expects the impact

would be relatively small because of offsetting effects of the provision. This change could raise some of DoD’s charges and consequent receipts, but it could also increase the likelihood that

third-party insurers would deny claims from DoD.

Long-Term Charter of Naval Vessels. Section 1014 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into long-term commitments

to lease newly built surface vessels. The contract may include an

option for the Navy to purchase the vessel. Contracts under this

section would have to be specifically authorized in subsequent legislation. Under current practices, a contract authorized under this

section would probably be considered either a capital lease or a

lease-purchase arrangement. As a result, the subsequent authorization would be scored with a large amount of budget authority in
522

the first year. If the arrangement is a lease purchase, the budget

would record all outlays over the expected construction period.

Direct spending

The bill contains provisions that would affect direct spending primarily through changes to military retirement programs. We estimate that the direct spending from provisions of H.R. 1401 would

total about $186 million over the 2000–2009 period.

Military Retirement. Sections 641 and 642 (see the discussion

above) would increase direct spending from the military retirement

trust fund by $1 million in 2000 and by about $185 million over

the 2000–2009 period. The outlay impact before 2006 is primarily

due to higher cost-of-living allowances for individuals who receive

a disability annuity. Starting in 2006 the impact is almost all due

to regular retirements. In the long run, direct spending for military

retirement would be about 6 percent higher than under current law

for a program that costs about $32 billion in 1999.

Property Transactions. The bill contains various provisions that

would authorize property transactions involving both large and

small parcels of real estate.

Ford Island. The bill would provide the Navy with a variety of

means to develop Ford Island, which is located in Pearl Harbor.

Under section 2802, the Navy could sell and lease its excess Hawaiian property in exchange for cash and services. But because the use

of cash proceeds would require appropriation action, the Navy

would probably enter into barter arrangements and enhanced-use

leases that would allow it to obtain construction and maintenance

services that could have a cash value up to about $500 million.

Direct spending would increase to the extent that the Navy

would sell its excess property under current law. In that case, the

bill would result in forgone receipts to the Treasury. If the land

was formally declared excess and sold through normal procedures

that govern property disposal, the receipts could total tens of millions of dollars or more. But because the Navy has no incentive

under current law to formally declare that its valuable real estate

is excess to its needs, CBO believes that the property is unlikely

to be sold under current law.

Forgone Receipts from Other Provisions. Section 2832 would convey an Army Reserve Center to the City of Kankakee, Illinois. The

Army has declared that property excess to its needs. Thus, under

current law, it would likely be transferred to the General Services

Administration and sold. Based on information from the Army,

CBO estimates that forgone receipts would total about $1 million

in 2001.

Sections 2851 and 2863 would convey land that is being leased

to nongovernmental entities. Under current law, receipts from

these lease payments are deposited in the Treasury. The loss of receipts from enactment of these provisions would total less than

$500,000 annually.

Other Land Transactions. Title XXVIII contains a variety of

other provisions that would authorize DoD to convey land at no

cost to the recipient. These conveyances would affect both small

and large properties, ranging from six acres of docks and facilities
523

in Whittier, Alaska, to 314 acres of land that contain a naval weapons industrial plant near Dallas, Texas.

Some of the property that would be conveyed in title XXVIII has

been declared excess by DoD. Under current law, this property is

likely to be given to state or local governments. Therefore, CBO estimates these conveyances would not affect receipts. Other parcels—some worth up to several million dollars each—have not been

declared excess. Because it is unclear if or when these parcels

would be declared excess and sold under current law, CBO has no

basis for estimating whether these conveyances would affect receipts.

Still other parcels that would be conveyed by the bill are excess

land from prior rounds of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).

Under current law, DoD can use proceeds from the sale of BRAC

properties to offset base closure costs. Thus, the conveyance of

these properties would have no net effect on spending. The conveyances would, however, increase the need for future appropriations.

DOE Separation Incentives. As noted previously, section 3162

would extend DOE’s authority to offer buyout payments to employees who voluntarily retire or resign. These payments would induce

some employees to retire—and begin receiving federal retirement

benefits—earlier than they would otherwise. These additional payments would represent direct spending. In later years, annual federal retirement outlays would be lower than under current law because the employees who retire earlier would receive a smaller annuity.

Based on information from DOE, CBO assumed that buyouts

under this extended authority would be offered at the beginning of

fiscal year 2002, and that 150 employees would accept them. CBO

assumes that these buyouts would induce about 40 percent of these

employees to retire a year or two earlier. We estimate that the resulting increase in federal retirement benefits would be $2 million

in 2002 and $1 million in 2003. In addition, DOE would make $3

million in payments in 2002 to the CSRDF for the employees who

accept buyouts. These additional payments would be treated as offsetting receipts, resulting in a net decrease in direct spending of

$1 million in 2002.

Waiver of Certain TRICARE Deductibles. Section 712 would

allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the TRICARE deductibles

for family members of certain reservists and National Guardsmen

who are recalled to active duty. Based on the current authority of

the Secretary of Defense to call about 33,000 members of the Selected Reserve to active duty to support operations in Kosovo, CBO

believes this provision could affect approximately 10,000 families.

This estimate assumes that 45 percent of the reservists have other

insurance and would not use TRICARE and that 50 percent of the

remainder would have dependents who would benefit from this provision, based on data from the 1996 Survey of Retired Military Personnel and the Defense Manpower Data Center, respectively. The

current annual deductible for these families is $300. CBO estimates that this provision would reduce collections in fiscal year

2000 by about $3 million. DoD has the authority to spend much of

those collections; thus, lower spending would offset most of the forgone collections. However, DoD’s needs for discretionary funding
524

may rise by a like amount. Although it is impossible to predict the

extent, frequency, and duration of reserve call-ups, CBO expects

the budgetary effects of this provision would be insignificant in

most years.

Per Diem for Certain Military Technicians. Section 672 would

authorize the Department of Defense to pay a per diem allowance

to military technicians serving on active duty without pay outside

the United States. The per diem allowance would substitute for the

provision of subsistence and housing. Because the provision would

be effective as of February 10, 1996, payment of any retroactive allowances would constitute direct spending. CBO cannot estimate

the cost of this provision because no accounting of eligible personnel is currently available.

Stockpile Sales. Section 3303 would eliminate two mandated restrictions on the disposal of certain manganese and chromium materials. These restrictions were included in the National Defense

Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106). The

first restriction would require the manager of the National Defense

Stockpile to give a right of first refusal on all such sales to domestic suppliers of those materials. CBO estimates that the repeal of

this restriction would have little or no budgetary impact because,

even under current law, domestic suppliers were required to pay

market prices for the materials. The second restriction would delay

the sale of high-carbon manganese ferro alloy until all lower carbon

grades are disposed. CBO estimates that the repeal of this restriction would have no budgetary impact because there are no lower

carbon grades of manganese ferro alloy remaining in the stockpile

inventory.

Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an insignificant budgetary impact:

Section 801 would allow DoD to sell holdings of coke and

coal and to spend the proceeds of those sales.

Section 522 of the bill would impose mandatory retirement

rules for certain military technicians in the Reserves and

would allow other technicians to retire early; CBO estimates

that this provision would have no impact on the federal budget

during the 2000–2009 period.

Section 652 would extend eligibility for limited survivor annuities to surviving spouses of reserve members who died before September 21, 1977, and had met all the requirements for

retirement except reaching their 60th birthday.

Section 655 would allow members with over eight years active duty or 15 years reserve service to receive a disability retirement or separation if they are separated from the service

due to a pre-existing condition. Costs would be insignificant in

the short run and would amount to approximately $10 million

a year after 23 years, as certain reservists reach 60 years of

age.

Pay-as-you-go considerations

Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net changes in direct spending that would result from H.R. 1401 are shown in the following
525

table. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only

the effects in the current year, the budget year, and the succeeding

four years are counted.

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Changes in outlays ........ 0 1 2 0 2 2 2 3 17 54 103

Changes in receipts ....... (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

1 Not applicable.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact

Section 722 of the bill would allow the Department of Defense to

bill third-party insurers at ‘‘reasonable charges’’ for care provided

at a facility of the uniformed services, rather than what current

law refers to as ‘‘reasonable costs.’’ That provision may impose a

private-sector and intergovernmental mandate on insurers and

health care plans because they would be required to pay charges

for health care above those that are currently charged by the government. The costs of the provision would exceed neither the private-sector threshold ($100 million in 1996, adjusted annually for

inflation) nor the intergovernmental threshold ($50 million in 1996,

adjusted annually for inflation) specified in UMRA.
526
527

UMRA excludes from application of the act legislative provisions

that are necessary for the national security or the ratification or

implementation of international treaty obligations. CBO has determined that all other provisions of this bill either fit within that exclusion or do not contain private-sector or intergovernmental mandates as defined by UMRA.

Estimate Prepared By.—Federal Cost: (Supplemental Food Program) Valerie Baxter, (Military Construction and Other Defense)

Kent Christensen, (Military and Civilian Personnel) Jeannette

Deshong, (Stockpile Sales and Atomic Energy Defense Activities)

Raymond Hall, (Military Retirement) Sarah Jennings, (Civilian Retirement and Separation) Eric Rollins, (Health Programs) Dawn

Sauter, (Multiyear Procurement) Jo Ann Vines, (Maritime Administration) Deborah Reis. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex. Impact on the Private Sector: R. William Thomas.

Estimate Approved By.—Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant

Director for Budget Analysis.

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the committee generally concurs with the estimates as contained in the report of the Congressional Budget Office.

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings

and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant

to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.

With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new

spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase

or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however,

authorize appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation

are addressed in the estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974.

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the committee has not received a report

from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 1401.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 3 (d)(1) of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal
528

governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the

bill provides no federal intergovernmental mandates.

RECORD VOTES

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken with

respect to the committee’s consideration of H.R. 1401. The record

of these votes is attached to this report.

The committee ordered H.R. 1401 reported to the House with a

favorable recommendation by a vote of 55–1, a quorum being

present.
529
530
531
532
533
534

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1998

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Other Matters

SEC. 141. PILOT PROGRAM ON SALES OF MANUFACTURED ARTICLES

AND SERVICES OF CERTAIN ARMY INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES WITHOUT REGARD TO AVAILABILITY FROM DOMESTIC SOURCES.

(a) PILOT PROGRAM REQUIRED.—During øfiscal years 1998 and

1999¿ fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the Secretary of the Army

shall carry out a pilot program to test the efficacy and appropriateness of selling manufactured articles and services of Army industrial facilities under section 4543 of title 10, United States Code,

without regard to the availability of the articles and services from

United States commercial sources. In carrying out the pilot program, the Secretary may use articles manufactured at, and services

provided by, not more than three Army industrial facilities.

(b) TEMPORARY WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION OF

UNAVAILABILITY FROM DOMESTIC SOURCE.—Under the pilot program, the Secretary of the Army is not required under section

4543(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, to determine whether an

article or service is available from a commercial source located in

the United States in the case of any of the following sales for which

a solicitation of offers is issued during øfiscal year 1998 or 1999¿

the period during which the pilot program is being conducted:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) UPDATE OF REPORT.—Not later March 1, 2001, the Inspector

General of the Department of Defense shall submit to Congress an

update of the report required to be submitted under subsection (c)

and an assessment of the success of the pilot program.

* * * * * * *
535

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL

POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Military Education and

Training

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING OF ARMY DRILL

SERGEANTS

* * * * * * *

SEC. 557. TRAINING IN HUMAN RELATIONS MATTERS FOR ARMY

DRILL SERGEANT TRAINEES.

(a) * * *

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 4318 of title 10, United States

Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to drill

sergeant trainee classes that begin after the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F—Commission on Military

Training and Gender-Related Issues

* * * * * * *

SEC. 563. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.

(a) * * *

(b) AUTHORITY OF INDIVIDUALS TO ACT FOR COMMISSION.—Any

member or agent of the commission may, if authorized by the commission, take any action which the commission is authorized to

take under this øtitle¿ subtitle.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits,

and Related Matters

* * * * * * *
536

SEC. 644. ANNUITIES FOR CERTAIN MILITARY SURVIVING SPOUSES.

(a) SURVIVOR ANNUITY.—(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay

an annuity to the qualified surviving spouse of each member of the

uniformed services who—

* * * * * * *

(A) died before March 21, 1974, and was entitled to retired

or retainer pay on the date of death; or

(B) was a member of a reserve component of the Armed

Forces øduring the period beginning on September 21, 1972,

and ending on¿ before October 1, 1978, and at the time of his

death would have been entitled to retired pay under chapter 67

of title 10, United States Code (as in effect before December 1,

1994), but for the fact that he was under 60 years of age.

* * * * * * *

(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:

(1) * * *

(2) The term ‘‘surviving spouse’’ has the meaning given the

terms ‘‘widow’’ and ‘‘widower’’ in paragraphs ø(3) and (4)¿ (7)

and (8) of section 1447 of title 10, United States Code.

* * * * * * *

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Department of Defense Schools

and Centers

* * * * * * *

SEC. 934. POW/MIA INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS.

(a) * * *

(b) USE OF INTELLIGENCE IN ANALYSIS OF POW/MIA CASES IN

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure

that the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office of the

Department of Defense takes into full account all intelligence regarding matters concerning øof¿ prisoners of war and missing persons (as defined in chapter 76 of title 10, United States Code) in

analyzing cases involving such persons.

* * * * * * *

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Counter-Drug Activities

* * * * * * *
537

SEC. 1033. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES OF PERU AND COLOMBIA.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) CONDITION ON PROVISION OF SUPPORT.—(1)***

* * * * * * *

(4) Not later than January 1 of each year, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional committees a report detailing the number

of United States military personnel deployed or otherwise assigned

to duty in Colombia at any time during the preceding year, the

length and purpose of the deployment or assignment, and the costs

and force protection risks associated with such deployments and assignments.

ø(4)¿ (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘congressional

committees’’ means the following:

(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on

Foreign Relations of the Senate.

(B) The Committee on National Security and the Committee

on International Relations of the House of Representatives.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XIII—ARMS CONTROL AND

RELATED MATTERS

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1302. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR DISMANTLEMENT OF

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS.

ø(a) FUNDING LIMITATION.—Funds available to the Department

of Defense may not be obligated or expended during fiscal year

1998 for retiring or dismantling, or for preparing to retire or dismantle, any of the following strategic nuclear delivery systems

below the specified levels:

ø(1) 71 B–52H bomber aircraft.

ø(2) 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines.

ø(3) 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.

ø(4) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.

ø(b) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—If the START II Treaty enters into

force during fiscal year 1998, the Secretary of Defense may waive

the application of the limitation under subsection (a) to the extent

that the Secretary determines necessary in order to implement the

treaty.¿

(a) FUNDING LIMITATION.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph

(2), funds available to the Department of Defense may not be obligated or expended for retiring or dismantling, or for preparing to

retire or dismantle, any of the following strategic nuclear delivery

systems below the specified levels:

(A) 76 B–52H bomber aircraft.

(B) 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines.

(C) 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.

(D) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.

(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) shall cease to apply upon a

certification by the President to Congress of the following:
538

(A) That the effectiveness of the United States strategic deterrent will not be decreased by reductions in strategic nuclear delivery systems.

(B) That the requirements of the Single Integrated Operational Plan can be met with a reduced number of strategic nuclear delivery systems.

(C) That reducing the number of strategic nuclear delivery

systems will not, in the judgment of the President, provide a

disincentive for Russia to ratify the START II treaty or serve

to undermine future arms control negotiations.

(3) If the President submits the certification described in paragraph (2), then effective upon the submission of that certification,

funds available to the Department of Defense may not be obligated

or expended to maintain a United States force structure of strategic

nuclear delivery systems with a total capacity in warheads that is

less than 98 percent of the 6,000 warhead limitation applicable to

the United States and in effect under the Strategic Arms Reduction

Treaty.

(b) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—If the START II treaty enters into force,

the President may waive the application of the limitation in effect

under paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection (a), as the case may be, to

the extent that the President determines such a waiver to be necessary in order to implement the treaty.

(c) FUNDING LIMITATION ON EARLY DEACTIVATION.—(1)***

(2) For purposes of this subsection and subsection (d), a substantial early deactivation is an action øduring the strategic delivery

systems retirement limitation period¿ during the fiscal year during

which the START II Treaty enters into force to deactivate a substantial number of strategic nuclear delivery systems specified øin

subsection (a)¿ by—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(e) CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR SUSTAINMENT OF SYSTEMS.—(1) Not

later then February 15, 1998, the Secretary of Defense shall submit

to Congress a plan for the sustainment beyond October 1, 1999, of

United States strategic nuclear delivery systems and alternative

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty force structures in the event that

a strategic arms reduction agreement subsequent to the Strategic

Arms Reduction Treaty does not enter into force before 2004.

ø(2) The plan shall include a discussion of the following matters:

ø(A) The actions that are necessary to sustain the United

States strategic nuclear delivery systems, distinguishing between the actions that are planned for and funded in the future-years defense program and the actions that are not

planned for and funded in the future-years defense program.

ø(B) The funding necessary to implement the plan, indicating the extent to which the necessary funding is provided

for in the future-years defense program and the extent to

which the necessary funding is not provided for in the futureyears defense program.¿

(e) STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘strategic nuclear delivery systems’’

means the following:
539

(1) B–52H bomber aircraft.

(2) Trident ballistic missile submarines.

(3) Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.

(4) Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.

* * * * * * *

ø(g) STRATEGIC DELIVERY SYSTEMS RETIREMENT LIMITATION PERIOD.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘strategic delivery

systems retirement limitation period’’ means the period of fiscal

years 1998 and 1999.¿

* * * * * * *

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1986

TITLE XIV—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 1405. TWO-YEAR BUDGET CYCLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

ø(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that the programs and activities of the Department of Defense could be more effectively and

efficiently planned and managed if funds for the Department were

provided on a two-year cycle rather than annually.

ø(b) REQUIREMENT FOR TWO-YEAR BUDGET PROPOSAL.—The

President shall include in the budget submitted to the Congress

pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for fiscal

year 1998 a single proposed budget for the Department of Defense

and related agencies for fiscal years 1988 and 1989. Thereafter, the

President shall submit a proposed two-year budget for the Department of Defense and related agencies every other year.

ø(c) REPORTS.—Not later than April 1, 1986, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services and on

Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a report containing the Secretary’s views on the following:

ø(1) The advantages and disadvantages of operating the Department of Defense and related agencies on a two-year budget

cycle.

ø(2) The Secretary’s plans for converting to a two-year

budget cycle.

ø(3) A description of any impediments (statutory or otherwise) to converting the operations of the Department of Defense and related agencies to a two-year budget cycle beginning

with fiscal year 1988.¿

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1412. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND USE OF FACILITIES.—

(1) * * *

ø(2) Facilities constructed to carry out this section may not be

used for any purpose other than the destruction of lethal chemical
540

weapons and munitions, and when no longer needed to carry out

this section, such facilities shall be cleaned, dismantled, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.¿

(2) Facilities constructed to carry out this section shall, when no

longer needed for the purposes for which they were constructed, be

disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and

mutual agreements between the Secretary of the Army and the Governor of the State in which the facility is located.

(3)(A) Facilities constructed to carry out this section may not be

used for a purpose other than the destruction of the stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions that exists on November 8,

1985.

(B) The prohibition in subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to items designated by the Secretary of Defense as lethal chemical agents, munitions, or related materials after November 8, 1985,

if the State in which a destruction facility is located issues the appropriate permit or permits for the destruction of such items at the

facility.

ø(3)¿ (4) In order to carry out subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1),

the Secretary may make grants to State and local governments (either directly or through the Federal Emergency Management Agency) to assist those governments in carrying out functions relating

to emergency preparedness and response in connection with the

disposal of the lethal chemical agents and munitions referred to in

subsection (a). Funds available to the Department of Defense for

the purpose of carrying out this section may be used for such

grants. Additionally, the Secretary may provide funds through cooperative agreements with State and local governments for the

purpose of assisting them in processing, approving, and overseeing

permits and licenses necessary for the construction and operation

of facilities to carry out this section. The Secretary shall ensure

that funds provided through such a cooperative agreement are used

only for the purpose set forth in the preceding sentence.

ø(4)¿ (5)(A) In coordination with the Secretary of the Army and

in accordance with agreements between the Secretary of the Army

and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,

the Director shall carry out a program to provide assistance to

State and local governments in developing capabilities to respond

to emergencies involving risks to the public health or safety within

their jurisdictions that are identified by the Secretary as being

risks resulting from—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) IDENTIFICATION OF FUNDS.—(1)***

(2) Amounts appropriated to the Secretary for the purpose of carrying out subsection ø(c)(4)¿ (c)(5) shall be promptly made available

to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(g) PERIODIC REPORTS.—(1)***

(2) Each annual report shall include the following:

(A) * * *

(B) A site-by-site description of actions taken to assist State

and local governments (either directly or through the Federal

Emergency Management Agency) in carrying out functions re-
541

lating to emergency preparedness and response in accordance

with subsection ø(c)(3)¿ (c)(4).

* * * * * * *

STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Other Matters

SEC. 142. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DESTRUCTION OF ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

ø(a) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.—The program manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment shall continue to manage

the development and testing (including demonstration and pilotscale testing) of technologies for the destruction of lethal chemical

munitions that are potential or demonstrated alternatives to the

baseline incineration program. In performing such management,

the program manager shall act independently of the program manager for Chemical Demilitarization and shall report to the Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.¿

(a) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.—(1) The program manager for the

Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program shall manage

the development and testing of technologies for the destruction of lethal chemical munitions that are potential or demonstrated alternatives to the baseline incineration program.

(2) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and the Secretary of the Army shall jointly submit to Congress, not later than December 1, 1999, a plan for the transfer of

oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program

from the Under Secretary to the Secretary.

(3) Oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment

program shall be transferred from the Under Secretary of Defense

for Acquisition and Technology to the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the plan submitted under paragraph (2) not later than 90

days after the date of the submission of the notice required under

section 152(f)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106; 50 U.S.C. 1521).

(4) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and the Secretary of the Army shall ensure coordination of

the activities and plans of the program manager for the Assembled

Chemical Weapons Assessment program and the program manager
542

for Chemical Demilitarization during the demonstration and pilot

plant facility phase for an alternative technology.

(5) For those baseline demilitarization facilities for which the Secretary decides that implementation of an alternative technology may

be recommended, the Secretary may take those measures necessary

to facilitate the integration of the alternative technology.

* * * * * * *

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Active Forces

SEC. 402. REVISION IN PERMANENT END STRENGTH LEVELS.

(a) * * *

(b) REVISION TO FLEXIBILITY AUTHORITY FOR THE ARMY.—Subsection (e) of such section is amended by striking out ‘‘1 percent or,

in the case of the Army, by not more than 1.5 percentø,¿.’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘0.5 percent.’’.

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL

POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Matters

SEC. 511. USE OF RESERVES FOR EMERGENCIES INVOLVING WEAPONS

OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

(a) * * *

(b) USE OF ACTIVE GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL.—(1)***

(2) The Secretary of Defense may not submit to Congress earlier

than 90 days after the date of the receipt by Congress of the report

required by section ø1411¿ 1402 of this Act a request for the enactment of legislation to modify the requirements of paragraph (3), or

to increase the number of personnel authorized by paragraph (4),

of section 12310(c) of title 10, United States Code, as added by

paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 513. REDUCED TIME-IN-GRADE REQUIREMENT FOR RESERVE

GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS INVOLUNTARILY TRANSFERRED FROM ACTIVE STATUS.

(a) MINIMUM SERVICE IN ACTIVE STATUS.—Section 1370(d)(3) of

title 10, United States Code, as amended by section ø511¿ 512(a),
543

is further amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Military Education and

Training

* * * * * * *

SEC. 525. IMPROVED OVERSIGHT OF INNOVATIVE READINESS TRAINING.

(a) * * *

(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary of Defense may not initiate

any project under section 2012 of title 10, United States Code, after

October 1, 1998, until the program required by subsection ø(i)¿ (j)

of that section (as added by subsection (a)) has been established.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle G—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 568. STATUS IN THE NAVAL RESERVE OF CADETS AT THE MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY.

Section 1303(c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C.

App. ø1295(c)¿ 1295b(c)), is amended—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Health Care Services for Medicare-Eligible Department of Defense

Beneficiaries

* * * * * * *

SEC. 722. TRICARE AS SUPPLEMENT TO MEDICARE DEMONSTRATION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.—(1) An individual is eligible to participate under this section if the individual is a member or former

member of the uniformed services described in section 1074(b) of

title 10, United States Code, a dependent of the member described

in section 1076(a)(2)(B) or 1076(b) of that title, or a dependent of

a member of the uniformed services who died while on active duty

for a period of more than 30 days, who—
544

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) resides in an area selected by the Secretary under subsection ø(c)¿ (d).

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 742. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A LEVEL 1 TRAUMA TRAINING CENTER.

øThe Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to establish a

Level 1 Trauma Training Center (as designated by the American

College of Surgeons) in order to provide the Army with a trauma

center capable of training forward surgical teams.¿

SEC. 742. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A TRAUMA TRAINING

CENTER.

The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to establish a

Trauma Training Center in order to provide the Army with a trauma center capable of training forward surgical teams.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1053 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

SEC. 1053. DISPOSAL OF TRACT OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA.

(a) DISPOSAL AUTHORIZED.—(1) Notwithstanding title II the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.

481 et seq.), title VIII of such Act (40 U.S.C. 531 et seq.), section

501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42

U.S.C. 11411), or any other provision of law relating to the management and disposal of real property by the United States, the

Armed Forces Retirement Home Board shall øconvey by sale¿ convey, by sale or lease, all right, title, and interest of the United

States in a parcel of real property, including improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 49 acres located in Washington,

District of Columbia, east of North Capitol Street, and recorded as

District Parcel 121/19.

ø(2) The sale under paragraph (1) may not occur before April 30,

1999.¿

(2) The Armed Forces Retirement Home Board shall sell or lease

the property described in subsection (a) within 12 months after the

date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000.

(b) MANNER, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF DISPOSAL.—ø(1) The

sale under subsection (a) shall be made to a neighboring nonprofit

organization from whose extensive educational and charitable services the public benefits and has benefited from for more than 100

years, or an entity or entities related to such organization, and

whose substantial investment in the neighborhood is consistent

with the continued existence and purpose of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.¿ (1) The Armed Forces Retirement Home Board

shall determine the manner, terms, and conditions for the sale or

lease of the real property under subsection (a), except as follows:
545

(A) Any lease of the real property under subsection (a) shall

include an option to purchase.

(B) The conveyance may not involve any form of public/private partnership, but shall be limited to fee-simple sale or longterm lease.

(C) Before conveying the property by sale or lease to any other

person or entity, the Board shall provide the Catholic University of America with the opportunity to match or exceed the

highest bona fide offer otherwise received for the purchase or

lease of the property, as the case may be, and to acquire the

property.

(2) As consideration for the real property conveyance under subsection (a), the purchaser selected under paragraph (1) shall pay to

the United States an amount equal to the fair market value of the

real property at its highest and best economic use, as determined

by the Armed Forces Retirement Home Board, based on an independent appraisal. In no event shall the sale or lease of the property

be for less than the appraised value of the property in its existing

condition and on the basis of its highest and best use.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

Subtitle A—General Military Law

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL

MILITARY POWERS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 2—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

* * * * * * *

§ 115. Personnel strengths: requirement for annual authorization

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is in the national interest, the Secretary may—

(1) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year for any of the armed forces by

a number equal to not more than 1 percent of that end

strength; øand¿

(2) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) for a fiscal year for any of the armed forces by

a number equal to not more than 2 percent of that end

strengthø.¿; and

(3) vary the end strength authorized pursuant to subsection

(a)(2) for a fiscal year for the Selected Reserve of any of the re-
546

serve components by a number equal to not more than 2 percent

of that end strength.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 3—GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

Sec.

121. Regulations.

* * * * * * *

130b. Authority of armed forces medical examiner to conduct forensic pathology

investigations.

* * * * * * *

§ 130b. Authority of armed forces medical examiner to conduct forensic pathology investigations

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Armed Forces Medical Examiner may conduct a forensic pathology investigation, including an autopsy, to determine the cause or manner of death of an individual in any case

in which—

(1) the individual was killed, or from any cause died an unnatural death;

(2) the cause or manner of death is unknown;

(3) there is reasonable suspicion that the death was by unlawful means;

(4) the death appears to be from an infectious disease or the

result of the effects of a hazardous material that may have an

adverse effect on the installation or community in which the individual died or was found dead; or

(5) the identity of the deceased individual is unknown.

(b) LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORITY.—(1) The authority provided

under subsection (a) may only be exercised with respect to an individual in a case in which—

(A) the individual died or is found dead at an installation

garrisoned by units of the armed forces and under the exclusive

jurisdiction of the United States;

(B) the individual was, at the time of death, a member of the

armed forces on active duty or inactive duty for training or a

member of the armed forces who recently retired under chapter

61 of this title and died as a result of an injury or illness incurred while on active duty;

(C) the individual was a civilian dependent of a member of

the armed forces and died or was found dead at a location outside the United States;

(D) the Armed Forces Medical Examiner determines, pursuant to an authorized investigation by the Department of Defense

of matters involving the death of an individual or individuals,

that a factual determination of the cause or manner of the

death of the individual is necessary; or

(E) pursuant to an authorized investigation being conducted

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board, or other Federal agency, an official of such

agency with authority to direct a forensic pathology investigation requests that an investigation be conducted by the Armed

Forces Medical Examiner.
547

(2) The authority provided in subsection (a) shall be subject to the

primary jurisdiction, to the extent exercised, of a State or local government with respect to the conduct of an investigation or, if outside

the United States, of authority exercised under any applicable Status-of-Forces or other international agreement between the United

States and the country in which the individual died or was found

dead.

(c) DESIGNATION OF PATHOLOGIST.—The Armed Forces Medical

Examiner may designate any qualified pathologist to carry out the

authority provided in subsection (a).

CHAPTER 4—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Sec.

131. Office of the Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

ø133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.¿

133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

133a. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.

133b. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness.

* * * * * * *

§ 131. Office of the Secretary of Defense

(a) * * *

(b) The Office of the Secretary of Defense is composed of the following:

(1) The Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(2) The øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿

§ 133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,

and Logistics

(a) There is an øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, appointed from civilian life by the President,

by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Under Secretary shall be appointed from among persons who have an extensive management background in the private sector.

(b) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition

and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall perform such duties and exercise such

powers relating to acquisition as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, including—

(1) supervising Department of Defense acquisition;

(2) establishing policies for acquisition (including procurement, research and development, ølogistics,¿ developmental

testing, and contract administration) for all elements of the Department of Defense;
548

(3) establishing policies for logistics, maintenance, and

sustainment support for all elements of the Department of Defense;

ø(3)¿ (4) establishing policies of the Department of Defense

for maintenance of the defense industrial base of the United

States; and

ø(4)¿ (5) the authority to direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the heads of all other elements of the

Department of Defense with regard to matters for which the

Under Secretary has responsibility.

* * * * * * *

(e)(1) With regard to all matters for which he has responsibility

by law or by direction of the Secretary of Defense, the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics takes precedence in the Department of Defense after the Secretary of Defense

and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

§ 133b. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and

Materiel Readiness

(a) There is a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and

Materiel Readiness, appointed from civilian life by the President by

and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Deputy Under

Secretary shall be appointed from among persons with an extensive

background in the sustainment of major weapon systems and combat support equipment.

(b) The Deputy Under Secretary is the principal adviser to the

Secretary and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on logistics and materiel readiness in the Department of Defense and is the principal logistics official within the

senior management of the Department of Defense.

(c) The Deputy Under Secretary shall perform such duties relating

to logistics and materiel readiness as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics may assign,

including—

(1) prescribing, by authority of the Secretary of Defense, policies and procedures for the conduct of logistics, maintenance,

materiel readiness, and sustainment support in the Department

of Defense;

(2) advising and assisting the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition and Technology, and providing guidance to and

consulting with the Secretaries of the military departments,

with respect to logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and

sustainment support in the Department of Defense; and

(3) monitoring and reviewing all logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and sustainment support programs in the Department of Defense.
549

§ 134. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The Under Secretary takes precedence in the Department of

Defense after the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and

Logistics, and the Secretaries of the military departments.

* * * * * * *

§ 136. Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

(a) There is an Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and

Readiness, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and

with the advice and consent of the Senate.

* * * * * * *

(d) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

is responsible, subject to the authority, direction, and control of the

Secretary of Defense, for the monitoring of the operations tempo and

personnel tempo of the armed forces. The Under Secretary shall establish, to the extent practicable, uniform standards within the Department of Defense for terminology and policies relating to deployment of units and personnel away from their assigned duty stations

(including the length of time units or personnel may be away for

such a deployment) and shall establish uniform reporting systems

for tracking deployments.

§ 137. Director of Defense Research and Engineering

(a) * * *

(b) Except as otherwise prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,

the Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall perform

such duties relating to research and engineering as the øUnder

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may

prescribe.

* * * * * * *

§ 139. Director of Operational Test and Evaluation

(a) * * *

(b) The Director is the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense and the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on operational test and evaluation in the Department of Defense and the principal operational test and evaluation official within the senior management of the Department of

Defense. The Director shall—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *
550

§ 143. Office of the Secretary of Defense personnel: limitation

(a) PERMANENT LIMITATION ON OSD PERSONNEL.—øEffective October 1, 1999, the¿ The number of OSD personnel may not exceed

ø75 percent of the baseline number¿ 3,767.

ø(b) PHASED REDUCTION.—The number of OSD personnel—

ø(1) as of October 1, 1997, may not exceed 85 percent of the

baseline number; and

ø(2) as of October 1, 1998, may not exceed 80 percent of the

baseline number.

ø(c) BASELINE NUMBER.—For purposes of this section, the term

‘‘baseline number’’ means the number of OSD personnel as of October 1, 1994.¿

ø(d)¿ (b) OSD PERSONNEL DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘OSD personnel’’ means military and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense who are assigned to, or employed in, functions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (including Direct Support Activities of that Office and the Washington

Headquarters Services of the Department of Defense).

ø(e)¿ (c) LIMITATION ON REASSIGNMENT OF FUNCTIONS.—In carrying out reductions in the number of personnel assigned to, or employed in, the Office of the Secretary of Defense in order to comply

with this section, the Secretary of Defense may not reassign functions solely in order to evade the requirements contained in this

section.

ø(f) FLEXIBILITY.—If the Secretary of Defense determines, and

certifies to Congress, that the limitation in subsection (b) with respect to any fiscal year would adversely affect United States national security, the Secretary may waive the limitation under that

subsection with respect to that fiscal year. If the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies to Congress, that the limitation in

subsection (a) during fiscal year 1999 would adversely affect United

States national security, the Secretary may waive the limitation

under that subsection with respect to that fiscal year. The authority under this subsection may be used only once, with respect to

a single fiscal year.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5—JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

* * * * * * *

§ 153. Chairman: functions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) RISKS UNDER NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY.—(1) Not later

than January 1 each year, the Chairman shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a report providing the Chairman’s assessment of

the nature and magnitude of the strategic and military risks associated with executing the missions called for under the current National Military Strategy.

(2) The Secretary shall forward the report received under paragraph (1) in any year, with the Secretary’s comments thereon (if
551

any), to Congress with the Secretary’s next transmission to Congress

of the annual Department of Defense budget justification materials

in support of the Department of Defense component of the budget of

the President submitted under section 1105 of title 31 for the next

fiscal year. If the Chairman’s assessment in such report in any year

is that risk associated with executing the missions called for under

the National Military Strategy is significant, the Secretary shall include with the report as submitted to Congress the Secretary’s plan

for mitigating that risk.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 7—BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES

* * * * * * *

§ 180. Service academy athletic programs: review board

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—(1) Each member of the board

who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall

be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for øgrade GS–18 of the General

Schedule under section 5332 of title 5¿ Executive Schedule Level IV

under section 5376 of title 5, for each day (including travel time)

during which such member is engaged in the performance of the

duties of the board. Members of the board who are officers or employees of the United States shall serve without compensation in

addition to that received for their services as officers or employees

of the United States.

(2) The members of the board shall be allowed travel expenses,

including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for

employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5,

while away from their homes or regular places of business in the

performance of services for the board.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 8—DEFENSE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE FIELD ACTIVITIES

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—COMMON SUPPLY AND SERVICE

ACTIVITIES

* * * * * * *

§ 192. Defense Agencies and Department of Defense Field Activities: oversight by the Secretary of Defense

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) SPECIAL RULE FOR DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY.—Notwithstanding the results of any periodic review under subsection (c)

with regard to the Defense Commissary Agency, the Secretary of

Defense may not transfer to the Secretary of a military department
552

the responsibility to manage and fund the provision of services and

supplies provided by the Defense Commissary Agency unless the

transfer of the management and funding responsibility is specifically authorized by a law enacted after øthe date of the enactment

of this subsection¿ October 17, 1998.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 9—DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS

Sec.

221. Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency in

budgeting.

* * * * * * *

229. Amounts for declassification of records.

§ 223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements

(a) PROGRAM ELEMENTS SPECIFIED.—In the budget justification

materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of

Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget

of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the amount requested for activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

shall be set forth in accordance with the following program

elements:

(1) The Patriot system.

(2) The Navy Area system.

(3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system.

(4) The Navy Theater Wide system.

(5) Upper Tier.

ø(5)¿ (6) The Medium Extended Air Defense System.

ø(6)¿ (7) Joint Theater Missile Defense.

ø(7)¿ (8) National Missile Defense.

ø(8)¿ (9) Support Technologies.

ø(9)¿ (10) Family of Systems Engineering and Integration.

ø(10)¿ (11) Ballistic Missile Defense Technical Operations.

ø(11)¿ (12) Threat and Countermeasures.

ø(12)¿ (13) International Cooperative Programs.

(14) Space Based Infrared System Low.

(15) Space Based Infrared System High.

* * * * * * *

§ 229. Amounts for declassification of records

(a) SPECIFIC IDENTIFICATION IN BUDGET.—The Secretary of Defense shall include in the budget justification materials submitted

to Congress in support of the Department of Defense budget for any

fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31) specific identification, as a budgetary line

item, of the amounts required to carry out programmed activities

during that fiscal year to declassify records pursuant to Executive

Order 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note), or any successor Executive order,

or to comply with any statutory requirement to declassify Government records.

* * * * * * *
553

CHAPTER 18—MILITARY SUPPORT FOR CIVILIAN LAW

ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

* * * * * * *

§ 374. Maintenance and operation of equipment

(a) * * *

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and in accordance with other applicable law, the Secretary of Defense may, upon request from the

head of a Federal law enforcement agency, make Department of

Defense personnel available to operate equipment (including equipment made available under section 372 of this title) with respect

to—

(A) a criminal violation of a provision of law specified in

paragraph (4)(A);

(B) assistance that such agency is authorized to furnish to a

State, local, or foreign government which is involved in the enforcement of similar laws;

(C) a foreign or domestic counter-terrorism operation; or

(D) a rendition of a suspected terrorist from a foreign country to the United States to stand trial.

(2) Department of Defense personnel made available to a civilian

law enforcement agency under this subsection may operate equipment for the following purposes:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(F) Subject to joint approval by the Secretary of Defense and

the Attorney General (and the Secretary of State in the case

of a law enforcement operation outside of the land area of the

United States)—

(i) the transportation of civilian law enforcement personnel along with any other civilian or military personnel

who are supporting, or conducting, a joint operation with

civilian law enforcement personnel;ø;¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 23—MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec.

481. Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group activity: annual survey

and report.

* * * * * * *

486. Unit operations tempo and personnel tempo: annual report.

* * * * * * *

§ 485. Joint warfighting experimentation

(a) * * *

(b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—Each report under this section

shall include, for the fiscal year covered by the report, the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *
554

(5) With respect to interoperability of equipment and forces,

any recommendations that the commander considers appropriate, developed on the basis of joint warfighting experimentation, for reducing unnecessary redundancy of equipment and

forces, including guidance regarding the synchronization of the

fielding of advanced technologies among the armed forces to enable the development and execution of joint operational concepts.

(6) Recommendations for mission needs statements and operational requirements related to the joint experimentation and

evaluation process.

(7) Recommendations based on the results of joint experimentation for the relative priorities for acquisition programs to meet

joint requirements.

* * * * * * *

§ 486. Unit operations tempo and personnel tempo: annual report

(a) INCLUSION IN ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense

shall include in the annual report required by section 113(c) of this

title a description of the operations tempo and personnel tempo of

the armed forces.

(b) SPECIFIC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—To satisfy subsection

(a), the report shall include the following:

(1) A description of the methods by which each of the armed

forces measures operations tempo and personnel tempo.

(2) A description of the personnel tempo policies of each of the

armed forces and any changes to these policies since the preceding report.

(3) A table depicting the active duty end strength for each of

the armed forces for each of the preceding five years and also

depicting the number of members of each of the armed forces

deployed over the same period, as determined by the Secretary

concerned.

(4) An identification of the active and reserve component

units of the armed forces participating at the battalion, squadron, or an equivalent level (or a higher level) in contingency operations, major training events, and other exercises and contingencies of such a scale that the exercises and contingencies receive an official designation, that were conducted during the period covered by the report and the duration of their participation.

(5) For each of the armed forces, the average number of days

a member of that armed force was deployed away from the

member’s home station during the period covered by the report

as compared to recent previous years for which such information is available.

(6) For each of the armed forces, the number of days that

high demand, low density units (as defined by the Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff) were deployed during the period covered by the report, and whether these units met the force goals

for limiting deployments, as described in the personnel tempo

policies applicable to that armed force.
555

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘operations tempo’’ means the rate at which

units of the armed forces are involved in all military activities,

including contingency operations, exercises, and training deployments.

(2) The term ‘‘personnel tempo’’ means the amount of time

members of the armed forces are engaged in their official duties, including the rate at which members are required, as a result of these duties, to spend nights away from home.

(3) The term ‘‘armed forces’’ does not include the Coast Guard

when it is not operating as a service in the Department of the

Navy.

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 31—ENLISTMENTS

* * * * * * *

§ 503. Enlistments: recruiting campaigns; compilation of directory information

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Each local educational agency is requested to provide to the

Department of Defense, upon a request made for military recruiting

purposes, the same access to secondary school students, and to directory information concerning such students, as is provided generally to post-secondary educational institutions or to prospective

employers of those students.

* * * * * * *

§ 525. Distribution of commissioned officers on active duty

in general officer and flag officer grades

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(5)(A) An officer while serving in a position specified in section

604(b) of this title, if serving in the grade of general or admiral,

is in addition to the number that would otherwise be permitted for

that officer’s armed force for officers serving on active duty in

grades above major general or rear admiral, as the case may be,

under the first sentence of paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable. Any

increase by reason of the preceding sentence in the number of officers of an armed force serving on active duty in grades above major

general or rear admiral may only be realized by an increase in the

number of lieutenant generals or vice admirals, as the case maybe,

serving on active duty, and any such increase may not be construed

as authorizing an increase in the limitation on the total number of

general or flag officers for that armed force under section 526(a) of
556

this title or in the number of general and flag officers that may be

designated under section 526(b) of this title.

* * * * * * *

ø(C) This paragraph shall cease to be effective at the end of September 30, 2000.¿

* * * * * * *

(7) An officer of the Army while serving as Superintendent of the

United States Military Academy, if serving in the grade of lieutenant general, is in addition to the number that would otherwise be

permitted for the Army for officers serving on active duty in grades

above major general under paragraph (1). An officer of the Navy or

Marine Corps while serving as Superintendent of the United States

Naval Academy, if serving in the grade of vice admiral or lieutenant

general, is in addition to the number that would otherwise be permitted for the Navy or Marine Corps, respectively, for officers serving on active duty in grades above major general or rear admiral

under paragraph (1) or (2). An officer while serving as Superintendent of the United Air Force Academy, if serving in the grade

of lieutenant general, is in addition to the number that would otherwise be permitted for the Air Force for officers serving on active duty

in grades above major general under paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 33A—APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION AND RETIREMENT FOR

MEMBERS ON THE WARRANT OFFICER ACTIVE-DUTY

LIST

* * * * * * *

§ 575. Recommendations for promotion by selection boards

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

(2) The number of officers recommended for promotion from

below the promotion zone may not exceed 10 percent of the total

number recommended, except that the Secretary of Defense and

the Secretary of Transportation, when the Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy, may authorize such percentage to

be increased to not more than 15 percent. If the number determined

under this subsection within a grade (or grade and competitive category) is less than one, the board may recommend one such officer

from within that grade (or grade and competitive category).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 36—PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVEDUTY LIST

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—PROMOTIONS

* * * * * * *
557

§ 619a. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: joint

duty assignment required before promotion to general or flag grade; exceptions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(g) TRANSITION WAIVER AUTHORITIES.—(1)(A) Until January 1,

1999, the Secretary of Defense may waive subsection (a) in the case

of an officer who served in an assignment (other than a joint duty

assignment) that began before October 1, 1986, and that involved

significant experience in joint matters (as determined by the Secretary) if the officer served in that assignment for a period of sufficient duration (which may not be less than 12 months) for the officer’s service to have been considered a full tour of duty under the

policies and regulations in effect on September 30, 1986.

ø(B) Of the total number of appointments to the grades of brigadier general and rear admiral (lower half) for officers on the activeduty lists of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps during

each of the years 1995 through 1999, the number in any such year

that are made using a waiver under subparagraph (A) may not exceed the applicable percentage of such total determined as follows:

Applicable

øYear: Percentage:

1995 ................................................................................................... 20

1996 ................................................................................................... 15

1997 ................................................................................................... 10

1998 ................................................................................................... 5.

ø(C) The provisions of subsections (c) and (e) apply to waivers

under this paragraph in the same manner as to waivers under subsection (b).

ø(2) Until January 1, 1999, the Secretary of Defense may waive

subsection (d) in the case of an officer granted a waiver of subsection (a) under the authority of subsection (b)(1).

ø(3)(A) An officer described in subparagraph (B) may not be appointed to the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral until the

officer completes a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment.

ø(B) Subparagraph (A) applies to an officer—

ø(i) who is promoted after January 1, 1994, to the grade of

brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) and who receives

a waiver of subsection (a) under the authority of paragraph (1)

of this subsection; or

ø(ii) who receives a waiver of subsection (d) under the authority of paragraph (2) of this subsection.¿

(g) LIMITATION FOR GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS PREVIOUSLY

RECEIVING JOINT DUTY ASSIGNMENT WAIVER.—A general officer or

flag officer who before January 1, 1999, received a waiver of subsection (a) under the authority of this subsection (as in effect before

that date) may not be appointed to the grade of lieutenant general

or vice admiral until the officer completes a full tour of duty in a

joint duty assignment.

(h) SPECIAL TRANSITION RULES FOR NUCLEAR PROPULSION OFFICERS.—ø(1) Until January 1, 1997, an¿ An officer of the Navy designated as a qualified nuclear propulsion officer ømay be¿ who before January 1, 1997, is appointed to the grade of rear admiral

(lower half) without regard to subsection (a)ø. An officer so ap-
558

pointed may not be appointed¿ to the grade of rear admiral until

the officer completes a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment.

ø(2) Not later than March 1 of each year from 1994 through

1997, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on

Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a report on the implementation during the preceding calendar year of the transition plan developed by the Secretary pursuant to section 1305(b) of Public Law

100–180 (10 U.S.C. 619a note) with respect to service by qualified

nuclear propulsion officers in joint duty assignments.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 38—JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 664. Length of joint duty assignments

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) JOINT DUTY CREDIT FOR CERTAIN JOINT TASK FORCE ASSIGNMENTS.—(1)***

(2)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1), a qualifying temporary joint

task force assignment of an officer is a temporary assignment, any

part of which is performed by the officer on or after øthe date of

the enactment of this subsection¿ February 10, 1996—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 39—ACTIVE DUTY

* * * * * * *

§ 688. Retired members: authority to order to active duty;

duties

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) LIMITATION OF PERIOD OF RECALL SERVICE.—(1) A member

ordered to active duty under subsection (a) may not serve on active

duty pursuant to orders under that subsection øfor more than 12

months within the 24 months¿ for more than 36 months within 48

months following the first day of the active duty to which ordered

under that subsection.

* * * * * * *

§ 690. Retired members ordered to active duty: limitation on

number

(a) GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS.—Not more than 15 retired

general officers of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, and not

more than 15 retired flag officers of the Navy, may be on active

duty at any one time. øFor the purposes of this subsection a retired

officer ordered to active duty for a period of 60 days or less is not

counted.¿
559

(b) LIMITATION BY SERVICE.—(1) øNot more than 25 officers¿ In

addition to the officers subject to subsection (a), not more than 150

officers of any one armed force may be serving on active duty concurrently pursuant to orders to active duty issued under section

688 of this title.

(2) In the administration of paragraph (1), the following officers

shall not be counted:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) Any officer assigned to duty as a member of the Army,

Navy, or Air Force Retiree Council for the period of active duty

to which ordered.

(c) EXCLUSION FROM LIMITATIONS OF OFFICERS RECALLED FOR 60

DAYS OR LESS.—A retired officer ordered to active duty for a period

of 60 days or less shall not be counted for the purposes of subsection

(a) or (b).

ø(c)¿ (d) WAIVER FOR PERIODS OF WAR OR NATIONAL EMER- GENCY.—Subsection (a) does not apply in time of war or of national

emergency declared by Congress or the President after November

30, 1980. Subsection (b) does not apply in time of war or of national

emergency declared by Congress or the President.

§ 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major

regional contingencies

(a) * * *

(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members of

the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty at

the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the following:

(1) For the Army, 480,000.

(2) For the Navy, ø372,696¿ 371,781. (3) For the Marine Corps, ø172,200¿ 172,148. (4) For the Air Force, ø370,802¿ 360,877.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 45—THE UNIFORM

* * * * * * *

§ 777. Wearing of insignia of higher grade before promotion

(frocking): authority; restrictions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF OFFICERS FROCKED TO SPECIFIED

GRADES.—(1) The total number of colonels and Navy captains on

the active-duty list who are authorized as described in subsection

(a) to wear the insignia for the grade of brigadier general or rear

admiral (lower half), as the case may be, ømay not exceed the following:

ø(A) During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 75.

ø(B) During fiscal year 1998, 55.

ø(C) After fiscal year 1998, 35.¿ may not exceed 35.

* * * * * * *
560

CHAPTER 49—MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND

PENALTIES

* * * * * * *

Sec.

971. Service credit: officers may not count service performed while serving as cadet

or midshipman.

* * * * * * *

ø983. Institutions of higher education that prohibit Senior ROTC units: denial of

Department of Defense grants and contracts.¿

983. Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and contracts from Department of Defense, Department of Education, and certain other departments and

agencies.

* * * * * * *

§ 973. Duties: officers on active duty; performance of civil

functions restricted

(a) * * *

(b)(1) This subsection applies—

(A) to a regular officer of an armed force on the active-duty

list (and a regular officer of the Coast Guard on the active duty

promotion list);

(B) to a retired regular officer of an armed force serving on

active duty under a call or order to active duty for a period in

excess of ø180¿ 270 days; and

(C) to a reserve officer of an armed force serving on active

duty under a call or order to active duty for a period in excess

of ø180¿ 270 days.

* * * * * * *

§ 977. Operation of commissary stores: assignment of active

duty members generally prohibited

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN NAVY PERSONNEL.—(1) The Secretary of the Navy may assign to the Defense Commissary Agency

a member of the Navy on active duty whose assignment afloat is

part of the operation of a ship’s food service or a ship’s store. Any

such assignment shall be on a nonreimbursable basis.

(2) The number of such members assigned to the Defense Commissary Agency during any period may not exceed øthe lesser of

(A) the number of members so assigned on October 1, 1993, and

(B)¿.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 983. Institutions of higher education that prohibit Senior

ROTC units: denial of Department of Defense

grants and contracts

ø(a) DENIAL OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.—(1) No funds appropriated or otherwise available to the

Department of Defense may be made obligated by contract or by

grant (including a grant of funds to be available for student aid)

to any institution of higher education that, as determined by the
561

Secretary of Defense, has an anti-ROTC policy and at which, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary would otherwise maintain

or seek to establish a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training

Corps or at which the Secretary would otherwise enroll or seek to

enroll students for participation in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at another nearby institution of higher education.

ø(2) In the case of an institution of higher education that is ineligible for Department of Defense grants and contracts by reason of

paragraph (1), the prohibition under that paragraph shall cease to

apply to that institution upon a determination by the Secretary

that the institution no longer has an anti-ROTC policy.

ø(b) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.—Whenever the Secretary makes

a determination under subsection (a) that an institution has an

anti-ROTC policy, or that an institution previously determined to

have an anti-ROTC policy no longer has such a policy, the

Secretary—

ø(1) shall transmit notice of that determination to the Secretary of Education and to the Committee on Armed Services

of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the

House of Representatives; and

ø(2) shall publish in the Federal Register notice of that determination and of the effect of that determination under subsection (a)(1) on the eligibility of that institution for Department of Defense grants and contracts.

ø(c) SEMIANNUAL NOTICE IN FEDERAL REGISTER.—The Secretary

shall publish in the Federal Register once every six months a list

of each institution of higher education that is currently ineligible

for Department of Defense grants and contracts by reason of a determination of the Secretary under subsection (a).

ø(d) ANTI-ROTC POLICY.—In this section, the term ‘‘anti-ROTC

policy’’ means a policy or practice of an institution of higher education that—

ø(1) prohibits, or in effect prevents, the Secretary of Defense

from maintaining or establishing a unit of the Senior Reserve

Officer Training Corps at that institution, or

ø(2) prohibits, or in effect prevents, a student at that institution from enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer

Training Corps at another institution of higher education.¿

§ 983. Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus: denial of

grants and contracts from Department of Defense,

Department of Education, and certain other departments and agencies

(a) DENIAL OF FUNDS FOR PREVENTING ROTC ACCESS TO CAMPUS.—No funds described in subsection (d) may be provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be available for student aid) to a covered educational entity if the Secretary of Defense

determines that the covered educational entity has a policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents—

(1) the Secretary of a military department from maintaining,

establishing, or operating a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer
562

Training Corps (in accordance with section 654 of this title and

other applicable Federal laws) at the covered educational entity;

or

(2) a student at the covered educational entity from enrolling

in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher education.

(b) DENIAL OF FUNDS FOR PREVENTING MILITARY RECRUITING ON

CAMPUS.—No funds described in subsection (d) may be provided by

contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be available for

student aid) to a covered educational entity if the Secretary of Defense determines that the covered educational entity has a policy or

practice (regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or

in effect prevents—

(1) the Secretary of a military department from gaining entry

to campuses, or access to students (who are 17 years of age or

older) on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting; or

(2) access by military recruiters for purposes of military recruiting to the following information pertaining to students

(who are 17 years of age or older) enrolled at the covered educational entity:

(A) Names, addresses, and telephone listings.

(B) Date and place of birth, levels of education, academic

majors, degrees received, and the most recent educational

institution enrolled in by the student.

(c) EXCEPTIONS.—The limitation established in subsection (a) or

(b) shall not apply to a covered educational entity if the Secretary

of Defense determines that—

(1) the covered educational entity has ceased the policy or

practice described in that subsection; or

(2) the institution of higher education involved has a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation.

(d) COVERED FUNDS.—The limitations established in subsections

(a) and (b) apply to the following:

(1) Any funds made available for the Department of Defense.

(2) Any funds made available in a Departments of Labor,

Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act.

(e) NOTICE OF DETERMINATIONS.—Whenever the Secretary of Defense makes a determination under subsection (a), (b), or (c), the

Secretary—

(1) shall transmit a notice of the determination to the Secretary of Education and to Congress; and

(2) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the determination and the effect of the determination on the eligibility

of the covered educational entity for contracts and grants.

(f) SEMIANNUAL NOTICE IN FEDERAL REGISTER.—The Secretary of

Defense shall publish in the Federal Register once every six months

a list of each covered educational entity that is currently ineligible

for contracts and grants by reason of a determination of the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b).
563

(g) COVERED EDUCATIONAL ENTITY.—In this section, the term

‘‘covered educational entity’’ means an institution of higher education, or a subelement of an institution of higher education.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 53—MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

§ 1060a. Special supplemental food program

(a) øAUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may¿ PROGRAM REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a program to

provide special supplemental food benefits to members of the

armed forces on duty at stations outside the United States (and its

territories and possessions) and to eligible civilians serving with,

employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United

States (and its territories and possessions).

ø(b) FEDERAL PAYMENTS AND COMMODITIES.—For the purpose of

obtaining Federal payments and commodities in order to carry out

the program referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall make available to the Secretary of Defense the same

payments and commodities as are made for the special supplemental food program in the United States under section 17 of the

Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786). The Secretary of Defense may use funds available for the Department of Defense to

carry out the program under subsection (a).¿

(b) FUNDING MECHANISM.—The Secretary of Defense shall use

funds available for the Department of Defense to carry out the program under subsection (a).

(c) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.—(1)(A) The Secretary of Defense

shall administer the program referred to in subsection (a) and, except as provided in subparagraph (B), shall determine eligibility for

program benefits under the criterion published by the Secretary of

Agriculture under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42

U.S.C. 1786).

ø(B) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations governing computation of income eligibility standards for families of

individuals participating in the program under this section.¿

(B) In determining income eligibility standards for families of individuals participating in the program under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent practicable, use the criterion described in subparagraph (A). The Secretary shall also consider the

value of housing in kind provided to the individual when determining program eligibility.

(2) The program benefits provided under the program shall be

similar to benefits provided by State and local agencies in the

United States, particularly with respect to nutrition education and

counseling. (3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide technical assistance

to the Secretary of Defense, if so requested by the Secretary of Defense, for the purpose of carrying out the program under subsection

(a).

* * * * * * *
564

CHAPTER 55—MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE

Sec.

1071. Purpose of this chapter.

* * * * * * *

1074f. Medical tracking system for members deployed overseas.

1074g. Pharmacy benefits program.

* * * * * * *

1095b. TRICARE program: contractor payment of certain claims.

1095c. TRICARE program: facilitation of processing of claims.

1095d. TRICARE: program waiver of certain deductibles.

* * * * * * *

§ 1073. Administration of this chapter

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the Secretary of

Defense shall administer this chapter for the armed forces under

his jurisdiction, the Secretary of Transportation shall administer

this chapter for the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy, and the Secretary of Health and

Human Services shall administer this chapter for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public Health Service. This chapter shall be administered consistent with the Assisted

Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 14401 et seq.).

* * * * * * *

§ 1074g. Pharmacy benefits program

(a) PHARMACY BENEFITS.—(1) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall establish

an effective, efficient, integrated pharmacy benefits program under

this chapter (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘pharmacy

benefits program’’).

(2)(A) The pharmacy benefits program shall include a uniform

formulary of pharmaceutical agents, which shall assure the availability of pharmaceutical agents in a complete range of therapeutic

classes. The selection for inclusion on the uniform formulary of particular pharmaceutical agents in each therapeutic class shall be

based on the relative clinical and cost effectiveness of the agents in

such class.

(B) The Secretary shall establish procedures for the selection of

particular pharmaceutical agents for the uniform formulary, and

shall begin to implement the uniform formulary not later than October 1, 2000.

(C) Pharmaceutical agents included on the uniform formulary

shall be available to eligible covered beneficiaries through—

(i) facilities of the uniformed services, consistent with the

scope of health care services offered in such facilities;

(ii) retail pharmacies designated or eligible under the

TRICARE program or the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services to provide pharmaceutical

agents to eligible covered beneficiaries; or

(iii) the national mail order pharmacy program.

(3) The pharmacy benefits program shall assure the availability

of clinically appropriate pharmaceutical agents to members of the
565

armed forces, including, if appropriate, agents not included on the

uniform formulary described in paragraph (2).

(4) The pharmacy benefits program may provide that prior authorization be required for certain categories of pharmaceutical

agents to assure that the use of such agents is clinically appropriate.

Such categories shall be the following:

(A) High-cost injectable agents.

(B) High-cost biotechnology agents.

(C) Pharmaceutical agents with high potential for inappropriate use.

(D) Pharmaceutical agents otherwise determined by the Secretary to require prior authorization.

(5)(A) The pharmacy benefits program shall include procedures

for eligible covered beneficiaries to receive pharmaceutical agents

not included on the uniform formulary. Such procedures shall include peer review procedures under which the Secretary may determine that there is a clinical justification for the use of a pharmaceutical agent that is not on the uniform formulary, in which case

the pharmaceutical agent shall be provided under the same terms

and conditions as an agent on the uniform formulary.

(B) If the Secretary determines that there is not a clinical justification for the use of a pharmaceutical agent that is not on the

uniform formulary under the procedures established pursuant to

subparagraph (A), such pharmaceutical agent shall be available

through at least one of the means described in paragraph (2)(C)

under terms and conditions that may include cost sharing by the eligible covered beneficiary in addition to any such cost sharing applicable to agents on the uniform formulary.

(6) The Secretary of Defense shall, after consultation with the

other administering Secretaries, promulgate regulations to carry out

this subsection.

(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorizing

a contractor to penalize an eligible covered beneficiary with respect

to, or decline coverage for, a maintenance pharmaceutical that is

not on the list of preferred pharmaceuticals of the contractor and

that was prescribed for the beneficiary before the date of the enactment of this section and stabilized the medical condition of the beneficiary.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE.—(1) The Secretary of Defense

shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments, establish a pharmaceutical and therapeutics committee for

the purpose of developing the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical

agents required by subsection (a), reviewing such formulary on a

periodic basis, and making additional recommendations regarding

the formulary as the committee determines necessary and appropriate. The committee shall include representatives of pharmacies of

the uniformed services facilities, contractors responsible for the

TRICARE retail pharmacy program, contractors responsible for the

national mail order pharmacy program, providers in facilities of the

uniformed services, and TRICARE network providers. Committee

members shall have expertise in treating the medical needs of the

populations served through such entities and in the range of pharmaceutical and biological medicines available for treating such populations.
566

(2) Not later than 90 days after the establishment of the pharmaceutical and therapeutics committee by the Secretary, the committee

shall submit a proposed uniform formulary to the Secretary.

(c) ADVISORY PANEL.—(1) Concurrent with the establishment of

the pharmaceutical and therapeutics committee under subsection

(b), the Secretary shall establish a Uniform Formulary Beneficiary

Advisory Panel to review and comment on the development of the

uniform formulary. The Secretary shall consider the comments of

the panel before implementing the uniform formulary or implementing changes to the uniform formulary.

(2) The Secretary shall determine the size and membership of the

panel established under paragraph (1), which shall include members that represent nongovernmental organizations and associations

that represent the views and interests of a large number of eligible

covered beneficiaries.

(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.— The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply

to the committee established under subsection (b) or the panel established under subsection (c).

(e) PROCEDURES.—In the operation of the pharmacy benefits program under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall assure

through management and new contractual arrangements that financial resources are aligned such that the cost of prescriptions is

borne by the organization that is financially responsible for the

health care of the eligible covered beneficiary.

(f) PHARMACY DATA TRANSACTION SERVICE.—Not later than April

1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense shall implement the use of the

Pharmacy Data Transaction Service in all fixed facilities of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, the

TRICARE network retail pharmacy program, and the national mail

order pharmacy program.

(g) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE COVERED BENEFICIARY.—As used in

this section, the term ‘‘eligible covered beneficiary’’ means a covered

beneficiary for whom eligibility to receive pharmacy benefits

through the means described in subsection (a)(2)(C) is established

under this chapter or another provision of law.

* * * * * * *

§ 1076a. Dependents’ dental program

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

( j) LIMITATION ON REDUCTION OF BENEFITS.—The Secretary of

Defense may not reduce benefits provided under this section

until—

(1) * * *

(2) ø1¿ one year has elapsed following the date of such notice.

* * * * * * *

§ 1093. Performance of abortions: restrictions

(a) RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS.—Funds available to the Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions except
567

where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were

carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result

of an act of forcible rape or incest which has been reported to a law

enforcement agency.

* * * * * * *

§ 1095. Health care services incurred on behalf of covered

beneficiaries: collection from third-party payers.

(a)(1) In the case of a person who is a covered beneficiary, the

United States shall have the right to collect from a third-party

payer øthe reasonable costs of¿ reasonable charges for health care

services incurred by the United States on behalf of such person

through a facility of the uniformed services to the extent that the

person would be eligible to receive reimbursement or indemnification from the third-party payer if the person were to incur øsuch

costs¿ such charges on the person’s own behalf. If the insurance,

medical service, or health plan of that payer includes a requirement for a deductible or copayment by the beneficiary of the plan,

then the amount that the United States may collect from the thirdparty payer is øthe reasonable cost of¿ a reasonable charge for the

care provided less the appropriate deductible or copayment

amount.

* * * * * * *

ø(f) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations for the administration of this section. Such regulations shall provide for computation of the reasonable cost of health care services. Computation of

such reasonable cost may be based on—

ø(1) per diem rates;

ø(2) all-inclusive per visit rates;

ø(3) diagnosis-related groups; or

ø(4) such other method as may be appropriate.¿

(f) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations for the administration of this section. Such regulations shall provide for the computation of reasonable charges for inpatient services, outpatient services,

and other health care services. Computation of such reasonable

charges may be based on—

(1) per diem rates;

(2) all-inclusive per visit rates;

(3) diagnosis-related groups;

(4) rates prescribed under the regulations prescribed to implement sections 1079 and 1086 of this title; or

(5) such other method as may be appropriate.

(g)(1) Amounts collected under this section from a third-party

payer or under any other provision of law from any other payer for

øthe costs of¿ health care services provided at or through a facility

of the uniformed services shall be credited to the appropriation

supporting the maintenance and operation of the facility and shall

not be taken into consideration in establishing the operating budget of the facility.

* * * * * * *
568

(h) In this section:

(1) øThe term ‘‘third-party payer’’ means an entity that provides an insurance, medical service, or health plan by contract

or agreement, including an automobile liability insurance or no

fault insurance carrier.¿ The term ‘‘third-party payer’’ means

an entity that provides an insurance, medical service, or health

plan by contract or agreement, including an automobile liability insurance or no fault insurance carrier, and any other plan

or program that is designed to provide compensation or coverage for expenses incurred by a beneficiary for health care services or products. Such term also includes entities described in

subsection (j) under the terms and to the extent provided in

such subsection and a workers’ compensation program or plan.

* * * * * * *

§ 1095c. TRICARE program: facilitation of processing of

claims

(a) REDUCTION OF PROCESSING TIME.—(1) With respect to claims

for payment for medical care provided under the TRICARE program, the Secretary of Defense shall implement a system for processing of claims under which—

(A) 95 percent of all mistake-free claims must be processed

not later than 30 days after the date that such claims are submitted to the claims processor; and

(B) 100 percent of all mistake-free claims must be processed

not later than 100 days after the date that such claims are submitted to the claims processor.

(2) The Secretary may, under the system required by paragraph

(1) and consistent with the provisions in chapter 39 of title 31,

United States Code (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Prompt Payment

Act’’), require that interest be paid on claims that are not processed

within 30 days.

(b) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE START-UP TIME FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTORS.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall not require that a

contractor described in paragraph (2) begin to provide managed

care support pursuant to a contract to provide such support under

the TRICARE program until at least nine months after the date of

the award of the contract. In such case the contractor may begin to

provide managed care support pursuant to the contract as soon as

practicable after the award of the contract, but in no case later than

one year after the date of such award.

(2) A contractor under this paragraph is a contractor who is

awarded a contract to provide managed care support under the

TRICARE program—

(A) who has not previously been awarded such a contract by

the Department of Defense; or

(B) who has previously been awarded such a contract by the

Department of Defense but for whom the subcontractors have

not previously been awarded the subcontracts for such a contract.
569

§ 1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles

(a) WAIVER AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of Defense may waive

the deductible payable for medical care provided under the

TRICARE program to an eligible dependent of—

(1) a member of a reserve component on active duty pursuant

to a call or order to active duty for a period of less than one

year; or

(2) a member of the National Guard on full-time National

Guard duty pursuant to a call or order to full-time National

Guard duty for a period of less than one year.

(b) ELIGIBLE DEPENDENT.—As used in this section, the term ‘‘eligible dependent’’ means a dependent described subparagraphs (A),

(D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 61—RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR

PHYSICAL DISABILITY

Sec.

1201. Regulars and members on active duty for more than 30 days: retirement.

* * * * * * *

1220. Members dying in civilian medical facilities: authority for determination of

later time of death to allow disability retirement.

* * * * * * *

§ 1220. Members dying in civilian medical facilities: authority for determination of later time of death to allow

disability retirement

(a) AUTHORITY FOR LATER TIME-OF-DEATH DETERMINATION TO

ALLOW DISABILITY RETIREMENT.—In the case of a member of the

armed forces who dies in a civilian medical facility in a State, the

Secretary concerned may, solely for the purpose of allowing retirement of the member under section 1201 or 1204 of this title and

subject to subsection (b), specify a date and time of death of the

member later than the date and time of death determined by the attending physician in that civilian medical facility.

(b) LIMITATIONS.—A date and time of death may be determined

by the Secretary concerned under subsection (a) only if that date

and time—

(1) are consistent with the date and time of death that reasonably could have been determined by an attending physician in

a military medical facility if the member had died in a military

medical facility in the same State as the civilian medical facility; and

(2) are not more than 48 hours later than the date and time

of death determined by the attending physician in the civilian

medical facility.

(c) STATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘State’’ includes the

District of Columbia and any Commonwealth or possession of the

United States.

* * * * * * *
570

CHAPTER 69—RETIRED GRADE

* * * * * * *

§ 1370. Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) RESERVE OFFICERS.—(1) Unless entitled to a higher grade, or

to credit for satisfactory service in a higher grade, under some

other provision of law, a person who is entitled to retired pay under

chapter ø1225¿ 1223 of this title shall, upon application under section 12731 of this title, be credited with satisfactory service in the

highest grade in which that person served satisfactorily at any

time in the armed forces, as determined by the Secretary concerned

in accordance with this subsection.

* * * * * * *

(5) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a

military department to reduce the 3-year period required by paragraph (3)(A) to a period not less than 2 years in the case of retirements effective during the period beginning on øthe date of the enactment of this paragraph¿ October 17, 1998, and ending on September 30, 2001. The number of reserve commissioned officers of

an armed force in the same grade for whom a reduction is made

during any fiscal year in the period of service-in-grade otherwise

required under this paragraph may not exceed the number equal

to 2 percent of the strength authorized for that fiscal year for reserve commissioned officers of that armed force in an active status

in that grade.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 71—COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY

Sec.

1401. Computation of retired pay.

* * * * * * *

1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed services retirees.

* * * * * * *

§ 1401a. Adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay to reflect changes in Consumer Price Index

(a) * * *

(b) COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON CPI INCREASES.—

(1) øIN GENERAL.—¿ INCREASE REQUIRED.—Effective on December 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall increase

the retired pay of members and former members entitled to

that pay in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3).

(2) PRE-AUGUST 1, 1986 øMEMBERS.—

ø(A) GENERAL RULE.—The Secretary shall¿ MEMBERS.—

The Secretary shall increase the retired pay of each member and former member who first became a member of a

uniformed service before August 1, 1986, by the percent

(adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by which—
571

ø(i)¿ (A) the price index for the base quarter of that

year, exceeds

ø(ii)¿ (B) the base index.

ø(B) SPECIAL RULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996.—In the case of

the increase in retired pay that, pursuant to paragraph (1),

becomes effective on December 1, 1995, the initial month

for which such increase is payable as part of such retired

pay shall (notwithstanding such December 1 effective date)

be March 1996.

ø(C) INAPPLICABILITY TO DISABILITY RETIREES.—Subparagraph (B) does not apply with respect to the retired pay of

a member retired under chapter 61 of this title.

ø(3) POST-AUGUST 1, 1986 MEMBERS.—If the percent determined under paragraph (2) is greater than 1 percent, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of each member and

former member who first became a member on or after August

1, 1986, by the difference between—

ø(A) the percent determined under paragraph (2); and

ø(B) 1 percent.¿

(3) POST-AUGUST 1, 1986 MEMBERS.—

(A) MEMBERS ELECTING 15-YEAR CAREER STATUS

BONUS.—In the case of a member or former member who

first became a member on or after August 1, 1986, and who

elected to receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37, the

Secretary shall increase the retired pay of the member or

former member (unless the percent determined under paragraph (2) is less than 1 percent) by the difference between—

(i) the percent determined under paragraph (2); and

(ii) 1 percent.

(B) MEMBERS NOT ELECTING 15-YEAR CAREER STATUS

BONUS.—In the case of a member or former member who

first became a member on or after August 1, 1986, and who

did not elect to receive a bonus under section 321 of title

37, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay of the member or former member—

(i) if the percent determined under paragraph (2) is

equal to or greater than 3 percent, by the difference

between—

(I) the percent determined under paragraph (2);

and

(II) 1 percent; and

(ii) if the percent determined under paragraph (2) is

less than 3 percent, by the lesser of—

(I) the percent determined under paragraph (2);

or

(II) 2 percent.

* * * * * * *

§ 1406. Retired pay base for members who first became members before September 8, 1980: final basic pay

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *
572

(i) SPECIAL RULE FOR FORMER CHAIRMEN AND VICE CHAIRMEN OF

THE JCS, CHIEFS OF SERVICE, AND SENIOR ENLISTED MEMBERS.— (1) * * *

(2) EXCEPTION FOR MEMBERS REDUCED IN GRADE OR WHO DO

NOT SERVE SATISFACTORILY.—Paragraph (1) does not apply in

the case of a member who, while or after serving in a position

specified in that paragraph and by reason of conduct occurring

øon or after the date of the enactment of the Strom Thurmond

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999¿ after

October 16, 1998— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 1409. Retired pay multiplier

(a) RETIRED PAY MULTIPLIER FOR REGULAR-SERVICE NONDISABILITY RETIREMENT.—In computing—

(b) PERCENTAGE.—

(1) * * *

(2) REDUCTION APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN NEW-RETIREMENT

MEMBERS WITH LESS THAN 30 YEARS OF SERVICE.—In the case

of a member who first became a member of a uniformed service

after July 31, 1986, has elected to receive a bonus under section

321 of title 37, has less than 30 years of creditable service, and

is under the age of 62 at the time of retirement, the percentage

determined under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 1410. Restoral of full retirement amount at age 62 for members entering on or after August 1, 1986

(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a member or former member

who first became a member of a uniformed service on or after August 1, 1986, and who becomes entitled to retired pay before the

age of 62, in accordance with subsection (b) or (c), as applicable.

(b) MEMBERS RECEIVING CAREER STATUS BONUS.—In the case of

a member or former member described in subsection (a) who received a bonus under section 321 of title 37, the retired pay of the

member or former member shall be recomputed under subsection

(a) the retired pay of such member or former member shall be recomputed, effective on the first day of the first month beginning

after the member or former member attains 62 years of age, so as

to be the amount equal to the amount of retired pay to which the

member or former member would be entitled on øthat date¿ the effective date of the recomputation if—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) MEMBERS NOT RECEIVING CAREER STATUS BONUS.—In the

case of a member or former member described in subsection (a) who

did not receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37, the retired pay

of the member or former member shall be recomputed under subsection (a) so as to be the amount equal to the amount of retired pay

to which the member or former member would be entitled on the ef-
573

fective date of the recomputation if increases in the retired pay of

the member or former member under section 1401a(b) of this title

had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of that section

(rather than under paragraph (3)(B) of that section).

* * * * * * *

§ 1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled

uniformed services retirees

(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary concerned shall, subject to the

availability of appropriations for such purpose, pay to each eligible

disabled uniformed services retiree a monthly amount determined

under subsection (b).

(b) AMOUNT.—The amount to be paid (subject to the availability

of appropriations) to an eligible disabled uniformed services retiree

in accordance with subsection (a) is the following:

(1) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying serv- ice-connected disability rated as total, $300.

(2) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying serv- ice-connected disability rated as 90 percent, $200.

(3) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying serv- ice-connected disability rated as 80 percent or 70 percent, $100.

(c) ELIGIBLE DISABLED UNIFORMED SERVICES RETIREE DE- FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘eligible disabled military retiree’’

means a member of the uniformed services in a retired status (who

is retired under a provision of law other than chapter 61 of this

title) who—

(1) completed at least 20 years of service in the uniformed

services that are creditable for purposes of computing the

amount of retired pay to which the member is entitled; and

(2) has a qualifying service-connected disability.

(d) QUALIFYING SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY DEFINED.—In

this section, the term ‘‘qualifying service-connected disability’’ means

a service-connected disability that—

(1) was incurred or aggravated in the performance of duty as

a member of a uniformed service, as determined by the Secretary concerned; and

(2) is rated as not less than 70 percent disabling—

(A) by the Secretary concerned as of the date on which

the member is retired from the uniformed services; or

(B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs within four years

following the date on which the member is retired from the

uniformed services.

(e) STATUS OF PAYMENTS.—Payments under this section are not

retired pay.

(f) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—(1) Payments under this section for any

fiscal year shall be paid out of funds appropriated for pay and allowances payable by the Secretary concerned for that fiscal year.

(2) If the amount of funds available to the Secretary concerned for

any fiscal year for payments under this section is less than the

amount required to make such payments to all eligible disabled uniformed services retirees for that year, the Secretary shall make such

payments first to retirees described in paragraph (1) of subsection

(b), then (to the extent funds are available) to retirees described in
574

paragraph (2) of that subsection, and then (to the extent funds are

available) to retirees described in paragraph (3) of that subsection.

(g) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The terms ‘‘compensation’’ and ‘‘service-connected’’ have

the meanings given those terms in section 101 of title 38.

(2) The term ‘‘disability rated as total’’ means—

(A) a disability that is rated as total under the standard

schedule of rating disabilities in use by the Department of

Veterans Affairs; or

(B) a disability for which the schedular rating is less

than total but for which a rating of total is assigned by reason of inability of the disabled person concerned to secure

or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of

service-connected disabilities.

(3) The term ‘‘retired pay’’ includes retainer pay, emergency

officers’ retirement pay, and naval pension.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 73—ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR

RETAINER PAY

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN

* * * * * * *

§ 1448. Application of Plan

(a) * * *

(b) INSURABLE INTEREST AND FORMER SPOUSE COVERAGE.—

(1) * * *

(3) FORMER SPOUSE COVERAGE BY PERSONS ALREADY PARTICIPATING IN PLAN.—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) EFFECTIVE DATE OF ELECTION.—An election under

this paragraph is effective as of—

(i) * * *

(ii) in the case of a person required (as described in

section 1450(f )(3)(B) of this title) to make the election

by reason of a court order or filing the date of which

is øon or after the date of the enactment of the subparagraph¿ after October 16, 1998, the first day of the

first month which begins after the date of that court

order or filing.

* * * * * * *

§ 1451. Amount of annuity

(a) * * *

(h) ADJUSTMENTS TO BASE AMOUNT.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *
575

(3) DISREGARDING OF RETIRED PAY REDUCTIONS FOR RETIRE- MENT OF CERTAIN MEMBERS BEFORE 30 YEARS OF SERVICE.— Computation of a member’s retired pay for purposes of this section shall be made without regard to any reduction under section 1409(b)(2) of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 74—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY

RETIREMENT FUND

* * * * * * *

§ 1461. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definition

(a) There is established on the books of the Treasury a fund to

be known as the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund

(hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the ‘‘Fund’’), which shall

be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Fund shall

be used for the accumulation of funds in order to finance on an actuarially sound basis liabilities of the Department of Defense and

the Department of Commerce under military retirement and survivor benefit programs.

(b) In this chapter, the term ‘‘military retirement and survivor

benefit programs’’ means—

(1) the provisions of this title and the Coast and Geodetic

Survey Commissioned Officers’ Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 853a et

seq.) creating entitlement to, or determining the amount of, retired or retainer pay;

(2) the programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of

Defense providing annuities for survivors of members and

former members of the armed forces, including chapter 73 of

this title, section 4 of Public Law 92–425, and section 5 of Public Law 96–402; øand¿

(3) the authority provided in section 1408(h) of this titleø.¿;

and

(4) the programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of

Commerce providing annuities for survivors of members and

former members of the NOAA Corps.

(c) In this chapter, the term ‘‘NOAA Corps’’ means the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps and

its predecessors.

* * * * * * *

§ 1463. Payments from the Fund

(a) There shall be paid from the Fund—

(1) retired pay payable to members on the retired lists of the

Army, Navy, Air Force, øand Marine Corps¿ Marine Corps,

and the NOAA Corps;

* * * * * * *

(4) benefits payable under programs under the jurisdiction of

the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce

that provide annuities for survivors of members and former

members of the øarmed forces¿ uniformed services, including
576

chapter 73 of this title, section 4 of Public Law 92–425, and

section 5 of Public Law 96–402; and

* * * * * * *

§ 1464. Board of Actuaries

(a) * * *

(b) The Board shall report to the Secretary of Defense and the

Secretary of Commerce with respect to the NOAA Corps annually on

the actuarial status of the Fund and shall furnish its advice and

opinion on matters referred to it by the Secretary.

* * * * * * *

§ 1465. Determination of contributions to the Fund

(a)(1) Not later than six months after the Board of Actuaries is

first appointed, the Board shall determine the amount that is the

present value (as of October 1, 1984) of future benefits payable

from the Fund that are attributable to service in the armed forces

performed before October 1, 1984. That amount is the original unfunded liability of the Fund. The Board shall determine the period

of time over which the original unfunded liability should be liquidated and shall determine an amortization schedule for the liquidation of such liability over that period. Contributions to the

Fund for the liquidation of the original unfunded liability in accordance with such schedule shall be made as provided in section

1466(b) of this title.

(2) Not later than January 1, 2000, the Secretary of Commerce

shall provide to the Board the amount that is the present value (as

of October 1, 1999) of future benefits payable from the Fund that

are attributable to service in the NOAA Corps performed before October 1, 1999. That amount is the NOAA Corps original unfunded

liability of the Fund. The Board shall determine the period of time

over which that unfunded liability should be liquidated and shall

determine an amortization schedule for the liquidation of such liability over that period. Contributions to the Fund for the liquidation of the original unfunded liability in accordance with that

schedule shall be made as provided in section 1466(b) of this title.

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce

shall determine each year, in sufficient time for inclusion in budget

requests for the following fiscal year, the total amount of Department of Defense contributions and the Department of Commerce

contributions with respect to the NOAA Corps to be made to the

Fund during that fiscal year under section 1466(a) of this title.

That amount shall be the sum of the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) The product of—

(i) the current estimate of the value of the single level percentage of basic pay to be determined under subsection

(c)(1)(C) at the time of the next actuarial valuation under

subsection (c); and
577

(ii) the total amount of basic pay expected to be paid during that fiscal year to members of the NOAA Corps.

(2) The amount determined under paragraph (1) for any fiscal

year is the amount needed to be appropriated to the Department

of Defense and the Department of Commerce for that fiscal year for

payments to be made to the Fund during that year under section

1466(a) of this title. The President shall include not less than the

full amount so determined in the budget transmitted to Congress

for that fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31 and shall include

separate amounts for the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce. The President may comment and make recommendations concerning any such amount.

(c)(1) Not less often than every four years, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce with respect to the NOAA

Corps shall carry out an actuarial valuation of Department of Defense military retirement and survivor benefit programs. Each actuarial valuation of such programs shall include—

(A) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age normal

cost method) of a single level percentage of basic pay for members of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active

duty (other than active duty for training) or full-time National

Guard duty (other than full-time National Guard duty for

training only); øand¿

(B) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age normal

cost method) of a single level percentage of basic pay and of

compensation (paid pursuant to section 206 of title 37) for

members of the Ready Reserve of the armed forces (other than

the Coast Guard and other than members on full-time National Guard duty other than for training) who are not otherwise described by subparagraph (A)ø.¿; and

(C) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age normal

cost method) of a single level percentage of basic pay for members of the NOAA Corps.

Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of subsection (b) and section 1466(a) of this title.

§ 1466. Payments into the Fund

(a) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce with

respect to the NOAA Corps shall pay into the Fund at the end of

each month as the øDepartment of Defense¿ contribution to the

Fund for that month the amount that is the sum of the following:

(1) The product of—

(A) the level percentage of basic pay determined using

all the methods and assumptions approved for the most recent (as of the first day of the current fiscal year) actuarial

valuation under section 1465(c)(1)(A) and 1465(c)(1)(C) of

this title (except that any statutory change in the military

retirement and survivor benefit systems that is effective

after the date of that valuation and on or before the first

day of the current fiscal year shall be used in such determination); and

(B) the total amount of basic pay accrued for that month

by members of the armed forces (other than the Coast

Guard) on active duty (other than active duty for training)
578

or full-time National Guard duty (other than full-time National Guard duty for training only) and by members of the

NOAA Corps. (2) The product of—

(A) the level percentage of basic pay and of compensation (paid pursuant to section 206 of title 37) determined

using all the methods and assumptions approved for the

most recent (as of the first day of the current fiscal year)

actuarial valuation under section 1465(c)(1)(B) of this title

(except that any statutory change in the military retirement and survivor benefit systems that is effective after

the date of that valuation and on or before the first day

of the current fiscal year shall be used in such determination); and

(B) the total amount of basic pay and of compensation

(paid pursuant to section 206 of title 37) accrued for that

month by members of the Ready Reserve of the armed

forces (other than the Coast Guard and other than members on full-time National Guard duty other than for training) who are not otherwise described in paragraph (1)(B).

Amounts paid into the Fund under this subsection shall be paid

from funds available for the pay of members of the armed forces

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department or

by members of the NOAA Corps.

(b)(1) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of the

Treasury shall promptly pay into the Fund from the General Fund

of the Treasury the amount certified to the Secretary by the Secretary of Defense under paragraph (3). Such payment shall be the

contribution to the Fund for that fiscal year required by sections

1465(a) and 1465(c) of this title.

(2) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of Defense

shall determine the sum of the following:

(A) The amount of the payment for that year under the amortization schedule determined by the Board of Actuaries

under section 1465(a) of this title for the amortization of the

original unfunded liability and the NOAA original unfunded liability of the Fund.

(B) The amount (including any negative amount) for that

year under the most recent amortization schedule determined

by the Secretary of Defense under section 1465(c)(2) of this

title for the amortization of any cumulative unfunded liability

(or any gain) to the Fund resulting from changes in benefits.

(C) The amount (including any negative amount) for that

year under the most recent amortization schedule determined

by the Secretary of Defense under section 1465(c)(3) of this

title for the amortization of any cumulative actuarial gain or

loss to the Fund.

(c)(1) The Secretary of Transportation shall process, on behalf of

the Fund, payments under section 1463 of this title to members on

the retired list of the NOAA Corps and to survivors of members and

former members of the NOAA Corps.

(2) Payments made by the Secretary of Transportation under

paragraph (1) shall be charged against the Fund.

* * * * * * *
579

CHAPTER 75—DEATH BENEFITS

§ 1491. Honor guard details at funerals of veterans

(a) * * *

(b) COMPOSITION OF HONOR GUARD DETAILS.—The Secretary of

each military department shall ensure that an honor guard detail

for the funeral of a veteran øconsists of not less than three persons

and (unless a bugler is part of the detail) has the capability to play

a recorded version of Taps.¿ consists of not less than two persons,

who shall, at a minimum, perform a ceremony to fold and present

a United States flag to the deceased veteran’s family and who shall

(unless a bugler is part of the detail) have the capability to play a

recorded version of Taps. At least one member of an honor guard

detail provided in response to a request to the Department of Defense shall be a member of the same armed force as the deceased

veteran.

* * * * * * *

(d) SUPPORT FOR NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.—The Secretary of a military department may provide material, equipment,

and training to support nongovernmental organizations, as necessary for the support of honor guard activities.

ø(d)¿ (e) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall by regulation establish a system for selection of units of the armed forces

and other organizations to provide honor guard details. øThe system shall place an emphasis on balancing the funeral detail workload among the units and organizations providing honor guard details in an equitable manner as they are able to respond to requests for such details in terms of geographic proximity and available resources. The Secretary shall provide in such regulations that

the armed force in which a veteran served shall not be considered

to be a factor when selecting the military unit or other organization

to provide an honor guard detail for the funeral of the veteran.¿

The Secretary shall require that procedures be established by the

Secretaries of the military departments for coordinating and responding to requests for honor guard details, for establishing standards and protocols for, responding to requests for and conducting

military funeral honors, and for providing training and quality control.

ø(e)¿ (f) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit

to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives a report not later than January 31 of each year beginning with 2001

and ending with 2005 on the experience of the Department of Defense under this section. Each such report shall provide data on the

number of funerals supported under this section, the cost for that

support, shown by manpower and other cost factors, and the number and costs of funerals supported by each participating organization. The data in the report shall be presented in a standard format, regardless of military department or other organization.

(g) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive

any of the provisions of this section when the Secretary determines

that such a waiver is necessary because of a contingency operation

or when the Secretary otherwise considers such a waiver to be nec-
580

essary to meet military requirements. The authority to make such a

waiver may not be delegated to any official of a military department

other than the Secretary of the military department and may not be

delegated within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to an official

at a level below Under Secretary of Defense.

(2) Whenever a waiver is granted under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall promptly submit notice of the waiver to the

Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on

Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

ø(f )¿ (h) VETERAN DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘veteran’’

has the meaning given that term in section 101(2) of title 38ø.¿

and includes a deceased member or former member of the Selected

Reserve described in section 2301(f) of title 38.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 76—MISSING PERSONS

* * * * * * *

§ 1501. System for accounting for missing persons

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) PRIMARY NEXT OF KIN.—The individual who is primary next

of kin of any person øprescribed¿ described in subsection (c) may

for purposes of this chapter designate another individual to act on

behalf of that individual as primary next of kin. The Secretary concerned shall treat an individual so designated as if the individual

designated were the primary next of kin for purposes of this chapter. A designation under this subsection may be revoked at any

time by the person who made the designation.

* * * * * * *

§ 1509. Preenactment cases

(a) REVIEW OF STATUS.—(1)***

(2) For purposes of this subsection, new information is information that is credible and that—

(A) is found or received after øthe date of the enactment of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998¿

November 18, 1997, by a United States intelligence agency, by

a Department of Defense agency, or by a person specified in

section 1504(g) of this title; or

(B) is identified after øthe date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998¿ November 18, 1997, in records of the United States as information

that could be relevant to the case of one or more unaccounted

for persons described in subsection (b).

* * * * * * *

§ 1513. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) The term ‘‘missing person’’ means—

(A) a member of the armed forces on active duty who is

in a missing status; or
581

(B) a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or

an employee of a contractor of the Department of Defense

who serves in direct support of, or accompanies, the armed

forces in the field under orders and who is in a missing

status.

Such term includes an unaccounted for person described in section 1509(b) of this titleø, under the circumstances specified in

the last sentence of section 1509(a) of this title¿ who is required by section 1509(a)(1) of this title to be considered a missing person.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 79—CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

* * * * * * *

§ 1555. Professional staff

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) In this section, the term ‘‘service review agency’’ means—

(1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the Army

Review Boards Agency;

(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the Navy

Council of Personnel Boards and the Board for Correction of

Naval Records; and

(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, the Air

Force Review Boards Agency.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 80—MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION

REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER DUTIES

Sec.

1561. Complaints of sexual harassment: investigation by commanding officers.

1562. Confidentiality of communications between dependents and professionals providing therapeutic or related services regarding sexual or domestic

abuse.

* * * * * * *

§ 1562. Confidentiality of communications between dependents and professionals providing therapeutic or related services regarding sexual or domestic abuse

(a) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in

regulations such policies and procedures as the Secretary considers

necessary to provide the maximum possible protection for the confidentiality of communications described in subsection (b) relating

to misconduct described in that subsection. Those regulations shall

be consistent with—

(1) the standards of confidentiality and ethical standards

issued by relevant professional organizations;

(2) applicable requirements of Federal and State law;

(3) the best interest of victims of sexual harassment, sexual

assault, or intrafamily abuse; and
582

(4) such other factors as the Secretary, in consultation with

the Attorney General, considers appropriate.

(b) COVERED COMMUNICATIONS.—Subsection (a) applies to communications between—

(1) a dependent of a member of the armed forces who—

(A) is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or

intrafamily abuse; or

(B) has engaged in such misconduct; and

(2) a therapist, counselor, advocate, or other professional from

whom the dependent seeks professional services in connection

with effects of such misconduct.

CHAPTER 81—CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

§ 1588. Authority to accept certain voluntary services

(a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT SERVICES.—Subject to subsection (b)

and notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Secretary concerned may accept from any person the following services:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Voluntary services as a member of an honor guard detail

under section 1491 of this title.

* * * * * * *

(f) AUTHORITY TO INSTALL EQUIPMENT.—(1) The Secretary concerned may install telephone lines and any necessary telecommunication equipment in the private residences of designated persons

providing voluntary services accepted under subsection (a)(3) and

pay the charges incurred for the use of the equipment for authorized

purposes.

(2) Notwithstanding section 1348 of title 31, the Secretary concerned may use appropriated or nonappropriated funds of the military department under the jurisdiction of the Secretary or, with respect to the Coast Guard, the department in which the Coast Guard

is operating, to carry out this subsection.

(3) The Secretary of Defense and, with respect to the Coast Guard,

the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall prescribe regulations to carry out this subsection.

* * * * * * *

§ 1595. Civilian faculty members at certain Department of

Defense schools: employment and compensation

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) COVERED INSTITUTIONS.—This section applies with respect to

the following institutions of the Department of Defense:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) The African Center for Strategic Studies.

* * * * * * *
583

(e) APPLICABILITY TO DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR AT CER- TAIN INSTITUTIONS.—In addition to the persons specified in subsection (a), this section also applies with respect to the Director

and the Deputy Director of the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) The African Center for Strategic Studies.

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING AND EDUCATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 101—TRAINING GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

§ 2007. Payment of tuition for off-duty training or education

(a) The Secretary of a military department may not pay more

than 75 percent of the charges of an educational institution for the

tuition or expenses of a member of the armed forces enrolled in

such institution for education or training during his off-duty periods, except that—

(1) * * *

(2) in the case of a member enrolled in a high school completion program, all of the charges may be paid; øand¿

(3) in the case of a commissioned officer on active duty, no

part of the charges may be paid unless the officer agrees to remain on active duty for a period of at least two years after the

completion of the training or educationø.¿; and

(4) in the case of a member serving in a contingency operation

or similar operational mission (other than for training) designated by the Secretary concerned, all of the charges may be

paid.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 102—JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING

CORPS

Sec.

2031. Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.

2032. Responsibility of the Secretaries of the military departments to maximize

enrollment and enhance efficiency.

2033. Contingent funding increase.

* * * * * * *

§ 2033. Contingent funding increase

If for any fiscal year the amount appropriated for the National

Guard Challenge Program under section 509 of title 32 is in excess

of $62,500,000, the Secretary of Defense shall (notwithstanding any

other provision of law) make the amount in excess of $62,500,000

available for the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program
584

under section 2031 of this title, and such excess amount may not be

used for any other purpose.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 103—SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING

CORPS

Sec.

2101. Definitions.

* * * * * * *

2111a. Support for senior military colleges.

2111b. Senior military colleges: Department of Defense international student

program.

§ 2101. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The term ‘‘advanced training’’ means the training and instruction offered in the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps

to students enrolled in an advanced education program beyond

the baccalaureate degree level or to students enrolled in an advanced education program beyond the baccalaureate degree

level or to students in the third and fourth years of a four-year

Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps course, or the equivalent period of training in an approved two-year Senior Reserve

Officers’ Training Corps course (except that, in the case of a

student enrolled in an academic program which has been approved by the Secretary of the military department concerned

and which requires more than four academic years for completion of baccalaureate degree requirements, including elective

requirements of the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps

course, such term includes a fifth academic year or a combination of a part of a fifth academic year and summer sessions).

* * * * * * *

§ 2107. Financial assistance program for specially selected

members

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c)(1)***

ø(2) The Secretary of Defense shall authorize the Secretaries of

the military departments to carry out a test program to determine

the desirability of enabling graduate students to participate in the

financial assistance program under this section. As part of such

test program, the Secretary of a military department may provide

financial assistance, as described in paragraph (1), to a student enrolled in an advanced education program beyond the baccalaureate

degree level if the student also is a cadet or midshipman in an advanced training program. Not more than 15 percent of the total

number of scholarships awarded under this section in any year

may be awarded under the test program. No scholarship may be

awarded under the test program after September 30, 1999.¿
585

(2) The Secretary concerned may provide financial assistance, as

described in paragraph (1), to a student enrolled in an advanced

education program beyond the baccalaureate degree level if the student also is a cadet or midshipman in an advanced training program. Not more than 15 percent of the total number of scholarships

awarded under this section in any year may be awarded under the

program.

* * * * * * *

§ 2111a. Support for senior military colleges

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) ASSIGNMENT TO ACTIVE DUTY.—(1) The Secretary of the Army

shall ensure that a graduate of a senior military college who desires to serve as a commissioned officer on active duty upon graduation from the college, who is medically and physically qualified

for active duty, and who is recommended for such duty by the professor of military science at the college, shall be assigned to active

duty. øThis paragraph shall apply to a member of the program at

a senior military college who graduates from the college after

March 31, 1997.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 2111b. Senior military colleges: Department of Defense

international student program

(a) PROGRAM REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a program to facilitate the enrollment and instruction of persons from foreign countries as international students at the senior

military colleges.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the program shall be—

(1) to provide a high-quality, cost-effective military-based educational experience for international students in furtherance of

the military-to-military program objectives of the Department of

Defense; and

(2) to enhance the educational experience and preparation of

future United States military leaders through increased, extended interaction with highly qualified potential foreign military leaders.

(c) COORDINATION WITH THE SENIOR MILITARY COLLEGES.—

Guidelines for implementation of the program shall be developed in

coordination with the senior military colleges.

(d) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS UNDER THE

PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Defense shall annually identify to the

senior military colleges the international students who, based on criteria established by the Secretary, the Secretary recommends be considered for admission under the program. The Secretary shall identify the recommended international students to the senior military

colleges as early as possible each year to enable those colleges to

consider them in a timely manner in their respective admissions

processes.

(e) DOD FINANCIAL SUPPORT.—An international student who is

admitted to a senior military college under the program under this
586

section is responsible for the cost of instruction at that college. The

Secretary of Defense may, from funds available to the Department

of Defense other than funds available for financial assistance under

section 2107a of this title, provide some or all of the costs of instruction for any such student.

CHAPTER 105—ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOLARSHIP AND

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE SERVICE

* * * * * * *

§ 2126. Members of the program: service credit

(a) * * *

(b) SERVICE CREDITABLE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—(1)***

(2) Service credited under paragraph (1) counts øonly for the following purposes:

ø(A) Award of¿ only for the award of retirement points for

computation of years of service under section 12732 of this title

and for computation of retired pay under section 12733 of this

title.

ø(B) Computation of years of service creditable under section

205 of title 37.¿

(3) For purposes of øparagraph (2)(A), a member¿ paragraph (2),

a member who completes a satisfactory year of service in the Selected Reserve may be credited in accordance with paragraph (1)

with not more than 50 points for each year of participation in a

course of study that the member satisfactorily completes as a member of the program.

(4) Service may not be counted under paragraph (1) for more

than four years of participation in a course of study as a member

of the program.

(5) A member of the Selected Reserve who is awarded points

or service credit under this subsection shall not be considered

to have been in an active status, by reason of the award of the

points or credit, while pursuing a course of study under this

subchapter for purposes of any provision of law other than sections 12732(a) and 12733(3) of this title.

ø(5)¿ (6) A member is not entitled to any retroactive award of,

or increase in, pay or allowances under title 37 by reason of an

award of service credit under paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION

PROGRAM

* * * * * * *

§ 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates

(a) BONUS AUTHORIZED.—(1) A person described in subsection (b)

who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and end-
587

ing on December 31, ø1999¿ 2000, executes a written agreement in

accordance with subsection (c) to accept an appointment as a nurse

officer may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary

concerned, be paid an accession bonus of not more than $5,000. The

bonus shall be paid in periodic installments, as determined by the

Secretary concerned at the time the agreement is accepted, except

that the first installment may not exceed $2,500.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 108—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOLS

Sec.

2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: academic degrees.

* * * * * * *

2166. National Defense University: Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs.

* * * * * * *

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

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) ELIGIBILITY OF DEPENDENTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(3) A dependent of a Federal employee may continue enrollment

in a program under this subsection for the remainder of a school

year notwithstanding a change during such school year in the status of the Federal employee that, except for this paragraph, would

otherwise terminate the eligibility of the dependent to be enrolled

in the program. The preceding sentence does not limit the authority of the Secretary to remove the dependent from enrollment in

the program at any time for good cause determined by the Secretary.¿

* * * * * * *

(h) CONTINUATION OF ENROLLMENT DESPITE CHANGE IN STATUS.—(1) A dependent of a member of the armed forces or a dependent of a Federal employee may continue enrollment in an educational program provided by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to

subsection (a) for the remainder of a school year notwithstanding a

change during such school year in the status of the member or Federal employee that, except for this paragraph, would otherwise terminate the eligibility of the dependent to be enrolled in the program.

(2) A dependent of a member of the armed forces, or a dependent

of a Federal employee, who was enrolled in an educational program

provided by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) while a junior

in that program may be enrolled as a senior in that program in the

next school year, notwithstanding a change in the enrollment eligibility status of the dependent that, except for this paragraph, would

otherwise terminate the eligibility of the dependent to be enrolled in

the program.

(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not limit the authority of the Secretary to remove a dependent from enrollment in an educational
588

program provided by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) at any

time for good cause determined by the Secretary.

* * * * * * *

§ 2166. National Defense University: Center for the Study of

Chinese Military Affairs

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish

a Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs (hereinafter in

this section referred to as the ‘‘Center’’) as part of the National Defense University. The Center shall be organized as an independent

institute under the University.

(2) The Director of the Center shall be appointed by the Secretary

of Defense. The Secretary shall appoint as the Director an individual who is a distinguished scholar of proven academic, management, and leadership credentials with a superior record of achievement and publication regarding Chinese political, strategic, and

military affairs.

(b) MISSION.—The mission of the Center is to study the national

goals and strategic posture of the People’s Republic of China and

the ability of that nation to develop, field, and deploy an effective

military instrument in support of its national strategic objectives.

(c) AREAS OF STUDY.—The Center shall conduct research relating

to the People’s Republic of China as follows:

(1) To assess the potential of that nation to act as a global

great power, the Center shall conduct research that considers

the policies and capabilities of that nation in a regional and

world-wide context, including Central Asia, Southwest Asia,

Europe, and Latin America, as well as the Asia-Pacific region.

(2) To provide a fuller assessment of the areas of study referred to in paragraph (1), the Center shall conduct research

on—

(A) economic trends relative to strategic goals and military capabilities;

(B) strengths and weaknesses in the scientific and technological sector; and

(C) relevant demographic and human resource factors on

progress in the military sphere.

(3) The Center shall conduct research on the armed forces of

the People’s Republic of China, taking into account the character of those armed forces and their role in Chinese society and

economy, the degree of their technological sophistication, and

their organizational and doctrinal concepts. That research shall

include inquiry into the following matters:

(A) Concepts concerning national interests, objectives,

and strategic culture.

(B) Grand strategy, military strategy, military operations, and tactics.

(C) Doctrinal concepts at each of the four levels specified

in subparagraph (B).

(D) The impact of doctrine on China’s force structure

choices.

(E) The interaction of doctrine and force structure at each

level to create an integrated system of military capabilities
589

through procurement, officer education, training, and practice and other similar factors.

(d) FACULTY OF THE CENTER.—(1) The core faculty of the Center

should comprise scholars capable of providing diverse perspectives

on Chinese political, strategic, and military thought. Center scholars shall demonstrate the following competencies and capabilities:

(A) Analysis of national strategy, military strategy, and doctrine.

(B) Analysis of force structure and military capabilities.

(C) Analysis of—

(i) issues relating to weapons of mass destruction, military intelligence, defense economics, trade, and international economics; and

(ii) the relationship between those issues and grand strategy, science and technology, the sociology of human resources and demography, and political science.

(2) A substantial number of Center scholars shall be competent in

the Chinese language. The Center shall include a core of junior

scholars capable of providing linguistics and translation support to

the Center.

(e) ACTIVITIES OF THE CENTER.—The activities of the Center shall

include other elements appropriate to its mission, including the following:

(1) The Center should include an active conference program

with an international reach.

(2) The Center should conduct an international competition

for a Visiting Fellowship in Chinese Military Affairs and Chinese Security Issues. The term of the fellowship should be for

one year, renewable for a second.

(3) The Center shall provide funds to support at least one trip

per analyst per year to China and the region and to support visits of Chinese military leaders to the Center.

(4) The Center shall support well defined, distinguished, signature publications.

(5) Center scholars shall have appropriate access to intelligence community assessments of Chinese military affairs.

(f) STUDIES AND REPORTS.—The Director may contract for studies

and reports from the private sector to supplement the work of the

Center.

* * * * * * *

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND

PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 131—PLANNING AND COORDINATION

* * * * * * *

§ 2208. Working-capital funds

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *
590

(j) The Secretary of a military department may authorize a working capital funded industrial facility of that department to manufacture or remanufacture articles and sell these articles, as well as

manufacturing øor remanufacturing¿, remanufacturing, and engineering services provided by such facilities, to persons outside the

Department of Defense if—

(1) the person purchasing the article or service is fulfilling

a Department of Defense contract or a subcontract under a Department of Defense contract; and

(2) the øDepartment of Defense solicitation for such contract¿ solicitation for the contract or subcontract is open to

competition between Department of Defense activities and private firms.

(l)(1)***

(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the notification requirements of paragraph (1)—

(A) during a period of war or national emergency; or

* * * * * * *

§ 2212. Obligations for contract services: reporting in budget

object classes

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) * * *

(2) The term ‘‘advisory and assistance services object class’’

means those contract services constituting the budget object

class that is denominated ‘‘Advisory and Assistance Service’’

and designated (øas of the date of the enactment of this section¿ as of October 17, 1998) as Object Class 25.1 (or any similar object class established øafter the date of the enactment of

this section¿ after October 17, 1998, for the reporting of obligations for advisory and assistance contract services).

(3) The term ‘‘miscellaneous services object class’’ means

those contract services constituting the budget object class that

is denominated ‘‘Other Services (services not otherwise specified in the 25 series)’’ and designated (øas of the date of the

enactment of this section¿ as of October 17, 1998) as Object

Class 25.2 (or any similar object class established øafter the

date of the enactment of this section¿ after October 17, 1998,

for the reporting of obligations for miscellaneous or unspecified

contract services).

(4) The term ‘‘authorized exemptions’’ means those exemptions authorized (øas of the date of the enactment of this section¿ as of October 17, 1998) under Department of Defense Directive 4205.2, captioned ‘‘Acquiring and Managing Contracted

Advisory and Assistance Services (CAAS)’’ and issued by the

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology on

February 10, 1992, such exemptions being set forth in Enclosure 3 to that directive (captioned ‘‘CAAS Exemptions’’).

* * * * * * *
591

§ 2218. National Defense Sealift Fund

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(k)(1) The Secretary of Defense, after making a determination of

economic soundness for any proposed offer, may provide advance

payments to a contractor by lump sum or annual payments (or a

combination thereof) for the following costs associated with inclusion or incorporation of defense features in a commercial vessel:

(A) Costs to build, procure, and install the defense features in

the vessel.

(B) Costs to periodically maintain and test the defense features on the vessel.

(C) Any increased costs of operation or any loss of revenue attributable to the inclusion or incorporation of the defense feature on the vessel.

(D) Any additional costs associated with the terms and conditions of the contract to install and incorporate defense features.

(2) For any contract under which the United States provides advance payments under paragraph (1) for the costs associated with

incorporation or inclusion of defense features in a commercial vessel, the contractor shall provide to the United States such security

interests, which may include a preferred mortgage under section

31322 of title 46, on the vessel as the Secretary may prescribe to

project the interests of the United States relating to all costs associated with incorporation or inclusion of defense features in such vessel or vessels.

(3) The functions of the Secretary under this subsection may not

be delegated to an officer or employee in a position below the head

of the procuring activity, as defined in section 2304(f)(6)(A) of this

title.

ø(k)¿ (l) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘Fund’’ means the National Defense Sealift

Fund established by subsection (a).

(2) The term ‘‘Department of Defense sealift vessel’’ means

any ship owned, operated, controlled, or chartered by the Department of Defense øthat is—¿ that is any of the following:

(A) øa¿ A fast sealift ship, including any vessel in the

Fast Sealift Program established under section 1424 of

Public Law 101–510 (104 Stat. 1683)ø;¿.

(B) øa¿ A maritime prepositioning shipø;¿.

(C) øan¿ An afloat prepositioning shipø;¿.

(D) øan¿ An aviation maintenance support shipø; or¿.

(E) øa¿ A hospital ship.

(F) A large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ship.

(G) A combat logistics force ship.

(H) Any other auxiliary support vessel.

(3) The term ‘‘national defense sealift vessel’’ means—

(A) a Department of Defense sealift vessel; and

(B) a national defense reserve fleet vessel, including a

vessel in the Ready Reserve Force maintained under section 11 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C.

App. 1744).

(4) The term ‘‘congressional defense committees’’ means—
592

(A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on National Security and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 136—PROVISIONS RELATING TO SPECIFIC

PROGRAMS

Sec.

2281. Global Positioning System.

2282. Purchase or lease of communications services: limitation.

* * * * * * *

§ 2282. Purchase or lease of communications services: limitation

The Secretary of Defense may not obligate any funds after September 30, 2000, to buy a commercial satellite communications system or to lease a communications service, including mobile satellite

communications, unless the Secretary determines that the system or

service to be purchased or leased has been proven through independent testing—

(1) not to cause harmful interference to, or to disrupt the use

of, colocated commercial or military Global Positioning System

receivers used by the Department of Defense; and

(2) to be safe for use with such receivers in all other respects.

CHAPTER 137—PROCUREMENT GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

§ 2302c. Implementation of electronic commerce capability

(a) * * *

(b) DESIGNATION OF AGENCY OFFICIAL.—The head of each agency

named in paragraph (5) or (6) of section ø2303¿ 2303(a) of this title

shall designate a program manager to implement the electronic

commerce capability for that agency. The program manager shall

report directly to an official at a level not lower than the senior

procurement executive designated for the agency under section

16(3) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.

414(3)).

* * * * * * *

§ 2325. Restructuring costs

(a) LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF RESTRUCTURING COSTS.—(1) The

Secretary of Defense may not pay, under section 2324 of this title,

a defense contractor for restructuring costs associated with a business combination of the contractor that occurs after November 18,

1997, unless the Secretary determines in writing either—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *
593

CHAPTER 141—MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT

PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Sec.

2381. Contracts: regulations for bids.

* * * * * * *

ø2404. Acquisition of petroleum and natural gas: authority to waive contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales.¿ authority

2404. Acquisition of certain fuel sources: authority to waive contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales authority.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2404. Acquisition of petroleum and natural gas: authority

to waive contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales authority¿

§ 2404. Acquisition of certain fuel sources: authority to waive

contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales

authority

(a) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, for any

purchase of øpetroleum or natural gas¿ a defined fuel source, waive

the application of any provision of law prescribing procedures to be

followed in the formation of contracts, prescribing terms and conditions to be included in contracts, or regulating the performance of

contracts if the Secretary determines—

(1) that øpetroleum market conditions or natural gas market

conditions, as the case may be,¿ market conditions for the defined fuel source have adversely affected (or will in the near future adversely affect) the øacquisition of petroleum or acquisition of natural gas, respectively,¿ acquisition of that defined

fuel source by the Department of Defense; and

(2) the waiver will expedite or facilitate the acquisition of

øpetroleum or natural gas, as the case may be,¿ that defined

fuel source for Government needs.

(b) SCOPE OF WAIVER.—A waiver under subsection (a) may be

made with respect to a particular contract or with respect to classes of contracts. Such a waiver that is applicable to a contract for

the purchase of øpetroleum or natural gas¿ a defined fuel source

may also be made applicable to a subcontract under that contract.

(c) EXCHANGE AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may acquire øpetroleum, petroleum-related services, natural gas, or natural gas-related services by exchange of petroleum, petroleum-related services, natural gas, or natural gas-related services.¿ a defined fuel source or services related to a defined fuel source by exchange of a defined fuel source or services related to a defined fuel

source.

(d) AUTHORITY TO SELL.—The Secretary of Defense may sell øpetroleum or natural gas¿ a defined fuel source of the Department of

Defense if the Secretary determines that the sale would be in the

public interest. The proceeds of such a sale shall be credited to appropriations of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of

øpetroleum, petroleum-related services, natural gas, or natural gasrelated services. Amounts so credited shall be available for obligation for the same period as the appropriations to which the
594

amounts are credited.¿ a defined fuel source or services related to

a defined fuel source.

* * * * * * *

(f) DEFINED FUEL SOURCES.—In this section, the term ‘‘defined

fuel source’’ means any of the following:

(1) Petroleum.

(2) Natural gas.

(3) Coal.

(4) Coke.

* * * * * * *

§ 2410d. Subcontracting plans: credit for certain purchases

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) TERMINATION.—Subsection (a) shall cease to be effective at

the end of September 30, 1999.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 146—CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF

CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS

Sec.

2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.

* * * * * * *

ø2467. Cost comparisons: requirements with respect to retirement costs and consultation with employees.¿

2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation with employees;

waiver of comparison.

* * * * * * *

§ 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required

studies and reports before conversion to contractor performance

(a) * * *

(b) NOTIFICATION AND ELEMENTS OF ANALYSIS.—(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) An analysis of a commercial or industrial type function for

possible change to performance by the private sector shall include

the following:

(A) * * *

(B) An examination of the potential economic effect of performance of the function by the private sector on the following:

(i) Employees of the Department of Defense who would

be affected by such a change in performance.

ø(ii) The local community and the Government, if more

than 75 employees of the Department of Defense perform

the function.¿

(ii) The local community and the local economy, identifying and taking into consideration any unique circumstances affecting the local community or the local econ-
595

omy, if more than 50 employees of the Department of Defense perform the function.

* * * * * * *

(g) ANNUAL REPORTS.—(1) Not later than February 1 of each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a written report describing the extent to which commercial and industrial

type functions were performed by Department of Defense contractors during the preceding fiscal year. øThe Secretary shall¿

(2) The Secretary shall include in each such report a summary of

the number of work year equivalents performed by employees of private contractors in providing services to the Department (including

both direct and indirect labor attributable to the provision of the

services) and the total value of the contracted services. The work

year equivalents and total value of the services shall be categorized

by Federal supply class or service code (using the first character of

the code), the appropriation from which the services were funded,

and the major organizational element of the Department procuring

the services.

(3) The Secretary shall also include in each such report an estimate of the percentage of commercial and industrial type functions

of the Department of Defense that will be performed by Department of Defense civilian employees, and the percentage of such

functions that will be performed by private contractors, during the

fiscal year during which the report is submitted.

* * * * * * *

§ 2466. Limitations on the performance of depot-level maintenance of materiel

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(e) REPORT.—(1) Not later than February 1 of each year, the

Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report identifying,

for each military department and Defense Agency, the percentage

of the funds referred to in subsection (a) that were expended during the preceding fiscal year for performance of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the public and private sectors as required by section 2466 of this title.

ø(2) Not later than 90 days after the date on which the Secretary

submits the annual report under paragraph (1), the Comptroller

General shall submit to Congress the Comptroller General’s views

on whether the Department of Defense has complied with the requirements of subsection (a) for the fiscal year covered by the report.¿

(e) ANNUAL REPORTS.—(1) Not later than February 1 of each year,

the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report identifying, for each of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) and

each Defense Agency, the percentage of the funds referred to in subsection (a) that were expended during the preceding two fiscal years

for performance of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by

the public and private sectors, as required by this section.

(2) Not later than April 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense

shall submit to Congress a report identifying, for each of the armed
596

forces (other than the Coast Guard) and each Defense Agency, the

percentage of the funds referred to in subsection (a) that are projected to be expended during each of the next five fiscal years for

performance of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the

public and private sectors, as required by this section.

(3) Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary

submits a report under this subsection, the Comptroller General

shall submit to Congress the Comptroller General’s views on

whether—

(A) in the case of a report under paragraph (1), the Department of Defense has complied with the requirements of subsection (a) for the fiscal years covered by the report; and

(B) in the case of a report under paragraph (2), the expenditure projections for future fiscal years are reasonable.

ø§ 2467. Cost comparisons: requirements with respect to retirement costs and consultation with employees¿

§ 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation with employees; waiver of comparison

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION OF COST COMPARISON WAIVER.—(1) Not later than 10 days after a decision is made to waive

the cost comparison study otherwise required under Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 as part of the process to convert

to contractor performance any commercial activity of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress

a report describing the commercial activity subject to the waiver

and the rationale for the waiver.

(2) The report shall also include the following:

(A) The total number of civilian employees or military personnel adversely affected by the decision to waive the cost comparison study and convert the commercial activity to contractor

performance.

(B) An explanation of whether the contractor was selected, or

will be selected, on a competitive basis or sole source basis.

(C) The anticipated savings to result from the waiver and resulting conversion to contractor performance.

* * * * * * *

§ 2469. Contracts to perform workloads previously performed by depot-level activities of the Department

of Defense: requirement of competition

(a) * * *

(b) SCOPE.—Subsection (a) applies to any depot-level maintenance and repair workload that has a value of not less than

$3,000,000 (including the cost of labor and materials) and is being

performed by a depot-level activity of the Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *
597

§ 2469a. Use of competitive procedures in contracting for

performance of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads formerly performed at certain military installations

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) EXCEPTIONS.—This section shall not apply with respect to—

(1) a depot-level maintenance and repair workload that is to

be consolidated to another military installation (other than a

closed or realigned military installation) as a result of a base

closure or realignment action or a decision made by the Secretary concerned or the Defense Depot Maintenance Council;

(2) a workload necessary to maintain a core logistics capability identified under section 2464 of this title; or

(3) any contract originally entered into before øthe date of

the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1998¿ November 18, 1997.

* * * * * * *

(i) OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTS AWARDED PUBLIC ENTITIES.—The

Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned may not impose on

a public sector entity awarded a contract for the performance of any

depot-level maintenance and repair workload described in subsection (b) any requirements regarding management systems, reviews, oversight, or reporting different from the requirements used

in the performance and management of other depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the entity, unless specifically provided in the solicitation for the contract.

* * * * * * *

§ 2473. Procurements from the small arms production industrial base

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) APPLICABILITY.—This section applies only to procurements of

covered property and services involving the following small arms:

(1) M16 series rifle.

(2) MK19 grenade machine gun.

(3) M4 series carbine.

(4) M240 series machine gun.

(5) M249 squad automatic weapon.

(6) M2 machine gun.

(7) M60 machine gun.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 147—COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND

OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES

* * * * * * *
598

§ 2486. Commissary stores: merchandise that may be sold;

uniform surcharges and pricing

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) UNIFORM SALES PRICE SURCHARGE OR ADJUSTMENT.—An adjustment of or surcharge on sales prices in commissary stores

under section 2484(b) or 2685(a) of this title or for any other purpose shall be applied as a uniform percentage of the sales price of

all merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary stores. Effective on

øthe date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1998,¿ November 18, 1997, the uniform percentage shall be equal to five percent and may not be changed except

by a law enacted after such date.

* * * * * * *

§ 2492. Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access

and purchase restrictions

(a) * * *

(b) CONTROLLED ITEM LISTS.—For each location outside the

United States that is served by the commissary system or the exchange system, the Secretary of Defense may maintain a list of

controlled merchandise items, except that, after øthe date of the

enactment of this section¿ October 17, 1998, the Secretary may not

change the list to add a merchandise item unless, before making

the change, the Secretary submits to Congress a notice of the proposed addition and the reasons for the addition of the item.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 148—NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND

INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE REINVESTMENT, AND

DEFENSE CONVERSION

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

* * * * * * *

§ 2525. Manufacturing Technology Program

(a) * * *

(b) PURPOSE OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Defense shall use

the program—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) to address broad defense-related manufacturing inefficiencies and requirements;

ø(4)¿ (5) to promote dual-use manufacturing processes;

ø(5)¿ (6) to disseminate information concerning improved

manufacturing improvement concepts, including information

on such matters as best manufacturing practices, product data

exchange specifications, computer-aided acquisition and logistics support, and rapid acquisition of manufactured parts;
599

ø(6)¿ (7) to sustain and enhance the skills and capabilities

of the manufacturing work force;

ø(7)¿ (8) to promote high-performance work systems (with

development and dissemination of production technologies that

build upon the skills and capabilities of the work force), high

levels of worker education and training; and

ø(8)¿ (9) to ensure appropriate coordination between the

manufacturing technology programs and industrial preparedness programs of the Department of Defense and similar programs undertaken by other departments and agencies of the

Federal Government or by the private sector.

* * * * * * *

(d) COMPETITION AND COST SHARING.—(1)***

* * * * * * *

ø(3) As a goal, at least 25 percent of the funds available for the

program each fiscal year should be used for awarding grants and

entering into contracts, cooperative agreements, and other transactions on a cost-share basis under which the ratio of recipient cost

to Government cost is two to one. The Secretary of Defense, in

coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments and

upon recommendation of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, shall establish annual objectives to meet

such goal.¿

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER V—MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE

POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 2539b. Availability of samples, drawings, information,

equipment, materials, and certain services

(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense and the øsecretaries¿

Secretaries of the military departments, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense and when determined by the

Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned to be in the interest of national defense, may each—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 152—ISSUE OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND

FACILITIES

* * * * * * *

§ 2553. Articles and services of industrial facilities: sale to

persons outside the Department of Defense

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) * * *

(2) The term ‘‘not available’’, with respect to an article or

service proposed to be sold under this section, means that the
600

article or service is unavailable from a commercial source in the

required quantity and quality, within the time required, or at

prices less than the price available through an industrial facility of the armed forces.

ø(2)¿ (3) The term ‘‘variable costs’’, with respect to sales of

articles or services, means the costs that are expected to fluctuate directly with the volume of sales and—

(A) in the case of articles, the volume of production necessary to satisfy the sales orders; or

(B) in the case of services, the extent of the services sold.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 157—TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

§ 2641a. Transportation of American Samoa veterans on Department of Defense aircraft for certain medical

care in Hawaii

(a) * * *

(b) VETERANS ELIGIBLE FOR TRANSPORT.—A veteran eligible for

transport under subsection (a) is any veteran who—

(1) resides in and is located in American Samoa; and

(2) as determined by an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs designated for that purpose by the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs, must be transported to the State of Hawaii

in order to receive hospital care to which such veteran is entitled under chapter 17 of title 38ø, United States Code,¿ in facilities of such Department in the State of Hawaii.

* * * * * * *

ø(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

ø(1) The term ‘‘veteran’’ has the meaning given that term in

section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code.

ø(2) The term ‘‘hospital care’’ has the meaning given that

term in section 1701(5) of title 38, United States Code.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 159—REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL

PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF NONEXCESS PROPERTY

* * * * * * *

§ 2680. Leases: land for special operations activities

(a) * * *

(d) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the Secretary of

Defense to acquire a leasehold interest in real property under this

section shall expire on September 30, ø2000¿ 2005. The expiration

of that authority shall not affect the validity of any contract entered into under this section on or before that date.

* * * * * * *
601

§ 2688. Utility systems: conveyance authority

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CONSIDERATION.—(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) A contract for the receipt of utility services as consideration

under paragraph (1), or any other contract for utility services entered into by the Secretary concerned in connection with the conveyance of a utility system under this section, may be for a period not

to exceed 50 years.

* * * * * * *

(g) ASSISTANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, OR REPLACEMENT OF

UTILITY SYSTEMS.—In lieu of carrying out a military construction

project to construct, repair, or replace a utility system, the Secretary

concerned may use funds authorized and appropriated for the

project to facilitate the conveyance of the utility system under this

section by making a contribution toward the cost of construction, repair, or replacement of the utility system by the entity to which the

utility system is being conveyed. The Secretary concerned shall consider any such contribution in the economic analysis required under

subsection (e).

ø(g)¿ (i) UTILITY SYSTEM DEFINED.—(1) In this section, the term

‘‘utility system’’ means any of the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(2) The term ‘‘utility system’’ includes the following:

(A) Equipment, fixtures, structures, and other improvements

utilized in connection with a system referred to in paragraph

(1).

(B) øEasements¿ Real property, easements, and rights-of-way

associated with a system referred to in that paragraph.

ø(h)¿ (j) LIMITATION.—This section shall not apply to projects

constructed or operated by the Army Corps of Engineers under its

civil works authorities.

* * * * * * *

§ 2692. Storage, treatment, and disposal of nondefense toxic

and hazardous materials

(a) * * *

(b) Subsection (a) does not øapply to—¿ apply to the following:

(1) øthe¿ The storage, treatment, or disposal of materials

that will be or have been used in connection with an activity

of the Department of Defense or in connection with a service

to be performed on an installation of the Department for the

benefit of the Departmentø;¿.

(2) øthe¿ The storage of strategic and critical materials in

the National Defense Stockpile under an agreement for such

storage with the Administrator of General Servicesø;¿.

(3) øthe¿ The temporary storage or disposal of explosives in

order to protect the public or to assist agencies responsible for

Federal, State, or local law enforcement in storing or disposing
602

of explosives when no alternative solution is available, if such

storage or disposal is made in accordance with an agreement

between the Secretary of Defense and the head of the Federal,

State, or local agency concernedø;¿.

(4) øthe¿ The temporary storage or disposal of explosives in

order to provide emergency lifesaving assistance to civil

authoritiesø;¿.

(5) øthe¿ The disposal of excess explosives produced under a

Department of Defense contract, if the head of the military department concerned determines, in each case, that an alternative feasible means of disposal is not available to the contractor, taking into consideration public safety, available resources of the contractor, and national defense production

requirementsø;¿.

(6) øthe¿ The temporary storage of nuclear materials or nonnuclear classified materials in accordance with an agreement

with the Secretary of Energyø;¿.

(7) øthe¿ The storage of materials that constitute military resources intended to be used during peacetime civil emergencies

in accordance with applicable Department of Defense

regulationsø;¿.

(8) øthe¿ The temporary storage of materials of other Federal agencies in order to provide assistance and refuge for commercial carriers of such material during a transportation

emergencyø;¿.

(9) øthe¿ The storage of any material that is not owned by

the Department of Defense if the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that the material is required

or generated in connection with the authorized and compatible

use of a facility of the Department of Defense, including the

use of such a facility for testing materiel or training

personnelø;¿.

(10) øthe¿ The treatment and disposal of any material that

is not owned by the Department of Defense if the Secretary of

the military department concerned determines that the material is required or generated in connection with the authorized

and compatible use of a facility of that military department

and the Secretary enters into a contract or agreement with the

prospective user that—

(A) is consistent with the best interest of national defense and environmental security; and

(B) provides for the prospective user’s continued financial and environmental responsibility and liability with regard to the materialø; and¿.

(11) øthe¿ The storage of any material that is not owned by

the Department of Defense if the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that the material is required

or generated in connection with the use of a space launch facility located on an installation of the Department of Defense or

on other land controlled by the United States.

* * * * * * *
603

§ 2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses

relating to certain real property transactions

(a) * * *

(b) COVERED TRANSACTIONS.—Subsection (a) applies to the following transactions involving real property under the control of the

Secretary of a military department:

(1) The exchange of real property.

(2) The grant of an easement over, in, or upon real property

of the United States.

(3) The lease or license of real property of the United States.

(4) The disposal of real property of the United States for

which the Secretary will be the disposal agent.

§ 2696. Screening of real property for further Federal use before conveyance

(a) SCREENING REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary concerned may not

convey real property that is authorized or required to be conveyed,

whether for or without consideration, by any provision of law enacted after December 31, 1997, unless the Administrator of General

Services has screened the property for further Federal use in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Services

Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).

(b) TIME FOR SCREENING.—(1) Before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of a provision of law

authorizing or requiring the conveyance of a parcel of real property

by the Secretary concerned, the Administrator of General Services

shall complete the screening ørequired by paragraph (1)¿ referred

to in subsection (a) with regard to the real property and notify the

Secretary concerned of the results of the screening. The notice shall

include—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) EXCEPTED CONVEYANCE AUTHORITIES.—The screening requirements of this section shall not apply to real property authorized or required to be conveyed under any of the following provisions of law:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Any provision of law authorizing the closure or realignment of a military installation that is enacted after øthe date

of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1998¿ November 18, 1997.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 160—ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

* * * * * * *

§ 2703. Environmental restoration accounts

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *
604

(c) BUDGET REPORTS.—In proposing the budget for any fiscal

year pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, øUnited States Code,¿ the

President shall set forth separately the amounts requested for environmental restoration programs of the Department of Defense and

of each of the military departments under this chapter and under

any other Act.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 169—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Sec.

2801. Scope of chapter; definitions.

* * * * * * *

2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island, Hawaii.

* * * * * * *

§ 2806. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organizations Security Investment

(a) Within amounts authorized by law for such purpose, the Secretary of Defense may make contributions for the United States

share of the cost of multilateral programs for the acquisition and

construction of military facilities and installations (including international military headquarters) and for related expenses for the

collective defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Area, including support for the actual implementation of a military operations plan approved by the North Atlantic Council.

* * * * * * *

§ 2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island,

Hawaii

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of

the Navy may exercise any authority or combination of authorities

in this section for the purpose of developing or facilitating the development of Ford Island, Hawaii, to the extent that the Secretary determines the development is compatible with the mission of the

Navy.

(2) The Secretary of the Navy may not exercise any authority

under this section until—

(A) the Secretary submits to the appropriate committees of

Congress a master plan for the development of Ford Island, Hawaii; and

(B) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed following the

date on which the notification is received by those committees.

(b) CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.—(1) The Secretary of the Navy may

convey to any public or private person or entity all right, title, and

interest of the United States in and to any real property (including

any improvements thereon) or personal property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in the State of Hawaii that the Secretary

determines—
605

(A) is excess to the needs of the Navy and all of the other

armed forces; and

(B) will promote the purpose of this section.

(2) A conveyance under this subsection may include such terms

and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the

interests of the United States.

(c) LEASE AUTHORITY.—(1) The Secretary of the Navy may lease

to any public or private person or entity any real property or personal property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in the State

of Hawaii that the Secretary determines—

(A) is excess to the needs of the Navy and all of the other

armed forces; and

(B) will promote the purpose of this section.

(2) A lease under this subsection shall be subject to section

2667(b)(1) of this title and may include such others terms as the

Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United

States.

(3) A lease of real property under this subsection may provide

that, upon termination of the lease term, the lessee shall have the

right of first refusal to acquire the real property covered by the lease

if the property is then conveyed under subsection (b).

(4)(A) The Secretary may provide property support services to or

for real property leased under this subsection.

(B) To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, any payment

made to the Secretary for services provided under this paragraph

shall be credited to the appropriation, account, or fund from which

the cost of providing the services was paid.

(d) ACQUISITION OF LEASEHOLD INTEREST BY SECRETARY.—(1)

The Secretary of the Navy may acquire a leasehold interest in any

facility constructed under subsection (f) as consideration for a transaction authorized by this section upon such terms as the Secretary

considers appropriate to promote the purpose of this section.

(2) The term of a lease under paragraph (1) may not exceed 10

years, unless the Secretary of Defense approves a term in excess of

10 years for purposes of this section.

(3) A lease under this subsection may provide that, upon termination of the lease term, the United States shall have the right of

first refusal to acquire the facility covered by the lease.

(4) The Secretary of the Navy may enter into a lease under this

subsection only if the lease is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this section.

(e) REQUIREMENT FOR COMPETITION.—The Secretary of the Navy

shall use competitive procedures for purposes of selecting the recipient of real or personal property under subsection (b) and the lessee

of real or personal property under subsection (c).

(f) CONSIDERATION.—(1) As consideration for the conveyance of

real or personal property under subsection (b), or for the lease of

real or personal property under subsection (c), the Secretary of the

Navy shall accept cash, real property, personal property, or services,

or any combination thereof, in an aggregate amount equal to not

less than the fair market value of the real or personal property conveyed or leased.

(2) Subject to subsection (i), the services accepted by the Secretary

under paragraph (1) may include the following:
606

(A) The construction or improvement of facilities at Ford Island.

(B) The restoration or rehabilitation of real property at Ford

Island.

(C) The provision of property support services for property or

facilities at Ford Island.

(g) NOTICE AND WAIT REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary of the Navy

may not carry out a transaction authorized by this section until—

(1) the Secretary submits to the appropriate committees of

Congress a notification of the transaction, including—

(A) a detailed description of the transaction; and

(B) a justification for the transaction specifying the manner in which the transaction will meet the purposes of this

section; and

(2) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed following the

date on which the notification is received by those committees.

(h) FORD ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT.—(1) There is established on the books of the Treasury an account to be known as the

‘‘Ford Island Improvement Account’’.

(2) There shall be deposited into the account the following

amounts:

(A) Amounts authorized and appropriated to the account.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (c)(4)(B), the amount of

any cash payment received by the Secretary for a transaction

under this section.

(i) USE OF ACCOUNT.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), to the extent

provided in advance in appropriation Acts, funds in the Ford Island

Improvement Account may be used as follows:

(A) To carry out or facilitate the carrying out of a transaction

authorized by this section.

(B) To carry out improvements of property or facilities at

Ford Island.

(C) To obtain property support services for property or facilities at Ford Island.

(2) To extent that the authorities provided under subchapter IV of

this chapter are available to the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary

may not use the authorities in this section to acquire, construct, or

improve family housing units, military unaccompanied housing

units, or ancillary supporting facilities related to military housing.

(3)(A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the Ford Island Improvement Account to the following funds:

(i) The Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement

Fund established by section 2883(a)(1) of this title.

(ii) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied

Housing Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(2) of

this title.

(B) Amounts transferred under subparagraph (A) to a fund referred to in that subparagraph shall be available in accordance

with the provisions of section 2883 of this title for activities authorized under subchapter IV of this chapter at Ford Island.

(j) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LAWS.—

Except as otherwise provided in this section, transactions under this

section shall not be subject to the following:

(1) Sections 2667 and 2696 of this title.
607

(2) Section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411).

(3) Sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483, 484).

(k) SCORING.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive

the applicability to any lease entered into under this section of the

budget scorekeeping guidelines used to measure compliance with the

Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

(l) PROPERTY SUPPORT SERVICE DEFINED.—In this section, the

term ‘‘property support service’’ means the following:

(1) Any utility service or other service listed in section 2686(a)

of this title.

(2) Any other service determined by the Secretary to be a service that supports the operation and maintenance of real property, personal property, or facilities.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

§ 2837. Limited partnerships with private developers of

housing

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) ACCOUNT.—(1) There is hereby established on the books of

the Treasury an account to be known as the ‘‘Defense Housing Investment Account’’.

(2) There shall be deposited into the Account—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) any unobligated balances which remain in the Navy

Housing Investment Account as of the date of the enactment

of øthe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1996¿ this section.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR

ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

Sec.

2871. Definitions.

* * * * * * *

ø2875. Investments in nongovernmental entities.¿

2875. Investments.

* * * * * * *

§ 2871. Definitions

In this subchapter:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *
608

(5) The term ‘‘eligible entity’’ means any individual, corporation, firm, partnership, company, State or local government, or

housing authority of a State or local government.

ø(5)¿ (6) The term ‘‘Fund’’ means the Department of Defense

Family Housing Improvement Fund or the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund established under section 2883(a) of this title.

ø(6)¿ (7) The term ‘‘military unaccompanied housing’’ means

military housing intended to be occupied by members of the

armed forces serving a tour of duty unaccompanied by dependents.

ø(7)¿ (8) The term ‘‘United States’’ includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

§ 2872. General authority

In addition to any other authority provided under this chapter

for the acquisition or construction of military family housing or

military unaccompanied housing, the Secretary concerned may exercise any authority or any combination of authorities provided

under this subchapter in order to provide for the acquisition or construction by øprivate persons¿ eligible entities of the following:

(1) Family housing units on or near military installations

within the United States and its territories and possessions.

(2) Military unaccompanied housing units on or near such

military installations.

§ 2873. Direct loans and loan guarantees

(a) DIRECT LOANS.—(1) Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary

concerned may make direct loans to øpersons in the private sector¿

an eligible entity in order to provide funds to øsuch persons¿ the

eligible entity for the acquisition or construction of housing units

that the Secretary determines are suitable for use as military family housing or as military unaccompanied housing.

(2) The Secretary concerned shall establish such terms and conditions with respect to loans made under this subsection as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United

States, including the period and frequency for repayment of such

loans and the obligations of the obligors on such loans upon default.

(b) LOAN GUARANTEES.—(1) Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary concerned may guarantee a loan made to øany person in the

private sector¿ an eligible entity if the proceeds of the loan are to

be used by øthe person¿ the eligible entity to acquire, or construct

housing units that the Secretary determines are suitable for use as

military family housing or as military unaccompanied housing.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2875. Investments in nongovernmental entities¿

§ 2875. Investments

(a) INVESTMENTS AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary concerned may

make investments in ønongovernmental entities¿ an eligible entity

carrying out projects for the acquisition or construction of housing
609

units suitable for use as military family housing or as military unaccompanied housing.

* * * * * * *

(c) LIMITATION ON VALUE OF INVESTMENT.—(1) The cash amount

of an investment under this section in øa nongovernmental entity¿

an eligible entity may not exceed an amount equal to 331⁄3 percent

of the capital cost (as determined by the Secretary concerned) of

the project or projects that øthe entity¿ the eligible entity proposes

to carry out under this section with the investment.

(2) If the Secretary concerned conveys land or facilities to øa nongovernmental entity¿ an eligible entity as all or part of an investment in øthe entity¿ the eligible entity under this section, the total

value of the investment by the Secretary under this section may

not exceed an amount equal to 45 percent of the capital cost (as

determined by the Secretary) of the project or projects that øthe entity¿ the eligible entity proposes to carry out under this section with

the investment.

(3) In this subsection, the term ‘‘capital cost’’, with respect to a

project for the acquisition or construction of housing, means the

total amount of the costs included in the basis of the housing for

Federal income tax purposes.

(d) COLLATERAL INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary concerned shall enter into collateral incentive agreements with ønongovernmental¿ eligible entities in which the Secretary makes an investment under this section to ensure that a suitable preference

will be afforded members of the armed forces and their dependents

in the lease or purchase, as the case may be, of a reasonable number of the housing units covered by the investment.

(e) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION REQUIRED.—Amounts in the

Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the

Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund may be used to make a cash investment under this section in øa nongovernmental entity¿ an eligible entity only after the

end of the 30-day period beginning on the date the Secretary of Defense submits written notice of, and justification for, the investment to the appropriate committees of Congress.

§ 2876. Rental guarantees

The Secretary concerned may enter into agreements with øprivate persons¿ eligible entities that acquire or construct military

family housing units or military unaccompanied housing units

under this subchapter in order to assure—

(1) the occupancy of such units at levels specified in the

agreements; or

(2) rental income derived from rental of such units at levels

specified in the agreements.

§ 2877. Differential lease payments

Pursuant to an agreement entered into by the Secretary concerned and a øprivate¿ lessor of military family housing or military

unaccompanied housing to members of the armed forces, the Secretary may pay the lessor an amount in addition to the rental payments for the housing made by the members as the Secretary de-
610

termines appropriate to encourage the lessor to make the housing

available to members of the armed forces as military family housing or as military unaccompanied housing.

§ 2878. Conveyance or lease of existing property and

facilities

(a) CONVEYANCE OR LEASE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary concerned may convey or lease property or facilities (including ancillary supporting facilities) to øprivate persons¿ eligible entities for

purposes of using the proceeds of such conveyance or lease to carry

out activities under this subchapter.

* * * * * * *

§ 2881. Ancillary supporting facilities

(a) AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE OR CONSTRUCT.—Any project for the

acquisition or construction of military family housing units or military unaccompanied housing units under this subchapter may include the acquisition or construction of ancillary supporting facilities for the housing units concerned.

(b) RESTRICTION.—The ancillary supporting facilities authorized

by subsection (a) may not be in direct competition with any resale

activities provided by the Defense Commissary Agency or the Army

and Air Force Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, Marine Corps exchanges, or any other nonappropriated fund

instrumentality of the United States under the jurisdiction of the

armed forces which is conducted for the morale, welfare and recreation of members of the armed forces.

* * * * * * *

§ 2883. Department of Defense Housing Funds

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CREDITS TO FUNDS.—(1) There shall be credited to the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers to that

Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title, subject to the restrictions on the use of the transferred amounts specified in that section.

(2) There shall be credited to the Department of Defense Military

Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers to that

Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title, subject to the restrictions on the use of the transferred amounts specified in that section.

* * * * * * *
611

Subtitle B—Army

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 353—MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

§ 3681. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

(a) * * *

(b) MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED.—A member is

not eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the

member has previously been presented a flag øunder this section

or section 6141 or 8681 of this title or section 516 of title 14.¿

under this section or any other provision of law providing for the

presentation of a United States flag incident to release from active

service for retirement.

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 401—TRAINING GENERALLY

Sec.

4301. Members of Army: detail as students, observers, and investigators at

educational institutions, industrial plants, and hospitals.

* * * * * * *

4320. Recruit basic training: privacy.

4321. United States Army War College: master of strategic studies degree.

* * * * * * *

§ 4321. United States Army War College: master of strategic

studies degree

Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, the

Commandant of the United States Army War College, upon the recommendation of the faculty and dean of the college, may confer the

degree of master of strategic studies upon graduates of the college

who have fulfilled the requirements for that degree.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 403—UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

* * * * * * *

§ 4335. Dean of Academic Board

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *
612

(c) While serving as Dean of the Academic Board, an officer of the

Army who holds a grade lower than brigadier general shall hold the

grade of brigadier general, if appointed to that grade by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The retirement age of an officer so appointed is that of a permanent professor

of the Academy. An officer so appointed is counted for purposes of

the limitation in section 526(a) of this title on general officers of the

Army on active duty.

* * * * * * *

§ 4342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution

(a) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets of the Academy øis as follows:¿ (determined for any year as of the day before

the last day of the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to that limitation, cadets are selected as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a), the last

day of an academic year is graduation day.

* * * * * * *

§ 4344. Selection of persons from foreign countries

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)

may not exceed ø35¿ 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement

amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under

such paragraph, except in the case of not more than øfive¿ 20 persons receiving instruction at the Academy under this section at any

one time.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Navy and Marine Corps

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 561—MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

§ 6141. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

(a) * * *

(b) MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED.—A member is

not eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the

member has previously been presented a flag øunder this section

or section 3681 or 8681 of this title or section 516 of title 14.¿
613

under this section or any other provision of law providing for the

presentation of a United States flag incident to release from active

service for retirement.

* * * * * * *

PART III—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 603—UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

* * * * * * *

Sec.

6951. Location.

* * * * * * *

ø6974. Gifts and bequests: acceptance for benefit of museum.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 6954. Midshipmen: number

ø(a) There may be at the Naval Academy at any one time midshipmen as follows:¿

(a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen (determined for any year as of the day before the last day of the academic

year) is 4,000. Subject to that limitation, midshipmen are selected

as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a), the last

day of an academic year is graduation day.

* * * * * * *

§ 6957. Selection of persons from foreign countries

(a) * * *

(b)(1) A person receiving instruction under this section is entitled

to the pay, allowances, and emoluments of a midshipman appointed

from the United States, and from the same appropriations.

* * * * * * *

(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)

may not exceed ø35¿ 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement

amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under

such paragraph, except in the case of not more than øfive¿ 20 persons receiving instruction at the Naval Academy under this section

at any one time.

* * * * * * *

§ 6973. Gifts and bequests: acceptance for benefit of Naval

Academy

ø(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, administer, and

spend gifts and bequests of personal property made on the condition that it be used for the benefit of, or for use in connection with,

the Naval Academy. Gifts and bequests of money and the proceeds
614

from the sales of property received as gifts shall be deposited in the

Treasury in the fund called ‘‘United States Naval Academy general

gift fund’’. The Secretary may disburse funds deposited under this

subsection for the benefit or use of the Naval Academy subject to

the terms of the gift or bequest.¿

(a)(1) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, administer,

and spend gifts and bequests of personal property, and loans of personal property other than money, made on the condition that the

personal property be used for the benefit of, or in connection with,

the Naval Academy or the Naval Academy Museum, its collection,

or its services.

(2) Gifts or bequests of money, and the proceeds from the sales of

property received as a gift or bequest, shall be deposited in the

Treasury in the fund called ‘‘United States Naval Academy Gift and

Museum Fund’’. The Secretary may disburse funds deposited under

this paragraph for the benefit or use of the Naval Academy or the

Naval Academy Museum subject to the terms of the gift or bequest.

* * * * * * *

(c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary

of the Treasury may invest, reinvest, or retain investments of

money or securities comprising any part of the øUnited States

Naval Academy general gift fund¿ United States Naval Academy

Gift and Museum Fund in securities of the United States or in securities guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United

States. The interest and benefits accruing from those securities

shall be deposited to the credit of the øUnited States Naval Academy general gift fund¿ United States Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund and may be disbursed as provided in this section.

(d) The Secretary shall develop written guidelines to be used in

determining whether the acceptance of money, personal property, or

loans of personal property under subsection (a) would—

(1) reflect unfavorably upon the ability of the Department of

the Navy to carry out its responsibilities in a fair and objective

manner;

(2) reflect unfavorably upon the ability of any employee of the

Department of the Navy to carry out the employee’s official duties in a fair and objective manner; or

(3) compromise the integrity, or the appearance of the integrity, of Navy programs or any employee involved in such programs.

ø§ 6974. Gifts and bequests: acceptance for benefit of museum

ø(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, administer, and

spend gifts and bequests of personal property, and loans of personal property other than money, for the benefit of the Naval Academy Museum, its collection, or its services. Gifts or bequests of

money shall be deposited in the Treasury in the fund called

‘‘United States Naval Academy Museum Fund’’. The Secretary may

disburse funds so deposited for the purposes specified in this section.
615

ø(b) For the purpose of Federal income, estate, and gift taxes,

property that is accepted under this section is considered as a gift

or bequest to or for the use of the United States.

ø(c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary

of the Treasury may invest, reinvest, or retain investments of the

money or securities comprising any part of the United States Naval

Academy Museum Fund in securities of the United States or in securities guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United

States. The interest and benefits accruing from those securities

shall be deposited to the credit of the United States Naval Academy Museum Fund and may be disbursed as provided in this section.¿

* * * * * * *

PART IV—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 631—SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:

MISCELLANEOUS POWERS AND DUTIES

Sec.

7204. Schools near naval activities: financial aid.

* * * * * * *

ø7222. Naval Historical Center Fund.¿

* * * * * * *

7233. Auxiliary vessels: extended lease authority.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 7222. Naval Historical Center Fund

ø(a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, and administer

gifts and bequests of personal property, and loans of personal property other than money, for the benefit of the Naval Historical Center, its collection, or its services. Gifts or bequests of money shall

be deposited in the Treasury in a trust fund called ‘‘Naval Historical Center Fund.’’

ø(b) For the purpose of Federal income, estate, and gift taxes,

property that is accepted under this section is considered as a gift

or bequest to or for the use of the United States.

ø(c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary

of the Treasury may invest or reinvest all or any part of the funds

deposited under this section in securities of the United States or

in securities guaranteed by the United States. The interest accruing from these securities shall be deposited to the credit of the

Naval Historical Center Fund.¿

§ 7233. Auxiliary vessels: extended lease authority

(a) AUTHORIZED CONTRACTS.—After September 30, 1999, the Secretary of the Navy, subject to subsection (b), may enter into contracts

with private United States shipyards for the construction of new

surface vessels to be long-term leased by the United States from the

shipyard or other private person for any of the following:

(1) The combat logistics force of the Navy.

(2) The strategic sealift force of the Navy.
616

(3) Other auxiliary support vessels for the Department of Defense.

(b) CONTRACTS REQUIRED TO BE AUTHORIZED BY LAW.—A contract may be entered into under subsection (a) with respect to a specific vessel only if the Secretary is specifically authorized by law to

enter into such a contract with respect to that vessel.

(c) FUNDS FOR CONTRACT PAYMENTS.—The Secretary may make

payments for contracts entered into under subsection (a) and under

subsection (g) using funds available for obligation from operation

and maintenance accounts during the fiscal year for which the payments are required to be made. Any such contract shall provide that

the United States is not required to make a payment under the contract (other than a termination payment, if required) before October

1, 2001.

(d) TERM OF CONTRACT.—In this section, the term ‘‘long-term

lease’’ means a lease, bareboat charter, or conditional sale agreement with respect to a vessel the term of which (including any option period) is for a period of 20 years or more.

(e) OPTION TO BUY.—A contract entered into under subsection (a)

may include options for the United States to purchase one or more

of the vessels covered by the contract at any time during, or at the

end of, the contract period (including any option period) upon payment of an amount equal to the lesser of (1) the unamortized portion

of the cost of the vessel plus amounts incurred in connection with

the termination of the financing arrangements associated with the

vessel, or (2) the fair market value of the vessel.

(f) DOMESTIC CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall require in any

contract entered into under this section that each vessel to which the

contract applies—

(1) shall have been constructed in a shipyard within the

United States; and

(2) upon delivery, shall be documented under the laws of the

United States.

(g) VESSEL OPERATION.—(1) The Secretary shall operate a vessel

held by the Secretary under a long-term lease under this section

through a contract with a United States domiciled corporation with

experience in the operation of vessels for the United States. Any such

contract shall be for a term as determined by the Secretary.

(2) The Secretary may provide a crew for any such vessel using

civil service mariners only after an evaluation and competition taking into account—

(A) the fully burdened cost of a civil service crew over the expected useful life of the vessel;

(B) the effect on the private sector manpower pool; and

(C) the operational requirements of the Department of the

Navy.

(h) CONTINGENT WAIVER OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW.—A contract authorized by this section may be entered into without regard

to section 2401 or 2401a of this title if the Secretary of Defense

makes the following findings with respect to that contract:

(1) The need for the vessels or services to be provided under

the contract is expected to remain substantially unchanged during the contemplated contract or option period.
617

(2) There is a reasonable expectation that throughout the contemplated contract or option period the Secretary of the Navy

(or, if the contract is for services to be provided to, and funded

by, another military department, the Secretary of that military

department) will request funding for the contract at the level required to avoid contract cancellation.

(3) The use of such contract or the exercise of such option is

in the interest of the national defense.

(i) SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR TERMINATION LIABILITY.—If a contract

entered into under this section is terminated, the costs of such termination may be paid from—

(1) amounts originally made available for performance of the

contract;

(2) amounts currently available for operation and maintenance of the type of vessels or services concerned and not otherwise obligated; or

(3) funds appropriated for those costs.

CHAPTER 633—NAVAL VESSELS

* * * * * * *

§ 7306. Vessels stricken from Naval Vessel Register; captured vessels: transfer by gift or otherwise

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—(1) No transfer under this section

takes effect unless—

ø(A) notice of the proposal to make the transfer is sent to

Congress; and

ø(B) 60 days of continuous session of Congress have expired

following the date on which such notice is sent to Congress.

ø(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the continuity of a session

of Congress is broken only by an adjournment of the Congress sine

die, and the days on which either House is not in session because

of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain are excluded in the computation of such 60-day period.¿

(d) CONGRESSIONAL NOTICE-AND-WAIT PERIOD.—(1) A transfer

under this section may not take effect until—

(A) the Secretary submits to Congress notice of the proposed

transfer; and

(B) 30 days of session of Congress have expired following the

date on which the notice is sent to Congress.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)—

(A) the period of a session of Congress is broken only by an

adjournment of Congress sine die at the end of the final session

of a Congress; and

(B) any day on which either House of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day

certain, or because of an adjournment sine die at the end of the

first session of a Congress, shall be excluded in the computation

of such 30-day period.

* * * * * * *
618

§ 7315. Preservation of Navy shipbuilding capability

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) APPLICABILITY.—(1)***

(2) In a shipbuilding capability preservation agreement applicable to a shipbuilder, the Secretary may agree to apply the cost reimbursement rules set forth in subsection (b) to allocations of indirect costs to private sector work performed by the shipbuilder only

with respect to costs that the shipbuilder incurred on or after øthe

date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1998¿ November 18, 1997, under a contract between

the shipbuilder and a private sector customer of the shipbuilder

that became effective on or after January 26, 1996.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 665—NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

* * * * * * *

§ 7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 of each year, the

Council shall submit to Congress a report on the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. The report shall contain the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) The amounts requested, in the budget submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31ø, United States

Code,¿ for the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the

report is prepared, for the programs, projects, and activities of

the program and the estimated expenditures under such programs, projects, and activities during such following fiscal

year.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Air Force

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 853—MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

§ 8681. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

(a) * * *
619

(b) MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED.—A member is

not eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the

member has previously been presented a flag øunder this section

or section 3681 or 6141 of this title or section 516 of title 14.¿

under this section or any other provision of law providing for the

presentation of a United States flag incident to release from active

service for retirement.

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 901—TRAINING GENERALLY

Sec.

9301. Members of Air Force: detail as students, observers, and investigators at

educational institutions, industrial plants, and hospitals.

* * * * * * *

ø9317. Air University: master of airpower art and science.¿

9317. Air University: graduate-level degrees.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 9317. Air University: master of airpower art and science

ø(a) AUTHORITY.—Upon the recommendation of the faculty of the

School of Advanced Airpower Studies of the Air University, the

Commander of the university may confer the degree of master of

airpower art and science upon graduates of the school who fulfill

the requirements for the degree.¿

§ 9317. Air University: graduate-level degrees

(a) AUTHORITY.—Upon recommendation of the faculty of the appropriate school, the commander of the Air University may confer—

(1) the degree of master of strategic studies upon graduates

of the Air War College who fulfill the requirements for that degree;

(2) the degree of master of military operational art and

science upon graduates of the Air Command and Staff College

who fulfill the requirements for that degree; and

(3) the degree of master of airpower art and science upon

graduates of the School of Advanced Air power Studies who fulfill the requirements for that degree.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 903—UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

§ 9335. Dean of the Faculty

(a) The Dean of the Faculty shall be appointed as an additional

permanent professor from the permanent professors who have

served as heads of departments of instruction at the Academy.

(b) While serving as Dean of the Faculty, an officer of the Air

Force who holds a grade lower than brigadier general shall hold the

grade of brigadier general, if appointed to that grade by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The retire-
620

ment age of an officer so appointed is that of a permanent professor

of the Academy An officer so appointed is counted for purposes of

the limitation in section 526(a) of this title on general officers of the

Air Force on active duty.

* * * * * * *

§ 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution

(a) The authorized strength of Air Force Cadets of the Academy

øis as follows:¿ (determined for any year as of the day before the

last day of the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to that limitation,

Air Force Cadets are selected as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a), the last

day of an academic year is graduation day.

* * * * * * *

§ 9344. Selection of persons from foreign countries

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)

may not exceed ø35¿ 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement

amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under

such paragraph, except in the case of not more than øfive¿ 20 persons receiving instruction at the Air Force Academy under this section at any one time.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Reserve Components

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND

ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1007—ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE

COMPONENTS

Sec.

10201. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.

* * * * * * *

10217. Non-dual status ømilitary¿ technicians.

10218. Army and Air Force Reserve Technicians: conditions for retention; mandatory retirement under civil service laws.

* * * * * * *
621

§ 10216. Military technicians (dual status)

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) For purposes of this section and any other

provision of law, a military technician (dual status) is a Federal civilian employee who—

(A) is employed under section 3101 of title 5 or section ø709¿

709(b) of title 32;

(B) is required as a condition of that employment to maintain membership in the Selected Reserve; and

(C) is assigned to a civilian position as a technician in the

administration and training of the Selected Reserve or in the

maintenance and repair of supplies or equipment issued to the

Selected Reserve or the armed forces.

* * * * * * *

(e) DUAL STATUS REQUIREMENT.—(1) Funds appropriated for the

Department of Defense may not (except as provided in paragraph

(2)) be used for compensation as a military technician of any individual hired as a military technician (dual status) after February

10, 1996, who is no longer a member of the Selected Reserve.

(2) øThe Secretary¿ Except as otherwise provided by law, the Secretary concerned may pay compensation described in paragraph (1)

to an individual described in that paragraph who is no longer a

member of the Selected Reserve for a period not to exceed øsix

months¿ up to 12 months following the individual’s loss of membership in the Selected Reserve if the Secretary determines that such

loss of membership was not due to the failure of that individual to

meet military standards.

* * * * * * *

§ 10217. Non-dual status ømilitary¿ technicians

(a) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of this section and any other

provision of law, a non-dual status ømilitary¿ technician is a civilian employee of the Department of Defense serving in a military

technician position who—

ø(1) was hired as a military technician before the date of the

enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1998 under any of the authorities specified in subsection

(c); and

ø(2) as of the date of the enactment of that Act is not a member of the Selected Reserve or after such date ceased to be a

member of the Selected Reserve.¿

(1) was hired as a technician before November 18, 1997,

under any of the authorities specified in subsection (b) and as

of that date is not a member of the Selected Reserve or after

such date has ceased to be a member of the Selected Reserve;

or

(2) is employed under section 709 of title 32 in a position designated under subsection (c) of that section and when hired was

not required to maintain membership in the Selected Reserve.

* * * * * * *

(c) PERMANENT LIMITATIONS ON NUMBER.—(1) Effective October

1, 2007, the total number of non-dual status technicians employed

by the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve may not exceed 175. If
622

at any time after the preceding sentence takes effect the number of

non-dual status technicians employed by the Army Reserve and Air

Force Reserve exceeds the number specified in the limitation in the

preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense shall require that the

Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take

immediate steps to reduce the number of such technicians in order

to comply with such limitation.

(2) Effective October 1, 2001, the total number of non-dual status

technicians employed by the National Guard may not exceed 1,950.

If at any time after the preceding sentence takes effect the number

of non-dual status technicians employed by the National Guard exceeds the number specified in the limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense shall require that the Secretary of the

Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take immediate

steps to reduce the number of such technicians in order to comply

with such limitation.

§ 10218. Army and Air Force Reserve Technicians: conditions

for retention; mandatory retirement under civil

service laws

(a) SEPARATION AND RETIREMENT OF MILITARY TECHNICIANS

(DUAL STATUS).—(1) An individual employed by the Army Reserve

or the Air Force Reserve as a military technician (dual status) who

after the date of the enactment of this section loses dual status is

subject to paragraph (2) or (3), as the case may be.

(2) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is eligible at the

time dual status is lost for an unreduced annuity, the technician

shall be separated, subject to subsection (e), not later than 30 days

after the date on which dual status is lost.

(3)(A) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is not eligible at

the time dual status is lost for an unreduced annuity, the technician

shall be offered the opportunity to—

(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a position as

a military technician (dual status); or

(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a technician

position.

(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician, the

technician—

(i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-year period

beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection, to

apply for any voluntary personnel action; and

(ii) shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated or retired—

(I) in the case of a technician first hired as a military

technician (dual status) on or before February 10, 1996, not

later than 30 days after becoming eligible for an unreduced

annuity; and

(II) in the case of a technician first hired as a military

technician (dual status) after February 10, 1996, not later

than one year after the date on which dual status is lost.

(4) For purposes of this subsection, a military technician is considered to lose dual status upon—

(A) being separated from the Selected Reserve; or
623

(B) ceasing to hold the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned for the position held by the technician.

(b) NON-DUAL STATUS TECHNICIANS.—(1) An individual who on

the date of the enactment of this section is employed by the Army

Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician

and who on that date is eligible for an unreduced annuity shall,

subject to subsection (e), be separated not later than six months

after the date of the enactment of this section.

(2)(A) An individual who on the date of the enactment of this section is employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as

a non-dual status technician and who on that date is not eligible

for an unreduced annuity shall be offered the opportunity to—

(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a position as

a military technician (dual status); or

(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a technician

position.

(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician, the

technician—

(i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-year period

beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection, to

apply for any voluntary personnel action; and

(ii) shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated or retired—

(I) in the case of a technician first hired as a technician

on or before February 10, 1996, and who on the date of the

enactment of this section is a non-dual status technician,

not later than 30 days after becoming eligible for an unreduced annuity; and

(II) in the case of a technician first hired as a technician

after February 10, 1996, and who on the date of the enactment of this section is a non-dual status technician, not

later than one year after the date on which dual status is

lost.

(3) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force

Reserve as a non-dual status technician who is ineligible for appointment to a military technician (dual status) position, or who decides not to apply for appointment to such a position, or who, within

six months of the date of the enactment of this section is not appointed to such a position, shall for reduction-in-force purposes be

in a separate competitive category from employees who are military

technicians (dual status).

(c) UNREDUCED ANNUITY DEFINED.—For purposes of this section,

a technician shall be considered to be eligible for an unreduced annuity if the technician is eligible for an annuity under section 8336,

8412, or 8414 of title 5 that is not subject to a reduction by reason

of the age or years of service of the technician.

(d) VOLUNTARY PERSONNEL ACTION DEFINED.—In this section, the

term ‘‘voluntary personnel action’’, with respect to a non-dual status

technician, means any of the following:

(1) The hiring, entry, appointment, reassignment, promotion,

or transfer of the technician into a position for which the Secretary concerned has established a requirement that the person

occupying the position be a military technician (dual status).
624

(2) Promotion to a higher grade if the technician is in a position for which the Secretary concerned has established a requirement that the person occupying the position be a military

technician (dual status).

(e) ANNUAL LIMITATION ON MANDATORY RETIREMENTS.—Until

October 1, 2004, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the

Air Force may not during any fiscal year approve a total of more

than 25 mandatory retirements under this section. A technician who

is subject to mandatory separation under this section in any fiscal

year and who, but for this subsection, would be eligible to be retired

with an unreduced annuity shall, if not sooner separated under

some other provision of law, be eligible to be retained in service

until mandatorily retired consistent with the limitation in this subsection.

PART II—PERSONNEL GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1201—AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND

DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE

Sec.

12001. Authorized strengths: reserve components.

* * * * * * *

12003. Authorized strengths: commissioned officers in an active status.

* * * * * * *

§ 12011. Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty

or on full-time National Guard duty for administration of the reserves or the National Guard

(a) The number of reserve officers of the Army, Air Force, and

Marine Corps who may be on active duty or full-time National

Guard duty in each of the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and

colonel, and of the Navy who may be on active duty in each of the

grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain, as of

the end of any fiscal year for duty described in subclauses (B) and

(C) of section 523(b)(1) of this title or full-time National Guard duty

(other than for training) under section 502(f) of title 32 may not exceed the number for that grade and armed force in the following

table:

øGrade Army Navy Air

Force

Marine

Corps

Major or Lieutenant Commander ...................... 3,219 1,071 791 140

Lieutenant Colonel or Commander ................... 1,524 520 713 90

Colonel or Navy Captain .................................... 438 188 297 30¿

Grade Army Navy Air

Force

Marine

Corps

Major or Lieutenant Commander ...................... 3,219 1,071 843 140

Lieutenant Colonel or Commander .................... 1,595 520 746 90

Colonel or Navy Captain .................................... 471 188 297 30
625

* * * * * * *

§ 12012. Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on

active duty or on full-time National Guard duty for

administration of the reserves or the National

Guard

(a) The number of enlisted members in pay grades E–8 and E–

9 who may be on active duty (other than for training) or on fulltime National Guard duty under the authority of section 502(f) of

title 32 (other than for training) as of the end of any fiscal year

in connection with organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components or the National Guard may

not exceed the number for that grade and armed force in the following table:

øGrade Army Navy Air

Force

Marine

Corps

E–9 ....................................................................... 623 202 395 20

E–8 ....................................................................... 2,585 429 997 94¿

Grade Army Navy Air

Force

Marine

Corps

E–9 ....................................................................... 645 202 403 20

E–8 ....................................................................... 2,585 429 1,029 94

(b) Whenever the number of members serving in pay grade E–

9 for duty described in subsection (a) is less than the number authorized for that grade under subsection (a), the difference between

the two numbers may be applied to increase the number authorized

under such subsection for pay grade E–8.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1205—APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS

Sec.

12201. Reserve officers: qualifications for appointment.

* * * * * * *

12216. Financial assistance for members of the Marine Corps platoon leader’s class

program.

* * * * * * *

§ 12216. Financial assistance for members of the Marine

Corps platoon leader’s class program

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Navy may provide payment of not more than $5,200 per year for a period not to

exceed three consecutive years of educational expenses (including

tuition, fees, books, and laboratory expenses) to an eligible enlisted

member of the Marine Corps Reserve for completion of—

(1) baccalaureate degree requirements in an approved academic program that requires less than five academic years to

complete; or
626

(2) doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws degree requirements in an approved academic program which requires not

more than three years to complete.

(b) ELIGIBLE RESERVISTS.—To be eligible for receipt of educational expenses as authorized by subsection (a), an enlisted member of the Marine Corps Reserve must—

(1) either—

(A) be under 27 years of age on June 30 of the calendar

year in which the member is eligible for appointment as a

second lieutenant in the Marine Corps for such persons in

a baccalaureate degree program described in subsection

(a)(1), except that any such member who has served on active duty in the armed forces may exceed such age limitation on such date by a period equal to the period such

member served on active duty, but only if such member will

be under 30 years of age on such date; or

(B) be under 31 years of age on June 30 of the calendar

year in which the member is eligible for appointment as a

second lieutenant in the Marine Corps for such persons in

a doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws degree program described in subsection (a)(2), except that any such

member who has served on active duty in the armed forces

may exceed such age limitation on such date by a period

equal to the period such member served on active duty, but

only if such member will be under 35 years of age on such

date;

(2) be satisfactorily enrolled at any accredited civilian educational institution authorized to grant baccalaureate, doctor of

jurisprudence or bachelor of law degrees;

(3) be selected as an officer candidate in the Marine Corps

Platoon Leader’s Class Program and successfully complete one

increment of military training of not less than six weeks’ duration; and

(4) agree in writing—

(A) to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer

in the Marine Corps, if tendered by the President;

(B) to serve on active duty for a minimum of five years;

and

(C) under such terms and conditions as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, to serve in the Marine

Corps Reserve until the eighth anniversary of the receipt of

such appointment.

(c) APPOINTMENT.—Upon satisfactorily completing the academic

and military requirements of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders

Class Program, an officer candidate may be appointed by the President as a Reserve officer in the Marine Corps in the grade of second

lieutenant.

(d) LIMITATION ON NUMBER.—Not more than 1,200 officer candidates may participate in the financial assistance program authorized by this section at any one time.

(e) REMEDIAL AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.—An officer candidate

may be ordered to active duty in the Marine Corps by the Secretary

of the Navy to serve in an appropriate enlisted grade for such period
627

of time as the Secretary prescribes, but not for more than four years,

when such person—

(1) accepted financial assistance under this section; and

(2) either—

(A) completes the military and academic requirements of

the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class Program and refuses to accept a commission when offered;

(B) fails to complete the military or academic requirements of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class Program;

or

(C) is disenrolled from the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders

Class Program for failure to maintain eligibility for an

original appointment as a commissioned officer under section 532 of this title.

(d) PERSONS NOT QUALIFIED FOR APPOINTMENT.—Except under

regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, a person who

is not physically qualified for appointment under section 532 of this

title and subsequently is determined by the Secretary of the Navy

under section 505 of this title to be unqualified for service as an enlisted member of the Marine Corps due to a physical or medical condition that was not the result of misconduct or grossly negligent

conduct may request a waiver of obligated service of such financial

assistance.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1209—ACTIVE DUTY

Sec.

12301. Reserve components generally.

* * * * * * *

12323. Space-required travel for Reserves.

* * * * * * *

§ 12301. Reserve components generally

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h)(1) When authorized by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary

of the military department concerned may order a member of a reserve component to active duty, with the consent of that member, to

receive authorized medical care, to be medically evaluated for disability or other purposes, or to complete a required Department of

Defense health care study, which may include an associated medical

evaluation of the member.

(2) A member ordered to active duty under this subsection may be

retained with the member’s consent, when the Secretary concerned

considers it appropriate, for medical treatment for a condition associated with the study or evaluation, if that treatment of the member

otherwise is authorized by law.

(3) A member of the Army National Guard of the United States

or the Air National Guard of the United States may not be ordered

to active duty under this subsection without the consent of the Governor or other appropriate authority of the State concerned.

* * * * * * *
628

§ 12323. Space-required travel for Reserves

A member of a reserve component is authorized to travel in a

space-required status on aircraft of the armed forces between home

and place of inactive duty training, or place of duty in lieu of unit

training assembly, when there is no road or railroad transportation

(or combination of road and railroad transportation) between those

locations. A member traveling in that status on a military aircraft

pursuant to the authority provided in this section is not authorized

to receive travel, transportation, or per diem allowances in connection with that travel.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1213—SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS,

ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES

Sec.

12501. Reserve components: detail of members of regular and reserve components

to assist.

12502. Chief and assistant chief of staff of National Guard divisions and wings in

Federal service: detail.

12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty.

* * * * * * *

§ 12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a

member of the Ready Reserve may be ordered to funeral honors

duty, with the consent of the member, in preparation for or to perform funeral honors functions at the funeral of a veteran (as defined

in section 1491 of this title). However, a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the

United States may not be ordered to perform funeral honors functions under this section without the consent of the Governor or other

appropriate authority of the State concerned.

(b) A member ordered to funeral honors duty under this section

shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours of such duty

in order to receive service credit under section 12732(a)(2)(E) of this

title and compensation under section 435 of title 37 if authorized by

the Secretary concerned.

(c) Funeral honors duty (and travel directly to and from that

duty) under this section shall be treated as the equivalent of inactive-duty training (and travel directly to and from that training) for

the purposes of this title, title 37, and title 38, including provisions

relating to the determination of eligibility for and receipt of benefits

and entitlements provided under those titles for Reserves performing

inactive-duty training and for their dependents and survivors, except that a member is not entitled by reason of performance of funeral honors duty to any pay, allowances, or other compensation

provided for in title 37 other than that provided in section 435 of

that title and in subsection (d).

(d) A member who performs funeral honors duty under this section is entitled to reimbursement for travel and transportation expenses incurred in conjunction with such duty as authorized under
629

chapter 7 of title 37, if such duty is performed at a location 50 miles

or more from the member’s residence.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1215—MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND

PENALTIES

Sec.

12551. Prohibition of use of Air Force Reserve AGR personnel for Air Force base

security functions.

ø12552. Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of treatment as drill or training.¿

12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 12552. Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of

treatment as drill or training

øPerformance by a Reserve of honor guard functions at the funeral of a veteran may not be considered to be a period of drill or

training otherwise required.¿

§ 12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans

Performance by a Reserve of funeral honors functions at the funeral of a veteran (as defined in section 1491 of this title) may not

be considered to be a period of drill or training, but may be performed as funeral honors duty under section 12503 of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1217—MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND

BENEFITS

Sec.

12601. Compensation: Reserve on active duty accepting from any person.

* * * * * * *

12602. Members of Army National Guard of United States and Air National Guard

of United States: credit for service as members of National Guard.

12603. Attendance at inactive-duty training assemblies: commercial travel at Federal supply schedule rates.

12605. Presentation of United States flag: members transferred from an active status or discharged after completion of eligibility for retired pay.

* * * * * * *

§ 12605. Presentation of United States flag: members transferred from an active status or discharged after

completion of eligibility for retired pay

(a) PRESENTATION OF FLAG.—Upon the transfer from an active

status or discharge of a Reserve who has completed the years of

service required for eligibility for retired pay under chapter 1223 of

this title, the Secretary concerned shall present a United States flag

to the member.

(b) MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED.—A member is

not eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the

member has previously been presented a flag under this section or

any provision of law providing for the presentation of a United

States flag incident to release from active service for retirement.
630

(c) NO COST TO RECIPIENT.—The presentation of a flag under this

section shall be at no cost to the recipient.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1223—RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR

SERVICE

* * * * * * *

§ 12732. Entitlement to retired pay: computation of years of

service

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), for the purpose of determining whether a person is entitled to retired pay under section

12731 of this title, the person’s years of service are computed by

adding the following:

(1) * * *

(2) Each one-year period, after July 1, 1949, in which the

person has been credited with at least 50 points on the following basis:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) One point for each day in which funeral honors functions were performed under section 12503 of this title or

section 115 of title 32.

For the purpose of clauses (A), (B), (C), øand (D)¿ (D), and (E), service in the National Guard shall be treated as if it were

service in a reserve component, if the person concerned was

later appointed in the National Guard of the United States, the

Army National Guard of the United States, the Air National

Guard of the United States, or as a Reserve of the Army or the

Air Force, and served continuously in the National Guard from

the date of his Federal recognition to the date of that appointment.

* * * * * * *

PART III—PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF

OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS

LIST

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1405—PROMOTIONS

* * * * * * *

§ 14301. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: general

rules

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) A reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the Air

Force who is in an inactive status is eligible (notwithstanding subsection (a)) for consideration for promotion to major general by a
631

promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title if the

officer—

(1) has been in an inactive status for less than ø1¿ one year

as of the date of the convening of the promotion board; and

(2) had continuously served for at least ø1¿ one year on the

reserve active status list or the active duty list (or a combination of both) immediately before the officer’s most recent transfer to an inactive status.

(h) OFFICERS ON EDUCATIONAL DELAY.—A Reserve officer who is

in an educational delay status for the purpose of attending an approved institution of higher education for advanced training, subsidized by the military department concerned in the form of a scholarship or stipend, is ineligible for consideration for promotion while

in that status. The officer shall remain on the Reserve active status

list while in such an educational delay status.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1407—FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR

PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION

Sec.

14501. Failure of selection for promotion.

* * * * * * *

14518. Continuation on reserve active status list to complete disciplinary action.

* * * * * * *

§ 14506. Effect of failure of selection for promotion: reserve

majors of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps

and reserve lieutenant commanders of the Navy

Unless retained as provided in section 12646, 12686, 14701, or

14702 of this title, each reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air

Force, or Marine Corps who holds the grade of major or lieutenant

commander who has failed of selection to the next higher grade for

the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade shall, if not earlier removed from the reserve active-status list, be removed from

that list in accordance with section ø14513 of this title on the first

day of the month after the month in which the officer completes 20

years of commissioned service.¿ section 14513 of this title on the

later of—

(1) the first day of the month after the month in which the

officer completes 20 years of commissioned service; or

(2) the first day of the seventh month after the month in

which the President approves the report of the board which considered the officer for the second time.

* * * * * * *

§ 14518. Continuation on reserve active status list to complete

disciplinary action

When an action is commenced against a Reserve officer with a

view to trying the officer by court-martial, as authorized by section

802(d) of this title, the Secretary concerned may delay the separa-
632

tion or retirement of the officer under this chapter until the completion of the disciplinary action under chapter 47 of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1409—CONTINUATION OF OFFICERS ON THE

RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS LIST AND SELECTIVE

EARLY REMOVAL

* * * * * * *

§ 14703. Authority to retain chaplains and officers in medical specialties until specified age

(a) * * *

(b) SEPARATION AT SPECIFIED AGE.—An officer may not be retained in active status under this section later than the date on

which the officer becomes 67 years of age ø(or, in the case of a reserve officer of the Army in the Chaplains or a reserve officer of

the Air Force designated as a chaplain, 60 years of age)¿.

* * * * * * *

§ 14706. Computation of total years of service

øFor the purpose of this chapter and chapter 1407 of this title,

a reserve officer’s years of service include all service, other than

constructive service, of the officer as a commissioned officer of any

uniformed service (other than service as a warrant officer).¿

(a) For the purpose of this chapter and chapter 1407 of this title,

a Reserve officer’s years of service include all service of the officer

as a commissioned officer of a uniformed service other than—

(1) service as a warrant officer;

(2) constructive service; and

(3) service after appointment as a commissioned officer of a

reserve component while in a program of advanced education to

obtain the first professional degree required for appointment,

designation, or assignment as an officer in the Medical Corps,

the Dental Corps, the Veterinary Corps, the Medical Service

Corps, the Nurse Corps, the Army Medical Specialists Corps, or

as an officer designated as a chaplain or judge advocate, provided such service occurs before the officer commences initial

service on active duty or initial service in the Ready Reserve in

the specialty that results from such a degree.

(b) The exclusion under subsection (a)(3) does not apply to service

performed by an officer who previously served on active duty or participated as a member of the Ready Reserve in other than a student

status for the period of service preceding the member’s service in a

student status.

* * * * * * *

PART IV—TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *
633

CHAPTER 1606—EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR

MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE

Sec.

16131. Educational assistance program: establishment; amount.

* * * * * * *

ø16137. Reports to Congress.¿

16137. Biennial report to Congress.

* * * * * * *

§ 16131. Educational assistance program: establishment;

amount

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) Except as provided in subsections (d) through (f), each educational assistance program established under subsection (a) shall

provide for payment by the Secretary concerned, through the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to each person entitled to educational

assistance under this chapter who is pursuing a program of education of an educational assistance allowance at the following rates:

* * * * * * *

ø§ 16137. Report to Congress

øThe Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a report

not later than March 1 of each year concerning the operation of the

educational assistance program established by this chapter during

the preceding fiscal year. Each such report shall include the number of members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of

each armed force receiving, and the number entitled to receive,

educational assistance under this chapter during the preceding fiscal year.¿

§ 16137. Biennial report to Congress

The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report not

later than March 1 of each odd-numbered year concerning the operation of the educational assistance program established by this

chapter during the preceding two fiscal years. Each such report

shall include the number of members of the Selected Reserve of the

Ready Reserve of each armed force receiving, and the number entitled to receive, educational assistance under this chapter during

those fiscal years.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1609—EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions officers serving in Selected Reserve with

wartime critical medical skill shortages

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *
634

(d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only in the

case of a person first appointed as a commissioned officer before

January 1, ø2000¿ 2001.

* * * * * * *

PART V—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND

PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1803—FACILITIES FOR RESERVE

COMPONENTS

* * * * * * *

§ 18233. Acquisition

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f)(1) Authority provided by law to construct, expand, rehabilitate, convert, or equip any facility under this section includes authority to expend funds for surveys, administration, overhead, planning, design, and supervision incident to any such activity.

§ 18233a. Limitation on certain projects; authority to carry

out small projects with operation and maintenance

funds

(a)(1)***

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to expenditures or contributions

for the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) An unspecified minor construction project intended solely

to correct a deficiency that is life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening, except that the expenditure or contribution for the project may not exceed $3,000,000.

(b) Under such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, a project authorized under section 18233(a) of this title that

costs $500,000 or less (or $1,000,000 or less if the project is intended solely to correct a deficiency that is life-threatening, healththreatening, or safety-threatening), may be carried out with funds

available for operations and maintenance.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 386 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

* * * * * * *

Subtitle G—Other Matters

* * * * * * *
635

SEC. 386. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT

BENEFIT DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED

FORCES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) ELIGIBLE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.—A local educational

agency is eligible for assistance under subsection (b) for a fiscal

year if—

(1) at least 20 percent (as rounded to the nearest whole percent) of the students in average daily attendance in the schools

of that agency øin that fiscal year are¿ during the preceding

school year were military dependent students counted under

section 8003(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1));

* * * * * * *

DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION ACT OF 1978

* * * * * * *

ESTABLISHMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION SYSTEM

SEC. 1402. (a) * * *

(b)(1) The Secretary shall ensure that individuals eligible to receive a free public education under subsection (a) ørecieve¿ receive

an education of high quality.

* * * * * * *

øOFFICE OF DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION

SEC. ø1403. (a)(1) There is established within the Department of

Defense an office to be known as the Office of Dependents’ Education.

ø(2) The Office of Dependents’ Education shall be headed by a

Director of Dependents’ Education (hereinafter in this title referred

to as the ‘‘Director’’), who shall be a civilian and who shall be selected by the Secretary of Defense and shall report to the Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics.¿

ADMINISTRATION OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION SYSTEM

SEC. 1403. (a) The defense dependents’ education system is operated through the field activity of the Department of Defense known

as the Department of Defense Education Activity. That activity is

headed by a Director, who is a civilian and is selected by the Secretary of Defense. The Director reports to an Assistant Secretary of

Defense designated by the Secretary of Defense for purposes of this

title.

(b) Except with respect to the authority to prescribe regulations,

the Secretary of Defense may carry out his functions under øthis

Act¿ this title through the Director.

(c) The Director shall—
636

(1) establish personnel policies, consistent with the Defense

Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices

Act (20 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), for employees in the defense dependents’ education system,

(2) have authority to transfer professional employees in the

defense dependents’ education system from one position to

anotherø.¿,

* * * * * * *

(6) perform such other functions as may be required or delegated by the Secretary of Defense or the øAssistant Secretary

of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics¿ the

Assistant Secretary of Defense designated under subsection (a). (d)(1) The Director shall establish appropriate regional or area

offices øfor the Office of Dependents’ Education¿ in order to provide

for thorough and efficient administration of the defense dependents’ education system.

(2) øNot later than six months after the date of the enactment

of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress

a report (A) describing the organization of the Office of Dependents’

Education in accordance with paragraph (1), (B) describing the assignment of personnel to the central office of the Office of Dependents’ Education and to such regional or area offices as are established pursuant to paragraph (1), and (C) detailing the personnel

requirements of the defense dependents’ education system.¿

øWhenever the Office of Dependents’ Education¿ Whenever the Department of Defense Education Activity is reorganized øafter the

submission of the report required under the preceding sentence¿ in

a manner that affects the defense dependents’ education system, the

Secretary of Defense shall submit øan additional report¿ a report

to the Congress describing the reorganization.

(3) Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, øthe Office of Dependents’ Education¿ the Department of Defense Education Activity is authorized an appropriate number of civilian employees in its central office and such regional or area office as are

established pursuant to paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *

ALLOTMENT FORMULA

SEC. 1409. (a) * * *

(b) Any regulation under subsection (a) shall be issued, and shall

become effective, in accordance with the procedures applicable to

regulations required to be issued by the øDepartment of Health,

Education, and Welfare in accordance with section 431 of the General Education Provisions Act¿ Secretary of Education in accordance with section 437 of the General Education Provisions Act (20

U.S.C. 1232).

(c) APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—

(1) CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1402(b)(3), the provisions of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, other than the funding and reporting provisions, shall apply to all schools operated

by the Department of Defense under this title, including the

requirement that children with disabilities, aged 3 to 5, inclu-
637

sive, receive a free appropriate public education øby academic

year 1993–1994¿.

* * * * * * *

(3) øIMPLEMENTATION TIMELINES.—In carrying out the provisions of paragraph (2), the Secretary shall—

ø(A) in academic year 1991–1992 and the 2 succeeding

academic years, plan and develop a comprehensive¿ IMPLEMENTATION.—In carrying out paragraph (2), the Secretary

shall have in effect a comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary program of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities among Department of

Defense entities involved in the provision of such services

to such individualsø;¿.

ø(B) in academic year 1994–1995, implement the program described in subparagraph (A), except the Secretary

need only conduct multidisciplinary assessments, develop

individualized family service plans, and make available

case management services; and

ø(C) in academic year 1995–1996 and succeeding academic years, have in effect the program described in subparagraph (A).¿

* * * * * * *

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION

SEC. 1411. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) Members of the Council who are not in the regular full-time

employ of the United States shall, while attending meetings or conferences of the Council or otherwise engaged in the business of the

Council, be entitled to receive compensation at the daily equivalent

of the rate specified at the time of such service for øgrade GS–18

in section 5332 of title 5, United States Code¿ level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, including traveltime, and while so serving on the business of the

Council away from their homes or regular places of business, they

may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States

Code, for persons employed intermittently in the Government service.

* * * * * * *

STUDY OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION SYSTEM

SEC. 1412. (a)(1) øAs soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 1, 1978], the Director shall provide for¿

The Director may from time to time, but not more frequently than

once a year, provide for a comprehensive study of the entire defense

dependents’ education øsystem, which¿ system. Any such study

shall include a detailed analysis of the education programs and the

facilities of the system.

(2) øThe study required by this subsection¿ Any study under

paragraph (1) shall be conducted by a contractor selected by the Di-
638

rector after an open competition. After conducting such study, the

contractor shall submit a report to the Director ønot later than two

years after the effective date of this title¿ describing the results of

the study and giving its assessment of the defense dependents’ education system.

(b) In designing the specifications for øthe¿ any study to be conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(1), and in selecting a contractor

to conduct such study under subsection (a)(2), the Director shall

consult with the Advisory Council on Dependents’ Education established under section 1411 of this title.

(c) The Director shall submit to the Congress ønot later than one

year after the effective date of this title the report¿ any report submitted to him under subsection (a)(2) describing the results of øthe

study¿ a study carried out pursuant to subsection (a)(1), together

with the recommendations, if any, of the contractor for legislation

or any increase in funding needed to improve the defense dependents’ education system. Notwithstanding any law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, such report shall not be submitted to any review before its transmittal to the Congress, but the Secretary of

Defense shall, at the time of the transmittal of such report, submit

to the Congress such recommendations as he may have with respect to legislation or any increase in funding needed to improve

the defense dependents’ education system.

ø(d) The Director may provide for additional studies of the defense dependents’ education system to be conducted in accordance

with the provisions of this section, but such studies shall not be

conducted more frequently than once a year. A report of each study

shall be submitted to the Congress in accordance with subsection

(c), and the second sentence of such subsection shall apply with respect to the transmission of each such report.¿

REGULATIONS

SEC. 1413. øNot later than 180 days after the effective date of

this title, the¿ The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations to

carry out this title. Such regulations shall—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 1414. For purposes of this title:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the Department

of Defense Education Activity.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 3342 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 3342. Check cashing and exchange transactions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *
639

(f) With respect to automated teller machines on naval vessels of

the Navy, the authority of a disbursing official of the United States

Government under subsection (a) also includes the following:

(1) The authority to provide operating funds to the automated

teller machines.

(2) The authority to accept, for safekeeping, deposits and

transfers of funds made through the automated teller machines.

SECTION 1523 OF THE ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT

HOME ACT OF 1991

SEC. 1523. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS AT

UNITED STATES SOLDIERS’ AND AIRMEN’S HOME.

(a) HISTORIC NATURE OF FACILITY.—Congress finds the following:

(1) Four buildings located on six acres of the establishment

of the Retirement Home known as the United States Soldiers’

and Airmen’s Home are included on the National Register of

Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.

(2) Amounts in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust

Fund, which consists primarily of deductions from the pay of

members of the Armed Forces, are insufficient to both maintain

and operate the Retirement Home for the benefit of the residents

of the Retirement Home and adequately maintain, repair, and

preserve these historic buildings and grounds.

(3) Other sources of funding are available to contribute to the

maintenance, repair, and preservation of these historic buildings and grounds.

(b) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT ASSISTANCE.—The Chairman of the

Retirement Home Board and the Director of the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home may apply for and accept a direct grant

from the Secretary of the Interior under section 101(e)(3) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470a(e)(3)) for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, and preserving the historic buildings and grounds of the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home

included on the National Register of Historic Places.

(c) REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS.—Amounts received as a

grant under subsection (b) shall be deposited in the Fund, but shall

be kept separate from other amounts in the Fund. The amounts received may only be used for the purpose specified in subsection (b).

TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 3—BASIC PAY

* * * * * * *

§ 205. Computation: service creditable

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a commissioned officer appointed under sections 12209 and 12216 of title 10 may not count

in computing basic pay a period of service after January 1, 2000,
640

that the officer performed concurrently as a member of the Marine

Corps Platoon Leaders Class Program and the Marine Corps Reserve, except that service after that date that the officer performed

before commissioning while serving as an enlisted member on active

duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve may be so counted.

* * * * * * *

§ 209. Members of precommissioning programs

(a) Except when on active duty, a member of the Senior Reserve

Officers’ Training Corps who is selected for advanced training

under section 2104 of title 10 is entitled to a subsistence allowance

of ø$150¿ $200 a month beginning on the day he starts advanced

training and ending upon the completion of his instruction under

that section, but in no event shall any member receive such pay for

more than 30 months. Subsistence allowance under this section

may not be considered financial assistance requiring additional

service within the meaning of the third sentence of section 6(d)(1)

of the Military Selective Act (50 U.S.C App. 456(d)(1)).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5—SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Sec.

301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty.

* * * * * * *

318. Special pay: special warfare officers extending period of active duty.

319. Special pay: surface warfare officer continuation pay.

320. Incentive pay: career enlisted flyers.

321. Special pay: judge advocate continuation pay.

322. Special pay: 15-year career status bonus for members entering service on or

after August 1, 1986.

* * * * * * *

§ 301a. Incentive pay: aviation career

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) An officer serving as an air battle manager who is entitled to

aviation career incentive pay under this section and who, before becoming entitled to aviation career incentive pay, was entitled to incentive pay under section 301(a)(11) of this title, is entitled to

monthly incentive pay at a rate equal to the greater of the following:

(A) The rate applicable under this subsection.

(B) The rate at which the member was receiving incentive pay

under section 301(c)(2)(A) of this title immediately before the

member’s entitlement to aviation career incentive pay under this

section.

§ 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period

of active duty

(a) BONUS AUTHORIZED.—An aviation officer described in subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1, 1989,
641

and ending on December 31, ø1999¿ 2000, executes a written

agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service for at least

one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as provided in this section.

* * * * * * *

(b) COVERED OFFICERS.—An aviation officer referred to in subsection (a) is an officer of a uniformed service who—

(1) * * *

ø(2) is in an aviation specialty designated by the Secretary

concerned (with the approval of the Secretary of Defense in the

case of the Secretary of a military department) as a critical

aviation specialty;¿

ø(3)¿ (2) is in a pay grade below pay øgrade 0–6¿ grade 0–

7;

ø(4)¿ (3) is qualified to perform operational flying duty; and

ø(5) has completed at least six but less than 13 years of aviation service; and¿

ø(6)¿ (4) has completed any active duty service commitment

incurred for undergraduate aviator training.

(c) AMOUNT OF BONUS.—The amount of a retention bonus paid

under this section may not be more øthan—

ø(1) $25,000 for each year covered by the written agreement,

if the officer agrees to remain on active duty to complete 14

years of commissioned service; or

ø(2) $12,000 for each year covered by the written agreement,

if the officer agrees to remain on active duty for one, two, or

three years.¿ than $25,000 for each year covered by the written

agreement to remain on active duty.

(d) PRORATION.—The term of an agreement under subsection (a)

and the amount of the bonus under subsection (c) may be prorated

as long as such agreement does not extend beyond the date on

which the officer making such agreement would complete ø14 years

of commissioned service¿ 25 years of aviation service.

* * * * * * *

(g) REPAYMENT OF BONUS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less

than 5 years after the termination of a written agreement entered

into under subsection (a) does not discharge the officer signing the

agreement from a debt arising under such agreement or under

paragraph (1). øThis paragraph applies to any case commenced

under title 11 after January 1, 1989.¿

* * * * * * *

(i) REPORTS.—(1) Not later than February 15 of each year, the

Secretaries concerned shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a report analyzing the effect of the provision of retention bonuses to

aviation officers during the preceding fiscal year on the retention

of qualified aviators. øEach report shall include—

ø(A) a comparison of the cost of paying bonuses to officers

who enter into an agreement for the period referred to in subsection (c)(1) with the cost of paying bonuses to officers who
642

enter into an agreement for a period referred to in subsection

(c)(2); and

ø(B) a description of the increase in the retention of qualified

aviators as a result of the program.¿

* * * * * * *

(j) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘aviation service’’ means service performed by

an officer (except a flight surgeon or other medical officer)

while holding an aeronautical rating or designation or while in

training to receive an aeronautical rating or designation.

ø(2) The term ‘‘aviation specialty’’ means a specific community of pilots identified by type of aircraft or weapon system or

a specific community of other designated aeronautical officers

so identified.

ø(3) The term ‘‘critical aviation specialty’’ means an aviation

speciality in which there exists a shortage of officers on the

date of designation under subsection (b).¿

ø(4)¿ (2) The term ‘‘operational flying duty’’ has the meaning

given such term in section 301a(a)(6)(A) of this title.

* * * * * * *

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

(a) ACCESSION BONUS AUTHORIZED.—(1) A person who is a registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on November

29, 1989, and ending on December 31, ø1999¿ 2000, executes a

written agreement described in subsection (c) to accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for a period of not less

than four years may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the

Secretary concerned, be paid an accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary concerned.

* * * * * * *

§ 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists

(a) SPECIAL PAY AUTHORIZED.—(1) An officer described in subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November 29,

1989, and ending on December 31, ø1999¿ 2000, executes a written

agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one year or

more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary

concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount not to exceed

$15,000 for any 12-month period.

* * * * * * *

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

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AUTHORITY.—No agreement

under this section may be entered into after December 31, ø1999¿

2000.

* * * * * * *
643

§ 304. Special pay: diving duty

(a) * * *

(b) Special pay payable under subsection (a) shall be paid at a

rate of not more than ø$200¿ $240 a month, in the case of an officer, and at a rate of not more than ø$300¿ $340 a month, in the

case of an enlisted member.

ø(c) A member may be paid special pay under this section and

incentive pay under section 301 of this title for the same period of

service only if the member is assigned by orders to a hazardous

duty described in section 301(a) of this title in addition to diving

duty. However, if a member is paid special pay under this section,

the member is not entitled to more than one payment of incentive

pay under section 301 of this title.¿

(c) If, in addition to diving duty, a member is assigned by orders

to one or more hazardous duties described in section 301 of this

title, the member may be paid, for the same period of service, special

pay under this section and incentive pay under such section 301 for

each hazardous duty for which the member is qualified.

* * * * * * *

§ 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus

(a)(1) A member of a uniformed service who—

(A) has completed at least øtwenty-one months¿ 17 months

of continuous active duty (other than for training) but not more

than fourteen years of active duty;

* * * * * * *

(2) The bonus to be paid under paragraph (1) may not exceed the

lesser of the following amounts:

(A) The amount equal to the product of—

(i) øten¿ 15 times the monthly rate of basic pay to which

the member was entitled at the time of the discharge or

release of the member; and

* * * * * * *

(B) ø$45,000¿ $60,000.

* * * * * * *

(g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to any

reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty reenlistment,

in the armed forces entered into after December 31, ø1999¿ 2000.

§ 308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus

(a) BONUS AUTHORIZED; BONUS AMOUNT.—Notwithstanding section 514(a) of title 10 or any other law, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating

as a service in the Navy, a person who enlists in an armed force

for a period of at least four years in a skill designated as critical,

or who extends his initial period of active duty in that armed force

to a total of at least four years in a skill designated as critical, may

be paid a bonus in an amount prescribed by the appropriate Secretary, but not more than ø$12,000¿ $20,000. øThe bonus shall be

paid in periodic installments, as determined by the appropriate
644

Secretary, except that the first installment may not exceed $7,000

and the remainder shall be paid in equal periodic installments

which may not be paid less frequently than once every 3 months.¿

(b) PAYMENT METHODS.—A bonus under this section may be paid

in a single lump sum, or in periodic installments, to provide an

extra incentive for a member to successfully complete the training

necessary for the member to be technically qualified in the skill for

which the bonus is paid.

ø(b)¿ (c) REPAYMENT OF BONUS.—Under regulations prescribed

by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Secretary of Transportation

with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, a person who voluntarily, or because of his misconduct, does not complete the term of enlistment for which a

bonus was paid to him under this section or a member who is not

technically qualified in the skill for which a bonus was paid to him

under this section (other than a person who is not qualified because of injury, illness, or other impairment not the result of his

own misconduct) shall refund that percentage of the bonus that the

unexpired part of his enlistment is of the total enlistment period

for which the bonus was paid.

ø(c)¿ (d) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus shall be paid

under this section with respect to any enlistment or extension of

an initial period of active duty in the armed forces made after December 31, ø1999¿ 2000.

§ 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the

Selected Reserve

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus may be paid under

this section to any enlisted member who, after December 31,

ø1999¿ 2000, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in a

reserve component.

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

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted

member who, after December 31, ø1999¿ 2000, enlists in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.

* * * * * * *

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

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this section

for inactive duty performed after December 31, ø1999¿ 2000.
645

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

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for

a reserve obligation agreement entered into after December 31,

ø1999¿ 2000.

* * * * * * *

§ 308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to an

enlistment in the Army after December 31, ø1999¿ 2000.

* * * * * * *

§ 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or

voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of

the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person for

a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an enlistment

after December 31, ø1999¿ 2000.

§ 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus

(a) AUTHORITY AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(2) A bonus may only be paid under this section to a person

who—

ø(A) has completed his military service obligation but has

less than 14 years of total military service;

ø(B) has received an honorable discharge at the conclusion of

military service;

ø(C) is not being released from active service for the purpose

of enlistment in a reserve component;

ø(D) is projected to occupy a position as a member of the Selected Reserve in a specialty in which—

ø(i) the person successfully served while a member on

active duty; and

ø(ii) the person attained a level of qualification while a

member on active duty commensurate with the grade and

years of service of the member; and

ø(E) has not previously been paid a bonus (except under this

section) for enlistment, reenlistment, or extension of enlistment

in a reserve component.¿

(2) A bonus may only be paid under this section to a person who

meets each of the following requirements:

(A) The person has completed a military service obligation,

but has less than 14 years of total military service, and received
646

an honorable discharge at the conclusion of that military service obligation.

(B) The person was not released, or is not being released,

from active service for the purpose of enlistment in a reserve

component.

(C) The person is projected to occupy, or is occupying, a position as a member of the Selected Reserve in a specialty in which

the person—

(i) successfully served while a member on active duty and

attained a level of qualification while on active duty commensurate with the grade and years of service of the member; or

(ii) has completed training or retraining in the specialty

skill that is designated as critically short and attained a

level of qualification in the specialty skill that is commensurate with the grade and years of service of the member.

(D) The person has not previously been paid a bonus (except

under this section) for enlistment, reenlistment, or extension of

enlistment in a reserve component.

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus may be paid under

this section to any person for an enlistment after December 31,

ø1999¿ 2000.

* * * * * * *

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

(a) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the

Navy, an officer of the naval service who—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

may, upon the acceptance by the Secretary or his designee of the

written agreement, in addition to all other compensation to which

he is entitled, be paid a sum of money not to exceed ø$15,000¿

$25,000 for each year of the active-service agreement. The Secretary of the Navy shall determine annually the necessity for continuance of the special pay and the rate of special pay per year for

such active-service agreements accepted within each 12-month period. Upon acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary or his designee, the total amount payable shall be paid in equal annual installments over the length of the contract, commencing at the expiration of any existing period of obligated active service. The Secretary (or his designee) may accept an active service agreement

under this section not more than one year in advance of the end

of an officer’s existing period of obligated active service under such

an agreement. In such a case, the amount of the special pay may

be paid commencing with the date of acceptance of the agreement,

with the number of installments being equal to the number of

years covered by the contract plus one.

* * * * * * *
647

(e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in the

case of officers who, on or before December 31, ø1999¿ 2000, execute the required written agreement to remain in active service.

* * * * * * *

§ 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus

(a)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy,

an individual who is selected for officer naval nuclear power training and who executes a written agreement to participate in a program of training for duty in connection with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval nuclear propulsion plants may be

paid a bonus of ø$10,000¿ $20,000 upon acceptance by the Secretary of the written agreement. Upon acceptance of the agreement

by the Secretary, the amounts payable upon selection for training

and upon completion of training, respectively, as determined under

subsection (b), shall become fixed.

* * * * * * *

(c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in the

case of officers who, on or before December 31, ø1999¿ 2000, have

been accepted for training for duty in connection with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval nuclear propulsion

plants.

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

(a)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy,

an officer of the naval service who—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

may, in addition to all other compensation to which he is entitled,

be paid an annual bonus in an amount not to exceed ø$12,000¿

$22,000 for each nuclear service year.

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy,

an officer of the naval service who—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

may, in addition to all other compensation to which he is entitled,

be paid an annual bonus in an amount not to exceed ø$5,500¿

$10,000 for each nuclear service year.

* * * * * * *

(d) For the purposes of this section, a ‘‘nuclear service year’’ is

any fiscal year beginning before øOctober 1, 1998, and the 15-

month period beginning on that date and ending on December 31,

1999.¿ December 31, 2000.

* * * * * * *

§ 316. Special pay: foreign language proficiency pay

(a) * * *
648

(b) The monthly rate for special pay under subsection (a) shall

be determined by the Secretary concerned and may not exceed

ø$100¿ $300.

* * * * * * *

§ 318. Special pay: special warfare officers extending period

of active duty

(a) SPECIAL WARFARE OFFICER DEFINED.—In this section, the

term ‘‘special warfare officer’’ means an officer of a uniformed service who—

(1) is qualified for a military occupational specialty or designator identified by the Secretary concerned as a special warfare

military occupational specialty or designator; and

(2) is serving in a position for which that specialty or designator

is authorized.

(b) RETENTION BONUS AUTHORIZED.—A special warfare officer

who meets the eligibility requirements specified in subsection (c) and

who executes a written agreement, on or after October 1, 1999, to

remain on active duty in special warfare service for at least one year

may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as provided in this section.

(c) ELIGIBLE OFFICERS.—A special warfare officer may apply to

enter into an agreement referred to in subsection (b) if the officer—

(1) is in pay grade O–3, or is in pay grade O–4 and is not

on a list of officers recommended for promotion, at the time the

officer applies to enter into the agreement;

(2) has completed at least 6, but not more than 14, years of

active commissioned service; and

(3) has completed any service commitment incurred to be

commissioned as an officer.

(d) AMOUNT OF BONUS.—The amount of a retention bonus paid

under this section may not be more than $15,000 for each year covered by the agreement.

(e) PRORATION.—The term of an agreement under subsection (b)

and the amount of the retention bonus payable under subsection (d)

may be prorated as long as the agreement does not extend beyond

the date on which the officer executing the agreement would complete 14 years of active commissioned service.

(f) PAYMENT METHODS.—(1) Upon acceptance of an agreement

under subsection (b) by the Secretary concerned, the total amount

payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed.

(2) The amount of the retention bonus may be paid as follows:

(A) At the time the agreement is accepted by the Secretary

concerned, the Secretary may make a lump sum payment equal

to half the total amount payable under the agreement. The balance of the bonus amount shall be paid in equal annual installments on the anniversary of the acceptance of the agreement.

(B) The Secretary concerned may make graduated annual

payments under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, with

the first payment being payable at the time the agreement is accepted by the Secretary and subsequent payments being payable

on the anniversary of the acceptance of the agreement.
649

(g) ADDITIONAL PAY.—A retention bonus paid under this section

is in addition to any other pay and allowances to which an officer

is entitled.

(h) REPAYMENT.—(1) If an officer who has entered into an agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or part of a retention

bonus under this section fails to complete the total period of active

duty in special warfare service as specified in the agreement, the

Secretary concerned may require the officer to repay the United

States, on a pro rata basis and to the extent that the Secretary determines conditions and circumstances warrant, all sums paid the

officer under this section.

(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United States.

(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less

than five years after the termination of an agreement entered into

under subsection (a) does not discharge the officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under such agreement or under paragraph

(1).

(i) REGULATIONS.—The Secretaries concerned shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section, including the definition of the term

‘‘special warfare service’’ for purposes of this section. Regulations

prescribed by the Secretary of a military department under this section shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense.

§ 319. Special pay: surface warfare officer continuation pay

(a) ELIGIBLE SURFACE WARFARE OFFICER DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘eligible surface warfare officer’’ means an officer of

the Regular Navy or Naval Reserve on active duty who—

(1) is qualified and serving as a surface warfare officer;

(2) has been selected for assignment as a department head on

a surface vessel; and

(3) has completed any service commitment incurred through

the officer’s original commissioning program.

(b) SPECIAL PAY AUTHORIZED.—An eligible surface warfare officer

who executes a written agreement, on or after October 1, 1999, to

remain on active duty to complete one or more tours of duty to

which the officer may be ordered as a department head on a surface

ship may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary of

the Navy, be paid an amount not to exceed $50,000.

(c) PRORATION.—The term of the written agreement under subsection (b) and the amount payable under the agreement may be

prorated.

(d) PAYMENT METHODS.—Upon acceptance of the written agreement under subsection (b) by the Secretary of the Navy, the total

amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed. The Secretary shall prepare an implementation plan specifying the amount

of each installment payment under the agreement and the times for

payment of the installments.

(e) ADDITIONAL PAY.—Any amount paid under this section is in

addition to any other pay and allowances to which an officer is entitled.

(f) REPAYMENT.—(1) If an officer who has entered into a written

agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or part of the

amount payable under the agreement fails to complete the total pe-
650

riod of active duty as a department head on a surface ship specified

in the agreement, the Secretary of the Navy may require the officer

to repay the United States, to the extent that the Secretary of the

Navy determines conditions and circumstances warrant, any or all

sums paid under this section.

(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owned to the United States.

(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less

than five years after the termination of an agreement entered into

under subsection (b) does not discharge the officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under such agreement or under paragraph

(1).

(g) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of the Navy shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.

§ 320. Incentive pay: career enlisted flyers

(a) ELIGIBLE CAREER ENLISTED FLYER DEFINED.—In this section,

the term ‘‘eligible career enlisted flyer’’ means an enlisted member

of the armed forces who—

(1) is entitled to basic pay under section 204 of this title, or

is entitled to pay under section 206 of this title as described in

subsection (e) of this section;

(2) holds an enlisted military occupational specialty or enlisted military rating designated as a career enlisted flyer specialty or rating by the Secretary concerned, performs duty as a

dropsonde system operator, or is in training leading to qualification and designation of such a specialty or rating or the performance of such duty;

(3) is qualified for aviation service under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned; and

(4) satisfies the operational flying duty requirements applicable under subsection (c).

(b) INCENTIVE PAY AUTHORIZED.—(1) The Secretary concerned

may pay monthly incentive pay to an eligible career enlisted flyer

in an amount not to exceed the monthly maximum amounts specified in subsection (d). The incentive pay may be paid as continuous

monthly incentive pay or on a month-to-month basis, dependent

upon the operational flying duty performed by the eligible career enlisted flyer as prescribed in subsection (c).

(2) Continuous monthly incentive pay may not be paid to an eligible career enlisted flyer after the member completes 25 years of aviation service. Thereafter, an eligible career enlisted flyer may still receive incentive pay on a month-to-month basis under subsection

(c)(4) for the frequent and regular performance of operational flying

duty.

(c) OPERATIONAL FLYING DUTY REQUIREMENTS.—(1) An eligible

career enlisted flyer must perform operational flying duties for 6 of

the first 10, 9 of the first 15, and 14 of the first 20 years of aviation

service, to be eligible for continuous monthly incentive pay under

this section.

(2) Upon completion of 10, 15, or 20 years of aviation service, an

enlisted member who has not performed the minimum required

operational flying duties specified in paragraph (1) during the prescribed period, although otherwise meeting the definition in sub-
651

section (a), may no longer be paid continuous monthly incentive pay

except as provided in paragraph (3). Payment of continuous monthly incentive pay if the member meets the minimum operational flying duty requirement upon completion of the next established period

of aviation service.

(3) For the needs of the service, the Secretary concerned may permit, on a case-by-case basis, a member to continue to receive continuous monthly incentive pay despite the member’s failure to perform

the operational flying duty required during the first 10, 15, or 20

years of aviation service, but only if the member otherwise meets the

definition in subsection (a) and has performed at least 5 years of

operational flying duties during the first 10 years of aviation service, 8 years of operational flying duties during the first 15 years of

aviation service, or 12 years of operational flying duty during the

first 20 years of aviation service. The authority of the Secretary concerned under this paragraph may not be delegated below the level

of the Service Personnel Chief.

(4) If the eligibility of an eligible career enlisted flyer to continuous monthly incentive pay ceases under subsection (b)(2) or paragraph (2), the member may still receive month-to-month incentive

pay for subsequent frequent and regular performance of operational

flying duty. The rate payable is the same rate authorized by the Secretary concerned under subsection (d) for a member of corresponding years of aviation service.

(d) MONTHLY MAXIMUM INCENTIVE PAY.—The monthly rate for

incentive pay under this section may not exceed the amounts specified in the following table for the applicable years of aviation service:

Monthly

Years of aviation service: rate

4 or less ............................................................................................. $150

Over 4 ................................................................................................ $225

Over 8 ................................................................................................ $350

Over 14 .............................................................................................. $400

(e) ELIGIBILITY OF RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS WHEN PERFORMING INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING.—Under regulations prescribed

by the Secretary concerned, when a member of a reserve component

or the National Guard, who is entitled to compensation under section 206 of this title, meets the definition of eligible career enlisted

flyer, the Secretary concerned may increase the member’s compensation by an amount equal to 1⁄30 of the monthly incentive pay authorized by the Secretary concerned under subsection (d) for a member

of corresponding years of aviation service who is entitled to basic

pay under section 204 of this title. The reserve component member

may receive the increase for as long as the member is qualified for

it, for each regular period of instruction or period of appropriate

duty, at which the member is engaged for at least two hours, or for

the performance of such other equivalent training, instruction, duty

or appropriate duties, as the Secretary may prescribe under section

206(a) of this title.

(f) RELATION TO HAZARDOUS DUTY INCENTIVE PAY OR DIVING

DUTY SPECIAL PAY.—A member receiving special pay under section

301(a) or 304 of this title may not be paid incentive pay under this

section for the same period of service.
652

(g) SAVE PAY PROVISION.—If, immediately before a member receives incentive pay under this section, the member was entitled to

incentive pay under section 301(a) of this title, the rate at which the

member is paid incentive pay under this section shall be equal to

the higher of the monthly amount applicable under subsection (d)

or the rate of incentive pay the member was receiving under subsection (b) or (c)(2)(A) of section 301 of this title.

(h) SPECIALTY CODE OF DROPSONDE SYSTEM OPERATORS.—Within

the Air Force, the Secretary of the Air Force shall assign to members

who are dropsonde system operators a specialty code that identifies

such members as serving in a weather specialty.

(i) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘aviation service’’ means participation in aerial

flight performed, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary

concerned, by an eligible career enlisted flyer.

(2) The term ‘‘operational flying duty’’ means flying performed

under competent orders while serving in assignments, including

an assignment as a dropsonde system operator, in which basic

flying skills normally are maintained in the performance of assigned duties as determined by the Secretary concerned, and

flying duty performed by members in training that leads to the

award of an enlisted aviation rating or military occupational

specialty designated as a career enlisted flyer rating or specialty

by the Secretary concerned.

§ 321. Special pay: judge advocate continuation pay

(a) ELIGIBLE JUDGE ADVOCATE DEFINED.—In this section, the

term ‘‘eligible judge advocate’’ means an officer of the armed forces

on full-time active duty who—

(1) is qualified and serving as a judge advocate, as defined

in section 801 of title 10; and

(2) has completed any service commitment incurred through

the officer’s original commissioning program.

(b) SPECIAL PAY AUTHORIZED.—An eligible judge advocate who

executes a written agreement, on or after October 1, 1999, to remain

on active duty for a period of obligated service specified in the agreement may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary

concerned, be paid an amount not to exceed $60,000.

(c) PRORATION.—The term of the written agreement under subsection (b) and the amount payable under the agreement may be

prorated.

(d) PAYMENT METHODS.—Upon acceptance of the written agreement under subsection (b) by the Secretary concerned, the total

amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed. The Secretary shall prepare an implementation plan specifying the amount

of each installment payment under the agreement and the times for

payment of the installments.

(e) ADDITIONAL PAY.—Any amount paid under this section is in

addition to any other pay and allowances to which an officer is entitled.

(f) REPAYMENT.—(1) If an officer who has entered into a written

agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or part of the

amount payable under the agreement fails to complete the total period of active duty specified in the agreement, the Secretary con-
653

cerned may require the officer to repay the United States, to the extent that the Secretary determines conditions and circumstances

warrant, any or all sums paid under this section.

(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owned to the United States.

(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less

than five years after the termination of an agreement entered into

under subsection (b) does not discharge the officer signing the agreement from a debt arising under such agreement or under paragraph

(1).

(g) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary concerned shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.

§ 322. Special pay: 15-year career status bonus for members

entering service on or after August 1, 1986

(a) ELIGIBLE CAREER BONUS MEMBER DEFINED.—In this section,

the term ‘‘eligible career bonus member’’ means a member of a uniformed service serving on active duty who—

(1) first became a member on or after August 1, 1986; and

(2) has completed 15 years of active duty in the uniformed

services (or has received notification under subsection (e) that

the member is about to complete that duty).

(b) AVAILABILITY OF BONUS.—The Secretary concerned shall pay

a bonus under this section to an eligible career bonus member if the

member—

(1) elects to receive the bonus under this section; and

(2) executes a written agreement (prescribed by the Secretary

concerned) to remain continuously on active duty until the

member has completed 20 years of active-duty service creditable

under section 1405 of title 10, if the member is not already obligated to remain on active duty for a period that would result

in at least 20 years of active-duty service.

(c) ELECTION METHOD.—The election under subsection (b)(1) shall

be made in such form and within such period as the Secretary concerned may prescribe. An election under such subsection is irrevocable.

(d) AMOUNT OF BONUS; PAYMENT.—(1) A bonus under this section

shall be paid in one lump sum of $30,000.

(2) The bonus shall be paid to an eligible career bonus member

not later than the first month that begins on or after the date that

is 60 days after the date on which the Secretary concerned receives

from the member the election required under subsection (b)(1) and

the written agreement required under subsection (b)(2), if applicable.

(e) NOTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY.—(1) The Secretary concerned

shall transmit to each member who satisfies the definition of eligible

career bonus member a written notification of the opportunity of the

member to elect to receive a bonus under this section. The Secretary

shall provide the notification not later than 180 days before the date

on which the member will complete 15 years of active duty.

(2) The notification shall include the following:

(A) The procedures for electing to receive the bonus.

(B) An explanation of the effects under sections 1401a, 1409,

and 1410 of title 10 that such an election has on the computa-
654

tion of any retired or retainer pay that the member may become

eligible to receive.

(f) REPAYMENT OF BONUS.—(1) If a person paid a bonus under

this section fails to complete the total period of active duty specified

in subsection (b)(2), the person shall refund to the United States the

amount that bears the same ratio to the amount of the bonus payment as the unserved part of that total period bears to the total period.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), an obligation to reimburse the

United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a

debt owed to the United States.

(3) The Secretary concerned may waive, in whole or in part, a refund required under paragraph (1) if the Secretary concerned determines that recovery would be against equity and good conscience or

would be contrary to the best interests of the United States.

(4) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less

than five years after the termination of an agreement under this section does not discharge the member signing such agreement from a

debt arising under the agreement or this subsection.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 7—ALLOWANCES

Sec.

401. Definitions.

* * * * * * *

435. Funeral honors duty: flat rate allowance.

* * * * * * *

§ 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i)(1) In the case of a member of a reserve component performing

active duty for training or inactive-duty training who is not otherwise entitled to travel and transportation allowances in connection

with such duty under subsection (a), the Secretary concerned may

reimburse the member for housing service charge expenses incurred by the member in occupying transient government housing

during the performance of such duty. If transient government housing is unavailable, the Secretary concerned may provide the member

with lodging in kind in the same manner as members entitled to

such allowances under subsection (a).

* * * * * * *

(3) The Secretary may pay service charge expenses under paragraph (1) and expenses of providing lodging in kind under such

paragraph out of funds appropriated for operation and maintenance for the reserve component concerned. Use of Government

charge cards is authorized for payment of these expenses.

* * * * * * *
655

§ 404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary

lodging expenses

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, a

member of a uniformed service who is ordered to make a change

of permanent station—

(1) from any duty station to a duty station in the United

States (other than Hawaii or Alaska); øor¿

(2) from a duty station in the United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska) to a duty station outside the United States or

in Hawaii or Alaska; or

(3) in the case of an enlisted member who is reporting to the

member’s first permanent duty station, from the member’s home

of record or initial technical school to that first permanent duty

station;

shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence expenses actually incurred by the member and the member’s dependents while occupying temporary quarters incident to that change of permanent

station. In the case of a change of permanent station described in

øclause (1)¿ paragraph (1) or (3), the period for which such expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may not exceed 10 days. In

the case of a change of permanent station described in øclause (2)¿

paragraph (2), the period for which such expenses are to be paid

or reimbursed may not exceed five days and such payment or reimbursement may be provided only for expenses incurred before leaving the United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska).

* * * * * * *

§ 411d. Travel and transportation allowances: transportation

incident to personal emergencies for certain members and dependents

(a) * * *

(b)(1) In the case of a member stationed outside the continental

United States and the dependents of such a member, transportation under this section may be provided from the location of the

member or dependents, at the time notification of the personal

emergency is received, or the member’s permanent duty station

(and if the member’s dependents reside at another overseas location and receive a station allowance, from that location)—

(A) to the international airport in the continental United

States closest to the location from which the member and his

dependents departed; øor¿

(B) to any airport in the continental United States to which

travel can be arranged at the same or a lower cost as travel obtained under subparagraph (A); or

ø(B)¿ (C) to an airport in Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, or

any other location outside the continental United States, as determined by the Secretary concerned.

* * * * * * *

§ 435. Funeral honors duty: flat rate allowance

(a) ALLOWANCE AUTHORIZED.—Under uniform regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member of the Ready Reserve
656

of an armed force may be paid an allowance of $50, at the discretion of the Secretary concerned, for funeral honors duty performed

pursuant to section 12305 of title 10 or section 115 of title 32, if the

member is engaged in the performance of that duty for at least two

hours.

(b) RELATION TO PERFORMANCE OF FUNERAL HONORS DUTY.—The

allowance under this section shall constitute the single, flat-rate

monetary allowance authorized for the performance of funeral honors duty pursuant to section 12503 of title 10 or section 115 of title

32 and shall constitute payment in full to the member, regardless

of grade in which serving.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 9—LEAVE

* * * * * * *

§ 501. Payments for unused accrued leave

(a) In this section, the term ‘‘discharge’’ means—

(1) in the case of an enlisted member, separation or release

from active duty under honorable øconditions or¿ conditions,

appointment as an officer, or a reenlistment of the member (regardless of when the reenlistment occurs);

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) * * *

(2) Payment may not be made under this subsection to a member

who is discharged for the purpose of accepting an appointment or

a warrantø, or entering into an enlistment,¿ in any uniformed service.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 19—ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

§ 1002. Additional training or duty without pay: Reserves

and members of National Guard

(a) * * *

(b)(1) A member who performs training or other duty without

pay under subsection (a) may, in the discretion of the Secretary

concerned, be authorized the travel and transportation allowances

prescribed by section 404 (a)–(d), and (f), of this title for travel performed to and from that training or duty, and, during the performance of that training or duty, be furnished with subsistence and

quarters in kind or commutation thereof at a rate to be fixed by

the Secretary concerned.

(2) If a military technician (dual status), as described in section

10216 of title 10, is performing active duty without pay while on

leave from technician employment, as authorized by section 6323(d)

of title 5, the Secretary concerned may authorize the payment of a

per diem allowance to the military technician in lieu of commutation for subsistence and quarters under paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *
657

§ 1007. Deductions from pay

(a) * * *

(b) An amount due the United States from an enlisted member

of the Army or the Air Force for articles sold to him on credit under

section 4621(a)(1) or 9621(a)(1) of title 10, as the case may be, shall

be deducted from the next pay due him after the sale is reported.

øAn amount due the United States from an enlisted member of the

Army or the Air Force for tobacco sold to him by the United States

under section 4623 or 9623 of title 10 shall be deducted from his

pay in the manner provided for the settlement of clothing accounts.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 1009. Adjustments of monthly basic pay

(a) ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED.—(1) Whenever the General Schedule

of compensation for Federal classified employees, as contained in

section 5332 of title 5, is adjusted upward as provided in section

5303 of such title, the President shall immediately make an upward adjustment in the monthly basic pay authorized members of

the uniformed services by section 203(a) of this title.

(2) On and after April 30, 1999, the actual basic pay for commissioned officers in grades O–7 through O–10 may not exceed the rate

of pay for level III of the Executive Schedule, and the actual basic

pay for all other officers and enlisted members may not exceed the

rate of pay for level V of the Executive Schedule.

* * * * * * *

ø(c) EQUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASE FOR ALL MEMBERS.—Subject

to subsection (d), an adjustment under this section shall provide all

eligible members with an increase in the monthly basic pay which

is of the same percentage as the overall average percentage increase in the General Schedule rates of both basic pay and locality

pay for civilian employees.¿

(c) PERCENTAGE INCREASE FOR ALL MEMBERS.—(1) Subject to

subsection (d), an adjustment taking effect under this section during

a fiscal year shall provide all eligible members with an increase in

the monthly basic pay by the percentage equal to the sum of—

(A) 0.5 percent; plus

(B) the percentage calculated as provided under section

5303(a) of title 5.

(2) The calculation required by paragraph (1)(B) shall be made

without regard to whether rates of pay under the statutory pay systems (as defined in section 5302 of title 5) are actually increased

during that fiscal year under section 5303 of such title by the percentage so calculated.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

PART III—EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *
658

Subpart D—Pay and Allowances

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 53—PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY RATES

* * * * * * *

§ 5313. Positions at level II

Level II of the Executive Schedule applies to the following positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as

adjusted by section 5318 of this title:

Deputy Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.¿

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and

Logistics

* * * * * * *

§ 5314. Positions at level III

Level III of the Executive Schedule applies to the following positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as

adjusted by section 5318 of this title:

Solicitor General of the United States.

* * * * * * *

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Material

Readiness.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER VII—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

§ 5373. Limitation on pay fixed by administrative action

øExcept as provided¿ (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and

by the Government Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964 (78 Stat.

400) and notwithstanding the provisions of other statutes, the head

of an Executive agency or military department who is authorized

to fix by administrative action the annual rate of basic pay for a

position or employee may not fix the rate at more than the rate for

level IV of the Executive Schedule. This section does not impair the

authorities provided by—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *
659

(b) Subsection (a) shall not affect the authority of the Secretary

of Defense or the Secretary of a military department to fix the pay

of a civilian employee paid from nonappropriated funds, except that

the annual rate of basic pay (including any portion of such pay attributable to comparability with private-sector pay in a locality) of

such an employee may not be fixed at a rate greater than the rate

for level III of the Executive Schedule.

* * * * * * *

Subpart E—Attendance and Leave

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 63—LEAVE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE

* * * * * * *

§ 6304. Annual leave; accumulation

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, the deployment of an emergency essential employee of the Department of Defense to a combat

zone outside the United States shall be deemed an exigency of the

public business, and any leave that is lost by an employee as a result of such deployment (regardless of whether such leave was

scheduled) shall be—

(i) restored to the employee; and

(ii) credited and available in accordance with paragraph (2).

(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘Department of Defense emergency essential employee’’—

(i) means a civilian employee of the Department of Defense,

including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality employee (as

defined by section 1587(a)(1) of title 10) whose assigned duties

and responsibilities would be necessary during a period that

follows the evacuation of nonessential personnel during a declared emergency or the outbreak of combat operations or war;

and

(ii) includes an employee who is hired on a temporary or permanent basis.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—OTHER PAID LEAVE

§ 6323. Military leave; Reserves and National Guardsmen

(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, an employee as

defined by section 2105 of this title or an individual employed by

the government of the District of Columbia, permanent or tem-
660

porary indefinite, is entitled to leave without loss in pay, time, or

performance or efficiency rating for active duty, inactive-duty training (as defined in section 101 of title 37), or engaging in field or

coast defense training under sections 502–505 of title 32 as a Reserve of the armed forces or member of the National Guard. Leave

under this subsection accrues for an employee or individual at the

rate of 15 days per fiscal year and, to the extent that it is not used

in a fiscal year, accumulates for use in the succeeding fiscal year

until it totals 15 days at the beginning of a fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

(d)(1) A military reserve technician described in section 8401(30)

is entitled at such person’s request to leave without loss of, or reduction in, pay, leave to which such person is otherwise entitled,

credit for time or service, or performance or efficiency rating for

each day, not to exceed 44 workdays in a calendar year, in which

such person is on active duty without pay, as authorized pursuant

to section 12315 of title 10, under section 12301(b) or 12301(d) of

title 10 (other than active duty during a war or national emergency

declared by the President or Congress) for participation in ønoncombat¿ operations outside the United States, its territories and

possessions.

* * * * * * *

Subpart G—Insurance and Annuities

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 83—RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER III—CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

§ 8334. Deductions, contributions, and deposits

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Each employee or Member credited with civilian service after

July 31, 1920, for which retirement deductions or deposits have not

been made, may deposit with interest an amount equal to the following percentages of his basic pay received for that service:

Percentage of

basic pay Service period

Employee ......................................................................................... 21⁄2 ............... August 1, 1920, to June 30, 1926.

31

⁄2 ............... July 1, 1926, to June 30, 1942.

5 ................... July 1, 1942, to June 30, 1948.

6 ................... July 1, 1948, to October 31, 1956.

61

⁄2 ............... November 1, 1956, to December 31,

1969.

*******

Nuclear materials courier ............................................................... 7 ................... October 1, 1977 øto the day before the

date of the enactment of the Strom

Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999¿ to

October 16, 1998.
661

Percentage of

basic pay Service period

7.5 ................ øThe date of the enactment of the

Strom Thurmond National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1999¿ October 17, 1998 to December 31, 1998.

7.75 .............. January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999.

7.9 ................ January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000.

8 ................... January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002.

7.5 ................ After December 31, 2002.

Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection and

any provision of section 206(b)(3) of the Federal Employees’ Retirement Contribution Temporary Adjustment Act of 1983, the percentage of basic pay required under this subsection in the case of an

individual described in section 8402(b)(2) shall, with respect to any

covered service (as defined by section 203(a)(3) of such Act) performed by such individual after December 31, 1983, and before

January 1, 1987, be equal to 1.3 percent, and, with respect to any

such service performed after December 31, 1986, be equal to the

amount that would have been deducted from the employee’s basic

pay under subsection (k) of this section if the employee’s pay had

been subject to that subsection during such period.

* * * * * * *

§ 8337. Disability retirement

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h)(1) As used in this subsection, the term ‘‘technician’’ means an

individual employed under section 709(a) of title 32 or section

10216 of title 10, who, as a condition of the employment, is required under section 709(b) of øsuch title to be a member of the

National Guard and to hold a specified military grade.¿ title 32 or

section 10216 of title 10, respectively, to be a member of the Selected

Reserve.

(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph,

an individual shall be retired under this section if the individual—

(i) is separated from employment as a technician under section 709(e)(1) of title 32 or section 10216 of title 10 by reason

of a disability that disqualifies the individual from membership

in the øNational Guard or from holding the military grade required for such employment¿ Selected Reserve;

* * * * * * *

(3) Any individual applying for or receiving any annuity pursuant to this subsection shall, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office, be considered by any agency of the Government before any vacant position in the agency is filled if—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) the position is at the same grade or equivalent level as

the position from which the individual was separated under

section 709(e)(1) of title 32 or section 10216 of title 10.

* * * * * * *
662

CHAPTER 84—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT

SYSTEM

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—BASIC ANNUITY

* * * * * * *

§ 8414. Early retirement

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) A military reserve technician who is separated from technician service, after becoming 50 years of age and completing 25

years of service, by reason of ceasing to satisfy the condition described in section 8401(30)(B) is entitled to an annuity.¿

(c) PERMANENT LIMITATIONS ON NUMBER.—(1) Effective October

1, 2007, the total number of non-dual status technicians employed

by the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve may not exceed 175. If

at any time after the preceding sentence takes effect the number of

non-dual status technicians employed by the Army Reserve and Air

Force Reserve exceeds the number specified in the limitation in the

preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense shall require that the

Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take

immediate steps to reduce the number of such technicians in order

to comply with such limitation.

(2) Effective October 1, 2001, the total number of non-dual status

technicians employed by the National Guard may not exceed 1,950.

If at any time after the preceding sentence takes effect the number

of non-dual status technicians employed by the National Guard exceeds the number specified in the limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense shall require that the Secretary of the

Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take immediate

steps to reduce the number of such technicians in order to comply

with such limitation.

* * * * * * *

§ 8422. Deductions from pay; contributions for military service

(a)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The applicable percentage under this paragraph for civilian

service shall be as follows:

* * * * * * *

Employee ................................................................... 7 ............... January 1, 1987, to December

31, 1998.

7.25 .......... January 1, 1999, to December

31, 1999.

7.4 ............ January 1, 2000, to December

31, 2000.

7.5 ............ January 1, 2001, to December

31, 2002.

7 ............... After December 31, 2002.
663

Nuclear materials courier ........................................ 7 ............... January 1, 1987 øto the day

before the date of the enactment of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1999.¿ to October 16,

1998

7.5 ............ øThe date of the enactment of

the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1999¿

October 17, 1998 to December 31, 1998.¿

7.75 .......... January 1, 1999 to December

31, 1999.

7.9 ............ January 1, 2000 to December

31, 2000.

8 ............... January 1, 2001 to December

31, 2001.

7.5 ............ After December 31, 2002.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1—ORGANIZATION

Sec.

101. Definitions.

* * * * * * *

ø114. Honor guard functions at funerals for veterans.¿

114. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans.

115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function.

* * * * * * *

§ 113. Federal financial assistance for support of additional

duties assigned to the Army National Guard

(a) * * *

(b) COVERED ACTIVITIES.—(1) * * *

(2) Paragraph (1)(B) does not apply to an activity that, on øthe

date of the enactment of this subsection¿ October 17, 1998, was

performed for the Federal Government by employees of the Federal

Government or employees of a State.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 114. Honor guard functions at funerals for veterans¿

§ 114. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans

Subject to such regulations and restrictions as may be prescribed

by the Secretary concerned, the performance of øhonor guard¿ funeral honors functions by members of the National Guard at funerals for veterans of the armed forces may be treated by the Secretary concerned as a Federal function for which appropriated

funds may be used. Any such performance of øhonor guard¿ funeral honors functions at such a funeral may not be considered to

be a period of drill or training øotherwise required¿, but may be
664

performed as funeral honors duty as prescribed in section 115 of

this title.

§ 115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a

member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air

National Guard of the United States may be ordered to funeral honors duty, with the consent of the member, to prepare for or perform

funeral honors functions at the funeral of a veteran (as defined in

section 1491 of title 10).

(b) A member ordered to funeral honors duty under this section

shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours of such duty

in order to receive service credit under section 1273(a)(2)(E) of title

10 and compensation under section 435 of title 37 if authorized by

the Secretary concerned.

(c) Funeral honors duty (and travel directly to and from that

duty) under this section shall be treated as the equivalent of inactive-duty training (and travel directly to and from that training) for

the purposes of this section and the provisions of title 10, title 37,

and title 38, including provisions relating to the determination of

eligibility for and the receipt of benefits and entitlements provided

under those titles for Reserves performing inactive-duty training

and for their dependents and survivors, except that a member is not

entitled by reason of performance of funeral honors duty to any allowances, or other compensation provided for in title 37 other than

that provided in section 435 of that title and in subsection (d).

(d) A member who performs funeral honors duty under this section is entitled to reimbursement for travel and transportation expenses incurred in conjunction with such duty as authorized under

chapter 7 of title 37, if such duty is performed at a location 50 miles

or more from the member’s residence.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

§ 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities

for civilian youth

ø(a) PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE.—The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, may

conduct a National Guard civilian youth opportunities program (to

be known as the ‘‘National Guard Challenge Program’’) to use the

National Guard to provide military-based training, including supervised work experience in community service and conservation

projects, to civilian youth who cease to attend secondary school before graduating so as to improve the life skills and employment potential of such youth.¿

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE.—The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, may

use the National Guard to conduct a civilian youth opportunities

program, to be known as the ‘‘National Guard Challenge Program’’,

which shall consist of at least a 22-week residential program and

a 12-month post-residential mentoring period. The National Guard
665

Challenge Program shall seek to improve life skills and employment

potential of participants by providing military-based training and

supervised work experience, together with the core program components of assisting participants to receive a high school diploma or

its equivalent, leadership development, promoting fellowship and

community service, developing life coping skills and job skills, and

improving physical fitness and health and hygiene.

(b) CONDUCT OF THE PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Defense shall

provide for the conduct of the National Guard Challenge Program

in such States as the Secretary considers to be appropriate, except

that Federal expenditures under the program may not exceed

ø$50,000,000¿ $62,500,000 for any fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 7—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

ø§ 709. Technicians: employment, use, status

ø(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army

or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, and subject

to subsection (b) of this section persons may be employed as technicians in—

ø(1) the administration and training of the National Guard;

and

ø(2) the maintenance and repair of supplies issued to the National Guard or the armed forces.

ø(b) A technician employed under subsection (a) shall, while so

employed—

ø(1) be a member of the National Guard;

ø(2) hold the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned for that position; and

ø(3) wear the uniform appropriate for the member’s grade

and component of the armed forces while performing duties as

a technician.

ø(c) The Secretary concerned shall designate the adjutants general referred to in section 314 of this title, to employ and administer the technicians authorized by this section.

ø(d) A technician employed under subsection (a) is an employee

of the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force,

as the case may be, and an employee of the United States. However, a position authorized by this section is outside the competitive service if the technician employed therein is required under

subsection (b) to be a member of the National Guard.

ø(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned—

ø(1) a technician who is employed in a position in which National Guard membership is required as a condition of employment and who is separated from the National Guard or ceases

to hold the military grade specified for his position by the Secretary concerned shall be promptly separated from his technician employment by the adjutant general of the jurisdiction

concerned;
666

ø(2) a technician who is employed in a position in which National Guard membership is required as a condition of employment and who fails to meet the military security standards established by the Secretary concerned for a member of a reserve

component of the armed force under his jurisdiction may be

separated from his employment as a technician and concurrently discharged from the National Guard by the adjutant

general of the jurisdiction concerned;

ø(3) a technician may, at any time, be separated from his

technician employment for cause by the adjutant general of the

jurisdiction concerned;

ø(4) a reduction in force, removal, or an adverse action involving discharge from technician employment, suspension,

furlough without pay, or reduction in rank or compensation

shall be accomplished by the adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned;

ø(5) a right of appeal which may exist with respect to clause

(1), (2), (3), or (4) shall not extend beyond the adjutant general

of the jurisdiction concerned; and

ø(6) a technician shall be notified in writing of the termination of his employment as a technician and, unless the technician is serving under a temporary appointment, is serving in

a trial or probationary period, or has voluntarily ceased to be

a member of the National Guard when such membership is a

condition of employment, such notification shall be given at

least 30 days before the termination date of such employment.

ø(f) Sections 2108, 3502, 7511, and 7512 of title 5 do not apply

to any person employed under this section.

ø(g)(1) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title 5 or

any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may, in the

case of technicians assigned to perform operational duties at air defense sites—

ø(A) prescribe the hours of duties;

ø(B) fix the rates of basic compensation; and

ø(C) fix the rates of additional compensation;

to reflect unusual tours of duty, irregular additional duty, and

work on days that are ordinarily nonworkdays. Additional compensation under this subsection may be fixed on an annual basis

and is determined as an appropriate percentage, not in excess of

12 percent, of such part of the rate of basic pay for the position as

does not exceed the minimum rate of basic pay for GS–10 of the

General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5.

ø(2) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title 5 or

any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may, for technicians other than those described in paragraph (1), prescribe the

hours of duty for technicians. Notwithstanding sections 5542 and

5543 of title 5 or any other provision of law, such technicians shall

be granted an amount of compensatory time off from their scheduled tour of duty equal to the amount of any time spent by them

in irregular or overtime work, and shall not be entitled to compensation for such work.

ø(i) The Secretary concerned may not prescribe for purposes of

eligibility for Federal recognition under section 301 of this title a

qualification applicable to technicians employed under subsection
667

(a) that is not applicable pursuant to that section to the other

members of the National Guard in the same grade, branch, position, and type of unit or organization involved.¿

§ 709. Technicians: employment, use, status

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or

the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, and subject to

subsections (b) and (c), persons may be employed as technicians in—

(1) the administration and training of the National Guard;

and

(2) the maintenance and repair of supplies issued to the National Guard or the armed forces.

(b) Except as authorized in subsection (c), a person employed

under subsection (a) must meet each of the following requirements:

(1) Be a military technician (dual status) as defined in section 10216(a) of title 10.

(2) Be a member of the National Guard.

(3) Hold the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned for that position.

(4) While performing duties as a military technician (dual

status), wear the uniform appropriate for the member’s grade

and component of the armed forces .

(c)(1) A person may be employed under subsection (a) as a nondual status technician (as defined by section 10217 of title 10) if the

technician position occupied by the person has been designated by

the Secretary concerned to be filled only by a non-dual status technician.

(2) The total number of non-dual status technicians in the National Guard is specified in section 10217(c)(2) of title 10.

(d) The Secretary concerned shall designate the adjutants general

referred to in section 314 of this title to employ and administer the

technicians authorized by this section.

(e) A technician employed under subsection (a) is an employee of

the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force, as

the case may be, and an employee of the United States. However,

a position authorized by this section is outside the competitive service if the technician employed in that position is required under subsection (b) to be a member of the National Guard.

(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned—

(1) a person employed under subsection (a) who is a military

technician (dual status) and otherwise subject to the requirements of subsection (b) who—

(A) is separated from the National Guard or ceases to

hold the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned

for that position shall be promptly separated from military

technician (dual status) employment by the adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned; and

(B) fails to meet the military security standards established by the Secretary concerned for a member of a reserve

component under his jurisdiction may be separated from

employment as a military technician (dual status) and concurrently discharged from the National Guard by the adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned;
668

(2) a technician may, at any time, be separated from his technician employment for cause by the adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned;

(3) a reduction in force, removal, or an adverse action involving discharge from technician employment, suspension, furlough without pay, or reduction in rank or compensation shall

be accomplished by the adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned;

(4) a right of appeal which may exist with respect to paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall not extend beyond the adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned; and

(5) a technician shall be notified in writing of the termination

of his employment as a technician and, unless the technician is

serving under a temporary appointment, is serving in a trial or

probationary period, or has voluntarily ceased to be a member

of the National Guard when such membership is a condition of

employment, such notification shall be given at least 30 days

before the termination date of such employment.

(g) Sections 2108, 3502, 7511, and 7512 of title 5 do not apply to

a person employed under this section.

(h) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title 5 or any

other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may prescribe the

hours of duty for technicians. Notwithstanding sections 5542 and

5543 of title 5 or any other provision of law, such technicians shall

be granted an amount of compensatory time off from their scheduled

tour of duty equal to the amount of any time spent by them in irregular or overtime work, and shall not be entitled to compensation for

such work.

(i) The Secretary concerned may not prescribe for purposes of eligibility for Federal recognition under section 301 of this title a qualification applicable to technicians employed under subsection (a)

that is not applicable pursuant to that section to the other members

of the National Guard in the same grade, branch, position, and type

of unit or organization involved.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEARS 1992 AND 1993

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

PART B—RESERVE FORCES

* * * * * * *
669

SEC. 414. øPILOT¿ PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE COMPONENT SUPPORT OF

THE RESERVES.

(a) øPILOT¿ PROGRAM REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the Army

shall carry out a øpilot¿ program to provide active component advisers to combat units, combat support units, and combat service

support units in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve that

have a high priority for deployment on a time-phased troop deployment list or have another contingent high priority for deployment.

The advisers shall be assigned to full-time duty in connection with

organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training such

units.

* * * * * * *

(c) PERSONNEL TO BE ASSIGNED.—(1) The Secretary shall assign

not less than ø2,000¿ 5,000 active component personnel to serve as

advisers under the program. øAfter September 30, 1996, the number under the preceding sentence shall be increased to not less

than 5,000.¿

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

* * * * * * *

PART B—SERVICE ACADEMIES

øSEC. 511. LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF CADETS AND MIDSHIPMEN AUTHORIZED TO ATTEND THE SERVICE ACADEMIES.

ø(a) REDUCTION IN AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS.—The authorized

strength of the Corps of Cadets of the United States Military Academy, the Air Force Cadets of the United States Air Force Academy,

and the brigade of midshipmen of the United States Naval Academy may not exceed 4,000 for each service academy for class years

beginning after 1994.

ø(b) CLASS REDUCTIONS NOT TO AFFECT CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS.—Any reduction in the number of appointments to the class

of a service academy required as a result of subsection (a) may not

be achieved by reducing the number of appointments under section

4342(a), 6954(a), or 9342(a) of title 10, United States Code, as applicable.

ø(c) GAO REPORT.—(1) The Comptroller General of the United

States shall determine for each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and

Marine Corps the percentage for each benchmark year of the commissioned officers receiving an original appointment during that

year who were graduates of a service academy. The Comptroller

General shall also determine the average of those annual percentages for each of those Armed Forces.

ø(2) The Comptroller General shall select the benchmark years

(including the number of years to be used as benchmark years) for

purposes of paragraph (1). The Comptroller General may select different benchmark years for each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and

Marine Corps. Each year selected as a benchmark year shall be one

for which the active duty strength of the Armed Force concerned

was approximately the authorized end strength established by law
670

for that Armed Force for members on active duty for fiscal year

1995.

ø(3) Not later than February 15, 1992, the Comptroller General

shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate

and House of Representatives a report describing the results of the

determinations of the Comptroller General under paragraph (1).

ø(d) SERVICE ACADEMY DEFINED.—For purposes of this section,

the term ‘‘service academy’’ means the United States Military

Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, or the United

States Naval Academy.

ø(e) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 531 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (104 Stat. 1563; 10

U.S.C. 4342 note) is repealed.¿

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1995

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Other Matters

731. Chiropractic health care demonstration program.

731. Chiropractic health care.

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 558. MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

ø(a) DENIAL OF FUNDS.—(1) No funds available to the Department of Defense or the Department of Transportation may be provided by grant or contract to any institution of higher education

that has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Transportation from obtaining

for military recruiting purposes—

ø(A) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses;

or

ø(B) access to directory information pertaining to students.

ø(2) Students referred to in paragraph (1) are individuals who

are 17 years of age or older.
671

ø(b) PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION.—The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Transportation, shall prescribe regulations that contain

procedures for determining if and when an educational institution

has denied or prevented access to students or information described

in subsection (a).

ø(c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘directory information’’ means, with respect to a student, the student’s

name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, level of

education, degrees received, and the most recent previous educational institution enrolled in by the student.¿

* * * * * * *

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Other Matters

SEC. 731. CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE øDEMONSTRATION PROGRAM¿.

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR PROGRAM.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) During fiscal year 2000, the Secretary shall continue to furnish the same chiropractic care in the military medical treatment

facilities designated pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) as the chiropractic care furnished during the demonstration program.

* * * * * * *

(c) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Not later than January 30, 1998, the Secretary of Defense

shall submit to the øCommittee on Armed Services of the Senate

and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives¿ Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House

of Representatives a report that identifies the additional treatment

facilities designated to furnish chiropractic care under the program

that were not so designated before the report required by paragraph (1) was prepared, together with the plan for the conduct of

the program at the additional treatment facilities.

* * * * * * *

(5) Not later than øMay 1, 2000¿ January 31, 2000, the Secretary shall submit to the committees referred to in paragraph (3)

a final report in accordance with the plan submitted pursuant to

paragraph (2).

(d) OVERSIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The oversight advisory committee shall assist the Secretary

of Defense regarding—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) the preparation of the reports required under subsection

(c); øand¿
672

(D) the evaluation of the programø.¿; and

(E) if the Secretary submits an implementation plan pursuant

to subsection (e), the preparation of such plan.

* * * * * * *

(5) The Secretary shall—

(A) make full use of the oversight advisory committee in

preparing—

(i) the final report on the demonstration program conducted under this section; and

(ii) the implementation plan described in subsection (e);

and

(B) provide opportunities for members of the committee to

provide views as part of such final report and plan.

(e) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—If the Secretary of Defense recommends in the final report submitted under subsection (c) that

chiropractic health care services should be offered in medical care

facilities of the Armed Forces or as a health care service covered

under the TRICARE program, the Secretary shall, not later than

March 31, 2000, submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the

House of Representatives and the Senate an implementation plan

for the full integration of chiropractic health care services into the

military health care system of the Department of Defense, including

the TRICARE program. Such implementation plan shall include—

(1) a detailed analysis of the projected costs of fully integrating chiropractic health care services into the military health

care system;

(2) the proposed scope of practice for chiropractors who would

provide services to covered beneficiaries under chapter 55 of

title 10, United States Code;

(3) the proposed military medical treatment facilities at

which such services would be provided;

(4) the military readiness requirements for chiropractors who

would provide services to such covered beneficiaries; and

(5) any other relevant factors that the Secretary considers appropriate.

ø(e)¿ (f) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term base

closure law’’ means each of the following:

(1) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990

(part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687

note).

(2) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and

Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100–526; 10

U.S.C. 2687 note).

(3) Section 2687 of title 10, United States Code.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 514 OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR,

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION,

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

øSEC. 514. (a) DENIAL OF FUNDS FOR PREVENTING ROTC ACCESS

TO CAMPUS.—None of the funds made available in this or any other

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Edu-
673

cation, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for any fiscal year

may be provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds

to be available for student aid) to a covered educational entity if

the Secretary of Defense determines that the covered educational

entity has a policy or practice (regardless of when implemented)

that either prohibits, or in effect prevents—

ø(1) the maintaining, establishing, or operation of a unit of

the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in accordance with

section 654 of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable Federal laws) at the covered educational entity; or

ø(2) a student at the covered educational entity from enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at

another institution of higher education.

ø(b) DENIAL OF FUNDS FOR PREVENTING FEDERAL MILITARY RE- CRUITING ON CAMPUS.—None of the funds made available in this or

any other Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and

Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for any fiscal

year may be provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of

funds to be available for student aid) to a covered educational entity if the Secretary of Defense determines that the covered educational entity has a policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents—

ø(1) entry to campuses, or access to students (who are 17

years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes of Federal

military recruiting; or

ø(2) access by military recruiters for purposes of Federal

military recruiting to the following information pertaining to

students (who are 17 years of age or older) enrolled at the covered educational entity:

ø(A) student names, addresses, and telephone listings;

and

ø(B) if known, student ages, levels of education, and majors.

ø(c) EXCEPTIONS.—The limitation established in subsection (a) or

(b) shall not apply to a covered educational entity if the Secretary

of Defense determines that—

ø(1) the covered educational entity has ceased the policy or

practice described in such subsection;

ø(2) the institution of higher education involved has a longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation; or

ø(3) the institution of higher education involved is prohibited

by the law of any State, or by the order of any State court,

from allowing Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps activities

or Federal military recruiting on campus, except that this

paragraph shall apply only during the one-year period beginning on the effective date of this section.

ø(d) NOTICE OF DETERMINATIONS.—Whenever the Secretary of

Defense makes a determination under subsection (a), (b), or (c), the

Secretary—

ø(1) shall transmit a notice of the determination to the Secretary of Education and to the Congress; and

ø(2) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the determination and the effect of the determination on the eligi-
674

bility of the covered educational entity for contracts and

grants.

ø(e) SEMIANNUAL NOTICE IN FEDERAL REGISTER.—The Secretary

of Defense shall publish in the Federal Register once every 6

months a list of each covered educational entity that is currently

ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a determination of

the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b).

ø(f) COVERED EDUCATIONAL ENTITY.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘covered educational entity’’ means an institution of

higher education, or a subelement of an institution of higher education.

ø(g) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, by which date the Secretary of Defense shall have

published final regulations in consultation with the Secretary of

Education to carry out this section.¿

SECTION 213 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT

PRESENTATION OF UNITED STATES FLAG UPON RETIREMENT

SEC. 213. (a) Upon the release of an officer of the commissioned

corps of the Service from active commissioned service for retirement,

the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall present a United

States flag to the officer.

(b) MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED.—An officer is

not eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the officer has previously been presented a flag under this section or any

other provision of law providing for the presentation of a United

States flag incident to release from active service for retirement.

(c) NO COST TO RECIPIENT.—The presentation of a flag under this

section shall be at no cost to the recipient.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 25 OF THE COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS’ ACT OF 1948

SEC. 25. (a) Upon the release of a commissioned officer from active commissioned service for retirement, the Secretary of Commerce

shall present a United States flag to the officer.

(b) MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED.—An officer is

not eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the officer has previously been presented a flag under this section or any

other provision of law providing for the presentation of a United

States flag incident to release from active service for retirement.

(c) NO COST TO RECIPIENT.—The presentation of a flag under this

section shall be at no cost to the recipient.

SECTION 516 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 516. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement

(a) * * *
675

(b) MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED.—A member is

not eligible for a presentation of a flag under subsection (a) if the

member has previously been presented a flag øunder this section

or section 3681, 6141, and 8681 of title 10.¿ under this section or

any other provision of law providing for the presentation of a

United States flag incident to release from active service for retirement.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 17 OF THE CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS,

AND CHILDREN

SEC. 17. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(q) The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide technical assistance

to the Secretary of Defense, if so requested by the Secretary of Defense, for the purpose of carrying out the overseas special supplemental food program established under section 1060a(a) of title 10,

United States Code.

SECTION 4202 OF THE CLINGER–COHEN ACT OF 1996

SEC. 4202. APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO CERTAIN

COMMERCIAL ITEMS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The authority to issue solicitations for purchases of commercial items in excess of the simplified acquisition

threshold pursuant to the special simplified procedures authorized

by section 2304(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, section

303(g)(1) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act

of 1949, and section 31(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended by this section, shall expire øthree years after

the date on which such amendments take effect pursuant to section

4401(b)¿ January 1, 2002. Contracts may be awarded pursuant to

solicitations that have been issued.

SECTION 834 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991

SEC. 834. TEST PROGRAM FOR NEGOTIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLANS

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) TEST PROGRAM PERIOD.—The test program authorized by subsection (a) shall begin on October 1, 1990, unless Congress adopts

a resolution disapproving the test program. The test program shall

terminate on September 30, ø2000.¿ 2003.
676

SECTION 845 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994

SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS

AGENCY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.

(a) * * *

(b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY.—(1) Subsections ø(e)(2) and (e)(3) of

such section 2371¿ (e)(1)(B) and (e)(2) of such section 2371 shall not

apply to projects carried out under subsection (a).

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992

SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the Secretary

of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates at

the close of fiscal year ø1999¿ 2000.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1997

* * * * * * *

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND

LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—Using amounts appropriated

pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section

2406(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in paragraphs

(2) and (3) of section 2406(b), other amounts appropriated pursuant

to authorizations enacted after this Act for the projects, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and carry out military

construction projects for the installations and locations inside the

United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
677

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States

Agency Installation or location Amount

Chemical Demilitarization Program ......................................... Pueblo Chemical Activity, Colorado ....... ø$179,000,000¿

$203,500,000

Defense Finance & Accounting

Service ...................................... Charleston, South Carolina .................... $6,200,000

Total: ..................................................... ø$525,454,000¿

$549,954,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

(a) * * *

(b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.— Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 of

title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section

2401 of this Act may not exceed—

(1) * * *

(2) ø$179,000,000¿ $203,500,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2401(a) of this Act for the construction of a chemical demilitarization facility at Pueblo Army

Depot, Colorado); and

* * * * * * *

SECTION 2906 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND

REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990

SEC. 2906. ACCOUNT

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The Account shall be closed at the time and in the manner

provided for appropriation accounts under section 1555 of title 31,

United States Code. Unobligated funds which remain in the Account upon closure shall be held by the Secretary of the Treasury

until transferred by law after the congressional defense committees

receive the final report transmitted under subsection (c)(2).

(b) USE OF FUNDS.—(1) The Secretary may use the funds in the

Account only for the purposes described in section 2905 or, after

September 30, 1995, for environmental restoration and property

management and disposal at installations closed or realigned under

title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100–526; 10 U.S.C. 2687

note). After July 13, 2001, the Account shall be the sole source of

Federal funds for environmental restoration, property management,

and other caretaker costs associated with any real property at military installations closed or realigned under this part or such title

II.

* * * * * * *

(c) REPORTS.—(1)(A) * * *
678

ø(2) Unobligated funds which remain in the Account after the

termination of the authority of the Secretary to carry out a closure

or realignment under this part shall be held in the Account until

transferred by law after the congressional defense committees receive the report transmitted under paragraph (3).¿

ø(3)¿ (2) No later than 60 days after the termination of the authority of the Secretary to carry out a closure or realignment under

this part and no later than 60 days after the closure of the Account

under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall transmit to the congressional defense committees a report containing an accounting of—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) ACCOUNT EXCLUSIVE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

RESTORATION PROJECTS.—Except for funds deposited into the Account under subsection (a), funds appropriated to the Department

of Defense may not be used for purposes described in section

2905(a)(1)(C). The prohibition in this subsection shall expire upon

øthe termination of the authority of the Secretary to carry out a

closure or realignment under this part¿ the closure of the Account

under subsection (a)(3).

SECTION 2922 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

SEC. 2922. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT ARSENAL

FOR A COUNTY LANDFILL.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CONDITION ON CONVEYANCE.—(1) The conveyance shall be

subject to the condition that the Department of the Army, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Agriculture

(or their agents or assigns) may use the landfill established on the

real property conveyed under subsection (a) for the disposal of construction debris, refuse, and other materials related to any restoration and cleanup of Arsenal property. Such use shall be subject to

applicable environmental laws and at no cost to the Federal Government.

(2) The landfill established on the real property conveyed under

subsection (a) may contain only waste generated in the county in

which the landfill is established and waste generated in municipalities located at least in part in that county. The landfill shall be

closed and capped after 23 years of operation.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1997

* * * * * * *

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *
679

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND

LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—Using amounts appropriated

pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section

2406(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in paragraphs

(2) and (3) of section 2406(b), other amounts appropriated pursuant

to authorizations enacted after this Act for the projects, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property and carry out military

construction projects for the installations and locations inside the

United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States

Agency Installation or location Amount

Chemical Demilitarization Program ............................................ Pueblo Chemical Activity, Colorado ......... ø$179,000,000¿

$203,500,000

Defense Finance & Accounting

Service ........................................ Charleston, South Carolina ...................... $6,200,000

*******

Total: ....................................................... ø$525,454,000¿

$549,954,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

(a) * * *

(b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.—

Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853 of

title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section

2401 of this Act may not exceed—

(1) * * *

(2) ø$179,000,000¿ $203,500,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2401(a) of this Act for the construction of a chemical demilitarization facility at Pueblo Army

Depot, Colorado); and

* * * * * * *

SECTION 3132 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991

SEC. 3132. LABORATORY–DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMS

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) FUNDING.—Of the funds provided by the Department of Energy to such laboratories for national security activities, the Secretary shall provide a specific amount, not to exceed ø6 percent¿
680

3 percent of such funds, to be used by such laboratories for laboratory-directed research and development.

* * * * * * *

DIVISION C OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Program Authorizations,

Restrictions, and Limitations

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3140. FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SKILLS

CRITICAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR

WEAPONS COMPLEX.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a fellowship program for the development of skills critical to the ongoing

mission of the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex.

Under the fellowship program, øthe Secretary shall—

ø(1) provide educational assistance¿ the Secretary shall provide educational assistance and research assistance to eligible

individuals to facilitate the development by such individuals of

skills critical to maintaining the ongoing mission of the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complexø;¿.

ø(2) employ eligible individuals at the facilities described in

subsection (c) in order to facilitate the development of such

skills by these individuals; or

ø(3) provide eligible individuals with the assistance and the

employment.¿

(b) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.—Individuals eligible for participation

in the fellowship program are United States citizens who are the

following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) COVERED FACILITIES.—The Secretary shall carry out the fellowship program at or in connection with the following facilities:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,

California.
681

(6) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New

Mexico.

(7) The Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

* * * * * * *

ø(f) FUNDING.—Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to the

Department of Energy for fiscal year 1996 under section 3101(b),

$10,000,000 may be used for the purpose of carrying out the fellowship program under this section.¿

(f) AGREEMENT.—(1) The Secretary may allow an individual to

participate in the program only if the individual signs an agreement

described in paragraph (2).

(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) shall be in writing,

shall be signed by the participant, and shall include the participant’s agreement to serve, after completion of the course of study for

which the assistance was provided, as a full-time employee in a position in the Department of Energy for a period of time to be established by the Secretary of Energy of not less than one year, if such

a position is offered to the participant.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE

STOCKPILE

Subtitle A—Authorization of Disposals and

Use of Funds

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 3303. DISPOSAL OF CHROMITE AND MANGANESE ORES AND

CHROMIUM FERRO AND MANGANESE METAL ELECTROLYTIC.

ø(a) DOMESTIC UPGRADING.—In offering to enter into agreements

pursuant to any provision of law for the disposal from the National

Defense Stockpile of chromite and manganese ores or chromium

ferro and manganese metal electrolytic, the President shall give a

right of first refusal on all such offers to domestic ferroalloy

upgraders.

ø(b) DOMESTIC FERROALLOY UPGRADER DEFINED.—For purposes

of this section, the term ‘‘domestic ferroalloy upgrader’’ means a

company or other business entity that, as determined by the

President—

ø(1) is engaged in operations to upgrade chromite or manganese ores of metallurgical grade or chromium ferro and manganese metal electrolytic; and

ø(2) conducts a significant level of its research, development,

engineering, and upgrading operations in the United States.

øSEC. 3304. RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSAL OF MANGANESE FERRO.

ø(a) DISPOSAL OF LOWER GRADE MATERIAL FIRST.—The President

may not dispose of high carbon manganese ferro in the National

Defense Stockpile that meets the National Defense Stockpile classification of Grade One, Specification 30(a), as revised on May 22,
682

1992, until completing the disposal of all manganese ferro in the

National Defense Stockpile that does not meet such classification.

The President may not reclassify manganese ferro in the National

Defense Stockpile after the date of the enactment of this Act.

ø(b) REQUIREMENT FOR REMELTING BY DOMESTIC FERROALLOY

PRODUCERS.—Manganese ferro in the National Defense Stockpile

that does not meet the classification specified in subsection (a) may

be sold only for remelting by a domestic ferroalloy producer unless

the President determines that a domestic ferroalloy producer is not

available to acquire the material.

ø(c) DOMESTIC FERROALLOY PRODUCER DEFINED.—For purposes

of this section, the term ‘‘domestic ferroalloy producer’’ means a

company or other business entity that, as determined by the

President—

ø(1) is engaged in operations to upgrade manganese ores of

metallurgical grade or manganese ferro; and

ø(2) conducts a significant level of its research, development,

engineering, and upgrading operations in the United States.¿

* * * * * * *

MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936

TITLE XI—FEDERAL SHIP MORTGAGE INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1108. ø(a) If the proceeds of an obligation guaranteed under

this title are to be used to finance the construction, reconstruction,

or reconditioning of a vessel or vessels which will serve as security

for the guarantee of the Secretary, the Secretary is authorized to

accept and hold, in escrow under an escrow agreement with the obligor, a portion of the proceeds of all obligations guaranteed under

this title whose proceeds are to be so used which is equal to: (i) the

excess of the principal amount of all obligations whose proceeds are

to be so used over 75 per centum, or 871⁄2 per centum, whichever

is applicable under section 1104 of this title, of the amount paid

by or for the account of the obligor for the construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning of the vessel or vessels; (ii) with such interest thereon, if any, as the Secretary may require: Provided, That

in the event the security for the¿

(a) AUTHORITY TO HOLD OBLIGATION PROCEEDS IN ESCROW.—(1)

If the proceeds of an obligation guaranteed under this title are to

be used to finance the construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning

of a vessel that will serve as security for the guarantee, the Secretary may accept and hold, in escrow under an escrow agreement

with the obligor—

(A) the proceeds of that obligation, including such interest as

may be earned thereon; and

(B) if required by the Secretary, an amount equal to 6

month’s interest on the obligation.

(2) The Secretary may release funds held in escrow under paragraph (1) only if the Secretary determines that—

(A) the obligor has paid its portion of the actual cost of construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning; and
683

(B) the funds released are needed—

(i) to pay, or make reimbursements in connection with

payments previously made for work performed in that construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning; or

(ii) to pay for other costs approved by the Secretary, with

respect to the vessel or vessels.

(3) If the security for the guarantee of an obligation by the Secretary relates both to a vessel or vessels to be constructed, reconstructed or reconditioned and to a delivered vessel or vessels, the

principal amount of such obligation shall be prorated for purposes

of this subsection (a) under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

SEC. 1109. DEPOSIT FUND.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPOSIT FUND.—There is established in

the Treasury a deposit fund for purposes of this section. The Secretary may, in accordance with an agreement under subsection (b),

deposit into and hold in the deposit fund cash belonging to an obligor to serve as collateral for a guarantee under this title made with

respect to the obligor.

(b) AGREEMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary and an obligor shall enter

into a reserve fund or other collateral account agreement to govern the deposit, withdrawal, retention, use, and reinvestment of

cash of the obligor held in the deposit fund established by subsection (a).

(2) TERMS.—The agreement shall contain such terms and

conditions as are required under this section and such additional terms as are considered by the Secretary to be necessary

to protect fully the interests of the United States.

(3) SECURITY INTEREST OF UNITED STATES.—The agreement

shall include terms that grant to the United States a security

interest in all amounts deposited into the deposit fund.

(c) INVESTMENT.—The Secretary may invest and reinvest any part

of the amounts in the deposit fund established by subsection (a) in

obligations of the United States with such maturities as ensure that

amounts in the deposit fund will be available as required for purposes of agreements under subsection (b). Cash balances of the deposit fund in excess of current requirements shall be maintained in

a form of uninvested funds and the Secretary of the Treasury shall

pay interest on these funds.

(d) WITHDRAWALS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The cash deposited into the deposit fund established by subsection (a) may not be withdrawn without the

consent of the Secretary.

(2) USE OF INCOME.—Subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary

may pay any income earned on cash of an obligor deposited into

the deposit fund in accordance with the terms of the agreement

with the obligor under subsection (b).

(3) RETENTION AGAINST DEFAULT.—The Secretary may retain

and offset any or all of the cash of an obligor in the deposit

fund, and any income realized thereon, as part of the Sec-
684

retary’s recovery against the obligor in case of a default by the

obligor on an obligation.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XII—WAR RISK INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1214. The authority of the Secretary to provide insurance

and reinsurance under this title shall expire June 30, ø2000¿ 2005.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 3302 OF TITLE 46, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 3302. Exemptions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(l)(1) The Secretary may issue a permit exempting the following

vessels from the requirements of this part for passenger vessels so

long as the vessels are owned by nonprofit organizations and operated as nonprofit memorials to merchant mariners:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) The steamship Jeremiah O’Brien (United States official

number 243622), øowned by the United States Maritime Administration.¿ owned by the National Liberty Ship Memorial,

Inc.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1305 OF THE PANAMA CANAL ACT OF 1979

DISSOLUTION OF COMMISSION

SEC. 1305. (a)***

* * * * * * *

(c)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(5)(A) Amounts in the Fund may not be obligated or expended in

any fiscal year unless the obligation or expenditure is specifically

authorized by law.

(B) The office established by subsection (b) is authorized to expend

or obligate funds from the Fund for the purposes enumerated in

clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A) until October 1, 2004.

* * * * * * *
(685)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF ROSCOE BARTLETT, GENE TAYLOR AND

JOSEPH R. PITTS

We strongly support the committee’s action to improve modernization, quality of life and readiness deficiencies that are so desperately needed. There are however, two issues which we believe

deserve special attention.

First, the committee rejected an amendment that would have

stricken the section of the bill that permits the use of taxpayer dollars for the purpose of killing preborn babies conceived through

rape or incest.

Abortion services are already available to Servicewomen and dependents at military hospitals. However, the Department of Defense has had a long standing policy of only using taxpayer dollars

to finance an abortion if the life of the mother was in danger. This

policy has been in effect since 1984 and no one has asked that it

be changed, not the President, not the Under Secretary for health

affairs, not the Senate, no one. The policy has worked well and

their is no need for change.

There are also cost concerns. We have no idea what the cost implications of this are. We do know that each dollar spent on

aborting unborn babies is a dollar not spent on quality of life,

health care, modernization or other funding priorities for our

troops. We made a commitment to our veterans that they would

have health care for life. Now we are telling those veterans who

are over 65 that we can not help them. It is just too expensive.

What message does this send to them? You were willing to fight

and die for your country and we have no money for you, but we

do have plenty of money to kill preborn children. In fact, under this

new policy Department of Defense dollars can even be used to perform partial birth abortions but not to keep our promise to America’s veterans.

Babies conceived in rape or incest are babies nonetheless. They

should not be executed because of the crime of a parent and taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a service that they find morally repugnant. Furthermore, there is no demonstrated need for

taxpayer funded abortion in cases of rape or incest. The public has

long supported the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion only in lifeendangerment cases. This section of the bill must be stricken during the House/Senate Conference committee.

Secondly, we are pleased that the committee authorized the National Guard Youth Challenge program at the level requested by

the President. During the FY99 Defense Authorization bill the committee hastily placed a $50 million cap on the program. The

amount requested for Challenge this year was $62.5 million. The

committee wisely increased the cap on the program to that $62.5

million figure. It is our sincere hope that the House/Senate con-
686

ference committee will authorize Challenge at the $62 million without any restrictions on future funding.

The Challenge program is designed to improve the life skills and

employment potential of high school dropouts. Challenge is a 22

week program that is conducted in a disciplined and quasi-military

environment. In its six years since the program began, the Challenge program has yielded tremendous success. Challenge participants perform an average of 78 hours of community service while

in the program. The average Challenge participant experienced a

1.1 grade level increase in reading and a 1.65 increase in math

grade level. The retention rate for the Challenge program is higher

than the national high school retention rate. And finally, at graduation from the Challenge program 24% of the participants were

placed in jobs, 23% were going to post secondary education programs, 10% had enlisted in the military, 6% were heading to

VOTECH program and 26% were pending notification of acceptance

from employers, the military and education institutions. Taken together, 96% of graduates had made positive steps to overcome the

potential hardships they were facing as high school dropouts.

The Challenge program is a very important program that continues to be an investment in young people with positive potential

to continue to return dividends over the long term. It is a great example of how the military can have a positive effect over the community. The Challenge program currently operates in 26 states and

seven additional states have applied to participate in the program

next year. Those states are Indiana, Nebraska, Florida, South Dakota, Kansas, Washington and New Mexico. In order to allow these

states to participate in the successes of Challenge, we can not allow

a funding cap to remain in place.

ROSCOE BARTLETT.

GENE TAYLOR.

JOSEPH PITTS.
(687)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF PATRICK J. KENNEDY

The Joint Tactical Combat Training System (JTCTS), is a joint

U.S Navy and Air Force program that will provide worldwide, real

time coordinated combat readiness/proficiency training of all air

and sea-based forces using a combination of simulated and real targets.

I view with grave concern the consequences of any action taken

that causes unnecessary taxpayer expenditures and further disrupts the deployment of JTCTS training capability to the

warfighter. The JTCTS program was funded as requested in the

President’s Budget, however I supported the requirement to add

$14.0 million to the FY2000 budget.

It is imperative that an increase of $6.0 million for research and

devlopment is provided to accelerate the overall fielding schedule

for fixed ranges and battle group exercises. Likewise, $8.0 million

is required to support production specifically to manufacture one

additional JTCTS mobile system.

As HR 1401 continues on its legislative course, I hope the JTCTS

is funded to accelerate the overall fielding schedule for fixed ranges

and battle group exercises in the FY00 budget. Production charges

will also assist getting the JTCTS to the warfighters in the Navy

and Air Force.

PATRICK J. KENNEDY,

Member of Congress.
(688)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON THE FY 2000 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

We regret the Committee’s failure to follow the recommendation

of the Military Personnel Subcommittee to repeal the statutory prohibition on abortions in overseas military hospitals and restore the

law to what it was for many years. If enacted, women stationed

overseas would be permitted to use their own funds to obtain abortion services. No federal funds would have been used and health

care professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a

matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required to do

so.

This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment,

only the right to receive the same legally protected medical services

that women in the United States receive. We had the opportunity

to finally put a stop to the misguided law that has endangered our

servicewomen’s lives for far too long. It is unfortunate that the full

committee did not follow the subcommittee’s direction.

The Department of Defense, American Public Health Association,

the American Medical Women’s Association, the American College

of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Planned Parenthood

Federation of America have all indicated their support for the subcommittee’s decision.

If we are to attract the best and brightest of our nation’s young

people to our Armed Forces we must act to restore this fundamental right. We cannot expect to attain our readiness and recruitment goals when potential soldiers know they will not have the

same right to access to health care when they are stationed overseas.

It is our responsibility to restore the right of freedom of choice

to women serving overseas in our nation’s Armed Forces. Members

of the military and their families already give up many freedoms

and risk their lives to defend our country. They should not have

to sacrifice their privacy, their health or their basic constitutional

rights because of a policy with no valid military purpose.

LORETTA SANCHEZ.

LANE EVANS.

ROBERT A. BRADY.

THOMAS H. ALLEN.

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

MIKE THOMPSON.

PATRICK J. KENNEDY.

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH.
(689)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN IKE SKELTON

H.R. 1401, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000, is an excellent bill which deserves the support of the

Members of the House. I want to commend Chairman Floyd Spence

and the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Members for their

leadership and diligence in putting this legislation together. The

overwhelming 55–1 vote of approval for this bill in Committee demonstrates that they were successful in their efforts to draft a truly

bipartisan measure reflecting the consensus among Members of

both parties for an increase in defense spending.

H.R. 1401 is a very strong bill for U.S. national security, which

builds upon the President’s proposal to increase defense spending

by $112 billion over the next six years—a good starting point for

a much needed long-term increase in defense spending. It makes

vital readiness and modernization improvements which will keep

our forces the best trained and the best equipped in the world. But

most important, the bill addresses quality of life issues that are at

the top of the agenda for service members and their families.

For some time now, I have been saying that we must make this

the ‘‘Year of the Troops.’’ This bill goes a long way toward showing

the men and women in our military that we are committed to taking care of them and taking care of their families. The compensation package, which includes a 4.8 percent pay raise, pay table reform to further increase pay for mid-grade officers and NCOs, and

reform of the retirement system, will help address problems our

Armed Forces have been experiencing in recruiting and retention.

The bill’s provisions extending current pay and bonus authorities

and expanding recruiting and retention bonus and special pay authorities for specific skills will also help in this area, as will other

much-needed quality of life provisions in the bill, including improvements in the TRICARE military health care system, and an

increase in funding for military family housing. These pay increases and quality of life improvements are essential to ensuring

a decent standard of living for our military personnel and their

families.

In addition to the quality of life improvements, I am pleased that

H.R. 1401 includes increases in funding for the procurement of

weapons, ammunition, and equipment, for research and development, and for operations and maintenance, so that we can modernize our forces while maintaining a high level of readiness and

training. In the procurement area, precision weapons and munitions were appropriately emphasized.

My only reservation about H.R. 1401 concerns the Committee’s

provision relating to operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I will address this issue, along with a number of my colleagues, in separate Additional Views.

IKE SKELTON.
(690)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON FY 2000 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL,

H.R. 1401

We regret that the committee included section 1006. We understand and agree with the fundamental intent of the provision, to

protect the FY 2000 defense budget, especially individual service

readiness accounts, from another unfunded contingency. The current combat operations in Yugoslavia were not contemplated late

last year when the Department of Defense was putting together its

budget submission which it sent to the Congress early this year.

Paragraph (b) of section 1006 requires the President to submit a

supplemental appropriations request to pay for any such operation

in FY 2000.

Our concern is with paragraph (a), which prohibits the use of

funds in FY 2000 for the purpose of conducting combat or peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We believe it sends the wrong message to Slobodan Milosevic and to our

forces now engaged in combat operations.

The May 20th edition of the Washington Post described our work

by saying, ‘‘The House Armed Services Committee voted to impose

new spending restrictions on President Clinton’s conduct of the

military operation in Yugoslovia.’’ Milosevic may get the impression

that he merely has to wait until October 1, 1999 and that U.S. participation in military operations over Yugoslavia will end at that

time. Our personnel engaged in military operations may wonder

about the mixed signals that Congress is sending once again.

Our colleague, Gene Taylor, offered an amendment during full

committee mark up. He did so with the intent to protect the defense budget. The amendment eliminated paragraph (a) and required the President to submit to the Congress, not later than October 1, 1999, a supplemental appropriations request for ‘‘such

amounts as necessary for the costs during fiscal year 2000 of any

combat or peacekeeping operation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.’’ There would be no message here for Slobodan Milosevic to

misinterpret.
691

As H.R. 1401 continues on its legislative course, we hope that

section 1006 can be improved to address the concerns we have with

the current provision.

IKE SKELTON.

NORMAN SISISKY.

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR.

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ.

OWEN PICKETT.

LANE EVANS.

GENE TAYLOR.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

MARTIN T. MEEHAN.

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD.

PATRICK J. KENNEDY.

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH.

SILVESTRE REYES.

THOMAS H. ALLEN.

JIM TURNER.

ADAM SMITH.

LORETTA SANCHEZ.

JAMES H. MALONEY.

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER.

ROBERT A. BRADY.

ROBERT E. ANDREWS.

BARON P. HILL.

MIKE THOMPSON.

JOHN B. LARSON.
(692)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JAMES M. TALENT

ARMY LOGISTICS MODERNIZATION

Over the past nearly two years, the Army has attempted to develop a plan for how to comprehensively modernize its logistics system, the process by which it supports its installations and, more

importantly, its deployed forces. As I have stated previously, no one

should dispute the need to undertake this important action. The

proper question is not whether to modernize. To the contrary, the

central question should be what level of risk is acceptable during

that eight to ten year process.

A central focus of the larger effort centers on two small agencies,

the Logistics Systems Support Center (LSSC), located in St. Louis,

and the Industrial Logistics Systems Center (ILSC), located in

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Together, LSSC and ILSC are each

responsible for designing, maintaining and upgrading major business and logistics software operating systems that support the

Army Materiel Command (AMC), the Army, and DoD.

LSSC maintains the Command Commodity Standard System

(CCSS), while ILSC maintains the Standard Depot System (SDS).

Collectively, these two systems underpin the Army’s 24–hour-perday logistics efforts both stateside and overseas. In principle, their

function is not unlike that of the software system that automatically requisitions, for example, retail stock for stores within the

Wal-Mart chain. As items are purchased, or as supplies are expended, the system tabulates these facts and automatically reorders. The successful operation of these systems, from anyone’s

standpoint, is central to the Army’s day-to-day operations and, to

a lesser extent, the other services. If CCSS and SDS do not operate

as required, the Army doesn’t either.

Neither system utilizes the up-to-date features and logistics processes that today’s modern, private-sector support systems employ.

The Army describes CCSS and SDS as ‘‘complex, tightly integrated

systems that are unique to the Army and difficult to maintain.’’

That description is certainly appropriate. CCSS alone is one of the

largest operating system in the world, containing over 10 million

lines of computer code, most of it written in COBOL 74. In addition, it has external interfaces, or bridges, to the computer systems

of nearly 70 separate DoD agencies. SDS contains over 12 million

lines of code and interfaces with two dozen DoD agencies. Both systems are 30 years old, and even though they have been substantially enhanced over that period, they must be modernized.

Yet any modernization effort must first and foremost take into

account the complexity of the task.

In short, (1) these two systems play a central role in the Army’s

logistics operations in peace and war, (2) they are extraordinarily

complex systems, (3) they must be modernized, (4) modernization
693

will require almost a decade by the Army’s own determination, and

(5) that modernization these systems entails great risk.

The real question is not whether CCSS and SDS should or

should not be modernized. The answer to that question is very

clear. The question we must ask is how to mitigate risk throughout

the process in order to protect readiness.

The Army proposes to modernize CCSS and SDS by turning the

effort over to a private-sector contractor. Everyone involved concedes that the Army lacks the technical expertise to design its own

system. Unfortunately, it is also clear that after nearly two years

of study the Army lacks even a clear conceptual framework of what

logistics processes will best support Force XXI or the Army After

Next. In brief, the service intends to turn over to a contractor (1)

the responsibility of analyzing and determining its logistics requirements, (2) developing new logistics processes that take advantage of cost-saving commercial practices, (3) designing an upgraded

CCSS system, and then (4) integrating that new system into the

Army’s day-to-day operations. This process, using the Army’s own

analysis, is expected to take as long as ten years.

My primary concern is readiness. Under any scenario, logistics

modernization as it relates to CCSS and SDS will be divided into

three overlapping phases: (1) sustaining the old system, (2) development of a new operating system, and (3) transitioning from the

old system to the new. Throughout most of this process, given the

central role of both systems to Army readiness, it is essential that

the system remain fully operational until some replacement is defined, developed and running properly.

Under the Army plan, the same information technology specialists and logisticians who have maintained CCSS for 30 years are

to be released one year after a prime contractor takes over the

LSSC and ILSC centers next May. Most of these same people will

undoubtedly find private-sector employment. COBOL programmers

in St. Louis can readily find employment. And that is the problem:

how can we operate CCSS, and by extension support soldier readiness when these key personnel are gone? As the Army has stated,

the only people who have the expertise to maintain CCSS are the

very people performing that mission today. The Army is counting

on them being hired by the contractor, but there is no guarantee

or agreement to that effect. Many will go to work in the private

sector. A good number of employees are simply tired of how they

have been treated throughout this process. Some workers will retire. Still others will transfer through priority placement to other

federal agencies in order to retain their pension benefits.

My amendment directs the Secretary of the Army to provide

LSSC and ILSC with the opportunity to reduce their respective

centers to their ‘‘most efficient organizations’’ or MEOs. I expect

that in St. Louis this would involve the loss of approximately 100

of 300 positions. Each MEO would then partner with the eventual

log mod prime contractor and work with them—as a team—

through the sustainment and transition phases of CCSS and SDS

modernization, gradually reducing their numbers proportionate to

what percentage of the old system was still being utilized. In this

manner the MEO will ‘‘sunset’’ as their mission is eclipsed by the

prime’s newer logistics system.
694

Using this approach, we provide the Army with the necessary

readiness ’safety net.’ Given the complexity of the current, or legacy, systems, and the difficulties experienced during previous

projects of a similar nature, it is entirely likely that any prime contractor will not go smoothly. Through this approach, we will still

have on hand the Army’s only subject matter experts in sufficient

numbers to keep the system running and, more importantly, to

support our soldiers. My amendment in no way impedes the Army’s

efforts to privatize this function. Nor would it delay the effort. It

does, however, retain at least a safety net for these two centers so

that readiness is protected.

JAMES M. TALENT.
(695)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JAMES M. TALENT

THE NAVY’S F/A–18E/F SUPER HORNET

The House Armed Services Committee has reviewed the F/A–

18E/F Super Hornet program in some considerable level of detail

as it has progressed through each phase of Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). In each of the previous three conference reports the Committee has fully supported Navy’s requests

for low-rate initial production of 12, 20 and 30 aircraft, respectively. In their Fiscal Year 2000 budget submission, the Navy requested 36 E/Fs and authorization for a five-year, multi-year procurement.

The Navy’s request makes good sense across the board. First,

with literally 99 percent of an exhaustive developmental test program completed as of mid May, ‘‘We know,’’ as one test pilot observed in the OT–IIA (operational test) debrief, ‘‘more accurate information about how the F/A–18E/F performs in two years than we

know about most other aircraft after 20 years of service.’’ Clearly,

by any objective measure, flight testing have been intensive—and

very successful.

More importantly, regarding the E/F’s operational capabilities,

Secretary Danzig and the CNO wrote in a recent letter that the

Super Hornet ‘‘is the aircraft the Navy wants and needs because

it gives our warfighters the capability, when compared with current

aircraft, to strike twice the number of targets in half the time,

while substantially reducing expected losses.’’ And in recent testimony before the Committee, Rear Admiral Nathman, Director, Air

Warfare, was unequivocal in his support for the aircraft and for

multi-year procurement. In terms of the fleet—where it matters

most—these statements, and the facts that back them up, effectively say all that need be said.

Finally, the Super Hornet EMD program is one of only a very

few such programs in recent memory to remain below its congressionally mandated cost caps while at the same time meeting schedule, weight and the performance requirements of the service.

The Committee’s decision to approve the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2000

procurement of 36 aircraft continues a very feasible ramp-up in

production. Its further authorization of multi-year procurement

pending successful completion of OpEval and achievement of milestone III/recommendation for full-rate production, and the Secretary’s assurance of identified savings through multi-year procurement, ensures good value to the American taxpayer and makes for

sound defense policy.

JAMES M. TALENT.
(696)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF GENE TAYLOR ON H.R. 1401, THE NATIONAL

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 2000

The bill reported from committee is, in my estimation, worthy of

support, and I voted for final passage. It is an important piece of

legislation that will contribute to the defense of our nation. Also,

in the words of our committee ranking member, Ike Skelton, the

measure will go a long way toward making this the ‘‘year of the

troops.’’ I feel additionally that the military construction titles of

this bill were prepared in such a way that this important aspect

of defense spending will have avoided a serious catastrophe as represented in the underfunded Presidential budget request.

However, I feel compelled to express my extreme disappointment

with one section of the bill. I tried to offer an amendment to remove Section 1006 from the bill. I believe this provision will send

the wrong message to both our adversary in Serbia and to our own

troops who have been sent to the Balkans. Perhaps an unintended

consequence of this section is that it will set a date certain for the

removal of American military presence.

In essence, paragraph (a) of this section would tell President

Milosevic to hang on until October 1, 1999, and no funds would be

available for US military operations in Yugoslavia after that date.

Nothing can be more harmful to our negotiating position, our military strategy, or the morale of our troops than to send this sort of

message.

Paragraph (b), in my opinion, says that Congress refuses to fulfill

its duty to provide for our troops as stated in Article 1, section 8,

of the Constitution. With the enactment of this section, we will

have instead delegated that responsibility to the President of the

United States. This is an abdication of our responsibilities as members of Congress, and does further harm to this institution by continuing to add further precedent to the notion that the President,

not the Congress, has the right and responsibility to declare war.

My amendment was straightforward. It would have required the

President to submit to the Congress, not later than October 1,

1999, a supplemental appropriations request for ‘‘such amounts as

necessary for the costs during fiscal year 2000 of any combat or

peacekeeping operation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.’’

Under my amendment, Congress would still retain the authority to

determine when and where to commit our forces, and no one would

have questions about our nation’s resolve or its support for our

troops.

During the debate on my amendment, I warned that the press

would ignore all of the good contained in this important legislation

and report only that Congress had cut funds for troops in the field.

Unfortunately, as I feared, the May 20, 1999, Washington Post contained an article titled ‘‘Lawmakers Vote to Limit War Powers.’’

The lead sentence of the article reads, ‘‘The House Armed Services
697

Committee voted to impose new spending restrictions on President

Clinton’s conduct of the military operation in Yugoslavia.’’

While I disagree with the committee’s decision to retain section

1006, I sincerely hope that the provision may be improved to address the real concerns I have referenced above.

GENE TAYLOR.
(698)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD ON RE-ESTABLISHING

THE 54TH WEATHER RECONNAISSANCE SQUADRON IN GUAM

The 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron (WRS) was once

based out of Andersen, AFB, Guam. The group was famed for its

squadron of ‘‘Typhoon Chasers’’ that flew into emerging and

verified Pacific typhoons. Sharing this responsibility for a time,

there was also a Navy Airborne Early Warning Squadron based at

the Naval Air Station, Agana, Guam flying the Navy’s weather reconnaissance aircraft. This valuable and brave team of pilots, aviators, airmen and technicians provided accurate early-warnings for

Guam, Hawaii and neighboring Pacific nations of impending typhoons.

In the late 1980s, these units were inactivated when it was

deemed too costly to justify. The underlying decision was based on

the deactivation of several air force wings at Andersen, AFB, the

WRS was no longer needed. Defense officials claimed that since

there were no aircraft assets permanently stationed there its mission could not be justified. Furthermore, it was maintained that

improved weather imagery reconnaissance satellites would be adequate to protect the remaining military assets and the civilian population.

There is today, one squadron—the 53rd WRS (an air force reserve unit) located at Keesler, AFB—performing the vital function

of flying into and tracking hurricanes on America’s eastern seaboard, the gulf coast, Hawaii, and areas east of the international

dateline. Members of Congress have found it desirable to continue

to fund and maintain this squadron to supplement the weather satellites, which have limited capabilities. However, in the Western

Pacific there is currently no such capability.

Guam is geographically located in an area known to meteorologists as ‘‘typhoon alley.’’ Guam depends on information and typhoon warning from the Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center

(JTWC) and the National Weather Service (NWS), along with satellite information to warn its population of an on-coming storm.

The JTWC, once located on Guam, is now located in Hawaii.

The data that is collected by the ‘‘typhoon hunters’’ is invaluable.

It is very accurate as it provides exact location, temperature, barometric pressure and windspeed of the typhoon or hurricane. The

collective information the WRS WC–130’s provide, improves the accuracy of computer models. Used in conjunction with weather satellites, the data can save thousands of lives and millions of dollars

in property damage. In the case of an island, accurate notice of a

typhoon can make all the difference. Often a severe typhoon devastates an island’s port facilities, thus hampering recovery as a

port is an island’s economic and transportation lifeline.

Nationwide 1500 people a day relocate to coastal areas, thus

making accurate storm forecasting all the more vital. We in Con-
699

gress have a responsibility to ensure that every means necessary

be employed to protect our coastal and island citizens. There are

countless numbers of Americans living in the Western Pacific who

today do not enjoy the security and science afforded by a WRS,

while the remainder of the nation does. The Air Force and the

JTWC should study this inequity. I strongly urge the reactivation

of a Weather Reconnaissance Squadron in the Western Pacific.

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD.
(700)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, LANE EVANS, NORMAN SISISKY, THOMAS H. ALLEN, SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, & NEIL

ABERCROMBIE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND OMB CIRCULAR A–76

It has long been a concern of ours that the Department of Defense (DoD) has placed so high a stake in the outsourcing and privatization process known as OMB Circular A–76. This year DoD

has announced that by FY05 over 230,000 positions will have been

studied for possible outsourcing. The department estimates that

they will have saved some $11.2 billion and achieve a steady state

savings rate, beginning in FY05, of approximately $3.4 billion annually. The problem with touting numbers such as these are the

are based on too many assumptions. Indeed the individual services

often do not account for the cost of performing the study, especially

when they extol their anticipated savings. These costs can include

the paying of the cost-comparison study itself as well as associated

costs for voluntary separation incentive pay, early retirement benefits, and general reductions in forces (RiFs).

Utilizing the Quadrennial Defense Review as the progenitor,

DoD is conveniently provided with a mandate to plow the anticipated savings back into modernization projects. The department is

fond of claiming that through the synthesis of private sector innovations into government operational practices they will be able to

mete out ‘‘the best value’’ for the taxpayer. Interestingly, best value

is not necessarily the lowest cost.

To be fair, the department claims that the entire point of a commercial activities study is to determine if the function will be performed ‘‘in-house’’, by government employees, or outsourced to private contractors. Should it be determined that the best value requires a function to remain ‘‘in-house’’ there it shall remain for a

while—it can be re-studied a few years later. Indeed the department claims the study will wrest out savings regardless because

the ‘‘in-house’’ team will have had to become more effective in order

to compete with the private sector.

This point harkens the DoD initiative called Defense Reform Initiative Directive #20 (DRID #20). This initiative created the complete inventory review of each military service’s functions, to determine what positions are classified as inherently governmental, and

thus be available for possible outsourcing. DRID #20 determined

that 228,000 military positions were non-inherently governmental

and therefore could be studied. Yet in what amounts to a mixed

signal by DoD, an order was made to re-examine several of the

areas previously slated as non-inherently governmental. DoD’s apparent apprehension was caused by the fear that this drastic measure may be undercutting vital support and combat service functions in the name of savings. This, ironically, is the same argument

that many members of Congress have been making for years.
701

Finally, our beleaguered civil servants are beginning to emerge

as an endangered species. As times and practices change, they too,

will have to adapt in order to remain relevant in the national defense arena. In spite of this they should not have to endure negative fallout as a result of the DoD’s panacea called outsourcing, notwithstanding their own admitted skepticism. The DoD must do better in bridging the benefits gap to alleviate displaced employees especially when, inevitably, many will lose their livelihoods.

In the end, all that DoD may be left with is reduced readiness,

a degraded military capability, and an exiled civil-service workforce

that collectively contributes to the weakening of America’s national

security policy.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

NORMAN SISISKY.

LANE EVANS.

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ.

THOMAS H. ALLEN.

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD.
(702)

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ

I am deeply concerned with the language added by amendment

in committee to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY

2000 requiring the Air Force to prematurely identify the core logistics capability requirements for maintenance and repair of the C–

17 aircraft. This myopic provision would force the Air Force to

make a hasty decision on the long-term maintenance of the C–17

possibly resulting in an incorrect and costly maintenance concept.

Similar language requiring an Air Force report was included in

last year’s authorization bill. The Air Force provided the required

report on the C–17 outlining the service’s plan to establish core capabilities for the aircraft. As part of that plan, the Air Force will

review the current contract maintenance strategy (Flexible

Sustainment) in 2003 to make the long-term support decision.

Since initial production of the C–17 is scheduled through fiscal

year 2005 with continuing improvements to the plane, now is not

the time to make a final, and possibly wasteful, organic capabilities

decision based upon an evolving aircraft.

Contrary to the language in question, the Air Force is in compliance regarding the C–17 with Title 10 United States Code 2464

provisions necessitating an organic core logistics capability. The Air

Force determines core capabilities on commodities rather than

weapon systems, e.g., a landing gear versus the entire C–17 aircraft. In the report required by last year’s authorization bill, the

Air Force clearly stated its organic capability to maintain the commodities of the C–17 due to the capability to support other large

military transports, such as the C–141, C–135, and C–130.

Currently, the C–17 is provided maintenance support under an

interim contract between the Air Force and the Boeing Company,

the plane’s manufacturer. By every measure the current Flexible

Sustainment maintenance contract of the C–17 is an overwhelming

success. Last year, the Air Force saved tens of millions of dollars

in either cost avoidance or reduced expenses when compared to the

budget allocated for C–17 support. The contractor continues to perform at less than negotiated contract cost.

Current C–17 logistics performance is setting a new standard for

airlifters. The C–17 is the airlifter of choice because it is ready

when needed and reliable when called upon. In the current Balkans operations the C–17 has a 96% mission capable rate. This extremely high rate is in spite of flying 150% of the missions of the

C–141, C–5, and C–130 combined. In addition, despite the sudden

surge of activity due to the Kosovo operations, the contractor has

responded whenever needed, including oversees deployments with

the C–17.

I am deeply concerned the language requiring the Air Force to

identify, by February 1, 2000, the core logistics capability requirements for maintenance and repair of the C–17 aircraft would im-
703

pose a hasty decision upon the Air Force and preclude the service

from making the best long-term maintenance decision on the C–17.

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ.
(704)

DISSENTING VIEWS OF CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY

With some reservation I oppose reporting this bill out of committee. To be sure, the chairman’s mark contains provision that I

strongly support, including the cooperative threat reduction programs with the states of the former Soviet Union, increased pay for

members of the uniformed services and increases in benefits for

veterans.

Although I oppose this bill, I want to acknowledge and commend

the hard work of my colleagues and the committee staff for their

sincere efforts to provide for the common defense.

I also acknowledge that not all of the excesses in military spending in this bill are the fault of the committee. The House Armed

Services Committee is charged with the responsibility to provide

the armed forces with the resources to achieve their mission. That

mission calls on the military to be prepared to fight two significant

wars at the same time, without allies and while maintaining a

credible reserve. In effect, the mission calls upon us to maintain a

cold-war era military and its incumbent cost irrespective of any realistic assessment of threat. We also maintain, at tremendous expense, a cold war nuclear arsenal.

I strongly believe we must leave behind the military structure

and devices that we depended upon to win the cold war. Yet this

years budget includes the Presidents request for the largest increase in military spending since the end of the cold war. On top

of that, we have added an emergency supplemental appropriation

loaded with pork that takes funds from social security, low-income

housing and nutrition programs. Frankly, I find that appalling.

In my dissent of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1999,

I wrote: ‘‘. . . this authorization is only part of the defense spending. The Congress just passed the supplemental emergency appropriation that provides additional spending for our forces in Bosnia

and the Persian Gulf. As well, the emergency appropriation bill became a vehicle by which a new ballistic missile system was paid

for. This additional spending of 2.9 billion not only fills out of the

budget agreement, but important domestic programs were cut in

order to pay for it. I am deeply disturbed that this might become

our practice for supporting out military activities.’’

Obviously, my concerns were well founded. I remain deeply concerned that the supplementals are becoming the budget gimmick of

choice for loading political pork into the military budget.

It is clear to me that our national security cannot be measured

in bombers alone. I believe out national security depends equally

on our domestic programs and on constructive foreign policy initiatives.

We can no longer continue to spend nearly half of all federal discretionary dollars on military programs. This misplaced priority

compromises our national security by shortchanging our invest-
705

ments in programs that make for real security—a healthy, welleducated, properly housed citizenry.

My good friend Joe Volk, Executive Secretary of the Friends

Committee on National Legislation is right on the mark in his May

21 letter thanking me for opposing Committee’s version of the

FY2000 Defense Authorization bill. He wrote:

Dear Cynthia: We at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) recognize you as one of the only members who has

critically examined this new tide of increased military spending,

and one of the only members who acknowledges existing opportunities to achieve both increased security and significant savings in

the current military budget through changes in U.S. foreign and

military policies and spending choices.

As the sole member of the Armed Services Committee to vote

against the bill, you alone have addressed the important questions

about U.S. military and security policy.

Does the U.S. really need a military that is big enough to simultaneously fight two major regional wars alone? In practice, most

threats to international security today are handled through cooperative efforts by regional alliances or through the UN Security

Council—not unilateral action.

Why does the U.S. need to continue to station 100,000 troops in

Europe? The cold war is over, and Europe is quite capable of defending itself.

Why is the U.S. spending $35 billion per year maintaining over

6,000 nuclear weapons on high alert against an enemy that no

longer exists?

Why should the U.S. spend another $11 billion on a missile ‘‘defense’’ system that is technologically infeasible and strategically destabilizing? Investing a fraction of this on arms control and disarmament initiatives could do far more to preserve U.S. security.

Why not close the military bases that the Department of Defense

(DOD) no longer needs and support converting them into profitable

commercial and industrial centers?

Why should the DOD get more money when it cannot match over

$22 billion in expenditures with obligations, it cannot find over $9

billion worth of inventory, and it continues to give away millions

in overpayments to contractors? More money is not the answer to

Pentagon waste.

Courageous leadership will one day change key U.S. foreign and

military policies. Then, many of the current excuses for increasing

military spending will disappear and significant budgetary savings

can be achieved.

End the obsolete and provocative U.S. cold war military strategy

and reduce U.S. forces in Europe and elsewhere accordingly. Invest

instead in developing multilateral civil institutions such as the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE).

Begin immediately to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to START

II levels, take these weapons of mass destruction off of high alert,

and support programs that assist the Russians in safely dismantling their nuclear weapons systems.

Stop bombing Serbia and Kosovo. Bombing has failed to stop the

genocide. In fact, the bombing has fueled the fire and made the
706

task of finding a just, lasting, political solution more difficult and

costly for all who live there.

Stop exporting advanced weapons systems and production facilities to other countries. Then the U.S. will no longer be compelled

to compete against its own advanced weapons abroad.

Control and reduce the international supply of military weapons.

Weapons transfers by the U.S. and other countries have fueled violent conflicts around the world, creating humanitarian tragedies

and causing a boomerang effect against U.S. military personnel

and UN peacekeepers.

Pay U.S. arrears and dues to the UN in full and on time, and

strengthen and reform the UN system so that it can play a more

effective role in preventing violent conflicts.

These steps would reduce costs to the U.S. government by more than $40 billion per year and greatly enhance U.S. and global security. Also, other governments will likely respond positively in kind

to such initiatives, reducing their own military spending. More

money would go to basic human needs and economic trade and development. Perhaps most importantly, many of these actions would

reduce tensions with the Russian and Chinese governments.

Congress and the President would do well to listen to your ‘‘voice

in the wilderness’’ before they launch what could become another,

more dangerous and destabilizing global arms race. True, sustainable human security can be achieved at much less cost by redirecting military spending to meeting human needs at home and

abroad and by investing and participating in cooperative international institutions and processes that protect human rights and

prevent violent conflicts. Thank you for your conscientious stand

for real security at home and abroad. Sincerely, Joe Volk.

I would like to thank my friends at FCNL and the many other

non-government organizations that work with me to bring about

sensible budget priorities and real security through my work on the

House Armed Services Committee. Peace.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY.

Æ