" SENATE ! 108TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

108–46

Calendar No. 96

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

REPORT

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1050]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

MAY 13, 2003.—Ordered to be printed


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

86–990 WASHINGTON : 

" ! SENATE 108TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2003

108–46

Calendar No. 96

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

REPORT

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1050]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

MAY 13, 2003.—Ordered to be printed


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

(108th Congress, 1st Session)

JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

JUDITH A. ANSLEY, Staff Director 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Democratic Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................................... 1

Committee overview and recommendations .......................................................... 2

Explanation of funding summary .................................................................... 5

Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 15

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 15

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 15

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 15

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, Defense (sec. 106) .......... 15

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 15

Army Aircraft ............................................................................................ 38

UH–60 Blackhawk ............................................................................. 38

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications .............................................. 38

UH–60 Blackhawk modifications ...................................................... 38

Kiowa warrior ..................................................................................... 39

Aircraft survivability equipment ...................................................... 39

Avionics support equipment .............................................................. 39

Aircrew integrated systems ............................................................... 39

Army Missiles ............................................................................................ 40

Hellfire ................................................................................................ 40

Javelin missiles .................................................................................. 40

Weapons and Track Combat Vehicles ..................................................... 40

Squad automatic weapon ................................................................... 40

Lightweight 155mm howitzer ........................................................... 41

Rapid fielding initiative ..................................................................... 41

Army Ammunition ..................................................................................... 41

M919 Armor-piercing fin-stabilized, discarding-sabot, with tracer 

25mm cartridge ............................................................................... 41

M789 high-explosive, dual-purpose cartridge .................................. 42

M930 illumination cartridge ............................................................. 42

M485 illumination cartridge ............................................................. 42

M87A1 Volcano anti-tank mine ........................................................ 42

Modern demolition initiators ............................................................. 42

Dye sets for medium caliber ammunition ........................................ 42

Modern munitions load, assembly, and pack technology ................ 43

White phosphorous production equipment ....................................... 43

Conventional ammunition demilitarization ..................................... 43

Other Army Procurement ......................................................................... 43

M871A3 semi-trailer .......................................................................... 43

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles ................................. 44

Movement Tracking System .............................................................. 44

SINCGARS radios .............................................................................. 45

Area Common User System .............................................................. 45

Land warrior ....................................................................................... 45

Construction equipment extended service program ........................ 46

Modular Causeway System ............................................................... 46

Military operations on urban terrain ............................................... 46

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 46

Multiyear procurement authority for Navy programs (sec. 121) ... 73

Pilot program for flexible funding of Navy vessel conversions 

and overhauls (sec. 122) ................................................................. 73

Other Navy Programs ...................................................................................... 74

Navy Aircraft ............................................................................................. 74

Airborne low frequency sonar ........................................................... 74

Operational support aircraft ............................................................. 74

Page

IV

Title I—Procurement—Continued

Other Navy Programs—Continued

Navy Aircraft—Continued

C–37 aircraft ....................................................................................... 74

Joint Primary Aircraft Training System .......................................... 75

AV–8B aircraft modifications ............................................................ 75

Navigational Thermal Imaging System ........................................... 75

EP–3 aircraft service life assessment ............................................... 76

P–3C aircraft modifications ............................................................... 76

Aerial targets ...................................................................................... 77

Navy Weapons ........................................................................................... 77

Weapons industrial facilities ............................................................. 77

Close-in weapons system ................................................................... 77

Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition ..................................................... 77

60mm high explosive cartridge ......................................................... 77

Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion ......................................................... 78

Submarine refueling overhauls ......................................................... 78

DDG–51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer modernization program ... 78

Integrated Condition Assessment System ....................................... 79

Other Navy Procurement .......................................................................... 79

SPQ–9B radar .................................................................................... 79

Shipboard communications automation ........................................... 79

Submarine high data rate antenna .................................................. 80

Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control 

System ............................................................................................. 80

Integrated bridge system ................................................................... 80

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system ........................................... 80

Submarine training device modifications ......................................... 81

Other supply support equipment ...................................................... 81

Man overboard indicator system ....................................................... 81

Marine Corps Procurement ...................................................................... 81

Squad automatic weapon ................................................................... 81

Night vision equipment ..................................................................... 82

Lightweight multiband satellite terminal ........................................ 82

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 82

Elimination of quantity limitations on multiyear procurement 

authority for C–130J aircraft (sec. 131) ........................................ 99

Other Air Force Programs ............................................................................... 99

Air Force Aircraft ...................................................................................... 99

F/A–22 aircraft ................................................................................... 99

C–17 aircraft funding transfers ........................................................ 100

A–10 aircraft modifications ............................................................... 101

F–15 aircraft modifications ............................................................... 101

F–15 modifications ............................................................................. 101

F–16 aircraft modifications ............................................................... 101

C–5 aircraft modifications ................................................................. 102

C–130 modifications ........................................................................... 102

C–130 radar upgrade ......................................................................... 102

KC–135 aircraft boom operator weapons systems trainer .............. 103

Cobra Ball dual-sided signals intelligence ....................................... 103

Rivet Joint specific emitter identification ........................................ 103

Rivet Joint signals intelligence modernization ................................ 103

Air Force Missiles ...................................................................................... 104

Guidance replacement program ........................................................ 104

Titan .................................................................................................... 104

Evolved expendable launch vehicle .................................................. 104

Other Air Force Procurement ................................................................... 105

Air National Guard jumbo digital transit-cased system ................. 105

Joint Threat Emitter .......................................................................... 105

Base information infrastructure ....................................................... 106

Panoramic night vision goggles ......................................................... 106

Personnel safety and rescue .............................................................. 106

Point of maintenance initiative ......................................................... 106

Expeditionary medical support packages ......................................... 107

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 107

Defense-wide Programs ............................................................................ 115

MH–60L altitude hold ....................................................................... 115

EC–130J Commando Solo upgrades ................................................. 115

Page

V

Title I—Procurement—Continued

Subtitle E—Other Matters—Continued

Defense-wide Programs—Continued

Advanced SEAL delivery system ...................................................... 115

Hand-held reconnaissance and surveillance project ........................ 116

Joint threat warning system ............................................................. 117

Advanced lightweight grenade launcher .......................................... 117

Lightweight counter mortar radar .................................................... 117

Night vision and laser targeting devices .......................................... 118

Special operations craft-riverine ....................................................... 118

Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology ................... 118

M45 Army Aircrew Protective Mask ................................................ 119

M291 and M295 decontamination kits ............................................. 119

Wide-area decontamination ............................................................... 119

Chemical-Biological Protective Shelter ............................................ 120

Automatic Chemical Agent Detector and Alarm ............................. 120

Chemical Biological Installation Force Protection Program ........... 120

Joint Chemical Agent Detector ......................................................... 121

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 121

Ammunition plant and arsenal modernization ................................ 121

Ground systems industrial base ....................................................... 122

Navy and Marine Corps Tactical Aviation Integration ................... 123

Relevancy of the Mobility Requirements Study for Fiscal Year 

2005 ................................................................................................. 123

Report on conventional ammunition industrial base ...................... 124

Sonobuoys ........................................................................................... 125

Surface combatant shipbuilding industrial base ............................. 125

T–45 Training System ....................................................................... 126

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ...................................... 127

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 127

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 129

Science and Technology ..................................................................... 129

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 130

Prohibition on transfer of certain programs outside the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (sec. 211) ........................................... 130

Objective force indirect fires program (sec. 212) ............................. 131

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense ............................................................. 131

Fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities (sec. 221) ............. 131

Repeal of requirements for certain program elements for Missile 

Defense Agency activities (sec. 222) .............................................. 132

Oversight of procurement of ballistic missile defense system elements (sec. 223) .............................................................................. 132

Renewal of authority to assist local communities impacted by 

ballistic missile defense system test bed (sec. 224) ..................... 133

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 133

Global Research Watch Program in the Office of the Director 

of Defense Research and Engineering (sec. 231) ......................... 133

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Biennial Strategic 

Plan (sec. 232) ................................................................................. 133

Enhancement of authority of Secretary of Defense to support 

science, mathematics, engineering and technology education 

(sec. 233) .......................................................................................... 134

Department of Defense high-speed network-centric and bandwidth expansion program (sec. 234) .............................................. 135

Additional Matters of Interest ......................................................................... 136

Army ........................................................................................................... 136

Fundamental research for the Army Objective Force ..................... 148

Infrastructure protection research .................................................... 148

Ferroelectric nanomaterials fabrication ........................................... 148

Applied materials research ................................................................ 148

Army missile research ....................................................................... 148

Advanced Concepts and Simulation Research ................................. 148

Combat vehicle and automotive technology ..................................... 149

Single crystal tungsten alloy penetrators ........................................ 149

Flexible displays ................................................................................. 149

Countermine capabilities ................................................................... 149

Environmental response and security protection ............................ 149

Geosciences and atmospheric research ............................................. 150

Page

VI

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Army—Continued

Embedded optical communications ................................................... 150

Enhanced anthrax research .............................................................. 150

Genomics research ............................................................................. 150

Medical Advanced Technology .......................................................... 150

Combat vehicle technology development and support .................... 150

Interactive training technologies ...................................................... 151

Close-in Active Protection ................................................................. 151

Warfighter/firefighter position, location, and tracking sensor ....... 151

Advanced laser electric power ........................................................... 151

Advanced radars and electro-optical sensors ................................... 152

Integrated composite missile structures .......................................... 152

Low cost interceptor ........................................................................... 152

Mobile tactical high energy laser ...................................................... 152

Radar power technology .................................................................... 153

Air and missile defense architecture analysis ................................. 153

Managing Army Technologies for Environmental Enhancement 

Program ........................................................................................... 153

Manganese Health Research Project ................................................ 153

Logistics and engineer equipment .................................................... 154

Automated technologies for biodefense ............................................ 154

Tactical unmanned ground vehicle ................................................... 155

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System ......................................... 155

Viper strike munition ........................................................................ 155

Army airborne command and control system .................................. 155

Combat vehicle improvement program ............................................ 156

Full authority digital engine control ................................................ 156

Base protection and monitoring system ........................................... 156

Document exploitation ....................................................................... 157

Navy ........................................................................................................... 157

Naval basic research .......................................................................... 171

Free electron laser ............................................................................. 171

Microelectronics and materials development ................................... 171

Transformational unmanned aerial vehicles capabilities ............... 171

Force Protection Applied Research ................................................... 171

Advanced research for Naval systems .............................................. 172

Biowarfare detection and diagnosis .................................................. 172

Coastal mapping systems .................................................................. 172

Electronics research for naval applications ..................................... 172

Ocean observing program .................................................................. 172

Low acoustic signature motors and propulsors ............................... 172

Office of Naval Research accounting adjustment ............................ 172

High temperature superconducting alternating current synchronous motor ............................................................................... 173

Laser welding for shipbuilding ......................................................... 173

Project M ............................................................................................. 173

Common picture technologies ............................................................ 173

Warfighter sustainment advanced technology ................................. 174

Precision surveillance and targeting radar ...................................... 174

Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory ............................................. 175

Modeling and simulation for homeland defense .............................. 175

Mine warfare technology ................................................................... 176

Rotorcraft external airbag protection system .................................. 176

Improved shipboard combat information center .............................. 176

Advanced battle station/decision support system ............................ 176

Carrier system development ............................................................. 177

Surface vessel torpedo tubes ............................................................. 177

Anti-submarine warfare risk reduction ............................................ 177

Reducing maintenance by improving brushes on electric motors .. 178

Rotary electromagnetic launcher ...................................................... 178

Submarine payloads and sensors ...................................................... 178

Littoral Combat Ship ......................................................................... 179

Non-lethal weapons ............................................................................ 180

Distress signaling systems ................................................................ 181

Marine mammal monitoring and protection system ....................... 181

Advanced wireless networks ............................................................. 181

Page

VII

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Navy —Continued

Advanced cable design ....................................................................... 182

AV–8B aircraft engine development ................................................. 182

P–3 modernization program .............................................................. 182

Warfare support system .................................................................... 182

Extended range active missile .......................................................... 183

Submarine antenna technology improvements ................................ 183

Virginia-class submarine design development ................................. 183

Submarine tactical warfare system .................................................. 184

Uninterruptible fuel cell .................................................................... 184

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system development ..................... 185

Radar absorbing tiles for ship self defense ...................................... 185

Joint Strike Fighter ........................................................................... 185

Wireless sensor technology ................................................................ 186

Fire retardant fibers .......................................................................... 186

Warfare analysis and education ....................................................... 186

Thin plate pure lead battery technology .......................................... 186

Precision terrain aided navigation .................................................... 186

Fire Scout RQ–84 ............................................................................... 186

Airborne reconnaissance systems ..................................................... 187

Verification, validation and accreditation improvements ............... 187

Air Force .................................................................................................... 187

Air Force propulsion research ........................................................... 200

Aerospace materials research ........................................................... 200

Space technologies .............................................................................. 200

MASINT warfighter visualization tools ........................................... 201

Advanced materials for weapons systems ........................................ 201

Aerospace technologies and demonstrations .................................... 201

Fuels, lubrication and turbine engine technology ........................... 201

B–2 bomber ......................................................................................... 201

Advanced spacecraft technology ........................................................ 202

Satellite protection technology .......................................................... 202

High accuracy network determination system ................................ 202

Global Positioning System III ........................................................... 203

Advanced extremely high frequency system .................................... 203

Space control technology .................................................................... 204

Advanced wideband system/transformational communications architecture ......................................................................................... 204

Electronic warfare development ........................................................ 205

Passive Attack Weapon ..................................................................... 206

Space test program ............................................................................ 206

F–15C/D aircraft radar upgrade ....................................................... 206

Patriot advanced capability–3 spiral development .......................... 206

Global positioning system jammer detection and location system . 208

Space control test bed ........................................................................ 209

Eagle Vision ........................................................................................ 209

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile ................................................. 210

Cybersecurity Research ..................................................................... 210

Civil reserve space service ................................................................. 210

Ballistic missile range safety technology ......................................... 210

U–2 aircraft Senior Year electro-optical reconnaissance system 

focal planes ...................................................................................... 211

U–2 signals intelligence risk mitigation .......................................... 211

Global Hawk lithium battery demonstration ................................... 212

Distributed common ground systems ............................................... 212

Aging aircraft ..................................................................................... 212

Defense-Wide ............................................................................................. 212

Defense Research Sciences ................................................................ 225

Nanophotonic systems fabrication .................................................... 225

Semiconductor research programs .................................................... 225

University Research Initiative .......................................................... 226

Cell and tissue culture and bacterial growth core research ........... 226

Bacteriophage amplification .............................................................. 226

Medical Free Electron Laser ............................................................. 226

Computer research projects ............................................................... 227

Acoustic wave sensor technology ...................................................... 227

Page

VIII

Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Defense-Wide—Continued

Bioinformatics .................................................................................... 227

Food security technologies ................................................................. 227

Mustard gas antidote ......................................................................... 227

Nerve agent decontamination technology ........................................ 228

Sensor technologies ............................................................................ 228

Water quality sensors ........................................................................ 228

Tactical technology ............................................................................. 228

Biology research at the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency ............................................................................................. 228

Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute ............................... 228

Explosive demilitarization technology .............................................. 229

Blast mitigation program .................................................................. 229

Portable radiation search tool ........................................................... 230

Advanced Aerospace Systems ........................................................... 230

Anthrax and plague oral vaccine research and development ......... 230

SensorNet ........................................................................................... 230

Topically applied vectored vaccines .................................................. 231

Logistics technology demonstrations ................................................ 231

Vehicle fuel cell program ................................................................... 231

High Altitude Airship ........................................................................ 231

All optical transparent switching systems ....................................... 231

Sensor and guidance technology ....................................................... 231

Organic micro unmanned aerial vehicles ......................................... 232

Tactical unmanned ground vehicles ................................................. 232

Arrow ................................................................................................... 232

Aegis ballistic missile defense ........................................................... 233

Ground-based midcourse defense ...................................................... 233

Airborne infrared system ................................................................... 234

E–2 infrared search and track .......................................................... 234

Family of radars ................................................................................. 234

Russian American observation satellite program ............................ 235

Space tracking and surveillance system .......................................... 236

Ballistic missile defense system interceptors .................................. 236

Advanced Research Center ................................................................ 236

Ballistic missile defense lethality testing ......................................... 237

Joint robotics ...................................................................................... 237

See and avoid technologies ................................................................ 237

Information systems security research ............................................ 237

Broadcast-Request Imagery Technology Experiment ...................... 237

Tasking, processing, exploitation and dissemination for the future imagery architecture .............................................................. 238

Laser additive manufacturing initiatives ......................................... 238

Multiband multimission radios ......................................................... 238

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

Apache Longbow ................................................................................. 239

Ballistic protective garments ............................................................ 239

Chemical and biological test facilities .............................................. 239

Counterproliferation Support Program ............................................ 240

Cruise missile defense ....................................................................... 240

DD(X) destroyer .................................................................................. 240

Infrared search and track .................................................................. 241

National Aerospace Initiative ........................................................... 242

Networking technologies .................................................................... 242

Patriot advanced capability-3 testing ............................................... 243

Potential use of hydrogen fuel .......................................................... 243

Space based radar and missile defense ............................................ 243

Space based radar architecture ......................................................... 244

Space based infrared system ............................................................. 244

Space system vulnerability ................................................................ 245

Spacelift range system ....................................................................... 246

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 249

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 249

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 285

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 303) ............................................. 285

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 285

Page

IX

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations—Continued

Armed Forces Emergency Services (sec. 311) ......................................... 285

Commercial imagery industrial base (sec. 312) ...................................... 285

Subtitle C—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 286

General definitions applicable to facilities and operations (sec. 321) ... 286

Military readiness and conservation of protected species (sec. 322) ..... 286

Arctic and Western Pacific Environmental Technology Cooperation 

Program (sec. 323) ................................................................................. 287

Participation in wetland mitigation banks in connection with military 

construction projects (sec. 324) ............................................................. 288

Extension of authority to use Environmental Restoration Account 

funds for relocation of a contaminated facility (sec. 325) ................... 288

Applicability of certain procedural and administrative requirements 

to restoration advisory boards (sec. 326) ............................................. 289

Expansion of authorities on use of vessels stricken from Naval Vessel 

Register for experimental purposes (sec. 327) ..................................... 289

Transfer of vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel Register for use 

as artificial reefs (sec. 328) ................................................................... 289

Salvage facilities (sec. 329) ....................................................................... 290

Task force on resolution of conflict between military training and 

endangered species protection at Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona (sec. 330) ........................................................................................ 290

Public health assessment of exposure to perchlorate (sec. 331) ............ 291

Subtitle D—Reimbursement Authorities ........................................................ 292

Reimbursement of reserve component military personnel accounts 

for personnel costs of special operations reserve component personnel engaged in landmines clearance (sec. 341) .............................. 292

Reimbursement of reserve component accounts for costs of intelligence activities support provided by reserve component personnel 

(sec. 342) ................................................................................................. 292

Reimbursement rate for airlift services provided to the Department 

of State (sec. 343) ................................................................................... 292

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents Education .................................................. 292

Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of 

members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 

employees (sec. 351) ............................................................................... 292

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 352) ..................... 292

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 293

Sale of Defense Information Systems Agency services to contractors 

performing the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract (sec. 361) ...... 293

Use of the Defense Modernization Account for life cycle cost reduction 

initiatives (sec. 362) ............................................................................... 293

Exemption of certain firefighting service contracts from prohibition 

on contracts for performance of firefighting functions (sec. 363) ....... 293

Technical amendment relating to termination of Sacramento Army 

Depot, Sacramento, California (sec. 364) ............................................. 293

Exception to competition requirement for workloads previously performed by depot-level activities (sec. 365) ........................................... 294

Support for transfers of decommissioned vessels and shipboard equipment (sec. 366) ....................................................................................... 294

Aircraft for performance of aerial refueling mission (sec. 367) ............. 294

Stability of certain existing military troop dining facilities contracts 

(sec. 368) ................................................................................................. 295

Repeal of calendar year limitations on use of commissary stores 

by certain Reserves and others (sec. 369) ............................................ 295

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 295

Extended Cold Weather Clothing System ............................................... 295

Field battery charging technology ............................................................ 296

Quadruple shipping containers ................................................................ 296

Department of Defense foreign language training ................................. 296

Recruiting and advertising costs .............................................................. 296

Flight School XXI ...................................................................................... 297

Corrosion prevention and control ............................................................. 297

M1A1 Abrams tank transmission upgrade ............................................. 297

Weapons of Mass Destruction—Civil Support Teams ............................ 297

Operations in Southwest Asia .................................................................. 298

Page

X

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued

Budget Items —Continued

Working Capital Funds ............................................................................. 298

Civilian personnel pay in excess of requirements .................................. 299

Condition-based maintenance photonic sensors ..................................... 299

Lead paint removal ................................................................................... 299

Navy excess carryover ............................................................................... 300

Naval Station Roosevelt Roads ................................................................ 300

Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force Family of Incident Response Systems ...................................................................................... 300

Initial issue ................................................................................................ 301

Corrosion prevention and control ............................................................. 301

Missile maintenance ................................................................................. 301

Manufacturing Technical Assistance and Production Program ............ 301

Air Force Supply Management Activity Group Working Capital Fund 

and Depot Maintenance ........................................................................ 302

Train and equip program .......................................................................... 302

Information assurance scholarship program ........................................... 302

Transportation Working Capital Fund .................................................... 303

Equipment Storage Site initial operations .............................................. 303

Cannon bore cleaning ................................................................................ 303

Test support program ................................................................................ 303

Funding for Formerly Used Defense Sites .............................................. 304

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund .................................. 304

Other Legislation ....................................................................................... 305

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 305

Arlington National Cemetery information and planning system .......... 305

Chemical depot airspace security ............................................................. 305

Comprehensive management of Department of Defense ranges ........... 305

Depot, arsenal and ammunition workforce revitalization ...................... 306

Environmental cleanup for former Navy property on Vieques .............. 306

Guaranteed fixed price remediation contracts ........................................ 307

Mail delivery to troops stationed in the Middle East ............................. 308

Sea Swap .................................................................................................... 308

Summer training for cadets and midshipmen ........................................ 309

Support for the Joint National Training Capability ............................... 309

Visual language translators ..................................................................... 310

War reserve stocks of Meals Ready to Eat .............................................. 310

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 311

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 311

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 311

Increased maximum percentage of general and flag officers on active 

duty authorized to be serving in grades above brigadier general 

and rear admiral (lower half) (sec. 402) ............................................... 311

Extension of certain authorities relating to management of numbers 

of general and flag officers in certain grades (sec. 403) ..................... 311

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 311

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 311

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 312

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 312

Fiscal year 2004 limitations on non-dual status technicians (sec. 414) 312

Subtitle C—Other Matters Relating to Personnel Strengths ....................... 313

Revision of personnel strength authorization and accounting process 

(sec. 421) ................................................................................................. 313

Exclusion of recalled retired members from certain strength limitations during period of war or national emergency (sec. 422) ............. 313

Subtitle D—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 313

Authorization of appropriations for military personnel (sec. 431) ........ 313

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 315

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 315

Retention of health professions officers to fulfill active duty service 

obligations following failure of selection for promotion (sec. 501) ..... 315

Eligibility for appointment as Chief of Army Veterinary Corps (sec. 

502) ......................................................................................................... 315

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Policy ........................................ 315

Expanded authority for use of Ready Reserve in response to terrorism (sec. 511) ..................................................................................... 315

Page

XI

Title V—Military Personnel Policy—Continued

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Policy—Continued

Streamlined process for continuing officers on the reserve activestatus list (sec. 512) ............................................................................... 315

National Guard officers on active duty in command of National 

Guard units (sec. 513) ........................................................................... 315

Subtitle C—Revision of Retirement Authorities ............................................ 316

Permanent authority to reduce three-year time-in-grade requirement 

for retirement in grade for officers in grades above major and 

lieutenant commander (sec. 521) .......................................................... 316

Subtitle D—Education and Training .............................................................. 316

Increased flexibility for management of senior level education and 

post-education assignments (sec. 531) ................................................. 316

Expanded educational assistance authority for cadets and midshipmen receiving ROTC scholarships (sec. 532) ................................ 316

Eligibility and cost reimbursement requirements for personnel to 

receive instruction at the Naval Postgraduate School (sec. 533) ....... 316

Actions to address sexual misconduct at the service academies (sec. 

534) ......................................................................................................... 317

Subtitle E—Decorations, Awards, and Commendations ............................... 317

Subtitle F—Military Justice ............................................................................ 317

Extended limitation period for prosecution of child abuse cases in 

courts-martial (sec. 551) ........................................................................ 317

Clarification of blood alcohol content limit for the offense under the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice of drunken operation of a vehicle, 

aircraft, or vessel (sec. 552) .................................................................. 317

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 317

High-tempo personnel management and allowance (sec. 561) .............. 317

Alternate initial military service obligation for persons accessed 

under direct entry program (sec. 562) .................................................. 318

Policy on concurrent deployment to combat zones of both military 

spouses of military families with minor children (sec. 563) ............... 318

Enhancement of voting rights of members of the uniformed services 

(sec. 564) ................................................................................................. 318

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 319

Assisting non-citizen service members .................................................... 319

Computer-based assistance for survivors of military decedents ........... 319

Education for service members in preventing identity theft ................. 319

Family surveys .......................................................................................... 319

Impact of reserve mobilization on state and local first responder 

units ........................................................................................................ 320

Increased reliance on warrant officers .................................................... 320

Joint training of Department of Defense personnel in the Code of 

Conduct ................................................................................................... 321

Panel to review sexual misconduct allegations at the United States 

Air Force Academy ................................................................................ 321

Pre-enlistment screening of applicants for military service .................. 322

Report on implementation of recommendations of the Defense Task 

Force on Domestic Violence .................................................................. 322

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ....................................... 323

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 323

Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2004 (sec. 601) ............................... 323

Revised annual pay adjustment process (sec. 602) ................................. 323

Computation of basic pay rate for commissioned officers with prior 

enlisted or warrant officer service (sec. 603) ....................................... 323

Pilot program of monthly subsistence allowance for non-scholarship 

Senior ROTC members committing to continue ROTC participation 

as sophomores (sec. 604) ....................................................................... 323

Basic allowance for housing for each member married to another 

member without dependents when both spouses are on sea duty 

(sec. 605) ................................................................................................. 324

Increased rate of family separation allowance (sec. 606) ....................... 324

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 324

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

reserve forces (sec. 611) ......................................................................... 324

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

certain health care professionals (sec. 612) ......................................... 324

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 

officers (sec. 613) .................................................................................... 324

Page

XII

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits—Continued

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays—Continued

One-year extension of other bonus and special pay authorities (sec. 

614) ......................................................................................................... 324

Special pay for reserve officers holding positions of unusual 

5responsibility and of critical nature (sec. 615) .................................. 325

Assignment incentive pay for service in Korea (sec. 616) ...................... 325

Increased maximum amount of reenlistment bonus for active members (sec. 617) ......................................................................................... 325

Payment of Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus to members of Selected Reserve who are mobilized (sec. 618) ........................................ 325

Increased rate of hostile fire and imminent danger special pay (sec. 

619) ......................................................................................................... 325

Availability of hostile fire and imminent danger special pay for reserve component members on inactive duty (sec. 620) ....................... 325

Expansion of overseas tour extension incentive program to officers 

(sec. 621) ................................................................................................. 326

Eligibility of warrant officers for accession bonus for new officers 

in critical skills (sec. 622) ...................................................................... 326

Incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to 

ease personnel shortage (sec. 623) ....................................................... 326

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 326

Shipment of privately owned motor vehicle within continental United 

States (sec. 631) ..................................................................................... 326

Payment or reimbursement of student baggage storage costs for dependent children of members stationed overseas (sec. 632) ............... 326

Contracts for full replacement value for loss or damage to personal 

property transported at Government expense (sec. 633) .................... 327

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits ............................................ 327

Special rule for computation of retired pay base for commanders 

of combatant commands (sec. 641) ....................................................... 327

Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for surviving spouses of Reserves 

not eligible for retirement who die from a cause incurred or aggravated while on inactive-duty training (sec. 642) ................................. 327

Increase in death gratuity payable with respect to deceased members 

of the Armed Forces (sec. 643) .............................................................. 327

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 327

Retention of accumulated leave (sec. 651) ............................................... 327

Other Programs ................................................................................................ 327

Selective reenlistment bonuses ................................................................ 327

Title VII—Health Care ............................................................................................ 329

Medical and dental screening for members of Selected Reserve units 

alerted for mobilization (sec. 701) ........................................................ 329

TRICARE beneficiary counseling and assistance coordinators for reserve component beneficiaries (sec. 702) ............................................. 329

Extension of authority to enter into personal services contracts for 

health care services to be performed at locations outside medical 

treatment facilities (sec. 703) ................................................................ 330

Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund 

valuations and contributions (sec. 704) ............................................... 330

Surveys on continued viability of TRICARE standard (sec. 705) .......... 330

Elimination of limitation on covered beneficiaries eligible to receive 

health care services from former public health service treatment 

facilities (sec. 706) ................................................................................. 330

Modification of structure and duties of Department of Veterans Affairs—Department of Defense Health Executive Committee (sec. 

707) ......................................................................................................... 331

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 331

Children’s hospitals ................................................................................... 331

Chiropractic health care ........................................................................... 331

Force health protection ............................................................................. 332

Population based medical research .......................................................... 332

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters 333

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 333

Temporary emergency procurement authority to facilitate the defense 

against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, 

or radiological attack (sec. 801) ............................................................ 333

Special temporary contract close-out authority (sec. 802) ..................... 333

Page

XIII

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters—Continued

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management—Continued

Defense acquisition program management for use of radio frequency 

spectrum (sec. 803) ................................................................................ 333

National Security Agency modernization program (sec. 804) ................ 334

Quality control in procurement of aviation critical safety items and 

related services (sec. 805) ...................................................................... 336

Subtitle B—Procurement of Services .............................................................. 337

Expansion and extension of incentive for use of performance-based 

contracts in procurements of services (sec. 811) ................................. 337

Public-private competitions for the performance of Department of 

Defense functions (sec. 812) .................................................................. 337

Authority to enter into personal services contracts (sec. 813) ............... 338

Subtitle C—Major Defense Acquisition Programs ......................................... 338

Certain weapons-related prototype projects (sec. 821) ........................... 338

Applicability of Clinger-Cohen Act policies and requirements to 

equipment integral to a weapon or weapon system (sec. 822) ........... 338

Applicability of requirement for reports on maturity of technology 

at initiation of major defense acquisition programs (sec. 823) .......... 339

Subtitle D—Domestic Source Requirements .................................................. 339

Exceptions to Berry Amendment for contingency operations and other 

urgent situations (sec. 831) ................................................................... 339

Inapplicability of Berry Amendment to procurements of waste and 

byproducts of cotton and wool fiber for use in the production of 

propellants and explosives (sec. 832) ................................................... 340

Waiver authority for domestic source or content requirements (sec. 

833) ......................................................................................................... 340

Buy American exception for ball bearings and roller bearings used 

in foreign products (sec. 834) ................................................................ 340

Subtitle E—Defense Acquisition and Support Workforce ............................. 340

Flexibility for management of the defense acquisition and support 

workforce (sec. 841) ............................................................................... 340

Limitation and reinvestment authority relating to reduction of the 

defense acquisition and support workforce (sec. 842) ......................... 341

Clarification and revision of authority for demonstration project relating to certain acquisition personnel management policies and 

procedures (sec. 843) .............................................................................. 341

Subtitle F—Federal Support for Procurement of Anti-Terrorism Technologies and Services by States and Local Governments .......................... 342

Federal support for procurement of anti-terrorism technologies and 

services by state and local governments (secs. 851, 852, 853) ........... 342

Subtitle G—General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations, and Other Matters .............................................................................. 342

Limited acquisition authority for commander of United States Joint 

Forces Command (sec. 861) ................................................................... 342

Operational test and evaluation (sec. 862) .............................................. 343

Multiyear task and delivery order contracts (sec. 863) .......................... 343

Repeal of requirement for contractor assurances regarding the completeness, accuracy, and contractual sufficiency of technical data 

provided by the contractor (sec. 864) ................................................... 343

Reestablishment of authority for short-term leases of real or personal 

property across fiscal years (sec. 865) .................................................. 344

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 344

Applicability of the Trade Agreements Act to commercially available 

off-the-shelf items .................................................................................. 344

Contracting for overseas logistics support .............................................. 344

Department of Defense anti-tamper program ......................................... 345

National Industrial Security Program ..................................................... 345

Evolutionary acquisition strategies ......................................................... 346

Improvement of software acquisition processes ...................................... 346

Performance contracts .............................................................................. 347

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 349

Subtitle A—Department Offices and Agencies .............................................. 349

Clarification of responsibility of military departments to support combatant commanders (sec. 901) .............................................................. 349

Redesignation of National Imagery and Mapping Agency as National 

Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (sec. 902) ............................................ 349

Page

XIV

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management—Continued

Subtitle A—Department Offices and Agencies—Continued

Standards of conduct for members of the Defense Policy Board and 

the Defense Science Board (sec. 903) ................................................... 349

Subtitle B—Space Activities ............................................................................ 350

Coordination of space science and technology activities of the Department of Defense (sec. 911) .................................................................... 350

Space personnel cadre (sec. 912) .............................................................. 350

Policy regarding assured access to space for United States national 

security payloads (sec. 913) ................................................................... 351

Pilot program to provide space surveillance network services to entities outside the United States government (sec. 914) ........................ 352

Content of biennial global positioning system report (sec. 915) ............ 352

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 352

Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (sec. 921) ................................ 352

Authority for the Marine Corps University to award the degree of 

master of operational studies (sec. 922) ............................................... 353

Report on changing roles of United States Special Operations Command (sec. 923) ...................................................................................... 353

Integration of Defense intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance 

capabilities (sec. 924) ............................................................................. 354

Establishment of the National Guard of the Northern Mariana Islands (sec. 925) ....................................................................................... 355

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 357

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 357

Transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................................. 357

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets (sec. 

1002) ....................................................................................................... 357

Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2003 

(sec. 1003) ............................................................................................... 357

Subtitle B—Improvement of Travel Card Management ............................... 357

Mandatory disbursement of travel allowances directly to travel care 

creditors (sec. 1011) ............................................................................... 357

Determinations of creditworthiness for issuance of Defense travel 

card (sec. 1012) ...................................................................................... 358

Disciplinary actions and assessing penalties for misuse of Defense 

travel cards (sec. 1013) .......................................................................... 358

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 358

Elimination and revision of various reporting requirements applicable to the Department of Defense (sec. 1021) ...................................... 358

Global strike plan (sec. 1022) ................................................................... 358

Report on the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom (sec. 1023) ............. 359

Report on mobilization of the Reserves (sec. 1024) ................................ 359

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 359

Blue forces tracking initiative (sec. 1031) ............................................... 359

Loan, donation, or exchange of obsolete or surplus property (sec. 

1032) ....................................................................................................... 360

Acceptance of gifts and donations for Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies (sec. 1033) ................................................................................. 360

Provision of living quarters for certain students working at National 

Security Agency Laboratory (sec. 1034) ............................................... 360

Protection of operational files of the National Security Agency (sec. 

1035) ....................................................................................................... 361

Transfer of administration of National Security Education Program 

to Director of Central Intelligence (sec. 1036) ..................................... 361

Report on use of unmanned aerial vehicles for support of homeland 

security missions (sec. 1037) ................................................................. 361

Conveyance of surplus T–37 aircraft to Air Force Aviation Heritage 

Foundation, Incorporated (sec. 1038) ................................................... 362

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 362

Information technology investments to support effective financial 

management ........................................................................................... 362

Refined Petroleum Products, Marginal Expense Transfer Account ...... 364

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 364

Terrorist threat integration center .......................................................... 364

Title XI—Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Policy ................................ 367

Authority to employ civilian faculty members at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (sec. 1101) ........................ 367

Page

XV

Title XI—Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Policy—Continued

Pay authority for critical positions (sec. 1102) ........................................ 367

Extension, expansion, and revision of authority for experimental personnel program for scientific and technical personnel (sec. 1103) ..... 367

Transfer of personnel investigative functions and related personnel 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 1104) ............................................ 368

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 368

Laboratory Personnel Demonstration Projects ....................................... 368

Title XII—Matters Relating to Other Nations ...................................................... 369

Authority to use funds for payment of costs of attendance of foreign 

visitors under regional defense counterterrorism fellowship program (sec. 1201) ..................................................................................... 369

Availability of funds to recognize superior noncombat achievements 

or performance of members of friendly foreign forces and other 

foreign nationals (sec. 1202) ................................................................. 369

Check cashing and exchange transactions for foreign personnel in 

alliance or coalition forces (sec. 1203) .................................................. 370

Clarification and extension of authority to provide assistance for 

international nonproliferation activities (sec. 1204) ........................... 370

Reimbursement costs relating to national security controls on satellite export licensing (sec. 1205) .......................................................... 370

Annual report on the NATO Prague capabilities commitment and 

the NATO response force (sec. 1206) ................................................... 371

Expansion and extension of authority to provide additional support 

for counter-drug activities (sec. 1207) .................................................. 371

Use of funds for unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign 

in Colombia (sec. 1208) .......................................................................... 372

Title XIII—Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of the Former Soviet 

Union ..................................................................................................................... 373

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds 

(sec. 1301) ............................................................................................... 373

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 373

Annual certifications on use of facilities being constructed for Cooperative Threat Reduction Program projects or activities (sec. 1303) .... 373

Authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction funds outside the 

Former Soviet Union (sec. 1304) .......................................................... 374

One-year extension of inapplicability of certain conditions on use 

of funds for chemical weapons destruction (sec. 1305) ....................... 374

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations ............................................... 375

Explanation of funding tables .................................................................. 375

Military construction at overseas locations ............................................. 397

Title XXI—Army ...................................................................................................... 399

Summary ........................................................................................................... 399

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 399

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 399

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) .................. 400

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) ................................. 400

Termination of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2003 projects 

(sec. 2105) ............................................................................................... 400

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2003 projects 

(sec. 2106) ............................................................................................... 400

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2002 projects 

(sec. 2107) ............................................................................................... 400

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2001 projects 

(sec. 2108) ............................................................................................... 400

Title XXII—Navy ..................................................................................................... 401

Summary ........................................................................................................... 401

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 401

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 401

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 401

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 401

Termination of authority to carry out a certain fiscal year 2003 

project (sec. 2205) .................................................................................. 401

Title XXIII—Air Force ............................................................................................. 403

Summary ........................................................................................................... 403

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 403

Page

XVI

Title XXIII—Air Force—Continued

Summary—Continued

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 403

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 403

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 403

Modification of fiscal year 2003 authority relating to improvement 

of military family housing units (sec. 2305) ........................................ 404

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies ................................................................................ 405

Summary ........................................................................................................... 405

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 405

Family housing (sec. 2402) ....................................................................... 405

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2403) .................. 405

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2404) ................................................. 405

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 2405) .............. 406

Termination of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2003 projects 

(sec. 2406) ............................................................................................... 406

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2003 projects 

(sec. 2407) ............................................................................................... 406

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...................................................................................................................... 407

Summary ........................................................................................................... 407

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 407

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 407

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 409

Summary ........................................................................................................... 409

Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 409

Title XXVII—Expiration and Extension of Authorizations .................................. 411

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2701) ................................................................................... 411

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2001 projects (sec. 

2702) ....................................................................................................... 411

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2000 projects (sec. 

2703) ....................................................................................................... 411

Effective date (sec. 2704) .......................................................................... 411

Title XXVIII—General Provisions .......................................................................... 413

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 413

Modification of general definitions relating to military construction 

(sec. 2801) ............................................................................................... 413

Increase in number of family housing units in Italy authorized for 

lease by the Navy (sec. 2802) ................................................................ 414

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 414

Increase in threshold for reports to Congress on real property transactions (sec. 2811) .................................................................................. 414

Acceptance of in-kind consideration for easements (sec. 2812) ............. 414

Expansion to military unaccompanied housing of authority to transfer property at military installations to be closed in exchange for 

military housing (sec. 2813) .................................................................. 414

Exemption from screening and use requirements under McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act for Department of Defense property 

in emergency support of homeland security (sec. 2814) ..................... 415

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 415

Transfer of land at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Tennessee (sec. 

2821) ....................................................................................................... 415

Land conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky (sec. 2822) ............................... 415

Land conveyance, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia (sec. 

2823) ....................................................................................................... 415

Land conveyance, Army and Air Force Exchange Service property, 

Dallas, Texas (sec. 2824) ....................................................................... 416

Subtitle D—Review of Overseas Military Facility and Range Structure ..... 416

Review of overseas military facility structure (secs. 2841–2848) .......... 416

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and 

Other Authorizations ........................................................................................... 419

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 419

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 419

Page

XVII

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs—Continued

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations—Continued

National Nuclear Security Administration (Sec. 3101) .......................... 442

Weapons activities ..................................................................................... 442

Directed stockpile work ............................................................................. 442

Campaigns ................................................................................................. 442

Readiness in the technical base ............................................................... 443

Secure transportation asset ...................................................................... 443

Safeguards and security ........................................................................... 443

Facilities and infrastructure ..................................................................... 443

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program ............................................ 444

Naval Reactors .......................................................................................... 444

Office of Administrator ............................................................................. 445

Defense environmental management (sec. 3102) .................................... 445

Defense site acceleration completion ....................................................... 445

Defense environmental services ............................................................... 445

Accelerate completion of 2012 and 2035 closure sites ............................ 446

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 446

Energy Security and Assistance ............................................................... 446

Office of Security ....................................................................................... 446

Intelligence ................................................................................................. 446

Counterintelligence ................................................................................... 447

Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance ............................. 447

Environment safety and health ................................................................ 447

Worker and community transition ........................................................... 447

National nuclear security administrative support .................................. 447

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) ............................................. 447

Defense energy supply (sec. 3105) ........................................................... 447

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 447

Repeal of prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons (sec. 3131) ...................................................................... 447

Readiness posture for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear weapons tests (sec. 3132) ............................................ 448

Technical base and facilities maintenance and recapitalization activities (sec. 3133) ........................................................................................ 449

Continuation of processing, treatment, and disposition of legacy nuclear materials (sec. 3134) .................................................................... 450

Subtitle C—Proliferation Matters ................................................................... 451

Expansion of International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program (sec. 3141) ................................................................ 451

Semi-annual financial reports on Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Program (sec. 3142) ............................................................................... 452

Report on reduction of excessive uncosted balances for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities (sec. 3143) ......................................... 452

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 453

Modification of authorities on Department of Energy personnel security investigations (sec. 3151) ............................................................... 453

Responsibilities of Environmental Management program and National Nuclear Security Administration of Department of Energy 

for environmental cleanup, decontamination and decommissioning, 

and waste management (sec. 3152) ...................................................... 453

Update of report on stockpile stewardship criteria (sec. 3153) ............. 454

Progress reports on energy employees occupational illness compensation program (sec. 3154) ........................................................................ 455

Subtitle E—Consolidation of General Provisions on Department of Energy 

National Security Programs ......................................................................... 455

Consolidation and assembly of recurring and general provisions on 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 3161) ......... 455

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 455

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development Program ........................................................................................................ 455

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 456

Academic evaluation of environmental management accelerated 

cleanup technologies .............................................................................. 456

Consolidation of the Office of Worker and Community Transition 

and the Office of Legacy Management ................................................. 456

Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program .......................... 457

Need for an enhanced schedule for the modern pit facility ................... 457

Page

XVIII

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs—Continued

Items of Special Interest—Continued

Recruiting and retaining critical skills in the nuclear weapons complex .......................................................................................................... 458

Treatment of construction projects for the environmental management program ......................................................................................... 459

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 461

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201) .............................. 461

Legislative Requirements ................................................................................ 461

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 461

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 461

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 461

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 461

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 462

Additional Views of Senators Chambliss, Cornyn, Graham of South Carolina, 

and Inhofe ............................................................................................................. 463

Additional Views of Senator Reed .......................................................................... 465

Calendar No. 96

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 1st Session 108–46

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 

YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MAY 13, 2003.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. WARNER, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1050]

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill (S. 1050) to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 

2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 

Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the 

Armed Forces, and for other purposes, and recommends that the 

bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2004; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2004; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2004; 

2

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2004; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2004. 

Committee overview and recommendations 

As the committee deliberates on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, over 300,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, 

marines, and coast guardsmen, active and reserve component, and 

countless civilians who support military, diplomatic and humanitarian operations, are serving valiantly in the Persian Gulf region 

to secure the peace and freedom they have won for the people of 

Iraq. The stunning, rapid military success in Operation Iraqi Freedom is a testament to the dedication and competence of the members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The precision and skill with which 

recent operations have been conducted is a tribute to American 

technology and ingenuity, as well as to forward-thinking officials 

who recognized the changing nature of warfare in the 21st Century. The American military has made the Nation, and the world, 

a safer place. Military strategists and historians will study this 

military campaign for years to come and will recognize it as a new 

chapter in military history. Without a doubt, the U.S. military is 

the most capable military force in the world, a model of excellence, 

and the standard by which others are measured. 

The defense of the United States and the protection of the American people is the most solemn responsibility of any elected official. 

All Americans must be ever mindful that the defense of the homeland begins on the distant battlefields of the world. Time and again 

in recent years, the Armed Forces of the United States have been 

called upon to defend American interests and values around the 

world, from Iraq to Afghanistan to the Balkans, and elsewhere. 

Time and again, the men and women who wear the uniform of the 

United States military have successfully achieved the missions 

they have been given with professionalism, precision, and humanity. They will be called upon again, and they must be ready. 

Despite recent successes, new threats and challenges will surely 

emerge. A most urgent duty of the Congress is to provide the authorities and resources necessary to ensure that the armed forces 

have the capability to effectively deter and, if necessary, defeat 

those who would attack America or its interests, either at home or 

abroad. 

In order to meet the comprehensive defense needs required for 

the 21st Century, the U.S. Armed Forces must be technologically 

advanced, fully integrated forces that can rapidly and decisively 

reach the far corners of the world to deter, disrupt or defeat those 

who threaten the United States, its interests overseas, and its 

friends and allies. The modernization—transformation—of America’s Armed Forces is achievable and necessary, if the U.S. military 

is to be prepared for current and future responsibilities. The President’s budget request for defense for fiscal year 2004 continues the 

3

momentum achieved in recent years of making real increases in defense spending to sustain readiness, enhance the quality of life of 

military personnel and their families, and modernize and transform the U.S. Armed Forces to meet current and future threats. 

Since the beginning of the 108th Congress, the Armed Services 

Committee of the Senate has conducted 44 hearings and received 

numerous policy and operational briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 and related defense issues. As a result of these deliberations, the committee identified six priorities to 

guide its work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004: 

(1) enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to fulfill 

its homeland defense responsibilities by providing the resources and authorities necessary for the Department to assist 

in protecting the nation against all current and anticipated 

forms of attack; 

(2) continue the committee’s commitment to improving the 

quality of life for the men and women of the armed forces—active, reserve, guard and retired—and their families; 

(3) provide the men and women in uniform with the resources, training, technology and equipment they need to safely and successfully perform their missions, both now and in the 

future; 

(4) sustain the readiness of the armed forces to conduct the 

full spectrum of military operations against all current and anticipated threats; 

(5) support the Department of Defense’s efforts to build the 

innovative capabilities necessary to continue the transformation of the armed forces to enable them to successfully 

confront future threats, particularly by enhancing technological 

advantages in areas such as unmanned systems; and 

(6) improve the efficiency of Department programs and operations, and reduce the cost and time required to develop and 

acquire new capabilities and needed services. 

In order to fund these priorities, the committee recommends 

$400.5 billion for defense programs for fiscal year 2004, an increase 

of $17.9 billion above the amount appropriated last year by the 

Congress for fiscal year 2003. This represents an increase of 3.2 

percent in real terms for defense. 

The committee’s first priority was to enhance the Department of 

Defense’s homeland defense capabilities and improve the ability of 

the U.S. Armed Forces to combat terrorism, both at home and 

abroad. In these areas, the committee authorizes an increase of 

$400.0 million over the budget request. Funding highlights include, 

$88.4 million to field 12 additional Weapons of Mass Destruction—

Civil Support Teams; $147.0 million for innovative technologies to 

combat terrorism and defeat emerging asymmetric threats; $173.3 

million for development and fielding of chemical and biological 

agent detection and protection technologies; and, $107.0 million for 

enhancing the capabilities of special operations forces. To protect 

America from ballistic missile threats, the committee supports the 

budget request of $9.1 billion for missile defense. 

The committee continues its commitment to improving the quality of life of the men and women in uniform, and their families, by 

authorizing a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
4

formed service personnel, as well as a targeted pay raise of up to 

6.25 percent for certain senior non-commissioned officers and midcareer personnel. The committee also adopted several key provisions to recognize the sacrifices of the members of the armed 

forces, including increases in the family separation allowance and 

hostile fire pay, designation of assignment incentive pay for those 

assigned to Korea, and approval of a high-tempo allowance for 

those service members deployed away from home for extended periods of time. 

The administration requested $9.0 billion for military construction and family housing. Due to pending realignments of overseas 

basing, the committee recommends adjusting the program to increase investment in installations in the United States, while at 

the same time sustaining a reduced, but prudent investment in 

overseas locations that will be of long-term value to the United 

States. The committee recommends an overall increase of $373.4 

million in military construction. Among the funding adjustments 

made by the committee are increases of over $220.0 million in critical unfunded projects identified by the military services, and an 

additional $200.0 million in quality of life projects such as barracks, family housing, and child development centers. 

Over the past several years, the committee has encouraged the 

Department to increase procurement spending to a level that will 

sustain the timely recapitalization and modernization of the armed 

forces. This year, the committee authorizes $75.6 billion in procurement funding, a $1.1 billion increase over the budget request. This 

procurement funding includes: over $12.0 billion for shipbuilding 

and conversions; almost $1.0 billion for the Army’s interim armored 

combat vehicle, the Stryker; $1.5 billion for Army attack and lift 

helicopters; over $2.0 billion for 11 additional C–17 strategic lift aircraft; and, $8.1 billion in various tactical aircraft programs for 

the Air Force and the Navy. 

Additionally, the committee recognized the need for robust in- vestment in future capabilities. The committee authorizes $63.2 billion for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) activities, an increase of $1.3 billion over the President’s budget request. 

This RDT&E funding includes, over $1.0 billion for the next generation DD(X) destroyer; additional funding for the continued development of the Littoral Combat Ship; $1.7 billion for the Future 

Combat System, the Army’s centerpiece of transformation; $5.8 billion for development of various tactical aircraft, including over $4.4 

billion for the continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter, 

an increase of $56.0 million over the budget request; and, $10.7 billion for advanced science and technology (S&T) initiatives, an increase of over $500.0 million over the budget request. This increase 

in S&T brings the Department closer to the Secretary’s goal of devoting three percent of all defense funds to the S&T programs that 

have the potential to develop transformational technologies. 

Together, the investments in procurement to sustain current capabilities, and research and development to evolve to a more capable force, will give the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces 

the equipment they need to prevail across the full spectrum of military operations, both now and in the future. 

The sustained readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces is what protects America. The success of recent military operations represents 

5

the real return on added investments made by the Congress in recent years in training, munitions, maintenance and spare parts. As 

the force reconstitutes after operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, 

the committee will closely monitor whether additional funds are 

needed for those items not covered by supplemental funds to pay 

for these operations and to ensure the overall readiness of the 

armed forces. Within readiness accounts, funds were increased to 

address currently identified shortfalls, such as adding $283.0 million for equipment maintenance and testing, including depot maintenance, technical assistance, corrosion control, and systems testing, and $26.5 million above the budget request to support active 

and reserve forces to accelerate fielding and replacement of personal and field equipment. 

The transformation of the Department of Defense will depend on 

effective management and stewardship of departmental resources. 

The committee recommends numerous legislative provisions to improve the management and oversight of the Department. Some of 

these provisions would streamline the acquisition process, provide 

for greater personnel flexibility to manage the acquisition workforce, and ensure that joint requirements can be more rapidly 

achieved. Acquisition authorities to facilitate the war on terrorism 

and support contingency operations were extended, and proposed 

new authorities will give state and local governments rapid access 

to anti-terrorism technologies and services available to the Department. Finally, access to military training ranges has been assured 

in a way that safeguards the protection of endangered species and 

contributes to the readiness of the armed forces. 

With U.S. Armed Forces poised on distant battlefields and countless others standing watch at home, the committee is committed to 

providing the resources needed for the men and women of the 

armed forces, and their families. The committee’s past support for 

increased defense spending has proven to be a wise investment. 

There is no greater evidence than the successes witnessed on the 

battlefields of Iraq. The committee believes that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 sustains the advances 

made in recent years, and provides the necessary investments to 

prepare for the future. 

Explanation of funding summary 

The administration’s budget request for the national defense 

function of the federal budget for fiscal year 2004 was $399.7 billion, of which $298.5 billion was for programs that require specific 

funding authorization. According to the estimating procedures used 

by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the amount requested 

was $400.5 billion. The funding summary table that follows uses 

the budget authority as calculated by CBO. 

The following table summarizes both the direct authorizations 

and equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2004 defense 

programs. The columns relating to the authorization request do not 

include funding for the following items: pay and benefits for military personnel; military construction authorizations provided in 

prior years; and other small portions of the defense budget that are 

not within the jurisdiction of this committee or that do not require 

an annual authorization. 

6

Funding for all programs in the national defense function is reflected in the columns related to the budget authority request and 

the total budget authority implication of the authorizations in this 

bill. 

The committee recommends funding for national defense pro- grams totaling $400.5 billion in budget authority. This funding 

level is consistent with the budget authority level of $400.5 billion 

for the national defense function recommended in the Concurrent 

Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 (H. Con. Res. 95).

7


Insert graphic folio 38 SR46.001
8


Insert graphic folio 39 SR46.002
9


Insert graphic folio 40 SR46.003
10


Insert graphic folio 41 SR46.004
11


Insert graphic folio 42 SR46.005
12


Insert graphic folio 43 SR46.006
13


Insert graphic folio 44 SR46.007
(15)

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title I of this Act. The tables also display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year 

2004 budget request for procurement programs and indicate those 

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased 

the requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not 

exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget 

justification documents of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. 

Unless noted in the report, funding changes to the budget request 

are made without prejudice. 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, Defense (sec. 

106) 

The budget request included $1.7 billion for Chemical Agents and 

Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD,D), as follows: $1,199.2 

million for operations and maintenance; $251.9 million for research 

and development; and $79.2 million for procurement. The request 

also included $119.8 million for military construction described as 

elsewhere in this report. 

The committee strongly supports the decision of the Department 

to request funding for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program in a defense-wide account. Section 1521(f) of title 50, 

United States Code, requires that funds for this program shall not 

be included in the budget accounts for any military department. 

Funding the destruction program in a defense-wide account ensures that the program is subject to the appropriate level of management and oversight and ensures that the program is not subject 

to the internal budget priorities of one particular service. Therefore, the committee recommends $1.5 billion for CAMD, D as follows: $1.2 billion for operation and maintenance; $251.9 million for 

research and development; and $79.2 million for procurement. 

Subtitle B—Army Programs

16


Insert graphic folio 47 here SR46.008
17


Insert graphic folio 48 here SR46.009
18


Insert graphic folio 49 here SR46.010
19


Insert graphic folio 50 here SR46.011
20


Insert graphic folio 51 here SR46.012
21


Insert graphic folio 52 here SR46.013
22


Insert graphic folio 53 here SR46.014
23


Insert graphic folio 54 here SR46.015
24


Insert graphic folio 55 here SR46.016
25


Insert graphic folio 56 here SR46.017
26


Insert graphic folio 57 here SR46.018
27


Insert graphic folio 58 here SR46.019
28


Insert graphic folio 59 here SR46.020
29


Insert graphic folio 60 here SR46.021
30


Insert graphic folio 61 here SR46.022
31


Insert graphic folio 62 here SR46.023
32


Insert graphic folio 63 here SR46.024
33


Insert graphic folio 64 here SR46.025
34


Insert graphic folio 65 here SR46.026
35


Insert graphic folio 66 here SR46.027
36


Insert graphic folio 67 here SR46.028
37


Insert graphic folio 68 here SR46.029
38

Army Aircraft 

UH–60 Blackhawk 

The budget request included $138.9 million for 10 UH–60L 

Blackhawk helicopters. The current Army requirement for 

Blackhawk helicopters is 1,680. When the current UH–60L 

Blackhawk helicopter multi year procurement contract terminates 

in fiscal year 2007, as planned, the Army will have 1,665 helicopters in the inventory, 15 short of the total requirement. 

The committee notes that the engines of Army helicopters flying 

as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom frequently clogged because of 

exposure to sand. The committee believes that Army aviation assets could benefit from the installation of an engine inlet barrier 

system. The committee recommends an increase of $70.7 million for 

seven additional UH–60L helicopters to be fielded in accordance with Army priorities and $800,000 for an engine inlet barrier system for the UH–60 Blackhawk helicopter, for a total authorization of $209.4 million. 

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications 

The budget request included $495.5 million for CH–47 modifications. The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense approved the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) Army 

Special Operations Aviation (ARSOA) transformation plan to increase the number of authorized MH–47G helicopters by 24. The 

Army was directed to transfer 16 CH–47 aircraft to USSOCOM for 

conversion to MH–47G, leaving the Army with a requirement to 

transfer eight additional aircraft in the future. The committee 

notes that there are four aircraft awaiting induction at Corpus 

Christi Army Depot that could be used to satisfy half of the remaining USSOCOM requirement. The committee recommends an 

increase of $15.0 million for the repair of four CH–47 helicopters, for a total authorization of $510.5 million for aircraft modifications. 

UH–60 Blackhawk modifications 

The budget request included $136.5 million for selected upgrades 

for the UH–60 Blackhawk helicopter. With this funding the Army 

intended to begin a much-needed recapitalization program for the 

upgrade of UH–60 helicopters into the UH–60 model M configuration, with 10 UH–60M helicopters to be produced in fiscal year 

2004. The committee understands that the UH–60M contractor recently submitted an estimate-at-completion for the integration and 

qualification contract that indicates that the program will not be 

executable as currently budgeted. As a result, the Army and the 

contractor have restructured the program to make the program 

executable within the amounts requested for UH–60 Blackhawk 

modifications in the fiscal year 2004 request for procurement and 

research and development. According to the Army, the restructured 

program will allow the contractor to complete fiscal year 2003 

work, including the completion of two prototypes. With the revised 

fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Army intends to procure four 

additional prototype aircraft to mitigate risk in the operational 

test. Accordingly, the Army has requested that funding be transVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
39

ferred from procurement accounts to research and development accounts to fund these activities. The committee recommends a transfer of $100.0 million from Aircraft Procurement, Army, to 

PE23744A, for a total authorization of $36.5M for selected UH–60 

helicopter upgrades and $170.2 million in PE23744A for 

Blackhawk UH–60M recapitalization. 

Kiowa Warrior 

The budget request included $45.1 million for safety enhancements for the OH–58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter. The Kiowa Warrior safety enhancement program (SEP) is intended to reduce aircraft weight, resulting in increased range, maneuverability and 

mission performance in a helicopter which provides the Army with 

an armed reconnaissance capability until adequate numbers of Comanche helicopters are fielded in the 2017 time frame. The GAU– 19/A is an externally mounted aircraft gun that was nominated, 

successfully field tested, and approved for SEP by the Army process. The GAU–19/A is safer, more reliable, requires less maintenance, and is lighter than the current OH–58D weapon, the M2 .50 

caliber machine gun. The committee recommends an increase of 

$12.3 million for 75 GAU–19As, for a total authorization of $57.3 

million for Kiowa Warrior. 

Aircraft survivability equipment 

The budget request included $7.0 million for the AN/AVR–2A 

laser detecting set. The AN/AVR–2A is a passive threat warning 

system which receives, processes, and displays threat information 

resulting from aircraft illumination by lasers. The committee notes 

that current funding procures AN/AVR–2s for installation on special operations helicopters but does not fully address Army requirements for integration of the AN/AVR–2A on Apache model A and 

D aircraft. The AN/AVR–2A provides increased crew and aircraft 

survivability. The committee believes that these enhancements 

should be fielded as soon as possible. The committee recommends 

an increase of $7.0 million for the AN/AVR–2A laser detecting set, 

for a total authorization of $14.0 million for AN/AVR–2A laser detecting sets. 

Avionics support equipment 

The budget request included $13.3 million for 1,862 Aviator 

Night Vision Imaging Systems (ANVIS). The ANVIS is critical to 

the aviator’s ability to operate at night and in low-light conditions. 

With a total requirement of 12,000 ANVISs, a shortfall of over 

7,500 systems exists after the fiscal year 2004 quantities are procured. The Army has funded the acquisition of the ANVIS in fiscal 

years 2005–2007 of the Future Years Defense Program. The committee believes that the safety and effectiveness of Army aviators 

support an acceleration of procurement of these systems. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for 2,100 additional ANVIS, a total authorization of $28.8 million. 

Aircrew integrated systems 

The budget request included $28.9 million for aircrew integrated 

systems, but no funding for the cockpit airbag system (CABS), a 

40

crash-activated, inflatable protection system. The committee believes that CABS provides supplemental head and body restraint 

for helicopter aircrews which can significantly reduce fatalities and 

injuries in the event of helicopter crashes. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the procurement of cockpit airbag systems, for a total authorization of $38.9 million. 

Army Missiles 

Hellfire 

The budget request included $33.1 million for the procurement of 

Longbow Hellfire missiles, but no funding for the Hellfire II missile. The Hellfire II air-to-ground missile provides a precision strike 

capability and is the primary anti-tank weapon of Army aviation 

helicopters. The committee understands that the Hellfire II was 

operationally employed in Operation Iraq Freedom and that the 

current inventory of 7,900 missiles is below the Army’s acquisition 

objective of 8,578 missiles. The committee notes that the Army 

Chief of Staff identified a fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement 

of $129.2 million for the Laser Hellfire Missile (Hellfire II). The 

committee recommends an increase of $43.0 million for the procurement of Hellfire II missiles, for a total authorization of $76.1 

million. 

Javelin missiles 

The budget request included $133.1 million for Javelin missile 

procurement. Javelin consists of a reusable command launch unit 

and missile and is capable of defeating all known tank armor and 

has residual capability against bunkers and field fortifications. The 

committee notes that existing funding supports the procurement of 

a total of 4,348 command launch units, leaving an unfunded requirement of 1,074 to outfit the Army National Guard. The committee understands that if the Army buys command launch units 

during fiscal year 2004, it can take advantage of a planned multi 

year Javelin procurement contract, enabling a better price than if 

these systems are purchased in smaller quantities over several 

years. The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for 

the procurement of Javelin command launch units, for a total authorization of $173.1 million in Javelin missile procurement. 

Weapons and Track Combat Vehicles 

Squad automatic weapon 

The budget request included no funding for the procurement of 

the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). The SAW is an individually portable machine gun which provides sustained automatic 

fire capability and increased range. The Army Chief of Staff has 

identified a fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement of $13.9 million 

for the SAW. The committee recommends an increase of $6.9 million for the procurement of additional M249 SAWs, for a total authorization of $6.9 million for the SAW. 

41

Lightweight 155mm howitzer 

The budget request included $5.0 million for the procurement of 

long-lead items for the lightweight 155mm (M777) howitzer. The 

M777 towed howitzer program is a joint Army/Marine Corps program to develop and field a replacement for the M198 howitzer. 

The M777 howitzer incorporates innovative designs, including an 

M776 cannon tube, to achieve lighter weight without sacrificing capability. The program entered low rate initial production for 94 

Marine Corps guns in November 2002. The committee understands 

that the program will enter into full rate production for the Marine 

Corps howitzer in fiscal year 2005. The committee believes that advanced procurement of cannons for the Marine Corps’ howitzers 

will reduce fiscal year 2005 howitzer production costs. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the procurement 

of long-lead items for howitzer cannons, for a total authorization of 

$9.0 million for the lightweight 155mm howitzer. 

Rapid fielding initiative 

As a result of lessons learned from the 2002 deployment of combat units to Afghanistan, the Army initiated a program, the Rapid 

Fielding Initiative (RFI), to provide soldiers and units with required items of field equipment which were not issued through normal supply procedures. The committee understands that the Army 

has fielded this equipment to elements of the 82nd Airborne Division and 101st Air Assault Division by reallocating funds within 

the Army. The committee further understands that the Army has 

identified an initial cost of approximately $11.0 million to equip a 

brigade with soldier mission essential equipment, including: specialized cold weather clothing and hydration systems; military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) specialized equipment sets, 

including assault ladders and fiber optic viewers; individual weapons optics; force mobility and mobility equipment, such as the advanced combat helmet and knee and elbow pads; and lethality improvements such as the M249 squad automatic weapons rails and 

multiband inter/intra team radios. The committee supports this initiative and recommends an increase of $14.9 million for this initiative. Specifically, the committee recommends an increase of $6.9 

million to weapons and tracked combat vehicles, Army, and $8.0 

million to other procurement, Army, to be distributed in the following manner:

(In millions of dollars) 

WTCV BLIN 33, GB3007, M4 Carbine Modifications ........................................ 5.0 

WTCV BLIN 34, GZ1290, Squad Automatic Weapons Modifications ............... 0.3 

WTCV BLIN 35, GZ1300, Medium Machine Gun Modifications ....................... 0.2 

WTCV BLIN 39, GZ0925, M145 Machine Gun Optics ....................................... 0.7 

WTCV BLIN 40, Gl3200, Lightweight Shotgun System ..................................... 0.7 

OPA, BLIN 40, BA5210, Multiband Inter/Intra Team Radios ........................... 6.2 

OPA, BLIN 77, KA3500, Night Vision Devices ................................................... 1.8

Army Ammunition 

M919 Armor-piercing fin-stabilized, discarding-sabot, with 

tracer 25mm cartridge 

The budget request included $491,000 in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, for the M919 armor-piercing fin-stabilized, disVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
42

carding-sabot, with tracer (APFSDS–T) 25mm cartridge. According 

to the Department of the Army, an unfunded requirement exists 

for the M919. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$10.0 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, for the M919 

APFSDS–T. This addition will address shortfalls in APFSDS–T requirements and assist the Army in achieving C–1 readiness levels. 

M789 high-explosive, dual-purpose cartridge 

The budget request included $958,000 in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, for the M789 high-explosive, dual-purpose (HEDP) 

cartridge. The committee notes that the Department of the Army 

is proceeding with procurement of ammunition, including the M789 

HEDP, necessary to implement the Department’s revised training strategy. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 

million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, for the M789 HEDP. 

M930 illumination cartridge 

The budget request included $2.0 million for the M930 illumination cartridge. The committee supports the efforts of the Army to 

increase the war reserve requirement for the M930, which will 

have been reduced to about 33 percent by the end of fiscal year 

2003. The Army assess the M930 as a critical end-item. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, for M930 120mm illumination cartridge. 

M485 illumination cartridge 

The budget request included no funding for the M485 illumination cartridge. The committee supports the Army’s initiative to 

achieve C–1 level of readiness for the M485 illumination cartridge. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million 

in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, for the M485 illumination 

cartridge. 

M87A1 Volcano anti-tank mine 

The budget request included no funding for the M87A1 Volcano 

anti-tank mine. The committee notes that this system is a key component of the Army landmine program. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army for the M87 Volcano anti-tank mine.

Modern demolition initiators 

The budget request included $25.0 million for modern demolition 

initiators (MDIs). MDIs are non-electric detonators that are used to 

initiate munitions and explosives. MDIs provide a safer, more reliable detonation system while decreasing time on target. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army, to procure additional MDIs. 

Dye sets for medium caliber ammunition 

The budget request included $33.6 million for the provision of industrial facilities in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, including 

replacement of obsolete or worn production equipment. The committee notes that the only existing production dye sets for medium 

43

caliber ammunition are nearing obsolescence. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in Procurement of 

Ammunition, Army, for the replacement of production dye sets for 

medium caliber ammunition. 

Modern munitions load, assembly, and pack technology 

The budget request included $33.6 million for the provision of industrial facilities in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, including 

the establishment, augmentation, and improvement of ammunition 

production capabilities. The committee supports the plans of the 

Army’s Armament, Research, Development and Engineering Center 

(ARDEC) to manage the challenges associated with the load, assembly, and pack processes of modern munitions. The committee 

notes that existing high volume production facilities can be 

equipped to support both the latest explosive formulations and 

component assemblies to meet these challenges. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in Procurement 

of Ammunition, Army, for equipment requirements in support of 

modern munitions, load, assembly and pack technology. 

White phosphorous production equipment 

The committee understands that the Army Working Capital 

Fund Capital Investment Program budget request for fiscal year 

2004 included $24.3 million to replace white phosphorous production equipment at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas. The Army supports this upgrade in order to ‘‘reduce health and safety hazards’’

for workers and to provide production flexibility in support of Army 

Transformation. 

The committee is concerned that funding this project within the 

working capital fund could have an adverse impact on the rates of 

the smoke, incendiary, and illumination munitions produced at 

Pine Bluff Arsenal. Therefore, the committee recommends a transfer of $24.3 million from Army Working Capital Fund cash balances to Procurement of Ammunition, Army, to complete the necessary equipment upgrades of the white phosphorous production 

line. 

Conventional ammunition demilitarization 

The budget request included $77.6 million for the demilitarization of conventional ammunition. The committee notes that the 

stockpile of ammunition requiring demilitarization is increasing 

due to inventory aging, Army modernization, and serviceability 

issues caused by increased deployments. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an increase of $6.0 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Army, for conventional ammunition demilitarization. 

Other Army Procurement 

M871A3 semi-trailer 

The budget request included $7.3 million for the procurement of 

158 M871A3 semi-trailers. The M871A3 semi-trailer is a 221⁄2=ton 

flatbed/break bulk (FB/BB) tactical, dual purpose, bulk and container transporter. The M871A3s are the primary means of distributing containers and bulk cargo within the theater of operations. 

44

This model trailer corrects problems of the M871A1 fielded model 

with load height bridge clearance and mating with the five-ton variant of the family of medium tactical vehicle (FMTV). The committee notes that with the procurement of 158 trailers, the Army 

will have achieved only 67 percent of its Army acquisition objective. 

Without this new model, containerized loads may be required to bypass supply routes, which would inhibit mission completion. The 

committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the procurement of additional M871A3 semi-trailers, for a total authorization 

of $11.3 million. 

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles 

The budget request included $137.8 million for high mobility 

multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV). The HMMWV serves as 

the Army’s light tactical wheeled vehicle for command and control, 

light cargo, and personnel transport. The committee notes that the 

Army’s approved acquisition objective is for over 122,000 

HMMWVs, but the Army has procured slightly over 100,000 to 

date. The fiscal year 2004 budget request funds an additional 2,114 

HMMWVs, leaving the Army well short of its stated requirements. 

The committee recommends an increase of $23.5 million for procurement of additional HMMWVs, for a total authorization of 

$161.3 million. 

The committee is concerned with the current condition of the 

Army’s light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. The average age of the 

light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet, mostly HMMWVs, is between 

10 and 15 years old. These older HMMWV models do not possess 

the payload and mobility capabilities of the new model HMMWVs 

the Army intends to procure with this budget request. The Army’s 

Objective Force relies extensively on the light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet as the prime mover for many systems including key command, control, communications, and computers, and intelligence 

systems. The committee believes that there may be an extensive investment needed in technology insertion and block changes to the 

light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet to meet transformation requirements. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to deliver a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than March 

31, 2004, identifying critical technology insertions and block 

changes to the Army’s light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet that could 

reduce vehicle aging, improve payload and mobility capabilities, 

and reduce operations and support costs. Further, the Secretary is 

expected to deliver a light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet modernization plan to meet these key requirements at the same time the report is delivered to the congressional defense committees. 

Movement Tracking System 

The budget request included $10.4 million for the procurement of 

the Movement Tracking System (MTS). The MTS provides critical 

near-real time visibility and management of mobile assets worldwide for a multitude of tactical wheeled vehicles including the 

palletized load system, the heavy expanded mobility tactical truck, 

and the family of medium tactical vehicles. The committee notes 

that for fiscal year 2003, the Army intends to procure 2,619 MTS 

45

with $41.7 million, but has requested only $10.4 million for 636 

MTS in fiscal year 2004. The committee is concerned that the Army 

has not given higher priority to the procurement and installation 

of this vital piece of equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for procurement of additional movement 

tracking systems, for a total authorization of $35.4 million. 

SINCGARS radios 

The budget request included $39.3 million for the procurement of 

the SINCGARS family of radios. The committee notes that current 

and programmed funding for the SINCGARS family of radios procures 245,888 radios out of a total Army requirement for 252,091 

radios. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for 

the procurement of SINGCARS radios, for a total authorization of 

$54.3 million. 

Area Common User System 

The budget request included $108.4 million for modifications to 

the Area Common User System (ACUS) and its migration to the 

Army’s war fighting information network-tactical (WIN–T) program. The ACUS modernization program supports the downsizing 

of ACUS legacy systems through the procurement and fielding of 

the single shelter switch (SSS) and the high mobility digital group 

multiplexer assemblage (HMDA). The committee notes that SSS 

and HMDA support the Army’s strategic goals of increasing 

deployability, security, capacity, and speed of information distribution by greatly reducing airlift requirements. However, the Army 

does not adequately fund this equipment in the Future Years Defense Program. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 

million for ACUS, for a total authorization of $133.4 million. 

Land Warrior 

The budget request included $94.8 million in other procurement, Army, for Land Warrior, and $49.2 million in PE64713A for Land 

Warrior development. The Land Warrior program integrates small 

arms with high-tech equipment and consists of several subsystems 

including the weapon, integrated helmet assembly, protective clothing and individual equipment, computer, squad radio, and software. With this funding the Army intends to procure 1,975 Land 

Warrior systems for the Rangers and Stryker systems. The committee understands that the Land Warrior initial-capability system 

failed developmental tests primarily due to subsystem reliability 

issues, but did meet functionality requirements such as situational 

awareness, survivability, and communications. In light of these developmental test failures, it appears that the Army has taken 

measures to improve Land Warrior reliability through risk mitigation assessments and demonstrations. Accordingly, the Army has 

requested that funding be transferred from procurement accounts 

to research and development accounts to fund these activities. 

The budget request for Land Warrior development included no 

funding for the Integrated Battlefield Combat Situational Awareness System (IB–CSAS). IB–CSAS proposes to bring dismounted 

forces into the battlefield common operating picture for embedded 

live-fire training and combat using integrated technologies includVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
46

ing ultra wide band for improved position, location, and tracking, 

and small and lightweight soldier sensors for laser-based combat 

identification systems. The committee notes that these technologies 

are estimated to be at technology readiness levels three and four 

and require more development work. The committee recommends a transfer of $73.5 million from 

Land Warrior procurement to PE64713A project 667, Land Warrior 

development, of which $15.0 million is for further IB–CSAS development, for a total authorization of $122.7 million in PE67413A for 

the Land Warrior system, and a decease of the remaining $21.3 to 

Other Procurement, Army. 

Construction equipment extended service program 

The budget request included no funding for the service life extension program of general construction equipment. The committee 

notes that the Army Chief of Staff identified a fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement of $10.2 million for the service life extension 

of various construction equipment. The committee recommends an 

increase of $10.2 million for the construction equipment extended 

service program, for a total authorization of $10.2 million. 

Modular Causeway System 

The budget request included no funding for the modular causeway system. The Modular Causeway System (MCS) is an assemblage of interoperable and interchangeable components which constitute the Army’s primary means of augmenting existing port facilities, or conducting joint logistics over-the-shore (JLOTS) operations where no port is available due to shallow water or low-sloping beach gradients. The MCS is a critical element of LOTS/JLOTS 

operations. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million 

for the procurement of MCS, for a total authorization of $25.0 million. 

Military operations on urban terrain 

The budget request included $165.3 million for non-system training devices, but no funding for the Military Operations on Urban 

Terrain (MOUT) Instrumentation System. The committee understands that this system uses a combination of cameras, sensors, 

simulations, and targets to provide realistic training that is captured for after-action review and analysis, which provides feedback 

to soldiers to improve their combat capabilities in an urban setting. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million for the 

MOUT instrumentation system, for a total authorization of $170.1 

million for non-system training devices. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs

47


Insert graphic folio 81 SR46.030
48


Insert graphic folio 82 SR46.031
49


Insert graphic folio 83 SR46.032
50


Insert graphic folio 84 SR46.033
51


Insert graphic folio 85 SR46.034
52


Insert graphic folio 86 SR46.035
53


Insert graphic folio 87 SR46.036
54


Insert graphic folio 88 SR46.037
55


Insert graphic folio 89 SR46.038
56


Insert graphic folio 90 SR46.039
57


Insert graphic folio 91 SR46.040
58


Insert graphic folio 92 SR46.041
59


Insert graphic folio 93 SR46.042
60


Insert graphic folio 94 SR46.043
61


Insert graphic folio 95 SR46.044
62


Insert graphic folio 96 SR46.045
63


Insert graphic folio 97 SR46.046
64


Insert graphic folio 98 SR46.047
65


Insert graphic folio 99 SR46.048
66


Insert graphic folio 100 SR46.049
67


Insert graphic folio 101 SR46.050
68


Insert graphic folio 102 SR46.051
69


Insert graphic folio 103 SR46.052
70


Insert graphic folio 104 SR46.053
71


Insert graphic folio 105 SR46.054
72


Insert graphic folio 106 SR46.055
73

Multiyear procurement authority for Navy programs (sec. 

121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear contract for procurement of the following: (1) the F/A–18 aircraft program; (2) the 

E–2C aircraft program; (3) the Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile 

program; and, (4) the Virginia-class submarine program. 

This would be the second consecutive multiyear procurement authorization for the F/A–18 aircraft. A separate multiyear procurement was authorized for the F/A–18 aircraft engines in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 

107–107). The committee encourages the Navy to synchronize the 

multiyear procurement of the F/A–18 aircraft and its engines at the 

earliest opportunity. 

The E–2C aircraft multiyear procurement would stabilize the industrial base for low rate production during the development of the 

follow-on aircraft, the E–2 Advanced Hawkeye. 

The Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile is currently scheduled to 

complete Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) in 

March, 2004. The committee recommends a limitation in the provision that would delay award of a multiyear procurement contract 

for the Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile until, as a result of operational testing, the missile is recommended for use in the fleet. 

The first submarine of the Virginia-class is nearing completion, 

with delivery scheduled in fiscal year 2004. Its design stability is 

evident from the low number of engineering change orders when 

compared to any other submarine at this stage of construction. 

Substantial savings can be achieved through an award of a 

multiyear procurement contract. 

Pilot program for flexible funding of Navy vessel conversions and overhauls (sec. 122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

pilot program to permit flexible funding of conversions and overhauls of Navy cruisers from October 1, 2003, until September 30, 

2012. The budget request for fiscal year 2004 includes funding for 

the first of 22 Ticonderoga-class cruiser conversions. 

Ship conversions are currently funded from the Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy (SCN) procurement account. It is likely that, during the course of any ship conversions, items which were not included in the original work package would be discovered which 

could be corrected most efficiently while the ship is in the conversion process, rather than waiting for a subsequent shipyard availability period. 

The pilot program authorized by this provision would allow the 

Navy to transfer appropriated funds from other appropriations and 

merge these transferred funds with the SCN funds available for 

the conversion. The other appropriations accounts that could be 

used for this purpose include: (1) other programs within SCN; (2) 

Weapons Procurement, Navy; (3) Other Procurement, Navy; and, 

(4) Operation and Maintenance, Navy. 

The provision would only allow the Navy to transfer funds when 

there is either: (1) an increase in the size of the workload for conversion or overhaul to meet existing requirements for the cruiser; 

74

or (2) a revision of the original work package resulting from a new 

conversion or overhaul requirement. 

The provision would require that the Secretary of the Navy, 30 

days before any transfer could take place, report to the congressional defense committees: (1) the purpose of the transfer; (2) the 

amount of the transfer; (3) the account from which the transfer is 

being made; (4) the program, project, or activity from which the 

transfer is being made; (5) the account to which the funds are 

being transferred; and, (6) the implications of the transfer on the 

total cost of the cruiser conversion program. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to make a final 

report to the congressional defense committees no later than October 1, 2011, that evaluates the efficacy of the pilot program. 

Other Navy Programs 

Navy Aircraft 

Airborne low frequency sonar 

The budget request included $352.1 million to procure six MH–

60R aircraft in fiscal year 2004 and to pay various non-recurring 

charges and production support items for the MH–60R helicopter 

program. The budget request does not include any such funding for 

the AN/AQS–22 Airborne Low Frequency Sonar (ALFS), a dipping 

sonar system that will be part of the MH–60R helicopter’s equipment. The Navy competitively selected ALFS in fiscal year 1992 to 

outfit the MH–60R fleet. 

The Navy could use additional funds in fiscal year 2004 to improve logistics support of the ALFS systems by upgrading the consolidated automated support systems, developing intermediate 

technical manuals, qualifying a second source for the ALFS cable, 

and upgrading the sonar signal generator. Such efforts could lead 

to significant reductions in total life cycle costs for ALFS. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million to pay 

for these activities to support ALFS system introduction. 

Operational support aircraft 

The budget request includes $15.6 million for the procurement of 

two UC–35 operational support aircraft for the Marine Corps. The 

UC–35 is certified by the Federal Aviation Administration and has 

begun to replace the Marine Corps’ aging CT–39 operational support aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $15.6 million for the procurement of two additional UC–35 aircraft. 

C–37 aircraft 

The budget request included no funds for C–37 aircraft. The C–

37 is a long-range, twin engine, commercially available transport 

aircraft. The mission of the C–37 aircraft is to provide long range 

executive transport for the Chief of Naval Operations, unified commanders, and their staff. The Navy has an inventory objective of 

five C–37 aircraft. Four of the five aircraft currently performing 

this mission have exceeded, or will exceed, their fatigue life by fiscal year 2006. The committee is aware that the Future Years Defense Program includes funding for three C–37 aircraft, with the 

75

next aircraft scheduled to be procured in fiscal year 2005. The committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million to accelerate this 

program by procuring a C–37 aircraft in fiscal year 2004. 

Joint Primary Aircraft Training System 

The budget request included $2.4 million for the procurement of 

certain items supporting the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) for the Navy, but included no funding for Navy 

JPATS aircraft. JPATS is a joint program between the Navy and 

the Air Force. The Air Force intends to procure 52 JPATS aircraft 

in fiscal year 2004, but the Navy plans to delay procurement of 

JPATS aircraft until fiscal year 2007. The committee continues to 

believe that the Navy should begin to procure the aircraft for the 

planned joint primary pilot training with the Air Force. The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million for the procurement of five Navy JPATS aircraft. 

AV–8B aircraft modifications 

The budget request includes $20.9 million for modifications to 

the AV–8B aircraft, of which $9.9 million is for core avionics upgrades. No funding was included for Litening precision strike targeting pods. 

As the AV–8B aircraft ages, the Navy is facing diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages, resulting in problems 

with obsolescence of certain avionics components. Additional funding could be used to resolve known avionics deficiencies to improve 

readiness, availability, and safety. The committee notes that $13.0 

million was included on the Marine Corps’ unfunded priority list 

for fiscal year 2004 for this purpose. The committee recommends 

an increase of $13.0 million for AV–8B core avionics upgrades. 

AV–8B aircraft have been using the Litening II targeting pod to 

provide precision targeting capability. A recent upgrade to the 

Litening II targeting pod has yielded the Litening advanced targeting (AT) configuration, which would increase the AV–8B’s 

lethality and survivability by allowing standoff precision weapons 

delivery. The upgrade of eight Litening II targeting pods to the 

Litening AT configuration and the procurement of 22 Litening AT 

pods is included on the Marine Corps’ unfunded priority list for fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends an increase of $37.0 million for Litening II targeting pod upgrades and for the procurement 

of Litening AT pods, for a total authorization of $70.9 million for 

modifications to the AV–8B aircraft. 

Navigational Thermal Imaging System 

The budget request included $3.5 million for H–1 series modifications, including $3.4 million for the procurement of AN/AAQ–22A/

C UH–1N Navigational Thermal Imaging Systems (NTIS). The 

NTIS is a commercially-available thermal imaging device which 

provides significant safety enhancements to the legacy H–1 series 

of helicopters. The committee understands that the Marine Corps 

has an acquisition objective of 122 NTIS, but can procure only 

eight NTIS and some of the associated logistics with the funding 

requested in this budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million for the procurement of addiVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
76

tional AN/AAQ–22 NTIS, for a total authorization of $9.0 million 

for H–1 series upgrades. 

EP–3 aircraft service life assessment

The budget request included $31.5 million for modifications to 

the EP–3 aircraft, but included no funding to assess the remaining 

service life of the aircraft. The EP–3 is a land-based, long range intelligence aircraft. EP–3s have historically been among the most 

heavily utilized aircraft in the military. This utilization rate has increased significantly since the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism in 2001. 

There are only 12 EP–3 aircraft active in the fleet. The average 

service life of these aircraft is currently 29 years. Preliminary results from a recent strength test, which became available after the 

submission of the Navy’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, indicate 

that more than half of the EP–3 aircraft have already exceeded 

their fatigue life. The fatigue test results indicate there is a potential near-term crisis in the operational availability of these scarce 

intelligence assets, and operational restrictions have been imposed 

on the speed and maneuvering envelopes of some of the EP–3 aircraft. 

The committee understands that a program of inspections and 

modifications could assess whether or not the EP–3 fleet can remain at its current inventory level. The committee understands 

that this program would not remove the operational restrictions on 

the aircraft, but would provide better knowledge about future EP– 3 aircraft availability. The committee recommends an increase of 

$4.8 million for a program of inspections and modifications to assess the remaining service life of the EP–3 fleet of aircraft. 

The committee believes that this situation merits senior-level review to ensure that the capability being provided by EP–3 aircraft 

is not precipitously lost. The committee directs the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 

2004. This report should include an analysis of the following: (1) 

how the Department of Defense will maintain the capability currently being provided by EP–3 aircraft until a suitable replacement 

capability is available; (2) when such a replacement capability 

might be available; (3) what range of options should be considered 

in determining that replacement capability; and (4) the operational, 

safety, or effectiveness issues associated with the required operational restrictions on the EP–3 aircraft, and whether it would be 

acceptable to continue operating with such restrictions until a replacement for the EP–3 aircraft capability is deployed. 

P–3C aircraft modifications 

The budget request included $95.0 million for modifications to 

the P–3C aircraft, which included $58.1 million for the procurement and installation of Anti-surface Warfare Improvement Program (AIP) kits. AIP greatly expands the P–3C aircraft’s capabilities to operate in littoral regions with the addition of advanced 

technology sensors, expanded communications, upgraded weapon 

delivery capabilities, survivability upgrades, and improved operator 

77

situational awareness. The Navy has a requirement for 146 AIPequipped P–3C aircraft. Funding for 69 aircraft has been appropriated, with 56 of those aircraft delivered. The committee recommends an increase of $39.4 million for the procurement and installation of three additional P–3 AIP kits. 

Aerial targets 

The budget request included $70.7 million for the procurement of 

aerial targets. The aerial target program provides powered targets, 

towed targets, and associated equipment for fleet training and 

weapons system testing and validation. The GQM–163A supersonic 

sea-skimming target (SSST), when introduced in the fleet in fiscal 

year 2004, will provide the Navy with the only aerial target system 

capable of simulating the airframe size, sea-skimming range, 

speed, and maneuverability of potential threat aircraft or anti-ship 

missiles, to meet fleet testing and weapon system development requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for the procurement of additional GQM–163A SSSTs. 

Navy Weapons 

Weapons industrial facilities 

The budget request included $7.4 million for various activities at 

government-owned, contractor-operated weapons industrial facilities, but included no funding for the facilities restoration at the Allegany Ballistics Laboratory (ABL). The committee recommends an 

increase of $20.0 million for the facilities restoration program at 

ABL. 

Close-in weapons system 

The budget request included $41.4 million for the Phalanx closein weapons system (CIWS), including $15.6 million for the procurement of seven and the installation of 13 Block 1B CIWS upgrade 

kits (CIWS–1B). The Phalanx is a high rate-of-fire weapon that 

automatically acquires, tracks, and destroys aircraft and anti-ship 

cruise missiles that have penetrated all other ship defenses. It is 

the most widely distributed ship self-defense weapon in the fleet, 

installed on virtually all surface ships. The CIWS–1B is an upgrade 

that uses thermal imaging and an automatic acquisition video 

tracker that provides the additional capability to engage small, 

high speed, maneuvering surface craft and low, slow aircraft and 

helicopters. This upgrade is essential to provide a defense against 

potential terrorist and asymmetric threats as the fleet operates in 

the littorals. The committee is aware of the Navy’s plan to accelerate the production of CIWS–1B to 39 upgrade kits in fiscal year 

2005. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to 

procure an additional 10 CIWS–1B upgrade kits to accelerate the 

program and smooth the ramp-up in production. 

Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition 

60mm high explosive cartridge 

The budget request included no funding in Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps, for the 60mm high explosive 

78

(HE) cartridge. According to the Marine Corps, the 60mm HE cartridge is critical to conducting contingency operations in the Global 

War on Terrorism. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and 

Marine Corps, for procurement of the 60mm HE cartridge. 

Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion 

Submarine refueling overhauls 

The budget request included no funding for refueling Los Angeles-class submarines. In the fiscal year 2003 budget request, the 

Navy included funding for refueling a single Los Angeles-class submarine, and projected that it would request funds for refueling two 

additional submarines in fiscal year 2004. 

The 1999 ‘‘Attack Submarine Study’’ conducted by the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff concluded that the Navy needed to have a minimum 

of 68 attack submarines in fiscal year 2015 to meet all the requirements of the unified commanders and the national intelligence 

community. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) determined that 55 attack submarines were the minimum force necessary to present a moderate operational risk. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, 

one additional Los Angeles-class submarine refueling overhaul was 

added, for a total of two, so that attack submarine force levels 

would not decrease below the QDR-recommended level of 55 submarines. The fiscal year 2004 budget request, however, did not include the two projected refueling overhauls for fiscal year 2004, deferring one until later and forcing the decommissioning of the other 

attack submarine, the USS Jacksonville (SSN–699). 

Although the committee notes that the Navy has included the refueling overhaul of the USS Jacksonville (SSN–699) on its unfunded priority list, the decommissioning of the USS Jacksonville

(SSN–699) would again put the Navy below the QDR-recommended 

force level for attack submarines. This was exactly the situation 

the committee wanted to avoid by funding an additional refueling 

in fiscal year 2003. The committee is concerned that the Navy will 

continue to defer necessary refueling overhauls and accept high 

operational risk. 

The committee is reluctant to recommend additional funding to 

solve a force structure problem. Nevertheless, the case for this refueling is compelling. The committee recommends an increase of 

$248.0 million for the refueling overhaul of the USS Jacksonville

(SSN–699). 

DDG–51 ‘‘Arleigh Burke’’-class destroyer modernization program 

The budget request included $3.198 billion for the procurement 

of three DDG–51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, including $77.6 

million in cost for planning. The DDG–51 destroyers are a mainstay of the fleet, and are able to operate offensively and defensively, independently or as units of carrier or expeditionary strike 

groups. Several initiatives are nearing fruition in the Navy that 

would improve the effectiveness of the DDG–51 while reducing 

manpower requirements for destroyers. 

79

One such initiative would be the installation of composite ship 

louvers. Louvers are used on ships to cover air intake and engine 

exhaust areas to reduce exposure of internal equipment to the 

weather and to reduce radar signatures. Use of composite materials 

instead of steel would greatly reduce maintenance requirements. 

The committee believes that the Navy can achieve significant operations and support savings by accelerating incorporation of these 

initiatives. 

The committee recommends an increase of $21.0 million for the 

engineering and installation planning for DDG–51 Arleigh Burkeclass destroyer modernization and optimized manning upgrades on 

new construction ships, of which $1.0 million is for composite ship 

louvers. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a DDG–51 modernization plan by March 1, 2004. The plan 

should outline the key hull, mechanical, and electrical system upgrades, selective combat system upgrades, and potential manning 

reductions that could be achievable even with the additional missile defense role that may be assigned to this ship class. 

Integrated Condition Assessment System 

The budget request included $124.2 million for the procurement 

of ship equipment items of less than $5.0 million, but included no 

funding for the Integrated Condition Assessment System (ICAS). 

ICAS has been installed on various classes of surface ships and is 

a shipboard condition-based maintenance system. ICAS remotely 

monitors the operating parameters of machinery throughout the 

ship, analyzes the collected data, and alerts operators to potential 

performance problems. The committee recommends an increase of 

$9.4 million for the procurement and installation of ICAS in mine 

warfare ships, amphibious ships, and surface combatants. 

Other Navy Procurement 

SPQ–9B radar 

The budget request included $9.7 million for the SPQ–9B radar. 

The SPQ–9B radar solid state transmitter is designed to provide 

early and reliable detection of low flying, small radar cross section 

targets in natural and man-made clutter, while improving its capability to perform its original missions of anti-surface gunfire support and navigation. The inventory objective for the SPQ–9B radar 

is 118 systems for surface ships. The committee recommends an increase of $9.7 million to accelerate procurement of the SPQ–9B 

radar. 

Shipboard communications automation 

The budget request included $175.1 million in shipboard communications automation procurement, including $8.3 million for the 

automated digital network system (ADNS) project. ADNS provides 

procurement and technology enhancements for automated routing 

and switching of tactical and strategic voice, video, and data communications using transmission control protocol/internet protocol 

(TCP/IP) networks. 

80

Section 353 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) directed the Secretary of Defense 

to establish policy and procedures regarding installation and connection of telecom switches to the Defense Switch Network (DSN). 

The Navy is currently operating a number of shipboard switches 

that were installed before this language was enacted. These switches and associated software are in a number of configurations that 

have not been certified as secure and interoperable within DSN. 

Having so many disparate configurations within the fleet raises 

concerns about security and increased operating and support costs. 

The committee believes that the Navy should upgrade deployed 

systems to a DSN-certified configuration, and recommends an increase of $7.3 million for this purpose. 

Submarine high data rate antenna 

The budget request included $104.9 million in submarine com- munications systems procurement, including $15.5 million for submarine high data rate (HDR) antenna systems. 

The submarine HDR antenna program provides submarines with 

antennas that have the bandwidth, gain, and flexibility to meet the 

stated fleet requirements for HDR communications in the superhigh frequency (SHF) and extremely-high frequency (EHF) spectrums. Participating fully in the Navy’s new efforts to implement 

network centric warfare requires that ships have higher data rate 

communications than are currently available on submarines. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million to accelerate procurement of submarine HDR antenna systems. 

Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control System 

The budget request included no funding for the Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control System 

(JEDMICS). JEDMICS is the joint Department of Defense system 

for permanently storing, managing, and controlling digital engineering drawings and associated technical data. JEDMICS replaced labor intensive engineering drawing repositories with automated central repositories for all engineering and manufacturing 

information for weapons systems. The committee recommends an 

increase of $2.5 million for JEDMICS in Other Procurement, Navy. 

Integrated bridge system

The budget request included $105.2 million for AEGIS support 

equipment, but included no funding for the integrated bridge system. The integrated bridge system improves situational awareness 

through automation of navigation and ship control systems, enhancing ship safety while reducing crew workload. Installation of 

this system has helped the Navy to meet its electronic chart and 

display information requirement. The committee recommends an 

increase of $12.0 million for the procurement and installation of integrated bridge systems on AEGIS surface combatants. 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system 

The budget request included $44.8 million for anti-ship missile 

decoy systems, including $21.9 million for procuring 86 NULKA deVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
81

coys. Procuring additional NULKA decoys would ensure that fleet 

installations remain on a reasonable schedule, would keep production rates above the minimum sustaining level, and would achieve 

more reasonable unit production costs. The committee recommends 

an increase of $11.0 million to procure additional NULKA decoys. 

Submarine training device modifications 

The budget request included $25.2 million to procure submarine 

training device modifications. The Navy has critical training requirements to support submarines in the fleet and is beginning to 

use electronic performance support systems that would enhance 

training quality opportunities for deployed forces. The committee 

believes that the Navy could use these systems more extensively to 

provide on-the-job operation, maintenance and troubleshooting support normally provided by journeymen, and advanced schoolhouse 

training. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 

million to expand the use of performance support systems in conducting submarine training. 

Other supply support equipment 

The budget request included $13.9 million in other supply support equipment, but included no funding for the Serial Number 

Tracking System (SNTS). The SNTS utilizes automatic identification technology (AIT) to store and retrieve specific maintenance 

and supply significant information concerning Navy repairable assets. AIT devices include bar code and memory buttons. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the additional 

procurement of the SNTS. 

Man overboard indicator system 

The budget request included $60.7 million in command support 

equipment, but included no funding to continue buying man overboard indicator (MOBI) systems. The MOBI is a device that a sailor secures on his/her person while aboard ship. If the sailor were 

to fall overboard, the MOBI would activate and send a distress signal that would permit rescue forces to find the sailor. Each year, 

sailors’ lives are lost and much time and fuel is spent by the Navy 

attempting to locate sailors who fall overboard. Use of this device 

could alleviate this situation. The committee believes that the Navy 

should continue the MOBI effort, and recommends an increase of 

$10.0 million to procure MOBI systems. 

Marine Corps Procurement 

Squad automatic weapon 

The budget request included $3.1 million for the procurement of 

the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). The SAW is an individually portable machine gun which provides sustained automatic 

fire capability and increased range. It is a critical weapon in the 

Marine Corps rifle squad. The committee understands that the Marine Corps has an inventory of 12,413 of such weapons, of which 

7,642 are fielded, with the remaining weapons considered unserviceable. The fiscal year 2004 budget request funds for 2,593 to replace these unserviceable weapons. The committee notes that the 

82

Commandant of the Marine Corps identified a fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement of $8.1 million to procure additional SAWs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million for the procurement of additional M249 SAWs, for a total authorization of 

$5.3 million. 

Night vision equipment 

The budget request included no funding for the procurement of 

AN/PVS–14 night vision devices. The AN/PVS–14 provides service 

men in Marine Corps combat infantry units with a lightweight 

night vision device that can be used for observation and surveillance, and a night scope. The Marine Corps completed its inventory 

objective of 10,152 AN/PVS–14 devices in fiscal year 2000, but has 

stated that 1,507 devices are broken and require replacement. The 

committee also notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

identified a fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement of $5.4 million 

for the AN/PVS–14. The committee recommends an increase of $5.4 

million for the procurement of 1,507 night vision devices, a total 

authorization of $5.4 million for AN–PVS–14.

Lightweight multiband satellite terminal 

The budget request included $10.6 million for the procurement of 

Marine Corps radio systems but no funding for the lightweight 

multiband satellite terminal (LMST). The LMST upgrades existing 

Marine Corps satellite radios to extend their useful life and to provide the Marine commander with greater access to a wide range of 

commercial and military satellites. The committee notes that this 

program was funded in fiscal year 2003 and in the Future Years 

Defense Program, but not in fiscal year 2004. The committee also 

notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps identified a fiscal 

year 2004 unfunded requirement of $18.0 million for the LMST. 

The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for procurement of additional lightweight multiband radio system upgrades, for a total authorization of $22.6 million for LMST. 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs

83


Insert graphic folio 120 SR46.056
84


Insert graphic folio 121 SR46.057
85


Insert graphic folio 122 SR46.058
86


Insert graphic folio 123 SR46.059
87


Insert graphic folio 124 SR46.060
88


Insert graphic folio 125 SR46.061
89


Insert graphic folio 126 SR46.062
90


Insert graphic folio 127 SR46.063
91


Insert graphic folio 128 SR46.064
92


Insert graphic folio 129 SR46.065
93


Insert graphic folio 130 SR46.066
94


Insert graphic folio 131 SR46.067
95


Insert graphic folio 132 SR46.068
96


Insert graphic folio 133 SR46.069
97


Insert graphic folio 134 SR46.070
98


Insert graphic folio 135 SR46.071
99

Elimination of quantity limitations on multiyear procurement authority for C–130J aircraft (sec. 131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the 

restrictions on quantity of C–130J aircraft that were included in 

the multiyear procurement authority granted to the Secretary of 

the Air Force in section 131(a) of the Bob Stump National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314). The 

Air Force negotiated its multiyear contract based on a quantity of 

40 C–130J aircraft and 24 KC–130J aircraft. The committee believes these numbers do not have to be included in the multiyear 

authorization since series production of these aircraft will extend 

well beyond the multiyear contract. 

Other Air Force Programs 

Air Force Aircraft 

F/A–22 aircraft 

The budget request included $3.7 billion for the procurement of 

22 F/A–22 Raptor aircraft. The F/A–22 aircraft is stealthy, capable 

of supersonic cruise without afterburner, and incorporates multisensor integration. The F/A–22 will provide day and night, allweather air supremacy and precision ground attack capability 

against the most sophisticated integrated air defense systems. 

The F/A–22 program was approved for entry into low-rate initial 

production in fiscal year 2002. Due to an over-run in the cost of the 

development program, the Department of Defense imposed a buyto-budget approach on the program, which caused the Air Force to 

shift funding from the production program to the development program. This transfer, combined with increased unit cost, resulted in 

an Air Force decision to reduce the number of aircraft from 23 to 

20 to be produced with fiscal year 2003 funding. It also resulted in 

a decrease in aircraft quantity for fiscal year 2004, from the projected 27 aircraft to the 22 aircraft in the budget request. 

The greatest challenge in the F/A–22 development program is 

one of software integration, which has resulted in a software instability problem that affected both the startup of the integrated 

weapons system and the continuity of the system while in operation. Software stability metrics were established for both startup 

and run-time between unintended shutdowns. The thresholds for 

commencing training of operational aircrews in preparation for the 

start of dedicated initial operational test and evaluation (DIOT&E) 

were that the system startup should work 90 percent of the time, 

with a run-time of at least 10 hours of operation between unintended shutdowns. To demonstrate operational suitability during 

DIOT&E, the software must be capable of achieving 100 percent 

startup and 20 hours of operation between unintended shutdowns. 

The first production representative F/A–22 aircraft have been delivered to Nellis Air Force Base to commence training of operational aircrews, however the software stability metrics to commence training have yet to be achieved. In fiscal year 2002, the 

committee was briefed that DIOT&E would commence in April 

2003. Appearing before the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate 

Armed Services Committee in April 2003, the Assistant Secretary 

100

of the Air Force for Acquisition testified that the schedule to start 

DIOT&E has now slipped to October 2003. In his approval of a revised F/A–22 acquisition strategy on April 2, 2003, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD 

(AT&L)) assessed the strategy to achieve the required F/A–22 avionics capability as medium-to-high risk. In an acquisition decision 

memorandum of the same date, USD (AT&L) directed the Air 

Force to define options in the event that the F/A–22 does not improve to an acceptable level. These options must identify the cost 

and schedule implications of open system integration and identify 

the relationship to other programs, such as the F–16 aircraft and 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter. 

The F/A–22 production program is also experiencing difficulties. 

The committee was briefed in fiscal year 2002 on an aircraft delivery schedule that showed that by the end of March 2003, the Air 

Force would have taken delivery of 19 F/A–22s. At the end of 

March 2003, only 12 F/A–22s had been delivered. In February 

2003, the committee was briefed on another aircraft delivery schedule that indicates that the delivery schedule will catch up to that 

which is on contract with the delivery of the 35th aircraft in June 

2004. This aircraft will be the eighth of 13 aircraft awarded in lot 

two. Meanwhile, the Air Force has just awarded a contract for the 

third lot of 20 F/A–22 aircraft. The committee is concerned that the 

production processes and performance to date have not proven capable of meeting delivery schedules, yet a larger lot has been 

awarded, and an even larger number of 22 F/A–22s is requested in 

the budget request. 

Once the F/A–22 enters the inventory, it will be the most technically advanced tactical aircraft in the world. There are a limited 

number of potential threat aircraft that can outmaneuver the tactical aircraft currently in the inventory of the U.S. military. There 

are also integrated air defense systems that only the stealthy F/A– 22 will be able to penetrate in both day and night. Testing has already confirmed that the stealth, supersonic cruise, and maneuverability of the aircraft meets or exceeds expectations. However, due 

to the uncertainty of the approach being taken to the software stability problems, and the continuing inability of this program to 

meet production schedules, the committee believes it would not be 

prudent to authorize the ramp-up of procurement of F/A–22s to 22 

aircraft in fiscal year 2004. Therefore, the committee recommends 

a decrease of $217.0 million, for a total authorization of $3.5 billion 

for the procurement of 20 F/A–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2004. 

C–17 aircraft funding transfers 

The budget request included $2.03 billion for the continuing 

multiyear (MYP) procurement of 11 C–17 aircraft in fiscal year 

2004, $504.1 million for the advance procurement for 14 fiscal year 

2005 C–17 aircraft, and $42.8 million for C–17 aircraft modifications. After further review of the budget request material, the Air 

Force has requested that certain funding transfers be made in C–

17 aircraft program elements to allow full execution of fiscal year 

2004 funding. In accordance with the request of the Air Force, the 

committee recommends an increase of $88.0 million for the C–17 

aircraft MYP, a decrease of $98.0 million from C–17 aircraft adVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
101

vance procurement, and an increase of $6.3 million for C–17 aircraft modifications. 

A–10 aircraft modifications 

The budget request included $17.8 million for modifications to 

the A–10 aircraft, but included no funds for the procurement of advanced targeting (AT) pods. The Litening AT pod would greatly improve the effectiveness and survivability of the A–10. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for the procurement of Litening AT pods for A–10 aircraft. 

F–15 aircraft modifications 

The budget request included $197.6 million for modifications for 

the F–15 aircraft, including $67.8 million for upgrading the engines 

to the F100–PW–220E configuration. This engine upgrade yields 

significant safety, performance, and support enhancements. The 

committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for additional 

F–15 engine upgrades to the F100–PW–220E configuration. 

F–15 modifications

The budget request included $197.6 million for modifications to 

the F–15 aircraft, including $5.3 million to begin installing identification friend or foe (IFF) equipment on F–15 aircraft in the active 

force. Neither the budget request nor the Future Years Defense 

Program includes any funding to upgrade the IFF systems for F– 15 aircraft operating in the Air National Guard. 

The current IFF systems on F–15 aircraft are exhibiting high 

failure rates and are becoming an increasing burden on aircraft 

maintenance crews. The Air Force estimates that it will not be able 

to buy spare parts for the current systems beginning in fiscal year 

2004. 

The committee believes that the Air Force should provide an upgraded IFF capability to the F–15 aircraft operating in the Air National Guard, particularly in light of the contribution these aircraft 

have been making to continental air defense in the Global War on 

Terrorism. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.5 million in F–15 modifications to buy and install a replacement for the 

current F–15 IFF system for active and reserve component F–15 

aircraft. 

F–16 aircraft modifications 

The budget request included $300.6 million for modifications to 

the F–16 aircraft, but included no funding for the procurement and 

installation of F100–PW–229 engines or for the procurement of 

Litening Advanced Targeting (AT) pods. 

The F100–PW–229 engine provides block 42 F–16 aircraft with 

thrust and performance which is comparable to block 40 and block 

50/52 F–16 aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of 

$48.2 million for F100–PW–229 engines for block 42 F–16 aircraft. 

The Litening AT pod has an improved forward looking infrared 

sensor which provides greater performance and improved reliability. These pods enable the F–16 to deliver precision guided munitions. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for 

102

the procurement of Litening AT pods, for a total authorization of 

$358.8 million for F–16 modifications. 

C–5 aircraft modifications 

The budget request included $92.0 million for modifications to 

the C–5 aircraft, including $79.9 million for the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). The AMP modification consists of a 

newly designed avionics suite that will be more reliable and maintainable, while meeting the requirements of the global air traffic 

management (GATM) standards. The committee notes that additional funding for AMP is requested on the Air Force unfunded priority list, and recommends an increase of $39.4 million to procure 

an additional 12 kits and restore the C–5 AMP program to its previous schedule. 

The committee has expressed concern in the past that the Air 

Force has scheduled the AMP upgrade for the 50 newer C–5B aircraft, while the 60 older C–5A aircraft are not scheduled for the 

AMP upgrade until after the period covered by the Future Years 

Defense Program. The committee directs that the 12 additional authorized kits are to be installed in C–5A aircraft. 

C–130 modifications 

The budget request included $195.7 million for modifications to 

C–130 aircraft, but included no funding for integrating a very high 

data rate communications antenna on certain C–130 aircraft for 

disseminating streaming video and signals intelligence data. 

In various contingency operations, the Air Force needs to have 

the capability to deploy rapidly to a theater of operations and begin 

disseminating data to the war fighters. Such information could be 

generated from a number of sources, including the Scathe View C–

130 podded imagery reconnaissance capability and the Predator 

unmanned aerial vehicle video. Until the Air Force can establish 

ground-based operations centers with full capability, there is a 

need to support tactical operations with a more readily deployable 

capability. 

Regular ultra-high frequency satellite data links do not possess 

sufficient band width to support these capabilities. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an increase of $6.8 million in C–130 modifications to integrate Ku-band satellite communications capability 

on one of the C–130 aircraft capable of carrying the required pallet. 

C–130 radar upgrade 

The budget request included $195.7 million for modifications to 

the C–130 aircraft, which includes $2.3 million for the procurement 

and installation of the APN–241 radar for certain aircraft. The 

APN–241 is the standard radar for the Air Force C–130H3 and the 

new C–130J aircraft. The APN–241 radar meets safety and navigation requirements, and is certified for the adverse weather aerial 

delivery system. The committee recommends an increase of $6.1 

million for the procurement and installation of eight APN–241 radars for C–130s. 

103

KC–135 aircraft boom operator weapons systems trainer 

The budget request included $176.4 million for C–135 aircraft 

modifications, but included no funds for simulator upgrades for the 

KC–135 aerial refueling aircraft. 

Currently, KC–135 refueling boom operators are trained on parttask trainers and on actual flights. High fidelity aircraft boom operator weapons systems trainers (BOWSTs) would reduce the training time and the number of aircraft sorties necessary to train new 

boom operators, promoting cost efficiencies. The committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million in PE 41218F in Research, 

Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force for further development of the BOWST. The committee further recommends an increase of $8.6 million for the procurement of the KC–135 aircraft 

BOWST. 

Cobra Ball dual-sided signals intelligence 

The budget request included $90.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program 

(DARP), but included no funding for the Cobra Ball aircraft signals 

intelligence upgrades. The Cobra Ball aircraft is a unique national 

asset that provides a highly mobile capability to collect critical ballistic missile data. The information collected is used for intelligence 

analysis, treaty verification, and theater ballistic missile defense. 

Planned measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) upgrades to the Cobra Ball aircraft would displace high gain antennas currently used for signals intelligence collection. In order to 

maintain and improve this capability, and to make various onboard sensors compatible, the Cobra Ball aircraft must have newly 

configured antennas, as well as upgrades to receivers on-board. The committee recommends an increase of $12.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for dual-sided signals intelligence 

modifications to the Cobra Ball aircraft. 

Rivet Joint specific emitter identification 

The budget request included $90.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program 

(DARP), but included no funding for the RC–135 Rivet Joint specific emitter identification capability. Rivet Joint is an airborne signals intelligence platform and one of the highest priority collectors 

for regional combatant commanders. The Rivet Joint platform is 

able to detect radar emissions of interest, but lacks onboard databases and communications to achieve detailed, rapid identification 

of individual emitters. Additional funding is required to enable 

Rivet Joint to correlate and disseminate time critical radar emitter 

location information. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for Rivet Joint specific emitter identification. 

Rivet Joint signals intelligence modernization 

The budget request included $90.1 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force for the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program 

(DARP), including $55.3 million for RC–135 Rivet Joint modernization. Rivet Joint is an airborne signals intelligence platform and 

104

one of the highest priority collectors for regional combatant commanders. The Rivet Joint’s onboard systems were designed to be an 

open architecture for upgrades, but have reached maximum capacity to absorb additional upgrades. Additional funding is required to 

upgrade the on-board architecture and install additional capabilities in emerging threat areas. This is one of the highest unfunded 

priorities for the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for Rivet Joint signals intelligence 

modernization. 

Air Force Missiles 

Guidance replacement program 

The budget request included $607.0 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force for the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic 

missile modernization, of which $217.0 million was for the Guidance Replacement Program. The committee understands that the 

overhead rate reported by the contractor has increased dramatically, and does not believe that this increase has been adequately 

justified. Therefore, the committee recommends authorization of 

$593.4 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force, a decrease of 

$13.6 million. 

Titan 

The budget request included $91.5 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force for the Titan space launch vehicle. The National 

Reconnaissance Office will assume management of the Titan program until Titan launches are completed, and the Air Force budget 

request is intended to cover close-out costs for the Air Force contract. The committee understands that the Air Force has identified 

$45.0 million in excess prior year funds. Therefore, the committee 

recommends a total authorization of $46.5 million for Titan in Missile Procurement Air Force a decrease of $45.0 million, and directs 

the Secretary of the Air Force to use the excess prior year funds 

to meet fiscal year 2004 funding requirements for Titan contract 

close out. 

Evolved expendable launch vehicle 

The budget request included $609.3 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force, for the evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV), 

of which $156.9 million is for assured access to space. The budget 

request also contained $7.0 million in PE 64853F for assured access research and development. 

The EELV program acquires launch services for national security 

payloads from two commercial launch vendors, each of which has 

developed its own family of launch vehicles. The Department of Defense supported the development of these launch vehicles to preserve the benefits of competition and to hedge against technical 

problems in either family of vehicles. 

The committee is aware that the commercial launch market, 

which provided the economic basis to support two launch vendors, 

has collapsed. The absence of such a base places in doubt the abilVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
105

ity of either vendor to sustain launch operations over any extended 

period. 

The Under Secretary of the Air Force, who serves as the executive agent for Department of Defense space programs, and the 

Commander of U.S. Strategic Command have testified to the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on the significance of assuring access to 

space for U.S. national security space payloads and sustaining two 

launch vendors. The Air Force budget request included funding to 

support the EELV launch infrastructure to help do so. The committee recognizes that additional government support and a revised 

pricing structure will be required to sustain both vendors in the 

near term, and that budget constraints prevented the Air Force 

from providing the funds required to sustain the launch vendor 

base. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $669.3 million in Missile 

Procurement Air Force, an increase of $60.0 million, to support assured access to space. 

Other Air Force Procurement 

Air National Guard jumbo digital transit-cased system 

The budget request included $1.7 million for Other Procurement, 

Air Force, Intelligence Communications Equipment, but included 

no funding for Jumbo Digital Transit-cased Systems (J–DTS) for 

Air National Guard intelligence squadrons. J–DTS is a component 

of the Distributed Common Ground Station (DCGS) architecture 

that enables users in remote locations to receive imagery and other 

intelligence information from a variety of intelligence collection 

platforms including Global Hawk, Predator and U–2 aircraft, and 

in some cases, enables remote users to actually control the sensors 

on the intelligence platform. Fielding of J–DTS to Air National 

Guard intelligence squadrons would enable these units to participate in real-world intelligence operations on a daily basis, providing better training for Air National Guard intelligence specialists, and providing some relief to the high operations tempo of active duty U.S. Air Force intelligence squadrons. The committee recommends an increase of $12.4 million in Other Procurement, Air 

Force, Intelligence Communications Systems, to connect Air National Guard intelligence squadrons to the DCGS Wide Area Network and to procure additional Jumbo Digital Transit-cased systems. 

Joint Threat Emitter 

The budget request included $23.4 million for the procurement 

and installation of training and simulation equipment for Air Force 

combat training ranges. This includes $12.5 million that the Air 

Force intends to use to procure the Joint Threat Emitter (JTE) System. The JTE is a high power, high fidelity emitter capable of replicating more than 1,500 threat signals. The Air Force believes that 

the JTE system will modernize range threat simulator capabilities 

by emulating signals which simulate the most advanced air defense 

threat systems. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 

million for accelerating procurement and installation of JTE systems. 

106

Base information infrastructure 

The budget request included $268.4 million for the procurement 

and installation of base information infrastructure improvements. 

Within this category, the Air Force provides upgrades for the Combat Information Transport System (CITS), including its subsets: (1) 

the Information Transport System (ITS); (2) the Network Management System/Base Information Protect; (3) the Voice Switching 

System; and, (4) the Telecommunications Management System. 

The Air Force has determined that ITS improvements will have 

a direct effect on war fighting and contingency support. The Air 

Force has appropriately placed a high priority on providing enhancements to the ITS portion of the CITS program. This priority 

is based on an assessment that the current infrastructure is inadequate to support information-intensive command and control systems that support military operations. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for accelerating procurement and installation of fiber optic communications 

upgrades within the ITS upgrade effort. 

Panoramic night vision goggles 

The budget request included $5.3 million for the procurement of night vision goggles for the Air Force, of which $4.1 million would 

be for the procurement of panoramic night vision goggles (PNVGs). 

Production of PNVGs is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2003. The 

improvement in field-of-view offered by these devices will greatly 

enhance aircrew situational awareness and safety. The committee 

recommends an increase of $8.3 million for procurement of additional PNVGs. 

Personnel safety and rescue 

The budget request included $7.4 million for personal safety and rescue items less than $5.0 million, including $1.0 million for the 

procurement of aircrew survival radio test sets, but included no 

funding for fixed aircraft standardized seats (FASS). 

Aircrew survival radios have become increasingly complex, 

which, in turn, has increased the complexity of the test equipment 

necessary to test such radios. Insufficient test equipment can lead 

to maintenance backlogs. The committee recommends an increase 

of $7.0 million for current generation, self-contained, transportable, 

and semi-automated radio test systems fielded for use by the U.S. 

military. 

The Air Force has begun development and testing of the FASS 

crew seats. A production-ready seat for C–130 and KC–135 aircraft 

will be ready by February 2004. The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million for the procurement of FASS, for a total authorization of $19.2 million for personal safety and rescue items. 

Point of maintenance initiative 

The budget request included $13.9 million for mechanized material handling, but included no funds for the point of maintenance 

initiative (POMX). POMX is a data collection program that increases the timeliness and accuracy of mission critical data collection and reduces the burden on flight line personnel. POMX focuses 

on maintenance and munitions processes for the aircraft using 

107

hand-held computer devices, networks, and software now in widespread commercial use. The Air Force intends to start fielding 

POMX at certain bases in fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the procurement and 

fielding of POMX in fiscal year 2004. 

Expeditionary medical support packages 

The budget request included $13.9 million for Air Force medical 

and dental equipment, but included no funding for the procurement 

of expeditionary medical support (EMEDS) packages. EMEDS is 

the primary tool of the expeditionary Air Force medical system. It 

is a highly mobile hospital system designed to be airlifted to forward positions to provide medical care. Recent enhancements to 

EMEDS have integrated chemical-biological protection into 

EMEDS to allow medical personnel to operate without the use of 

mission-oriented protective posture gear. Realizing the significant 

benefits of EMEDS for homeland defense or during other natural 

or man-made disasters, the committee notes that the Air National 

Guard has proposed reorganizing and training existing medical assets into EMEDS-supporting contingency configurations. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for EMEDS packages for the Air Force. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters

108


Insert graphic folio 147 SR46.072
109


Insert graphic folio 148 SR46.073
110


Insert graphic folio 149 SR46.074
111


Insert graphic folio 150 SR46.075
112


Insert graphic folio 151 SR46.076
113


Insert graphic folio 152 SR46.077
114


Insert graphic folio 153 SR46.078
115

Defense-wide Programs 

MH–60L altitude hold 

The budget request included no funding for procurement, Defense-wide, Special Operations Forces Rotary Wing Upgrade, for 

the MH–60 altitude hold program. This system allows the aircraft 

to maintain a constant altitude, greatly reducing pilot workload, especially over regions with indistinguishable terrain features, such 

as desert, and during long night-vision goggle missions over water. U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has spent $10.3 

million over the past two fiscal years to develop and begin to integrate this capability into 15 MH–60L aircraft. Because of competing priorities, SOCOM was unable to include this item in the 

President’s budget request, but it is one of the highest unfunded 

priorities for the Commander, SOCOM. The committee recommends an increase of $3.1 million for procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades, to complete 

the procurement of the MH–60L altitude hold equipment. 

EC–130J Commando Solo upgrades 

The budget request included $214.8 million in procurement, Defense-wide for Special Operations Command Aviation Programs, C– 130 Modifications account, but included no funding to complete 

conversion of one C–130J to the EC–130J, Commando Solo configuration. The total funding required to convert a C–130J to the EC– 130J configuration is $110.0 million. A total of $87.0 million was 

appropriated in fiscal year 2003, leaving a $23.0 million shortfall 

in the program. The Department of Defense recently reprogrammed $23.0 million to fund this shortfall and avoid a break in 

production activity, creating a shortfall in the larger EC–130 program. Commando Solo, a flying radio and television broadcast capability, has been extensively used to perform psychological operations missions in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. 

The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million in procurement, Defense-wide for Special Operations Command Aviation 

Programs, C–130 Modifications, to fully fund the EC–130 aircraft 

modification program. 

Advanced SEAL delivery system 

The budget request included $23.6 million for advance procurement of long lead time items associated with the Advanced SEAL 

Delivery System (ASDS). The ASDS is a miniature, combatant submarine being developed for the infiltration and exfiltration of naval 

special operations forces. Unlike current underwater delivery systems, ASDS would transport Navy SEALs over longer distances in 

a dry environment, enhancing the operators’ ability to accomplish 

their mission once ashore. 

Significant technical and financial problems have plagued this 

program since its inception. For the past four years, the committee 

has expressed increasing concern about the cost of this system and 

the significant performance shortfalls the program continues to exhibit. At the urging of the committee, the Department of Defense 

has agreed to designate ASDS as an Acquisition Category I proVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
116

gram and will reinstate a Milestone C decision to assess affordability and effectiveness, providing substantially more oversight of 

this program. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a comprehensive review of the ASDS program. The recently released 

GAO report concludes that ASDS has only fully met three of its 16 

key performance parameters (KPP). It has partially met eight additional KPPs and is making progress on another four. The boat has 

significant shortfalls with regard to its acoustic signature. It also 

has experienced recurring problems with battery cell failure rates 

and limited recharge cycles, raising doubts about its endurance and 

life cycle costs. 

In August 2001, the Navy program office took ‘‘conditional’’ preliminary acceptance of the first boat from the prime contractor 

under an agreement that all contractual requirements needed for 

final government acceptance would be completed within one year. 

To date, the contractor has still not satisfactorily completed the 

contract requirements and the first boat is still not ready for final 

government acceptance. The first ASDS boat is scheduled to undergo an operational evaluation (OPEVAL), starting in April 2003, to 

determine the effectiveness and suitability of the boat for use in 

combat. The OPEVAL will be a major factor in deciding whether 

or not to declare an initial operating capability for ASDS, albeit at 

reduced performance standards. The OPEVAL will also be a major 

consideration in the Milestone C decision, to be made later in 2003. 

The requirement for a SEAL delivery system remains critical for 

our special operations forces. Whether this particular ASDS design 

is the right one to meet the requirement will be determined by the 

OPEVAL and by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics (USD, AT&L) in the Milestone C decision 

process. 

This review process may well determine that the ASDS program 

needs to be restructured, that the boat needs significant additional 

development, or that the program is not effective and should be terminated. The committee opposes the commitment of additional advance procurement funding for ASDS until the Milestone C decision has determined the future direction of this program. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $23.6 million in procurement, Defense-wide for ASDS Advance Procurement. There 

have been significant changes to the ASDS design and in the industrial base since the inception of the ASDS program. The committee directs that the USD, AT&L review the ASDS sourcing 

strategy both at the prime and subcontractor level to maximize the 

benefits of competition and ensure the availability of effective production and systems integration capabilities. If a Milestone C decision determines that the ASDS program is now, or will be capable 

of meeting requirements, the committee directs the Commander, 

U.S. Special Operations Command to conduct a full and open competition to procure additional ASDS boats. 

Hand-held reconnaissance and surveillance project 

The budget request included $16.5 million in procurement, Defense-wide for the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Intelligence 

117

Systems, but included only $570,000 to continue fielding of the 

hand-held reconnaissance and surveillance project, commonly 

called Recce-Pad. Recce-Pad was developed as a component of the 

portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC) program. Fielding of PICRC to headquarters and support elements has 

been completed, but fielding to tactical components is only partially 

complete. Additional funding is required to ensure that deployed 

special operations teams can have this unique capability that enhances their operational effectiveness. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Intelligence Systems for the ReccePad hand-held reconnaissance and surveillance project to continue 

fielding to tactical SOF elements. 

Joint threat warning system 

The budget request included $3.6 million in procurement, Defense-wide, Special Operations Forces Intelligence Systems, for procurement of the Joint Threat Warning System (JTWS). JTWS is a 

modular, lightweight ground signals intelligence system that can 

be mounted on a variety of special operations forces (SOF) delivery 

platforms, providing threat warning, situational awareness, and 

enhanced force protection for SOF elements. JTWS is an evolutionary acquisition program that builds upon previous efforts to separately acquire similar warning systems for air, ground, and maritime applications. The committee recommends an increase of $5.65 million in procurement, Defense-wide, SOF Intelligence Systems, to procure 25 

additional JTWS systems, completing the basis of issue plan for all 

elements of U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Advanced lightweight grenade launcher 

The budget request included $9.3 million in procurement, Defense-wide for the Special Operations Forces, Small Arms and 

Weapons procurement account for the Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL) systems for the U.S. Special Operations 

Command (SOCOM). 

The ALGL system provides a much improved capability over the 

Mark 19 grenade launcher it replaces. The ALGL system provides 

a 40 mm grenade launcher first round hit capability on lightly armored vehicles at ranges beyond 1500 meters, is man-portable and 

has an advanced day/night fire control system. It has proven useful 

in recent military operations and is the highest priority of the Commander, SOCOM, for additional funding. 

The committee recommends an increase of $22.2 million in procurement, Defense-wide for Special Operations Forces Small Arms 

and Weapons, to accelerate fielding of this important weapons system. 

Lightweight counter mortar radar 

The lightweight counter mortar radar (LCMR) is a man-portable 

radar system capable of detecting and determining the location of 

opposing force mortar fire and allowing quick, accurate response 

from friendly forces to neutralize the threat. U.S. Light Infantry 

Forces and Special Operations Forces have no fielded lightweight 

118

system for locating enemy mortar fire. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 included $3.0 million in research and development funds to produce two prototype radars. 

The prototypes have proven very capable and require only minor 

additional developmental work. Procurement and fielding of the 

system to special operations forces could begin in fiscal year 2004 

if sufficient funding is available. 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 included no funding for 

LCMR because of competing requirements within U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), but this program is one of the highest unfunded priorities of Commander, SOCOM. The committee 

recommends an increase of $1.5 million in research, development, 

test and evaluation, Defense-wide in PE 1160404BB to complete 

development of LCMR, and an increase of $6.5 million in procurement, Defense-wide in Special Operations Forces Small Arms and 

Weapons, to begin procurement and fielding of this important system.

Night vision and laser targeting devices 

The budget request included $4.7 million for special operations forces night vision and laser targeting devices. Of this amount, $2.7 

million was requested for continued development of such devices in 

research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E), Defensewide, PE 1160404BB, and $2.0 million was requested for procurement, Defense-wide, Special Operations Forces Small Arms and 

Weapons. 

The value of these advanced night vision and laser targeting devices has been clear in recent military operations. Special operations forces rely on stealth and secrecy to successfully conduct 

their missions. These devices enable them to operate efficiently 

under the cover of darkness and successfully engage high value targets with much lower risk. The committee recommends an increase of $12.5 million in procurement, Defense-wide, Special Operations Forces Small Arms 

and Weapons, to accelerate fielding of these advanced night vision 

and laser targeting devices. 

Special operations craft-riverine 

The budget request included no funding for Special Operations 

Craft-Riverine (SOC–R) procurement. The SOC–R is an air-transportable, armored craft that is capable of carrying special operations forces for insertion, extraction, and reconnaissance mission 

in riverine and coastal environments. SOC–R replaces less capable 

and unsupportable Vietnam-era craft, meets modern warfare requirements, and is the second highest priority of Commander, 

SOCOM, for additional funding. 

The committee recommends an increase of $16.5 million in procurement, Defense-wide for Special Operations Forces Combatant 

Craft Systems, to accelerate fielding of the SOC–R and to complete 

the objective inventory of this program for SOCOM. 

Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology 

The budget request included $74.2 million for procurement of the 

Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST). 

119

This funding level is 17 percent below the fiscal year 2003 requested level. 

The JSLIST program fields a common chemical protective ensemble (suits, boots, socks, and gloves) to the military services. JSLIST 

promotes commonality and standardization to maximize resources 

and eliminate redundancy among the services. 

The committee notes the efforts of the Department of Defense to 

meet requirement objectives for the JSLIST. From December 2002 

through March 2003, JSLIST production was increased from 79,000 

per month to 90,000 per month. The Fiscal Year 2003 Emergency 

Wartime Supplemental will fund 110,000 per month, the maximum 

estimated capacity of JSLIST production. 

The committee supports the efforts of the Department to ensure 

that the men and women of the armed forces are fully protected 

against a chemical or biological attack. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an increase of $36.0 million for JSLIST to sustain 

maximum production capacity through fiscal year 2004. 

M45 Army Aircrew Protective Mask 

The budget request included $85.0 million in the Defense-wide 

procurement account for individual chemical and biological protection equipment, including funding for several types of protective 

masks. The request, however, included no funding for the M45 

Army Aircrew Protective Mask. The M45 fulfills an interim, Armyunique requirement until the Joint Service General Purpose Mask 

is fielded to the services. Therefore, the committee recommends an 

increase of $500,000 to procure additional M45 Army Aircrew Protective Masks. 

M291 and M295 decontamination kits 

The budget request included no funding for M291 and M295 decontamination kits. The M291 and M295 decontamination kits provide efficient, proven, and safe methods to remove toxic chemical 

agents from skin and equipment. They are used by all military 

services and also by civilian personnel for responding to chemical 

terrorist attacks. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $1.0 million for the procurement of M291 decontamination kits 

and $1.0 million for the procurement of M295 decontamination 

kits. 

Wide-area decontamination 

The budget request included $7.0 million in decontamination procurement for wide-area decontamination applicators and $8.6 million in PE 64384BP for wide-area decontamination technology development. The committee recommends a number of increases to 

the budget request for the Chemical and Biological Defense Program to further expand the wide-area decontamination capabilities 

of the services. Specifically, the committee recommends the following: an increase of $8.0 million in decontamination procurement 

for wide-area decontamination applicators; and an increase of $5.7 

million in PE 64384BP for wide-area decontamination technology 

development, including decontamination applicators and solutions.

The committee notes that, as U.S. Armed Forces assembled in 

Southwest Asia for contingency operations against Iraq, the use of 

120

chemical and biological weapons by Saddam Hussein could not be 

discounted. Committee members questioned representatives from 

the Department and the military services on the current chemical 

and biological defense capabilities of the armed forces during hearings on the budget request for fiscal year 2004. Of particular concern to committee members was the preparedness of military combat and supporting units in the theater to survive a biological or 

chemical attack and to sustain operations in a contaminated environment. 

The assessments of the service chiefs on this issue were particularly noteworthy. Each service chief expressed his unequivocal conviction that the men and women of their respective services were 

prepared to respond to an attack with a chemical or biological 

agent. According to the service chiefs, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 

marines received the training and equipment to survive an attack 

and to sustain combat operations should that contingency arise. 

One particular shortfall, however, noted in written testimony by 

both the commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and the deputy commandant of the Marine Corps for Plans, Policy and Operations was 

in the area of wide-area decontamination technologies and equipment. 

Chemical-Biological Protective Shelter 

The budget request included $17.6 million in the Defense-wide 

procurement account for collective protection in the Chemical-Biological Defense Program, including funding for the Chemical-Biological Protective Shelter (CBPS). Specifically, the budget request 

included $1.0 million for CBPS system fielding and engineering 

support. As noted in the report to accompany the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (S.Rpt 107–151), there is an 

increasing threat of chemical and biological attack on U.S. military 

personnel. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$2.0 million for procurement of additional CBPS. 

Automatic Chemical Agent Detector and Alarm 

The budget request included $318.5 million for the procurement 

of contamination avoidance equipment. The requested funding supports the procurement of chemical and biological detection, warning 

and reporting, and reconnaissance systems, such as the Automatic 

Chemical Agent Detector and Alarm (ACADA). 

The committee notes that Army National Guard units that are 

deploying worldwide in support of military operations must possess 

the same level of defense against chemical agents as active duty 

units. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 

million in contamination avoidance equipment procurement for 

ACADA. 

Chemical Biological Installation Force Protection Program 

The budget request included $76.6 million to deploy the Chemical Biological Installation/Force Protection Program(CBIFPP) to 15 

military installations in fiscal year 2004. The CBIFPP consists of 

a highly effective suite of manual and automated chemical and biological detection equipment. The committee recommends an inVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
121

crease of $76.6 million for CBIFPP to procure the CBIFPP detection suite for an additional 15 installations in fiscal year 2004. 

The committee strongly supports the Department of Defense’s efforts to rapidly deploy chemical and biological detection equipment 

to military installations. The committee has expressed concern over 

the years regarding the effectiveness of the Department’s force protection initiatives at its installations at home and abroad. 

The committee recognizes that many elements are critical to an 

antiterrorism force protection plan. One of the most urgent is the 

need for advance warning of a release of chemical or biological 

agents. The committee recognizes the threat of a weapons of mass 

destruction attack utilizing biological and/or chemical agents, that 

could be relatively easy to procure, produce, and weaponize. Early 

detection of such an attack is critical, as it enables local authorities 

to quickly respond and provide needed services to residents of, and 

military and civilian personnel on, military installations. 

Joint Chemical Agent Detector 

The budget request included $6.3 million for procurement of the 

Joint Chemical Agent Detector (JCAD). The JCAD is an automatic, 

lightweight, man-portable, point-sampling chemical warfare agent 

vapor detection/warning system. The JCAD will replace legacy 

chemical detection equipment, including the Chemical Agent Monitor, Improved Chemical Agent Monitor, Automatic Chemical Agent 

Detector and Alarm, M90s, M8A1s, and M256A1 kits. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for procurement of JCAD to accelerate replacement of legacy chemical detection equipment.

Items of Special Interest 

Ammunition plant and arsenal modernization 

The committee is concerned about the state of the Army’s ammunition plants and arsenals. The committee notes that much of the 

material and equipment at these facilities is more than 60 years 

old. Funding levels have impacted the ability of the Army to keep 

pace with advances in manufacturing technologies in the commercial sector. Systems in some facilities are controlled by computer 

systems that were developed in the mid-1970s. In addition, management of real property maintenance requirements has impacted 

the productivity and effectiveness of ammunition plants and arsenals. 

The committee notes that a thorough overview of the Army’s ammunition production and arsenal modernization requirements is 

long overdue. Therefore, the committee directs the Army to develop 

a comprehensive modernization plan to be funded over the Future 

Years Defense Program beginning with its fiscal year 2005 budget 

submission. The committee directs the Army to place particular 

emphasis on modernization of key electrical control systems, production control and computer systems. In addition, the committee 

urges the Army to investigate the possibility of more fully incorporating real property maintenance requirements into the futureyears facilities contracts. The committee directs the Army to subVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
122

mit the plan to the congressional defense committees no later than 

March 1, 2004. 

Ground systems industrial base 

Section 113 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) directed the 

Army to review heavy tank and armored fighting vehicle upgrade 

programs to determine if projected program terminations would adversely impact the availability of needed armored systems industrial and technology capabilities. The Army’s report, submitted 

February 4, 1999, concluded that current upgrades and limited new 

procurements were sufficient to maintain industrial and technological capabilities for the near term. The report also concluded 

that, for the period 2005 to 2015, after completion of the Bradley 

M2A3 upgrade and the Abrams M1A2 system enhancement programs, uncertainty in Army requirements would likely affect second and third tier vendors, may lead to increased costs to qualify 

new vendors, and may erode prime contractors’ system engineering 

and design skills. 

The committee notes that the Army’s report was based on the assumption that programs such as the M1A2 system enhancement 

program, the M1 Wolverine heavy assault bridge, the M1 Grizzly 

counter obstacle vehicle, the M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle, and 

the Crusader field artillery system, along with other legacy force 

systems, would be in various stages of production during the 2005– 2015 period. Additionally, the Army research and development expenditures at that time focused on digitization and the development of Future Scout and Calvary System and Future Combat Systems (FCS) platforms. 

The committee notes that since that time, the scope and nature 

of the Army’s modernization program has changed. Over the course 

of the previous three fiscal years, the Army has terminated 29 programs and restructured another 20 programs to generate additional funds for Army transformation. In the fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Army cancelled 24 legacy force systems and restructured another 24 systems in order to shift funding to meet Objective and Interim Force requirements. The committee understands 

that the initial operational capability (IOC) for FCS will be delayed 

until fiscal year 2012 and that the Army intends to field two Objective Force brigades per year starting in fiscal year 2015. 

The committee notes that the Army’s decisions to terminate and 

restructure numerous legacy force systems, and to delay the FCS 

IOC by two years, may have an adverse impact on the industrial 

base for ground combat systems, including subsystems such as 

transmissions. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to update the Armored Systems Modernization Report directed by Section 113 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) and to present to 

the congressional defense committees, no later than March 31, 

2004, a report on the ground systems industrial base. The report 

shall include a description of the current capability of the industrial base, the capability expected between 2004 and 2015, the capability required during the same time period, and actions to be 

123

taken, if any, to ensure that the industrial base retains those required capabilities. 

Navy and Marine Corps Tactical Aviation Integration 

The budget request included the first phase of the integration 

plan for the tactical aviation organizations of the Navy and the Marine Corps. Under this plan, the combined number of Navy and 

Marine Corps tactical aviation squadrons would decrease from 64 

squadrons to 59 squadrons, and the number of new tactical aircraft 

necessary to be procured would decrease from 1,637 aircraft to 

1,230 aircraft. The integration would increase the number of Marine Corps squadrons currently assigned to Navy airwings from 

four to ten, and would assign three Navy squadrons to Marine 

Corps airwings. The first phase, in fiscal year 2004, would result 

in the decommissioning of one Navy Reserve squadron and one Marine Corps reserve squadron. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct an analysis of the Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation integration plan to determine: (1) the validity of the 

assumptions made in formulating the plan; (2) the impact on Naval 

and Marine Corps Reserve force structure if the plan were to be executed; and (3) the ability of the smaller force structure to meet 

operational requirements. This analysis should be delivered to the 

congressional defense committees before December 1, 2003. 

Relevancy of the Mobility Requirements Study for Fiscal 

Year 2005 

The Mobility Requirements Study for Fiscal Year 2005 (MRS–05) 

was completed in fiscal year 2001. The most significant finding of 

this study was the identification of a significant shortfall in intertheater airlift. The study identified an airlift requirement of 54.5 

million ton-miles per day in order to meet the needs established by 

the unified commanders to execute the National Military Strategy, 

which, at the time the study was completed, was to engage in two 

nearly simultaneous major theater wars. 

Since the Department completed this study, the United States 

was attacked on September 11, 2001, the National Security Strategy has been changed, and the U.S. military has been engaged in 

an ongoing Global War on Terrorism, including Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Additionally, the Army has recently introduced the Interim Brigade 

Combat Team (IBCT). The goal for an IBCT is to deploy anywhere 

in the world within 96 hours, which will require airlift instead of 

the sealift that has traditionally moved the equipment of large 

Army formations. 

The committee is aware that steps are being taken to reduce the 

shortfalls in inter-theater airlift identified by MRS–05. There is 

currently a multiyear procurement (MYP) of C–17 aircraft, with an 

option for an additional 42 aircraft above the 180 aircraft that will 

be procured at the end of the current MYP. There are two major 

C–5 upgrade programs. The Civil Reserve Air Fleet has been activated when necessary to provide additional airlift. 

The committee is interested in a comparison of the factual data 

for inter-theater airlift requirements in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 

124

with the assumptions made in MRS–05 to verify the relevancy of 

the MRS–05 study. The committee directs the Commander, U.S. 

Transportation Command, to submit a report on this comparison to 

the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2004. The report 

should compare the assumptions in MRS–05, which led to a requirement for inter-theater airlift of 54.5 million ton-miles per day, 

with the data for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The report should 

reach a conclusion regarding whether the 54.5 million ton-mile a 

day requirement is too low, too high, or approximately correct, 

given the changing force structure and operating environments of 

the Armed Forces. 

Report on conventional ammunition industrial base 

The committee is concerned that current munitions stocks and 

production levels may be insufficient to meet warfighter needs and 

to maintain a healthy industrial base. The House report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

(H. Rept. 107–436) directed the Secretary of the Army to prepare 

a report on the conventional ammunition industrial base requirements to fulfill the ammunition requirements for the new capabilities-based strategy of the Department of Defense and the unfunded 

requirements of the Army Chief of Staff. The date of submission for 

the report was January 15, 2003. 

On February 25, 2003, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)) notified the committee that the Army has completed its analysis of the ammunition 

requirements and the ability of the industrial base to satisfy these 

requirements, and was finalizing the industrial base strategy. 

ASA(ALT) also stated that the strategy would be briefed to the congressional defense committees no later than April 25, 2003. 

The committee has not received either the congressionally-mandated report on the conventional ammunition industrial base or the 

ASA(ALT) industrial base strategy briefing. The committee is disappointed that the Army was unable to meet either congressionally-directed or self-imposed deadlines. The committee directs the 

Army to expedite the delivery of the ammunition requirements and 

industrial base report to the committee and to expedite the briefing 

of the Army industrial base strategy to the committee. 

The committee believes that restoring ammunition stocks to necessary levels may require significant production of new rounds, and 

believes that additional production capacity may need to be reconstituted. For example, the Army estimates that they have single 

suppliers for 71 of 302 critical components needed to manufacture 

ammunition. The committee expects that the report on the industrial base and the Army’s strategy for future ammunition production will consider secondary sources in the event of unforeseeable 

incidents or surge production requirements. Additionally, the committee expects the aforementioned report and briefing to specifically address the Army’s current bomb production capacity and the 

consideration of reconstituting additional manufacturing lines at 

facilities such as Crane Army Ammunition Activity and McAlester 

Army Ammunition Plant. 

125

Sonobuoys 

The budget request included $85.6 million for building all types 

of sonobuoys. These funds would be sufficient to procure approximately 113,000 sonobuoys, thereby increasing the inventory of 

sonobuoys to the number needed to support annual peacetime 

training requirements. Until this year, the Navy has been faced 

with two poor alternatives: (1) curtailing training, with an attendant adverse effect on readiness; or (2) continuing training and accepting a reduction in war reserve assets, making the force less 

ready to operate at required higher rates in a conflict. 

The committee commends the Navy for taking this action. However, the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) includes a program that would procure approximately 91,000 sonobuoys per year 

after fiscal year 2004. Such a low level of investment would return 

the Navy to the situation of managing negative effects on training 

or war reserves. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report on the date that the President submits the budget 

request for fiscal year 2005 that details: (1) projections of on-hand 

inventory by type and model of sonobuoy for fiscal years 2004 

through fiscal year 2007 based on the current FYDP; (2) projections 

of the remaining design shelf life of the inventory for each of those 

years; (3) total inventory requirements for each type and model of 

sonobuoy, including specific requirements for training and other 

readiness activities and for war reserve; and (4) a year-by-year procurement plan, including funding and quantities, that would meet 

these requirements for each type and model of sonobuoy. 

Surface combatant shipbuilding industrial base 

The budget request included funding for three DDG–51 Arleigh 

Burke-class destroyers in fiscal year 2004, and projects the procurement of another three DDG–51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in 

fiscal year 2005. Last year, Congress provided the Navy statutory 

authority to procure up to six DDG–51 class ships over the fiscal 

year 2006 and 2007 period due to concern over declining major surface combatant force levels and the critical need to sustain the 

dual-source surface combatant shipbuilder industrial base through 

the transition from DDG–51 to DD(X) destroyer programs. However, the fiscal year 2004 budget and Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) proposes to procure no additional DDG–51s after fiscal year 2005, and to procure DD(X) destroyers at a very low rate 

through fiscal year 2008. The FYDP projects the procurement of a 

total of four DD(X) destroyers in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. 

In November 2000, the Navy submitted an update to the 1993 

‘‘DDG–51 Industrial Base Study’’ that reaffirmed that both Arleigh 

Burke-class shipyards could remain viable with the shared, annual 

workload of three new procurement DDG–51s, plus additional 

work. In testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee in March 

2002, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition stated that he did ‘‘not have a current study 

that looks at the industrial base’’, but that he had ‘‘assumptions, 

and the earlier studies have changed the way we are doing business now.’’

126

The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) determined that a 

surface combatant level of 116 vessels was necessary to meet national security requirements. Since that time, the Chief of Naval 

Operations has published the Navy’s Sea Power 21 vision. This vision would align naval forces with 12 carrier strike groups, which 

require surface combatants, 12 expeditionary strike groups, which 

require surface combatants, and a number of surface combatants 

for missile defense, with that number yet to be determined. The 

committee believes that the demands for surface combatants are 

expanding to a level in excess of the level which was identified in 

the QDR. 

The committee remains concerned about the surface combatant 

industrial base, particularly during the transition from Arleigh 

Burke-class destroyers to the DD(X) in fiscal years 2006 through 

2008. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to deliver 

an updated surface combatant industrial base study to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2004, which will include: (1) 

projection of the workload for those shipyards engaged in the construction of surface combatants from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal 

year 2010; (2) an assessment of the risk for the financial viability 

of those shipyards during the same period; and, (3) a plan on how 

the Navy intends to sustain the unique technical and production 

skills within that industrial base. 

T–45 Training System 

The budget request included $339.2 million for the procurement 

of the T–45 Training System, which includes the procurement of 15 

T–45 Goshawk aircraft in addition to other elements of the system. 

In the Department of Defense selected acquisition reports, the inventory objective of T–45 aircraft has been increased from 183 to 

211. This is reflected in the Future Years Defense Program 

(FYDP), with additional purchases programmed in fiscal years 

2005 and 2006. The committee is aware that the fully integrated 

T–45 Training System consists of 234 T–45 aircraft, 18 simulators, 

and other types of training aids and material. The committee encourages the Navy to program for additional aircraft in the FYDP 

to achieve the requirements for the fully integrated training system. 

(127)

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title II of this Act. The tables also 

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2004 budget request for research, development, test and evaluation programs and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in 

the past, the administration may not exceed the authorized 

amounts (as set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense) without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in the report, 

funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice.

128


Insert graphic folio 170 SR46.079.
129

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Science and Technology 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its commitment to and robust budget submission for science and technology across the services and defense agencies. The Science and 

Technology Program budget request for fiscal year 2004 is $10.232 

billion, or 2.69 percent of the overall Department of Defense request. Over the past two years the Department has increased its 

budget request for science and technology by nearly 25 percent, up 

from $7.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. The Department is moving towards meeting the Secretary of Defense’s goal of funding the 

Science and Technology Program at 3 percent of the overall defense 

budget. 

The Department of Defense faces numerous competing priorities 

and operational demands. However, the committee notes that without a stable long-term investment in basic research and technology 

development, the recent display of the armed forces’ technological 

advantages, such as precision weaponry, unmanned systems, smart 

munitions and increased situational awareness, would not have 

been possible. These technological success stories stand on the 

shoulders of decades of investment in core scientific disciplines 

such as chemistry, physics, materials research and information 

technology. 

The men and women of the armed forces rely upon the scientific 

and technological innovation funded within this bill for rapidly increasing capability on the battlefield. The transformation of the 

armed services depends upon enhancing our technological advantages in areas such as unmanned systems and technologies to combat terrorism and defeat weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an increase of over $130.0 million in 

unmanned systems and an increase of more than $150.0 million in 

technologies to combat the threats of terrorism at home and 

abroad. 

While the Department is increasing its budget request for the 

Science and Technology Program, the committee remains concerned 

that the investment in basic research has remained stagnant and 

is too focused on near-term demands. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million for basic research. In addition, the committee directs the Director of Defense Research and 

Engineering to commission a study by the National Academy of 

Sciences to assess the basic research portfolio of the services and 

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This assessment should review the basic research portfolio in order to determine if the programs are consistent with the definitions of basic 

research in DoD regulation. This report is not intended to rate the 

worthiness of the basic research portfolio, but rather to determine 

whether the basic research portfolio needs to be realigned to be 

more consistent with the goals of traditional fundamental research 

activities. 

The committee recommends that the Department utilize all possible means to ensure that awards of grants and contracts for research and development programs are awarded through competitive, merit-based selection procedures. 

130

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Prohibition on transfer of certain programs outside the Office of the Secretary of Defense (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to retain the following five devolved programs 

in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD): (1) Explosive Demilitarization Technology Program; (2) High Energy Laser Initiative; (3) High Energy Laser Research Program; (4) High Energy 

Laser Advanced Development Program; and (5) University Research Initiative. These programs have particular congressional interest due to their unique contributions to the defense science and 

technology program and the joint nature of their activities. 

The committee remains concerned about the devolution of numerous research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) programs from OSD to the military services and defense components. 

These concerns were articulated in the statement of managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2003. Although OSD was directed to halt the devolution of several 

specific programs, the Department continued the process and in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget transferred fifteen RDT&E programs from 

OSD to the military services and defense components. 

Additionally, the statement of managers accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 required 

OSD to report to Congress prior to the devolvement of a number 

of RDT&E programs. The report failed to answer many basic questions and did not provide adequate justification for the devolvement 

of the programs. The report has done little to ease the concerns of 

the committee about the future adequate funding, oversight, and 

maintenance of these inherently joint programs. In addition, the 

Congress is aware of the heightened concern in the affected research communities regarding devolvement, given its possible adverse effects on program structure and funding. 

The committee also notes that two previous attempts to devolve 

RDT&E programs from OSD have failed. In fiscal year 2003, both 

the Medical Free Electron Laser (MFEL) program and the Armed 

Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) were devolved to 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Despite assurances that 

the programs would continue their previous activities, the budgets 

of both programs were zeroed and subsequently transferred back to 

OSD without funding. As a result, Department of Defense reprogrammed fiscal year 2003 resources to fund these valuable research 

programs. The programs have been impacted by discontinuity in 

important defense medical research activities, affecting numerous 

university, industry, and government research personnel. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report for each of the remaining ten RDT&E programs which were 

devolved, if the current year’s budget request for the program is 

less than the fiscal year 2004 budget request in constant dollars. 

This reporting requirement is intended to be in effect for the next 

four fiscal years. This report shall be included with that year’s 

budget request, and shall contain budget request and appropriated 

levels for the program dating back to fiscal year 2000 in both curVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
131

rent and constant dollars, and an analysis of the impact of the reduced funding on the development of military capabilities, affected 

contractors, technical workforce, and scientific and technological 

advancement. 

Objective force indirect fires program (sec. 212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that, not later than October 1, 2003, 

the Objective Force indirect fires program be planned, programmed, and budgeted as a distinct program element and that 

the funds be administered consistent with the budgetary status of 

the program as a distinct program element. The provision would 

also prohibit the Army from planning, programming, and budgeting 

for the Objective Force indirect fires program in one program element in combination with the Armored Systems Modernization program. The Secretary is required to certify in writing to the congressional defense committees that the Objective Force indirect fires 

program is being planned, programmed, and budgeted as a distinct 

program element. 

Section 216 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314), directed the Secretary to carry out a program to provide the Army, no later than 

fiscal year 2008, with a self-propelled Future Combat Systems 

(FCS) non-line-of-sight (NLOS) cannon to equip the Objective 

Force. Section 216(d) of P.L. 107–314 directed that of the amount 

authorized to be appropriated for the Army for research, development, test and evaluation, $368.5 million was to be used only to 

develop and field the FCS NLOS cannon and a resupply vehicle. 

The statement of managers accompanying the Bob Stump National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–

314), authorized the $368.5 million in PE63854A, Armored Systems 

Dem/Val: F47 FCS NLOS Cannon. 

In the fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Army has proposed 

moving the FCS NLOS cannon program line to the FCS program 

line PE64645A, Armored Systems Modernization, and proposed renaming the program ‘‘Objective Force Indirect Fires’’. The committee believes that this realignment violates the intent of the Congress: the FCS NLOS Cannon program should be carried out as a 

discrete program. In addition, the committee believes that the realignment jeopardizes the Army’s ability to develop and field this 

system by fiscal year 2008, as required by law. The committee understands that the Objective Force initial operational capability, including FCS, will be delayed until fiscal year 2012. The committee 

is concerned that aligning the FCS NLOS cannon with FCS will 

significantly impact the FCS NLOS cannon program and delay development and fielding of this important program. The committee 

believes that the FCS NLOS cannon must be developed with the 

visibility provided by a discrete program element. 

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense 

Fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities (sec. 221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to use research, development, test and evaluaVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
132

tion funding to develop and field an initial set of ballistic missile 

defense capabilities. 

The committee notes that this provision would provide the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) with the necessary flexibility to manage 

the timely fielding of missile defense capabilities, and that the authority provided therein is consistent with section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 

107–107). The committee notes that the MDA Director testified before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee that initial fielding of missile defenses can facilitate more realistic testing, because ‘‘* * * we 

must have assets and infrastructure in the field if we are going to 

begin to test a system under operationally realistic conditions.’’ The 

committee continues to believe that robust testing of ballistic missile defense systems is essential. 

Repeal of requirements for certain program elements for 

Missile Defense Agency activities (sec. 222) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

223(a) of Title 10, which currently defines in law the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) program elements. 

The committee is aware of interest in the administration in submitting an MDA budget request in fiscal year 2005 that reflects a 

single program element. This would have the effect of maximizing 

management flexibility by allowing the MDA Director to redirect 

funds within the one program element without any reprogramming 

restrictions (except for projects designated as congressional interest 

items). The committee is sympathetic with the need for management flexibility to achieve the challenging goal of deploying effective missile defenses as rapidly as possible, but is concerned that 

such an approach would significantly limit the congressional insight into MDA activities which is required for appropriate committee oversight of MDA activities. 

The committee notes that MDA is currently the only organization 

within the Department of Defense for which program elements are 

defined in law. The repeal of this section would restore MDA to the 

same status as other DOD entities, and would enhance management flexibility by allowing MDA to restructure its program elements without requesting legislative relief. However, the committee 

believes that submission of future budget justification materials 

should be consistent with past practice, and that any submission 

reflecting a single MDA program element would be inappropriate. 

Oversight of procurement of ballistic missile defense system 

elements (sec. 223) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit certain information related to ballistic missile defense system elements for which the Missile Defense Agency is engaged in planning for production and initial 

fielding and an estimate of funding necessary for procurement of 

BMD system elements in the future-years defense program. 

133

Renewal of authority to assist local communities impacted 

by ballistic missile defense system test bed (sec. 224) 

The committee recommends a provision that would renew for 

three years the authority of the Missile Defense Agency to use research, development, test, and evaluation funds for assistance to 

communities significantly impacted by the expanded ballistic missile defense test bed. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a description of the community assistance projects to be supported in a given fiscal year along with an 

estimate of the total cost of each project. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Global Research Watch Program in the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

Global Research Watch program and increase the budget request 

in PE 65798S by $1.0 million for this program. The goals of the 

Global Research Watch program are consistent with initiatives 

being undertaken by the Office of the Director of Defense Research 

and Engineering, the military services, and the intelligence community. The program is also consistent with the October 2002 recommendations of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science 

and Technology (PCAST), which reported that the government 

should ‘‘* * * keep a closer watch on R&D developments across the 

globe and provide a bi-yearly assessment of the impact of those developments on our science and technology.’’ PCAST also noted that 

‘‘* * * the consequence of this evaluation would be suggestions on 

the allocation of funds and resources to fields that need bolstering 

or reductions from areas that have been more adequately funded.’’

The committee believes that this program could provide important 

information to assist the Department in making research investment decisions. 

The committee directs the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to establish this program in coordination with existing 

international cooperative activities of the military services, defense 

agencies, and intelligence community. The committee notes and 

commends the excellent work done by the various services’ overseas 

research offices and recommends that this program link the services’ overseas offices, scientific reports in order to provide information to the Department of Defense as a whole. The committee notes 

that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Militarily Critical 

Technologies List may provide a model for the establishment of this 

program, but intends this program to be focused on the promotion 

of international cooperation, scientific benchmarking, and technical 

analyses of global capabilities, and not the development of export 

controls or supporting technology security activities. 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Biennial Strategic Plan (sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to strengthen 

its strategic planning process and prepare a biennial strategic plan 

to accompany the budget request submitted to the congressional 

134

defense committees in alternating fiscal years, beginning in fiscal 

year 2006. The strategic plan shall include an identification of longterm goals, emerging investment opportunities and an assessment 

of the current research portfolio to meet these goals. The plan shall 

provide an assessment of technology transition to other defense entities and the agency’s role in supporting service missions. In addition, the plan shall include a review of the personnel authorities 

and processes available to DARPA and an assessment of the utilization of these authorities. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to appoint a senior review panel to assist in the formulation, review, and approval 

of the strategic plan. This panel shall be chaired by the Director 

of Defense, Research and Engineering and shall include six additional senior officials comprised of an equal mix of government and 

non-governmental representatives. Each panel member shall serve 

two-year terms, with a rotation of one-third of the panel every two 

years. The government representatives shall be senior military officials appointed from the services and at least equal in rank to the 

Director of DARPA. The non-governmental officials shall be senior 

representatives from academia, industry, or other non-governmental organizations. The review panel shall not interfere with the 

management of DARPA programs, which remains the sole responsibility of the Director of DARPA. 

The committee notes that the contributions of DARPA to the national security of the United States are significant. Throughout its 

history, DARPA has remained true to its original mission: to maintain the technological superiority of the U.S. Military and prevent 

technological surprise by sponsoring revolutionary, high-payoff research that bridges the gap between fundamental discoveries and 

military use. 

The committee commends DARPA on the submission of its inaugural strategic plan. This plan was recommended in a 1999 Defense Science Board report and directed by the Senate report accompanying S. 2514 (S. Rept. 107–151). The DARPA strategic plan 

identified eight important strategic thrusts that clearly reflect the 

DARPA mission. According to the strategic plan, the thrust areas 

were formulated by outreach to senior military and government officials. While such outreach is extremely critical for receiving invaluable input and sharing information about the current research 

portfolio of DARPA, the committee is concerned that the process of 

arriving at the long-term strategic plan is still not the result of indepth planning and review.

Enhancement of authority of Secretary of Defense to support science, mathematics, engineering and technology 

education (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would enable the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a more comprehensive and attractive array of educational programs in science, mathematics and engineering. The committee notes that educational programs in technical fields serve to help train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technical entrepreneurs, all of whom may contribute 

to the future technological superiority of our military forces. The 

committee also notes that science, mathematics, and engineering 

135

education is vitally important for all future warfighters as the military services embrace new technologies to drive transformation. 

Department of Defense high-speed network-centric and 

bandwidth expansion program (sec. 234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

comprehensive research and development program for advanced 

technologies to achieve high-bandwidth wireless communications 

for the Department of Defense. The Department is currently in the 

process of transformation to a network-centric force, where the 

rapid delivery of large amounts of data throughout the theater of 

operation will dramatically enhance warfighter capability and situational awareness. A major aspect of this transformation would be 

the ‘‘last mile’’ connectivity to the warfighter and military assets in 

the battlespace, which can only be achieved through high-bandwidth communication systems. An essential element of this communication system would be efficient utilization of bandwidth, in order 

to fully exploit military assets, such as unmanned systems, satellite communications, and sensors, and to disseminate critical information throughout the battlefield. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to consider a 

number of areas for this research and development program. The 

first is spectrum access for wireless and mobile systems. The Department should focus on the efficient use of spectrum, in order to 

enhance technologies to improve the individual user bandwidth and 

system level capacity. Additional research should address compression technology, interference issues, resource management, signal 

processing, traffic management, software defined radios, fully 

adaptive antenna arrays, and spread spectrum systems. The second 

area of research and development is highly networked systems, to 

include the ability to develop complex ad hoc network structures to 

provide for the connectivity to battlefield assets, and the development of grid computing and spectrum usage monitoring systems. 

Another important research area is end user devices, such as efficient receivers and transmitter devices, antenna technologies, advanced digital power management techniques, and signal processing. Finally, the program should include research on applications, including robust security, encryption, and privacy applications, as well as improved human interfaces. 

In carrying out the research program, the Department shall focus 

on joint systems acquisition and deployment among the various 

services and agencies, to coordinate the research and development 

areas listed above. Joint experimentation will be crucial in testing 

systems and ensuring maximum bandwidth utilization across the 

military services. The provision requires the Department to work 

in close coordination with civilian research and development efforts 

to provide for the enhancement of military research and development activities on such communications. This should include identification of the most promising technologies, as well as the funding 

for joint experimentation activities on such technologies. 

The provision would require that a report be submitted with the 

fiscal year 2005 budget request which describes the research and 

development activities carried out under the program, including 

current and proposed funding levels for each research area. 

136

Additional Matters of Interest 

Army

137


Insert graphic folio 180 SR46.080
138


Insert graphic folio 181 SR46.081
139


Insert graphic folio 182 SR46.082
140


Insert graphic folio 183 SR46.083
141


Insert graphic folio 184 SR46.084
142


Insert graphic folio 185 SR46.085
143


Insert graphic folio 186 SR46.086
144


Insert graphic folio 187 SR46.087
145


Insert graphic folio 188 SR46.088
146


Insert graphic folio 189 SR46.089
147


Insert graphic folio 190 SR46.090
148

Fundamental research for the Army Objective Force 

The budget request included $128.8 million in PE 61102A for 

basic research leading to new concepts and technologies for the 

Army Objective Force. The committee recommends an increase of 

$6.0 million in PE 61102A for basic research in support of the 

Army Objective Force: $2.0 million for advanced research in unique 

low temperature performance, energy and environmental challenges facing military ground vehicles and power systems; and $4.0 

million for predictive modeling and information analysis of desert 

terrain in support of military operations. 

Infrastructure protection research 

The budget request included $84.8 million in PE 61104A for University and Industry Research Centers. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 61104A for basic research on infrastructure protection of military structures and installations. The committee notes that this research has significantly accelerated the reconstruction efforts for recently damaged 

military facilities and supports the continuation of these research 

efforts. 

Ferroelectric nanomaterials fabrication 

The budget request included $84.8 million in PE 61104A for university and industry research centers. The committee recommends 

an increase of $1.0 million in PE 61104A for research on novel ferroelectric nanomaterials fabrication methods. 

Applied materials research 

The budget request included $15.2 million in PE 62105A for applied research in materials technology. The committee recommends 

an increase of $6.0 million in PE 62105A for materials research 

that would contribute to the development of the Objective Force: 

$3.0 million for advanced materials processing research in polymer 

composites, metals, ceramics and superalloys; and $3.0 million for 

the development of new multifunctional composite materials and 

new simulation tools for use in Future Combat Systems. 

Army missile research 

The budget request included $43.3 million in PE 62303A for applied research in missile technology. The committee recommends 

an increase of $17.0 million in PE 62303A for the development of 

new technologies for future Army missile systems: $6.5 million for 

technology development to improve capabilities for defeating incoming rockets, mortars, and artillery; $2.5 million for initial demonstrations of critical component technologies for future missile 

systems; and $8.0 million for the development of advanced radar 

architectures and efficient radar power and transmission technologies. 

Advanced Concepts and Simulation Research 

The budget request included $15.9 million in PE 62308A for the 

development of advanced concepts and simulation research. The 

committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 62308A 

for technology development for Future Combat Systems: $5.0 milVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
149

lion for advanced photonics detector research; and $2.5 million for 

development of highly immersive simulation technologies. 

Combat vehicle and automotive technology 

The budget request included $80.9 million in PE 62601A for research on combat vehicles and automotive technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 62601A for 

this research: $3.0 million for advanced electric drives; $1.5 million 

for continued research on corrosion-resistant coatings; $2.0 million 

for rapid prototyping technologies; $3.0 million for advancing the 

introduction of affordable advanced power technologies into military land warfare systems; and $2.5 million for autonomous behavior research for the unmanned systems component of the Army Future Combat Systems. In a recent report entitled ‘‘Technology Development for Army Unmanned Ground Vehicles,’’ the National 

Academy of Sciences noted that advances in human-robot interaction and the development of natural user interfaces for controllers of unmanned vehicles are essential for battlefield use of these 

systems. 

Single crystal tungsten alloy penetrators 

The budget request includes $39.5 million in PE 62624A for 

weapons and munitions technology. The committee recommends an 

increase of $3.0 million for the research, development, and testing 

of single crystal tungsten alloy penetrators for use as a replacement for depleted uranium armor penetrators. 

Flexible displays 

The budget request included $33.7 million in PE 62705A for research in electronics and electric devices. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 62705A for flexible display technology to support the Objective Force Warrior program. 

Countermine capabilities 

The budget request included $21.3 million in PE 62712A for applied research on countermine systems. The committee recognizes 

the importance of new, innovative technologies for the detection of 

landmines and encourages the Army to explore all possible technological solutions for quicker, more accurate detection. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 

62712A for the further development of countermine technologies: 

$2.5 million for chemical vapor sensing technologies; $5.0 million 

for advanced technologies for rapid and reliable countermine capabilities; and $2.0 million for the continued development of the synthetic aperture radar mine detection systems. 

Environmental response and security protection 

The budget request included $18.3 million in PE 62720A for Environmental Quality Technology. The committee recommends an 

increase of $1.0 million to enhance ongoing research and development of a user-friendly computer software system that would allow 

military installation security planners and managers to evaluate 

health risks and impacts associated with exposure to hazardous 

substances as a result of terrorist attacks. 

150

Geosciences and atmospheric research 

The budget request included $45.4 million in PE 62784A for Military Engineering Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62784A for research in the environmental sciences, including climatology and weather patterning, 

which are critical to the determination of agent dispersion and 

other important phenomena. 

Embedded optical communications 

The budget request included $29.4 million in PE 62786A for 

Warfighter Technology. The committee recommends an increase of 

$4.8 million in PE 62786A for the development of communications 

suites that will provide embedded optical communications for the 

Objective Force Warrior. 

Enhanced anthrax research 

The budget request included $58.9 million in PE 62787A for medical defense research. The committee recognizes the need to improve the understanding of the genes and proteins produced by the 

anthrax bacterium and the human immune response to anthrax. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

62787A for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious 

Diseases to conduct enhanced anthrax research. 

Genomics research 

The budget request included $35.2 million in PE 63002A for 

Medical Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63002A for genomics research to address disease outbreaks resulting from chemical and biological attacks. 

Medical Advanced Technology 

The budget request included $35.2 million in PE 63002A for the 

development of advanced medical technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63002A for improved 

combat casualty care system: $5.0 million for the development of 

electronic garments integrated with biosensors for remote casualty 

assessment, triage and initial treatment; and $5.0 million for research on an enhanced collagen based stable hemostat. 

Combat vehicle technology development and support 

The budget request included $210.9 million in PE 63005A for 

Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 63005A for 

research and development to support advanced combat vehicle 

technologies: $17.5 million to accelerate state of the art information 

and mobility technologies in the 21st Century Truck Initiative; $2.0 

million for research utilizing advanced collaborative environments; 

$5.0 million for the development of on-board hydrogen generation 

for fuel cells in military ground vehicle systems; $1.5 million for 

the development of advanced technologies to improve the safety, reliability and quality of mechanically fastened, joined and bonded 

assemblies; $2.0 million for the development of tactical vehicle design tools; $1.5 million for research on advanced thermal manageVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
151

ment controls; and $5.5 million for research on advanced composite 

materials for Future Combat Systems tactical and combat vehicles.

Interactive training technologies 

The budget request included $18.6 million in PE 63015A for Next 

Generation Training and Simulation Systems. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 63015A for the continued development of interactive technologies to support training and 

mission rehearsal exercises. The committee commends the Army 

for its innovative approach to highly immersive training and simulation through the creation of the Institute for Creative Technologies. 

Close-in Active Protection 

The budget request included $111.3 million in PE63313A for missile and rocket advanced technology, but no funding for the Closein Active Protection System (CIAPS). The committee understands 

that fiscal year 2003 funding for the CIAPS supports a demonstration consisting of rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank guided 

missiles that are flight tested against a CIAPS prototype mounted 

on a testbed Light Armored Vehicle. The CIAPS was developed to 

address the survivability issue inherent in armored vehicles, including the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS). The committee 

believes that the FCS platform would benefit from technologies derived from CIAPS. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 

million for CIAPS, for a total authorization of $117.3 million in 

PE63313A. 

Warfighter/firefighter position, location, and tracking sensor 

The budget request included $47.1 million in PE63710A for the 

night vision advanced technology but no funding for the warfighter/

firefighter position, location, and tracking sensor, which is a system 

that locates friendly units inside of buildings. The committee notes 

that the Army conducted a demonstration using fiscal year 2003 

funds and believes that this system has applicability in military operations in urban terrain environments. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE63710A for the continued development of the warfighter/firefighter position, location, and 

tracking sensor, for a total authorization of $50.1 million. 

Advanced laser electric power 

The budget request included $51.5 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense integration, but no funding for advanced 

laser elective power. 

The committee is aware that the Army is developing high energy 

lasers (HELs) with the potential to defeat short range rockets and 

missiles, artillery shells, and a variety of aerial platforms. HEL 

concepts under development include solid state lasers. The development of compact, high efficiency fuel cells will be important to provide a reliable power source for these lasers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.9 million in PE 

63305A for research and development to improve the robustness of 

proton exchange membrane and similar fuel cell systems. 

152

Advanced radars and electro-optical sensors 

The budget request included $51.5 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense integration, but no funding for advanced radars and electro-optical sensors. The committee is aware of ongoing 

research and development in optical communications, optical imaging, ultrahigh bandwidth data transmission, digital radar and optical overhead sensors that have the potential to develop systems 

with high resolution, faster data analysis and processing to users, 

and to reduce size and power consumption. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million 

in PE 63305A for advanced radars and electro-optical sensors. 

Integrated composite missile structures 

The budget request contained $51.5 million in PE63305A, Army 

Missile Defense Integration, but no funding for integrated composite missile structures. 

Current missile airframes are complex multi-tiered structures 

consisting of a heatshield, a bondline, and a substructure that can 

potentially limit missile performance because of inherent limits in 

thermal protection, structural integrity, and electromagnetic shielding properties. The committee believes, based on prior research and 

development efforts, that integrated composite missile structures 

have the potential to reduce cost and weight while significantly enhancing missile performance, including increased range and better 

thermal performance. These prior efforts also suggest that manufacturing such complex composite structures is feasible. The improved performance offered by such structures could be valuable for 

a variety of military applications, including missile defense. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in PE63305A to demonstrate the feasibility of manufacturing integrated composite missile structures. 

Low cost interceptor 

The budget request included $51.5 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense integration, but no funding for the low cost 

interceptor (LCI). 

The LCI project is intended to develop a low cost missile interceptor to provide a cost effective defense to low cost airborne 

threats including cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles 

while maintaining substantial capabilities against more sophisticated missile threats. The program has successfully completed preliminary design review and is scheduled to complete critical design 

in calendar year 2003. The committee believes that a low-cost adjunct to existing air and missile defenses would be a sound approach to addressing the proliferation of low-cost threats. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million 

to PE 63305A for continued design, fabrication, and testing of the 

low cost interceptor. 

Mobile tactical high energy laser 

The budget request included $51.5 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense integration, including $39.1 million for the 

mobile tactical high energy laser (MTHEL). 

153

The Army, in cooperation with the Israeli Ministry of Defense, 

has developed a tactical high energy gas laser intended to provide 

defense against short range rockets and artillery. The Army tested 

this laser with considerable success against both types of targets. 

This prototype laser, however, is a large stationary facility. To 

meet Army and Israeli military air and missile defense needs, a 

smaller, mobile directed energy system is needed. To that end, the 

Army has requested funding for a joint U.S.-Israeli development 

program. The committee notes that this effort has considerable 

merit as a pathfinder for the Army’s objective of developing a solid 

state THEL. 

To help sustain the MTHEL effort, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 63305A. 

Radar power technology 

The budget request included $51.5 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense integration, but no funding for radar power 

technology. 

The committee believes that wide bandgap electronics for radars 

have the potential to significantly increase system performance, reduce size and weight, and reduce logistics requirements. Prior year 

funding for silicon carbide wide bandgap electronics have supported 

research, test, experiment and demonstration of enhanced radar 

transmit/receive modules and amplifiers, antennas, and other radar 

component technology. The committee understands that additional 

funds could be used to support insertion and test of these technologies in current Army systems, as well as those under development. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in PE 63305A for radar power technology. 

Air and missile defense architecture analysis 

The budget request included $80.0 million in PE 63327A for air 

and missile defense systems engineering. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for air and missile defense architecture analysis. 

Managing Army Technologies for Environmental Enhancement Program 

The budget request included $11.5 million in PR 63779A for environmental quality technology. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million to complete the development and validation 

of the Managing Army Technologies for Environmental Enhancement (MANATEE) program, a facility-wide integrated environmental monitoring, management, and control system for the 

Radford Army Ammunition Plant. The purpose of MANATEE is to 

manage facility activities to prevent hazardous waste spills and 

other environmental compliance problems. 

Manganese Health Research Project 

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63779A for environmental quality technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to initiate a Manganese Health Research 

Project to determine the health effects of manganese and to develop 

154

proper worker safeguards. The military departments are significant 

customers of manganese. Manganese is a component of coated 

welding rods and various steel alloys. As a result, there can be exposure to manganese during welding or steelmaking and through 

the handling of batteries or petroleum products in which manganese is used as an additive. Although much is known about the 

toxicity of manganese, it would be useful to have additional information on human exposure assessments and identification of mechanisms for determining disposition and damage in the human body. 

Logistics and engineer equipment 

The budget request included $12.0 million in PE63804A for logistics and engineer equipment advanced development. This program 

supports the advanced component development and prototypes of 

new and improved technologies for combat support and combat 

service support equipment essential to sustaining combat operations. 

Of the $12.0 million for logistics and engineer equipment advanced development, $3.8 million was requested for marine-orientated logistics equipment advanced development in support of 

the Army’s logistics-over-the-shore (LOTS) mission. The committee 

understands that the Theater Support Vessel (TSV) is the primary 

equipment funded in this program and that the TSV is the Army’s 

replacement for the logistics support vessel. The committee notes 

that the Army and the Navy have cooperatively leased a commercial fast ferry for development and testing. The committee believes 

that both the Army and Navy will benefit from the prototype, 

which is built on a composite hull design, currently under study by 

the Army. 

Of the $12.0 million for logistics and engineer equipment advanced development, no funding was requested for the Mobile 

Parts Hospital (MPH). The MPH is a self-contained, self-sustaining 

mobile mini-manufacturing center that can produce spare parts 

near the point of need. The committee notes that the Army used 

previous year congressionally-directed funding increases to design 

and demonstrate an off-site capability to fabricate parts on demand. The committee believes that advanced development will enable the rapid repair and return to service of disabled equipment, 

and address the military priority of weapon system readiness. 

The committee recommends an increase of $13.5 million for logistics and engineer equipment of which $7.5 million is for the continued development of the TSV and $6.0 million for the advanced development of the MPH, for a total authorization of $25.5 million in 

PE63804A for logistics and engineer equipment. 

Automated technologies for biodefense 

The budget request included $11.0 million in PE 63807A for advanced development of medical systems. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63807A for research 

leading to automated and fully networked devices for detection of 

biological agents. 

155

Tactical unmanned ground vehicle 

The budget request included no funding in PE64641 for the development of the tactical unmanned ground vehicle (TUGV) program. The TUGV program includes a family of products including 

the Man-Portable Robotic System (MPRS), the Tactical Unmanned 

Vehicle-Medium (TUV–M), and Viking, a large flail system mounted on a bulldozer designed for tactical employment as a mine clearing system. The committee understands that fiscal year 2002 and 

2003 funding demonstrated the Viking mine clearing capability but 

that the system is too wide and heavy to be air delivered via C– 130 aircraft. The committee believes that this transformational capability should be accelerated to develop a TUGV which is C–130 

transportable. The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE64641 for the tactical unmanned ground vehicle, for a 

total authorization of $2.8 million. 

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System 

The budget request included $35.1 million in PE64802A for the 

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). The APKWS is 

a family of 2.75-inch precision rockets that will be achieved 

through a series of block upgrades to the existing HYDRA–70 rocket system. The committee understands that the APKWS Block I 

program will enter system development and demonstration in fiscal 

year 2003 to develop, test, and qualify a laser guided 2.75-inch munition and complete a limited-user test in fiscal year 2005. However, future planned enhancements including the development and 

qualification of an improved warhead and fuze, are not planned 

until fiscal year 2006–2007. The committee believes that the Army 

would benefit from an acceleration of the development of these 

safety enhancements. The committee recommends an increase of 

$20.0 million for the development of the APKWS, for a total authorization of $55.1 million in PE64802A. 

Viper strike munition 

The budget request included no funding in PE64767A for the development of the Viper strike munition. Viper strike munitions, 

using a semi-active laser seeker to find its designated targets, provide the Army with an armed, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with 

pinpoint accuracy against an unlimited target set operating with 

man-in-the-loop control. The committee understands that the Army 

is developing Viper munitions as a derivative of the brilliant antitank submunition and, during a March 29 and 30, 2003, demonstration, dispensed Viper munitions from a Hunter UAV which 

scored seven direct hits in nine attempts against targets. The committee believes that this transformational capability should be accelerated for fielding to the combatant commanders as soon as feasible. The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million for 

the continued development of Viper strike munitions, for a total authorization of $7.5 million in PE64767A. 

Army airborne command and control system 

The budget request included $23.2 million in PE64818A for the 

development of a integrated suite of radios, antennas and computers aboard a UH–60L Blackhawk helicopter for airborne comVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
156

mand and control. The committee notes that the Army has deployed two prototypes to the Iraq theater of operations even though 

the airborne aviation command and control system (A2C2S) has not 

undergone an initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). The 

Army continues to conduct systems integration activities while preparing for the IOT&E scheduled for the fourth quarter of fiscal 

year 2004. The committee recommends an increase of $3.9 million 

for systems integration for A2C2S, for a total authorization of $27.1 

million in PE64818A. 

Combat vehicle improvement program 

The budget request included $24.5 million in PE23735A for the 

Abrams tank improvement program, but no funding for Abrams 

track improvement. The committee understands that the tank 

track is the top consumable operations and support cost driver for 

the Abrams tank. The Army’s overall modernization strategy includes preserving the essential warfighting capabilities and readiness of current Army units through very limited modernization and 

recapitalization efforts. The Army expects to retain these legacy 

force units for over 30 years. The committee notes that the Army 

has not completed developmental testing. The committee recommends an increase of $4.7 million for the continued development 

of Abrams track, for a total authorization of $29.2 million in 

PE23735A. 

Full authority digital engine control 

The budget request included $3.4 million in PE23752 for the aircraft engine component improvement program, but no funding for 

the continued development of full authority digital engine control 

(FADEC). The FADEC would apply to all current and future Army 

turbine engines, significantly reducing procurement costs, improving engine capability, and increasing pilot safety by reducing pilot 

workload. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

for the development of the FADEC, for a total authorization of $8.4 

million in PE23752 for the aircraft engine component improvement 

program. 

Base protection and monitoring system 

The budget request included no funding in research, development, test and evaluation, Army, PE 33028A, for Security and Intelligence Activities. As threats to military installations become 

more complex, effective force protection measures require improved 

situational awareness and enhanced command and control capabilities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

33028A to establish a test-bed for a state-of-the-art base protection 

and monitoring system operations center, preferably at a teaching 

installation that can leverage its ability to formulate training and 

doctrine for the optimal employment of such capabilities, to demonstrate an integrated warning system to protect critical infrastructure, enhance detection, and improve physical security. 

157

Document exploitation 

The budget request included no funding for PE 33028A, Security 

and Intelligence Activities. Portable, rugged document exploitation 

equipment is currently not available to military personnel operating in deployed, austere environments. The technology exists to 

develop lightweight equipment that can scan documents, quickly 

search for key words in native languages and transmit potentially 

valuable documents back to exploitation facilities quickly, thus providing battlefield commanders with rapid exploitation of captured 

information. Such equipment would have been indispensable in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will prove invaluable in the global war on 

terrorism. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

in PE 33028A to develop and begin fielding portable document exploitation systems. 

Navy

158


Insert graphic folio 203 SR46.091
159


Insert graphic folio 204 SR46.092
160


Insert graphic folio 205 SR46.093
161


Insert graphic folio 206 SR46.094
162


Insert graphic folio 207 SR46.095
163


Insert graphic folio 208 SR46.096
164


Insert graphic folio 209 SR46.097
165


Insert graphic folio 210 SR46.098
166


Insert graphic folio 211 SR46.099
167


Insert graphic folio 212 SR46.100
168


Insert graphic folio 213 SR46.101
169


Insert graphic folio 214 SR46.102
170


Insert graphic folio 215 SR46.103
171

Naval basic research 

The budget request included $368.5 million in PE 61153N for 

basic research to support naval applications. The committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 61153N for Defense Research Sciences: $3.0 million for autonomous robotic countermine 

technology in very shallow water and surf zones; $5.0 million for 

research in advanced power and propulsion technology systems; 

and $1.5 million for advanced research in neutron detection technologies. 

Free electron laser 

The budget request included $114.1 million in PE 62114N for 

Power Projection Applied Research. The committee recommends an 

increase of $10.0 million in PE 62114N for acceleration of the high 

power free electron laser (FEL) power scaling project. The Navy 

has identified free electron lasers as a possible future directed energy weapon for the defense of Navy assets. The committee commends the Navy for the support of the FEL program and expects 

the Office of Naval Research to fully fund the ongoing program to 

reach the 100 kilowatt power level. 

Microelectronics and materials development 

The budget request included $114.1 million in PE 62114N for 

Power Projection Applied Research. The committee recommends an 

increase of $6.0 million in PE 62114N for research in gallium 

nitride microelectronics to enhance radio frequency power performance on Navy radar systems. 

Transformational unmanned aerial vehicles capabilities 

The budget request included $114.1 million in PE 62114N for applied research in power projection. The committee recommends an 

increase of $10.0 million in PE 62114N for the accelerated development of transformational UAVs: $2.0 million for the development 

of chemical weapon detection capabilities for small, lightweight 

UAVs; and $8.0 million for the continued development and testing 

of the Silver Fox unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The committee 

commends the Navy for successfully building and testing this innovative UAV in less than two years. The committee notes that the 

Silver Fox UAV recently flew missions in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and will continue to develop increased sensing and intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. 

Force Protection Applied Research 

The budget request included $75.9 million in PE 62123N for 

Force Protection Applied Research. The committee recommends an 

increase of $18.3 million in PE 62123N for force protection research: $5.0 million for advanced fusion processing to enable the 

fusion of hyperspectral and panchromatic data; $4.0 million for reliability-based structural analysis and design of fiber reinforced polymers for ship structures; $4.8 million to develop rapid prototype 

polymeric aircraft components; and $4.5 million for the development of a corrosion modeling software tool to study discrete structural corrosion. 

172

Advanced research for Naval systems 

The budget request included $52.2 million in PE 62236N for 

Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. The committee recommends an increase of $8.5 million in PE 62236N for applied research in future warfighter systems: $1.0 million for the integration of tether technology onto unmanned aerial vehicles and the 

demonstration of surveillance and electrodynamic propulsion capabilities; $6.0 million for the development and demonstration of high 

performance low observable materials for Navy stealth applications; and $1.5 million for the continued development of low cost 

composite forms for aerospace platforms. 

Biowarfare detection and diagnosis 

The budget request included $52.2 million in PE 62236N for 

Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 62236N for biowarfare 

detection and diagnosis technologies: $4.0 million for the development of mass spectrometric-based instrumental diagnostic tools for 

rapid diagnosis of infectious disease; and $4.0 million for developing inexpensive, sensitive and reliable detectors for biowarfare 

agents. 

Coastal mapping systems 

The budget request included $52.2 million in PE 62236N for 

Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62236N for the development of coastal area mapping systems. 

Electronics research for naval applications 

The budget request included $44.0 million in PE 62271N for applied research in radio frequency systems. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62271N for applied research in materials and electronics to enable future naval capabilities: $3.0 million for research on high brightness electron sources 

for vacuum electronics applications; and $2.0 million for advanced 

semiconductor materials research for high power amplifiers. 

Ocean observing program 

The budget request included $48.8 million in PE 62435N for 

ocean warfighting environment applied research. The committee 

recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 62435N to continue 

efforts to develop an information system to collect, integrate and 

disseminate ocean observations and predictions. 

Low acoustic signature motors and propulsors 

The budget request included $62.6 million in PE 62747N for applied research to support the development of undersea warfare 

technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 62747N for research on high power battery systems, motors, propulsors, and power converters for torpedoes. 

Office of Naval Research accounting adjustment 

The budget request included $173.5 million in PE 63114N for 

Power Projection Advanced Technology. The committee recVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
173

ommends a transfer of $25.0 million into PE 63114N from PE 

62114N. This transfer reflects the correction of an accounting error 

by the Office of Naval Research and does not reflect a reduction in 

any program. 

High temperature superconducting alternating current synchronous motor 

The budget request included $55.8 million in PE 63123N for various force protection advanced technology development activities, 

but included no funding to continue development of a high-temperature, superconducting (HTS), alternating current (AC), synchronous motor. The Navy is working on the electric warship program to address electrical and auxiliary system component technology to provide improvements in system energy and power density, system operating efficiency, and ability to recover from casualties. 

The Navy is shifting to integrated electric propulsion approaches 

for the fleet, most notably in the DD(X) destroyer program. HTS 

AC motors and generators hold the potential to be much smaller, 

quieter, and less expensive than alternative systems. 

The committee believes that the Navy should continue development efforts on a large scale HTS motor to determine whether such 

a motor could serve as a central component of a propulsion system. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $10.0 million 

in PE 63123N to build and begin testing a DD(X)-size HTS AC synchronous motor. 

Laser welding for shipbuilding 

The budget request included $55.8 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology, but did not include funding 

for the laser welding and cutting program. Transition and qualification of laser welding and cutting processes would significantly 

reduce ship construction costs while affording ship designers greater flexibility, and ultimately improve ship performance. The committee recommends an increase of $4.1 million in PE 63123N for 

the development and qualification of the laser welding process for 

naval ship construction. 

Project M 

The budget request included $55.8 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology, but included no funding for 

Project M, which would develop active control seats for use in the 

Mark V patrol boat. The current seats in the Mark V patrol boat 

offer little protection to individuals at high speed under operational 

conditions. As a result, injuries are common. A prototype, active 

controlled seat has been demonstrated in the laboratory. The committee recommends an increase of $4.7 million in PE 63123N for 

Project M. 

Common picture technologies 

The budget request included $69.2 million in PE 63235N for 

Common Picture Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63235N for common 

picture research and development: $4.0 million for development 

174

and certification of undersea situational awareness capabilities; 

and $6.0 million for the development of a shipboard automated reconstruction capability. 

Warfighter sustainment advanced technology 

The budget request included $54.8 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology. This included funding for various efforts to support expeditionary logistics, but included no funding for automated handling of cargo or containers, 

or for the emerging/critical interconnection technologies (E/CIT) 

program. 

The expeditionary logistics investment is intended to develop and 

improve transformational Naval surface distribution/replenishment 

techniques, and to improve the situational awareness of readiness 

and operating logistics status. The committee believes that the 

Navy could employ software products that use decision support 

planning tools to process timely, accurate information on tactical 

equipment and weapons system on the battlefield. Sensors installed on equipment could relay diagnostic data that could be used 

to determine logistics and supply priorities, while achieving a much 

smaller support force footprint ashore. The Navy needs to continue 

software development to improve expeditionary logistics management. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 in 

PE 63236N million to continue this development effort. 

An automated cargo and container handling system would provide the Navy with a capability of offloading supply ships in support of sea-based operations. The concept would use multi-point 

stabilization to overcome the dangerous pendulum effect that can 

plague existing shipboard cranes. The committee recommends an 

increase of $6.5 in PE 63236N million to initiate the development, 

fabrication, and testing of an automated container and cargo handling system which would be capable of operating in sea states up 

to sea state three. 

The E/CIT program would strengthen the ability of both the Department of Defense and industry to support the military’s unique 

printed circuit board requirements through an integrated program 

of research, education, and industrial extension. The committee 

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the E/CIT program, for 

a total authorization of $67.3 in PE 63236N. 

Precision surveillance and targeting radar 

The budget request included $45.5 million in PE 63271N for 

radio frequency (RF) systems advanced technology, including $9.2 

million for various developments within the surface and aerospace 

surveillance advanced RF systems project. Under the time-critical 

strike (TCS) activities within this project, the Navy completed an 

initial design of a pod-mounted precision surveillance and targeting 

(PS&T) radar system based on AN/APY–6 technology for in-flight 

captive carry by Navy F/A–18 aircraft. 

Within the past year, the Navy has decided to redirect the PS&T 

development effort. Due to changed program requirements, the 

Navy intends to reconfigure the design of the PS&T radar from the 

previous pod-mounted configuration to an internal carriage configuration for time-critical targeting demonstrations on board the 

175

Navy’s Global Hawk Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) 

unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). 

The intent of this effort would be to demonstrate a low cost, 

lightweight, high resolution synthetic aperture/ground moving target indicator radar for BAMS and other platforms. The committee 

believes that this is a high priority effort for finding and engaging 

difficult targets on the battlefield. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63271N to accelerate 

development and demonstration of the PS&T system. 

Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory 

The budget request included $56.4 million for PE 63640M for 

Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration. The committee 

recommends an increase of $12.9 million in PE 63640M for technology development and transition efforts at the Marine Corps 

Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL): $6.0 million for development of 

advanced water purification technology; $1.5 million for the Center 

for Emerging Threats and Opportunities (CETO); $3.5 million to 

accelerate the Dragon Eye unmanned aerial vehicle, a low-cost, 

light-weight, expendable platform which recently performed in the 

Iraqi theater, giving the Marines vital over-the-hill situational 

awareness; and $1.9 million for the enhancement of the Sea Viking 

2004 expeditionary tactical communications system. 

The committee commends the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory for its technology development efforts and quick reaction capabilities. The MCWL, through the wargaming and concept of operations analysis capabilities of CETO, has provided quick situational 

analysis to the senior warfighting commanders, thereby preventing 

operational and tactical surprise, and has played a critical role in 

the Global War on Terrorism. 

Modeling and simulation for homeland defense 

The budget request includes $13.7 million PE 63757N for Joint 

Warfighting Experiments to conduct simulations and sustain support structures to be used by the Joint Warfighting Center, U.S. 

Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) to develop new joint warfighting 

concepts and to support efforts to develop the doctrine and concepts 

associated with Department of Defense (DOD) support to homeland 

security. The budget request did not include any funding specifically for the purpose of developing new, alternative modeling and 

simulations capabilities to support the homeland defense responsibilities of the DOD and the armed forces. 

The committee urges the Commander, JFCOM, to aggressively 

seek alternative modeling and simulation concepts and proposals 

that have the potential for adaptation to the unique needs of the 

DOD, with their overarching domestic and international defense responsibilities. Investment must continue in all aspects of national 

security simulation to ensure that all of the components necessary 

to represent all aspects of the Department’s national security responsibilities are being developed to ultimately interact with an 

overall family of simulations. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, PE 

63757N, to be used only by the Commander, JFCOM, to develop 

176

and demonstrate models of U.S. urban areas, simulations on the 

employment of weapons of mass destruction in these urban areas, 

simulations on the capabilities of the Department’s civil support capabilities, interactive capacity for live responses for local, state and 

national civil authorities, and the means to ultimately become part 

of a larger full-spectrum national security modeling and simulation 

architecture. Having such components and alternatives to existing 

simulation architectures will greatly assist the Commander, 

JFCOM, in evaluating available alternatives and developing the 

right integrating architecture to maximize their training and readiness potential. 

Mine warfare technology 

The budget request included $31.7 million in PE 63782N to support research in mine and expeditionary warfare technology. The 

committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 63782N 

for this account: $3.5 million for augmented reality technologies 

which enhance maritime navigation, operational security and harbor defense; and $4.0 million for near global hyperspectral mapping 

of littoral regions. 

Rotorcraft external airbag protection system 

The budget request included $6.8 million in PE 63216N for aviation survivability developments, but included no funding for the 

continued evaluation of the rotorcraft external airbag protection 

system (REAPS). As noted in the Senate Report accompanying 

S.2514 (S. Rept. 107–151), the committee considers REAPS a viable 

option for making helicopter crashes significantly more survivable. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

63216N for the continued development of REAPS. 

Improved shipboard combat information center 

The budget request included $3.4 million in PE 63382N for advanced combat system technology, but included no funding for an 

improved shipboard combat information center (CIC). A prototype 

of this system would demonstrate the capability of emerging technologies to further automate and improve the warfighting operations of a surface ship combatant. The improved CIC would integrate a number of technologies that are reconfigurable depending 

on mission requirements, with the objective of enhancing combat 

capabilities while reducing the required number of CIC personnel. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63382N for developing an improved CIC. 

Advanced battle station/decision support system 

The budget request included $145.0 million in PE 63512N for 

carrier systems development, but included no funding for the advanced battle station/decision support system (ABS/DSS). The ABS/

DSS is a suite of information management tools that is intended 

to provide the war fighter with a consolidated situational awareness picture of the battle space. ABS/DSS automatically prioritizes 

and reconfigures the battle picture in real time, and displays information in a manner more easily understood and absorbed by combat watch standers. 

177

The Navy believes that the ABS/DSS suite will provide a low-risk 

decision support capability that has great potential for multiple 

Navy platforms, and possible application for other services. The 

Navy also believes that benefits could include reductions in personnel requirements and total operating costs while improving situational awareness. 

The Navy needs to continue software development of ABS/DSS, 

including software certification within the defense information infrastructure/common operating environment (DII/COE) context, before the suite can be considered for deployment in the fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63512N for expanding production efforts on the ABS/DSS software 

and for conducting required DII/COE certification. 

Carrier system development 

The budget request included $145.0 million in PE 63512N for 

carrier system development, but included no funding for the Aviation Ship Integration Center. The aviation ship development activity is a Navy-unique program to address all technology areas associated with Navy and Marine Corps aircraft operations aboard 

ships. The Aviation Ship Integration Center is intended to avoid future costs by examining engineering and integration design 

changes that can be used on various ships and aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million in PE 63512N for 

the Aviation Ship Integration Center. 

Surface vessel torpedo tubes

The budget request included no funding in PE 63513N for developing improved torpedo tube technology for surface ships. The 

Navy has been managing a Small Business Innovative Research 

(SBIR) project to develop a modular, gas generator launch canister. 

This project is employing commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS), automobile-style air bags for launch energy. Employing COTS components, with such long shelf life, could greatly reduce the maintenance burden of keeping the current air flask-based torpedo tubes 

in operational condition. Therefore, the committee recommends an 

increase of $3.0 million in PE 63513N to continue development of 

an improved launch capability for surface vessel torpedo tubes. 

Anti-submarine warfare risk reduction 

The budget request included $2.5 million in PE 63553N for antisubmarine warfare (ASW) advanced development, which provides 

demonstration and validation of technology for potential surface 

sonar and combat systems applications. Efforts in this area focus 

on shallow water and littoral area undersea warfare (USW) and on 

demonstration and validation of USW concepts and technology. The 

committee believes that an opportunity exists, with the Navy’s consolidation of multiple ASW system software baselines into a common baseline on submarines and surface combatants, to apply modern technology in fusing data from a variety of sources. These 

sources could include acoustic, electronic, radar, and network inputs. The committee believes that risk reduction activities in this 

area could significantly enhance the effectiveness of the littoral 

178

combat ship. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 63553N for ASW risk reduction. 

Reducing maintenance by improving brushes on electric 

motors 

The budget request included $1.3 million in PE 63561N to continue a program to conduct full scale, land-based testing of advanced metal fiber brushes, and to continue the testing on a submarine of a complete set of advanced metal fiber brushes in a ship 

service motor generator set. Metal fiber brushes have demonstrated, through a Navy-sponsored, phase II Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program, the capability to significantly 

enhance performance and reduce maintenance costs on Navy motors and generators. The systematic approach for certifying the 

technology requires certification for varying motor and generator 

capacities before the brushes can be introduced more widely in the 

submarine fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $8.7 million in PE 63561N for the following purposes: (1) to test 

and certify advanced metal fiber brush technology to reduce maintenance and improve reliability of motors and generators; and, (2) 

to accelerate transition of these brushes to the operating fleet. 

Rotary electromagnetic launcher 

The budget request included $52.7 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development, but included no funding to 

develop the rotary electromagnetic launcher (REML) system. 

Current submarine launchers, which are based on using energy 

from high pressure air sources, are configured to provide maximum 

launch effort for heavyweight torpedoes. These launchers are not 

well suited to conduct softer launches of mines or unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). The Navy had been considering a plan to 

replace the current launcher system on the Virginia-class submarine as early as fiscal year 2007. Under the current budget, the 

Navy will now only be ready to conduct an integrated system demonstration in fiscal year 2009 or 2010. The committee believes that 

it is difficult to understand the relative priority that the Navy has 

afforded to improving payload launch systems, particularly in view 

of the major initiatives the Navy intends to pursue in UUVs. 

The committee believes that additional resources are needed in 

fiscal year 2004 to complete the demonstration that was started in 

fiscal year 2003, and to accelerate availability of REML technology 

for an integrated system demonstration sooner than the current 

Navy plan. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million in PE 63561N for REML development. 

Submarine payloads and sensors 

The budget request included $52.7 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine systems development, but included no funding to 

develop advanced payload and sensor systems. The advanced submarine systems development program is responsible for incorporating the recommendations of the Defense Science Board that 

the Navy develop new capabilities for our submarine forces. It is 

also the mechanism for implementing congressional intent that the 

179

Navy continue a robust technology insertion program for Virginiaclass submarines during production. 

The Navy has funded two industry consortia to conduct five demonstrations in the component advanced development (CAD) phase 

of this effort. The demonstrations were started late in fiscal year 

2001 and are scheduled to be complete by fiscal year 2004. These 

efforts include: a flexible payload module (FPM); a stealthy affordable capsule system (SACS); processing; a small, unmanned aerial 

vehicle (SUAV); and, broaching universal buoyant launcher 

(BUBL).

Under current Navy plans, the consortia will continue an industry technology incubator effort aimed at defining new start demonstrations to be selected in fiscal year 2003 with $16.5 million 

available in fiscal year 2003 funding. Under the Navy’s plan, with 

no Navy funding available in fiscal year 2004, no new starts will 

be possible, and existing efforts may be impacted. 

The committee believes that the Navy should continue these efforts to support transforming current submarine capabilities. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million 

in PE 63561N to continue advanced payload and sensor development. 

Littoral Combat Ship 

The budget request included $158.1 million in PE 63581N for the 

development of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The LCS is intended to be a fast, agile, and stealthy surface combatant capable 

of operating in support of anti-access missions against asymmetric 

threats in the littorals. The primary, focused missions for LCS include prosecution of small boats, mine countermeasures, and littoral anti-submarine warfare. The secondary missions for LCS include intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, homeland defense, 

support for special operations forces, and logistic support. The basic 

LCS seaframe will be equipped with core capabilities, and focused 

mission modules will enable LCS to perform one of its focused missions. The concept of operations envisions the LCS as operating 

independently, in groups, or in support of a larger force. 

After receiving six design concept studies in fiscal year 2003, the 

Navy released a request for proposals to industry. The fiscal year 

2004 budget request, if authorized and appropriated, would allow 

the Navy to select three of the industry proposals to advance the 

seaframe design in fiscal year 2004, with a plan to start building 

the first ship with research, development, test and evaluation 

funds in fiscal year 2005. 

The committee is concerned that the analysis underpinning the 

LCS requirement is not sufficient. Section 218 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) 

required the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on LCS 

which addressed in detail the analytical process to examine alternatives, and establish relative priorities to meet valid requirements. The committee believes that the report, which was delivered 

pursuant to last year’s requirement, did not provide the necessary 

analysis. 

The Navy believes that this ship would offer a way to achieve a 

fleet size of 375 ships, a number that the Chief of Naval Operations 

180

has said is required to support the Sea Power 21 vision. The committee is concerned that the larger surface combatant force will decline to a number even below that which is projected in the near 

term as a result of the acquisition of LCS. While the cost of the 

LCS seaframe has been estimated, and is included in the preliminary design interim requirements document, there is no firm estimate of what LCS will cost with its focused mission modules. Overall Navy affordability constraints may well lead to a fleet with the 

number of Navy ships close to the number now in commission, only 

of lesser capability. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to the committee by March 1, 2005, that: (1) details the Navy’s 

progress in further defining the concept of operations for the LCS; 

(2) assesses the analytical basis for the establishment of LCS requirements; (3) assesses the technical maturity of the focused mission modules for flight zero ships, and, to the extent possible, for 

flight one ships; and, (4) estimates the recurring LCS weapons system cost, to include seaframe and focused mission modules, at a 

production rate similar to that in the Navy plan. 

The committee believes that the Navy will have to conduct significant experimentation to determine the utility of the LCS concept. The focused mission modules are required to enable that experimentation, yet the Navy failed to fully fund focused mission 

modules in the budget request. The committee believes that before 

committing to production of more than a few ships, the Navy 

should have determined, through analysis and experimentation, 

that this ship will deliver the Navy’s expected capabilities. To accelerate this process, the committee recommends an increase of 

$35.0 million in PE 63581N for LCS modules. 

Non-lethal weapons 

The budget request included $19.7 million in PE63635M for Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems but no funding 

for non-lethal weapons development. Non-lethal weapons development includes weaponization of technology, reactive nanoparticles 

(RNP) for facility clearing, and the urban operations laboratory. 

The weaponization of technology program explores the Marine 

Corps’ ability to neutralize facilities and the threats and personnel 

associated with these facilities. The committee understands that 

this program has the potential to reduce collateral damage to personnel and property over current man-power-intensive and destructive operations in urban environments. The committee notes that 

the Commandant of the Marine Corps identified a fiscal year 2004 

unfunded requirement of $3.4 million for weaponization of technology. 

The RNP for facility clearing program establishes an urban operations program that is focused on, but not limited to, the clearing 

of facilities with nanoparticles and other non-lethal weapon technologies. The committee understands that this program is working 

extensively on mapping the capabilities of nanoparticles and other 

technologies to the unique considerations within an urban environment and will develop strategic and implementation plans for recommendation to the Marine Corps. The committee notes that the 

181

Commandant of the Marine Corps identified a fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement of $3.6 million for RNP. 

The urban operations laboratory provides the Marine Corps with 

the assessment, analysis, and remediation capabilities to ensure acceptable risk and collateral damage effects on the use of lethal and 

nonlethal weapons within the urban environment. The committee 

notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps identified a fiscal 

year 2004 unfunded requirement of $5.5 million for the continued 

operations and expansion of the urban operations laboratory. 

The committee recommends increases in PE63635M of $3.4 million for weaponization of technology, $3.6 million for RNP for facility clearing, and $5.5 million for the urban operations laboratory, 

for a total authorization of $32.2 million. 

Distress signaling systems 

The budget request included $18.2 million in PE 63713N for 

ocean engineering technology development, but included no funding 

for distress signaling systems. This program element funds development efforts to overcome deficiencies that constrain underwater 

operations in the areas of search, location, rescue, recovery, salvage, construction, and protection of offshore assets. The program 

also develops medical technology, diver life support equipment, and 

the vehicles, systems, tools, and procedures to permit manned underwater operations. 

The committee understands that survivors in the sea have a 

much greater chance for rescue when they can improve their visibility to rescuers. Some methods for this improved visibility include 

streamers, dye markers, and infrared markers. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 63713N for the Navy 

to evaluate distress signaling systems available on the commercial 

market. 

Marine mammal monitoring and protection system 

The budget request included $48.8 million in PE 63721N for 

Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research. The committee 

recommends an increase of $3.0 million for development and transition of an active integrated marine mammal monitoring and protection system. 

Advanced wireless networks 

The budget request included $31.4 million in PE 64707N for 

space and electronic warfare architecture research and development, but no funds for the Navy collaborative integrated information technology initiative (NAVCIITI). 

The committee is aware that past NAVCIITI research has contributed to high pay-off networking and communications technologies, including software-reconfigurable radios, smart antennas, 

and ultra-wideband systems. The committee understands that additional funds are required to continue development of advanced 

wireless networks. Such wireless network technology could support 

warfighters by providing robust voice and data communications in 

hostile environments without a fixed local infrastructure. 

182

The committee recommends $36.4 million in PE 64707N, an increase of $5.0 million for NAVCIITI to develop advanced wireless 

networks. 

Advanced cable design 

The budget request included $66.8 million in PE 64212N for 

other helicopter development, but included no funding for an advanced cable design for the MH–60S helicopter, an effort which 

began in fiscal year 2003. Present tow cable systems used in mine 

and undersea warfare sensing and countermeasure devices use 

steel-reinforced cables to meet the mechanical strength requirements. These cables are extremely heavy when deployed. Current 

technology would allow the use of synthetic fiber in a polymer 

sheath to replace the current cables. This would significantly reduce the weight and hydrodynamic drag, increasing on-station time 

for the helicopter. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 

million in PE 64212N to continue the design and development of 

an advanced tow cable. 

AV–8B aircraft engine development 

The budget request included $10.5 million in PE 64214N for development efforts for the AV–8B aircraft, including $2.3 million for 

the engine life monitoring program (ELMP). Additional funds in 

the ELMP could improve the F402 engine’s safety, reliability, and 

increase the mean time between engine removal from 275 hours to 

800 hours. These additional funds are noted in the Navy unfunded 

priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million 

in PE 64214N for the AV–8B aircraft ELMP. 

P–3 modernization program

The budget request included $7.3 million in PE 64221N for modernization programs for the P–3 aircraft, primarily to fund improved sensor integration and readiness improvements. The P–3 

Anti-surface Warfare Improvement Program (AIP) was initiated in 

1994 to improve the P–3’s capability. The P–3 AIP phased capability upgrade (PCU) program has allowed the aircraft to systematically add capability to meet new and emerging operational requirements. Some of the enhancements that could be realized by 

the P–3 AIP–PCU include: (1) incorporation of an integrated tactical picture; (2) link 16; (3) tactical common data link; and, (4) 

electro-optic geo-location. The committee recommends an increase 

of $12.3 million to fund integration, first kit installation, and testing of the P–3 AIP–PCU. 

Warfare support system 

The budget request included $1.5 million in PE 64230N for development of warfare support systems, but included no funding for development of deployable autonomous distributed systems (DADS) 

for mobile inshore undersea warfare (MIUW). The coastal warfare 

units are the primary undersea surveillance resource for the coastal warfare force. The MIUW units require leading edge technology 

to combat mini-submarines, swimmer delivery vehicles, and swimmer infiltration. Updating MIUW units with DADS will provide 

these units with needed technology. The committee recommends an 

183

increase of $3.0 million in PE 64230N to develop DADS for incorporation into MIUW units. 

Extended range active missile 

The budget request included $76.9 million in PE 64366N for standard missile improvements, including $34.2 million for the development of the extended range active missile (ERAM). The 

ERAM will provide capability against manned fixed and rotary 

wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and land attack and antiship cruise missiles. ERAM will use the technology developed in 

the seeker of the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile 

(AMRAAM) and combine it with the standard missile to achieve required capabilities. Additional funding in fiscal year 2004 could be 

used for wind tunnel testing, self-test and reliability improvements, 

and production cost-reduction efforts. The Navy identified additional funding for ERAM on its unfunded priority list. The committee recommends an increase of $46.0 million in PE 64366N to 

reduce risk and accelerate ERAM initial operational capability. 

Submarine antenna technology improvements 

The budget request included $80.8 million in submarine systems development, including $9.1 million for various submarine integrated antenna systems developments. 

In order to participate fully in the Navy’s network centric warfare efforts, ships must have higher data rate communications than 

are currently available on submarines, and the Navy must develop 

the capability to permit submarines to communicate without restricting operations to slow speed at periscope depth. 

One near-term solution could involve using an expendable twoway satellite communications buoy operating in the ultra high frequency (UHF) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. An approach that would employ fiber optic links between the submarine 

and a communications buoy could be compatible with existing buoy 

launcher systems. 

A longer-term approach would require extending communications 

capability to other portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. A 

tethered platform could provide connectivity and could be used to 

achieve better situational awareness by employing such sensor 

technologies as photonics, electronic support measures, and acoustics. Such a tethered platform could also take advantage of existing 

towed buoy handling mechanisms already installed on submarines. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

64503N to pursue these developments to provide higher data rate 

communications, including: (1) $2.0 million to develop an expendable two-way satellite communications buoy; and, (2) $3.0 million 

to develop a tethered communications and sensor platform. 

‘‘Virginia’’-class submarine design development 

The budget request included $112.4 million in PE 64558N for 

Virginia-class submarine design development. This includes the 

technology, prototype components, and systems engineering needed 

to design and construct the submarine and build its command, control, communications, and intelligence system. The budget request 

included no funding for information assurance. Submarine combat 

184

systems are required to be interoperable with joint forces and other 

battle group participants while maintaining a high level of information security. The committee recommends an increase of $8.2 million in PE 64558N for submarine information assurance. 

The budget request included no funding to develop the multi-mission module concept for the Virginia-class submarine. A payload 

modular force could bring new capabilities to the fleet, while increasing payload capacity and flexibility. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 64558N for the development of the multi-mission module concept for the Virginia-class 

submarine. 

The budget request included no funding to develop a network 

centric sustainment architecture for the Virginia-class submarine. 

This architecture would enable system upgrades, problem correction, training, and other information related sustainment activities 

to be conducted by the crew while a submarine is deployed and onstation. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in 

PE 63558N for the development of a network centric sustainment 

architecture for the Virginia-class submarine, for a total authorization of $138.6 million in PE 64558N. 

Submarine tactical warfare system 

The budget request included $32.2 million in PE 64562N for the 

submarine tactical warfare system. Submarine command and control systems for earlier classes of submarines were originally designed using a closed architecture concept that severely limited the 

flexibility needed for adding new or improved functional capabilities. Beginning with the Virginia-class submarine, the command, 

control, communications, and intelligence system incorporated an 

open system architecture to facilitate the use of commercial-off-theshelf hardware and software in the subsystems that provide mission essential functions. The Navy has implemented the submarine 

warfare system (SWS) modernization effort to evolve the combat 

control system of earlier classes of submarines into the tactical control system (TCS) and the weapon control system (WCS). The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the TCS and 

an increase of $10.0 million for the WCS to enable future capability 

improvements for the SWS on all submarine classes, a total authorization of $52.2 million in PE 64562N for the submarine tactical 

warfare system. 

Uninterruptible fuel cell 

The budget request included no funding in PE 64710N for the 

Navy energy program. The Navy is tri-service lead for the implementation of renewable/alternative energy systems for the Department of Defense. 

Reliable electric power is important for providing continuing operations at key operating facilities. Microprocessor operations are 

particularly sensitive to short interruptions. A potential way of 

dealing with the problem on a facility-wide basis, rather than 

piecemeal, would be to supply loads through uninterruptible substations that could respond within a few milliseconds to outages. 

185

The committee understands that such a substation with appropriate response times could be feasible by developing proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell designs. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million 

in PE 64710N to demonstrate the technical and economic viability 

of a set of PEM fuel cells and control unit in daily operation of a 

reliable, uninterruptible distributed generator. 

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system development 

The budget request included $35.5 million for ship self-defense soft-kill systems development in PE 64757N, including $2.3 million 

to develop various product improvements for the NULKA system. 

The Navy has identified a series of development activities associated with the NULKA system that are required to understand and 

deal with emerging threats: 

(1) an improved payload that would provide radio frequency 

coverage of more than one band of the spectrum to deal with 

anti-ship missiles; 

(2) an expanded anti-tampering program effort; 

(3) an improved guidance and propulsion system to allow 

more precise positioning of the decoy during operations; 

(4) an effort to design an infrared payload to enable NULKA 

to deal with newer anti-ship missile homing technologies; and 

(5) design agent support and development of a systems integration facility. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

64757N for the NULKA development program to continue these efforts. 

Radar absorbing tiles for ship self defense 

The budget request included $35.5 million in PE 64757N for ship 

self defense, but included no funding for the development or testing 

of radar absorbing tiles to reduce surface ship radar signatures. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

64757N to develop and test advanced radar absorbing tiles for 

Navy ships. 

Joint Strike Fighter 

The budget request included $2.2 billion in PE 64800N and $2.2 

billion in PE 64800F for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) development program. The total request for the JSF program included 

$100.0 million to continue development of the second source, interchangeable engine for the JSF, designated as the F136 engine. The 

fiscal year 2003 F136 program was funded at $174.7 million. 

The committee believes that the interchangeable engine should 

be made available for competitive procurement as early as possible. 

The result of a reduction to this program would be to delay the 

interchangeable engine by at least two years. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $56.0 million in PE 64800N to continue the F136 interchangeable engine development on its original schedule. The committee believes that the 

Department of Defense should make the financial adjustments to 

the Future Years Defense Program that are necessary to restore 

the original interchangeable engine schedule. 

186

Wireless sensor technology 

The budget request included $30.6 million in PE 65013N for Information Technology Development. The committee recommends an 

increase of $2.0 million for the development of an open architecture 

wireless sensor network to reduce naval asset life-cycle costs. 

Fire retardant fibers 

The budget request included $4.4 million in PE 65152N for 

Naval studies and analysis. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 65152N for the assessment of upgraded 

fire retardant fibers that provide increased flame protection and 

durability. 

Warfare analysis and education 

The budget request included $30.2 million in PE 65853N for support of wargames and research analysis. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 65853N for warfare 

analysis and education, particularly aimed at current national security threats and global terrorism. 

Thin plate pure lead battery technology 

The budget request included $104.8 million in PE 11221N for 

strategic submarine and weapons system support, but no funding 

for thin plate pure lead (TPPL) battery technology. 

The committee is aware of ongoing research to apply well-understood TPPL technology to submarine batteries. This technology has 

the potential to increase submarine battery energy density, reduce 

corrosion and associated maintenance costs, and improve life span, 

performance, reliability, output, and recovery from deep discharges. Therefore, the committee recommends $106.3 million in PE 

11221N, an increase of $1.5 million for research and development 

for thin plate pure lead battery technology. 

Precision terrain aided navigation 

The budget request included $71.4 million in PE 24229N for continued development of the Tomahawk cruise missile weapons system, but included no funding for precision terrain aided navigation 

(PTAN). PTAN would offer an alternative guidance system for 

Tomahawk that could be used if the global positioning system 

(GPS) currently used was degraded by jamming or by other means. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

24229N for development of the PTAN system for the Tomahawk 

cruise missile. 

Fire Scout RQ–84 

The budget request included $56.5 million in PE 35204N for Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $46.4 million for the continuation of the Fire Scout RQ– 8A program. Although the Navy has recently expressed renewed interest in the Fire Scout program as a key unmanned component for 

the Littoral Combat Ship, the committee is concerned by last year’s 

cancellation by the Navy of this important vertical tactical unmanned platform. The committee expects the Navy to restore full 

funding for this platform in fiscal year 2005. 

187

Airborne reconnaissance systems 

The budget request included $13.3 million in PE 35206N for the 

development of airborne reconnaissance systems. The committee is 

aware that the technologies developed in this program help satisfy 

the requirements of the objective architecture established in the Integrated Airborne Reconnaissance Strategy and are identified in 

the Airborne Reconnaissance Technology Program Plan. Transition 

of many of these technologies to podded sensor platforms has been 

successful. The committee recommends an increase of $5.1 million 

in PE 35206N for continued development of podded sensors. 

Verification, validation and accreditation improvements 

The budget request included $7.0 million in PE 38601N for Modeling and Simulation Support. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 38601N for verification, validation, and 

accreditation improvements for risk reduction and reduced lifecycle costs. 

Air Force

188


Insert graphic folio 237 here SR46.104
189


Insert graphic folio 238 here SR46.105
190


Insert graphic folio 239 here SR46.106
191


Insert graphic folio 240 here SR46.107
192


Insert graphic folio 241 here SR46.108
193


Insert graphic folio 242 here SR46.109
194


Insert graphic folio 243 here SR46.110
195


Insert graphic folio 244 here SR46.111
196


Insert graphic folio 245 here SR46.112
197


Insert graphic folio 246 here SR46.113
198


Insert graphic folio 247 here SR46.114
199


Insert graphic folio 248 here SR46.115
200

Air Force propulsion research 

The budget request included $204.8 million in PE 61102F for Defense Research Sciences. The committee recommends a transfer of 

$5.0 million from PE 61102F, Biological Sciences research programs to PE 61102F, Propulsion research programs, and an increase of $5.5 million in PE 61102F for basic research in critical 

technologies necessary for the next generation of Air Force systems. 

Of the $5.5 million increase, $4.0 million would be used for research on adaptive optics technologies; and $1.5 million for basic 

research in quantum information processing and technologies. 

The committee notes that the Air Force requested more funding 

for basic research in Biological Sciences than in Propulsion in its 

core basic research program. The Air Force made this request despite the fact that the Department of Defense is proposing a National Aerospace Initiative that will depend upon scientific advances in propulsion technologies made by university research. The 

committee believes that the Air Force should make funding basic 

research in propulsion science and technology a high priority, given 

the tradition of Air Force support of these scientific disciplines, and 

their clear connection to current and future Air Force missions. 

The committee notes that in fiscal year 2004 the Air Force reduced 

its request in PE 61102F by $23.8 million, as compared to the fiscal 

year 2003 budget request. The Air Force indicates that this reduction will result in the suspension or non-initiation of approximately 

130 grants that would have otherwise supported approximately 390 

graduate and post-graduate students. The committee urges the Air 

Force to increase and sustain its support of university research and 

the training of future scientists and engineers. 

Aerospace materials research 

The budget request included $68.7 million in PE 62102F for advanced materials research. The committee recognizes the critical 

role that materials research and materials processing technology 

play in extending the life of aging equipment. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $17.5 million in PE 62102F for 

advanced materials research: $4.0 million for developing low-cost 

composite airframes, particularly for platforms which require high 

performance and light weight such as unmanned aerial vehicles; 

$6.0 million for the development and application of a high power, 

tunable, ultra-violet laser processing tool for the fabrication of 

micro-engineered components; $4.5 million for research in 

nanotechnology in support of aerospace materials; $1.0 million for 

materials research to support the development of fire protection 

systems, directed energy technologies, and technologies for crash 

and rescue operations; and $2.0 million for the development of fire 

retardant polymer materials. 

Space technologies 

The budget request included $83.2 million in PE 62601F for research in space technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $14.5 million in PE 62601F for novel materials and computing for space technologies: $3.5 million to develop high-temperature rigid silicone thin films for solar cells; $4.0 million for furthering technological readiness levels of elastic memory composite 

201

materials; $3.0 million for continued development of microsatellite 

cluster technology; and $4.0 million for developing an all-optical, 

seamless data communication network for satellite communication. 

MASINT warfighter visualization tools 

The budget request included $71.7 million in PE 62702F for command, control, and communications research. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 62702F for the development of user-friendly measurement and signature intelligence visualization tools. 

Advanced materials for weapons systems 

The budget request included $33.1 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials research for weapons systems. The committee 

recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 63112F for technology development to support affordable defense and aerospace 

systems and manufacturing of specialty aerospace metals. 

Aerospace technologies and demonstrations 

The budget request included $73.4 million in PE 63211F for aerospace technology development and demonstration. The committee 

recommends an increase of $11.5 million in PE 63211F for applied 

research to support improved aerospace structures and technology 

demonstrations: $6.5 million for research on the use of aluminum 

aerostructures for aerospace components; $3.0 million for the demonstration of fly-by-light photonic technology; and $2.0 million for 

an assessment of possible upgrade options and life-cycle extension 

alternatives for the current fleet of tactical aircraft. While making 

its assessment of upgrade options and life-cycle extension alternatives, the Air Force should avail itself of the expertise of the 

original aircraft manufacturers. 

Fuels, lubrication and turbine engine technology 

The budget request included $114.7 million in PE 63216F for research in aerospace propulsion and power technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63216F for 

the Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology 

(IHPTET) and Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engine 

(VAATE) programs: $7.0 million for research dedicated to fuels, lubrication and turbine engine technology; and $6.0 million for the 

advanced turbine engine gas generator program. 

B–2 bomber 

The budget request included $176.8 million in PE 64240F for research and development for the B–2 bomber and $76.5 million in 

Aircraft Procurement for post production support for the B–2 bomber. The Department of the Air Force has informed the committee 

that funds were misaligned in these two accounts. Consistent with 

the request by the Air Force, the committee recommends $152.1 

million in PE 64240F, a decrease of $24.7 million, and $101.2 million in Aircraft Procurement for post production support for the B–

2 bomber, a corresponding increase of $24.7 million. 

202

Advanced spacecraft technology 

The budget request included $72.1 million in PE 63401F for ad- vanced spacecraft technology, of which $2.2 million is for development and evaluation of space conventional power generation technologies, such as advanced thin film solar cells. 

The committee is aware of ongoing research on high specific 

power thin film multi-junction amorphous silicon arrays on flexible 

substrates for space applications. A recent Air Force report indicated that this technology has the potential to produce solar arrays 

that are five times greater in specific power, five to ten times 

cheaper, three to five times lighter, require five times less stowed 

volume, and offer improved radiation resistance compared to current solar arrays. The report also notes that this advanced technology is more mature than others currently under investigation. 

In light of the promise of this technology, the committee recognizes that the requested funding is insufficient. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 63401F for continued 

development of thin film multi-junction amorphous silicon arrays 

on flexible substrates for space applications. 

Satellite protection technology 

The budget request included $72.1 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but no funding for hardening technologies for satellite protection (HTSP). 

The committee continues to be concerned about the potential vulnerability of U.S. commercial and military satellites, particularly in 

light of the increasing reliance of the military on space assets and 

foreign efforts to develop the means to disrupt U.S. exploitation of 

those assets. The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency confirmed in testimony before the committee that several countries 

have programs that could result in kinetic energy, directed energy, 

or electronic counter-space capabilities. 

The committee is aware that protecting satellites from space control threats adds to acquisition costs, and that both commercial and 

military program managers who must live within constrained 

budgets have limited incentive to incorporate expensive design features to defeat those threats. The committee notes that high level 

attention and policy direction related to space system vulnerability 

(addressed elsewhere in this report) is a key first step to providing 

proper incentives. Providing lower cost, standardized tools to satellite designers that will minimize cost and design impact will also 

allow measures to reduce vulnerability to be designed in, rather 

than added on, to satellites. An effort to develop an integrated 

module to the standard Satellite Tool Kit for low cost laser and 

radio frequency hardening techniques was initiated in fiscal year 

2001. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.8 million in PE 

63401F to continue research and develop on hardening technologies 

for satellite protection. 

High accuracy network determination system 

The budget request included $6.3 million in PE 63444F for the 

Maui Space Surveillance program, but no funding for the high accuracy network determination system (HANDS). 

203

HANDS is intended to develop a network of relatively low resolution optical sensor systems linked through a central high performance computing system to improve space situational awareness. 

The committee believes that improved space situational awareness 

will be important in reducing the vulnerability of U.S. space assets, 

and understands that additional funds for the HANDS project 

could be used to operate the network; design and build upgraded 

optical sensors; and tie the sensors to the high performance computing system. The committee recommends $16.3 million in PE 63444F, an increase of $10.0 million to continue HANDS research and development. 

Global Positioning System III 

The budget request included no funding for the Global Positioning System (GPS) III in PE 63421F. 

GPS provides signals that allow users to determine precise 

geolocation, a capability critical to a range of military and civilian 

applications. The committee notes that current generation GPS satellites use very low power signals and are vulnerable to jamming. 

While the Air Force is incorporating improvements to unlaunched 

current generation GPS block II satellites to provide enhanced 

anti-jam capabilities, the Department of Defense has determined 

that these improvements will not be sufficient to satisfy future requirements. 

GPS also faces the potential for significant international competition from the European Galileo program. The committee continues 

to believe that GPS should be the international standard for radionavigation and that the GPS III effort is integral to achieving that 

end. 

To address these needs, the Air Force initiated the GPS III pro- gram. Although $60.2 million was appropriated for this effort in fiscal year 2003, the fiscal year 2004 budget request does not sustain 

this effort. The committee understands that the Air Force will request additional funds for GPS III in fiscal year 2005. The committee notes that such a delay will disrupt ongoing concept definition work and could result in delays to the planned first launch of 

GPS III. 

In light of these considerations, the committee recommends $80.0 

million in PE 63421F, an increase of $80.0 million, for continued 

development of the GPS III satellite. The committee recognizes 

that this amount, using a spiral development approach, could support a first launch of GPS III in 2010. The committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to study options for accelerating the GPS 

III program, and to report the results of that study to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2004. 

Advanced extremely high frequency system 

The budget request included $778.1 million in PE 63430F for development of the advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF) satellite communications system. 

Advanced EHF satellites will provide secure, survivable, jam resistant communications at much higher data rates than is currently available. At least three AEHF satellites will be required to 

204

support critical military communications, and as many as five 

could be needed, depending on progress in the research and development of next-generation transformational communications satellites. 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2004 budget request includes no procurement funding for the third AEHF satellite and 

that the Air Force does not intend to request this funding until fiscal year 2005. This represents a significant change from the budget 

projection for AEHF in fiscal year 2003, when the Air Force 

planned to request $95.0 million in advanced procurement for the 

third AEHF satellite in fiscal year 2004. The committee recognizes 

that this delay will result in a significant production gap that will 

require a costly requalification of suppliers, a significant increase 

in technical risks, and a possible delay in the AEHF schedule. 

To address these risks, and to lower the risk to the first two satellites, the committee recommends $838.1 million in PE 63430F, an 

increase of $60.0 million, for additional spare parts for AEHF. The 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to study options 

for restoring the AEHF program schedule, and to report the results 

of that study to the congressional defense committees no later than 

February 1, 2004. 

Space control technology 

The budget request included $14.7 million in PE 63438F for 

space control technology, but no funding for the kinetic energy antisatellite program (KEASAT). 

U.S. national security space policy includes a requirement to develop, operate, and maintain space control capabilities to ensure 

freedom of action in space and to deny freedom of action in space 

to adversaries. The committee notes that the Department of Defense focus on space control technology has increased as a result 

of the proliferation of satellite technology and the potential for foreign space assets to pose serious threats to U.S. military forces. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense invested 

about $350.0 million in KEASAT technology throughout the 1990s 

and substantial progress was made in the development of KEASAT 

hardware and software. The committee is also aware that a number of other space control technologies may enhance the KEASAT 

kill vehicle capabilities. 

The committee recommends $18.7 million in PE 63438F, an increase of $4.0 million, to assess and evaluate KEASAT technologies 

as part of a space control architecture, and to continue development of space control technologies that leverage KEASAT kill vehicle capabilities and the substantial investments made in the 

KEASAT project. 

Advanced wideband system/transformational communications architecture 

The budget request included $439.3 million in PE 63845F for the 

advanced wideband satellite communications system (AWS) and 

transformational communications architecture (TCA). 

The committee supports the goal of the advanced wideband system to provide dramatic increases in communications bandwidth. 

As information dominance becomes more central to success in warVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
205

fare, such increases will be required to support the voice, data and 

imagery needs of the U.S. military. To achieve these advances, 

AWS/TCA will develop a new, very complex communications architecture involving laser communications; internet packet switching; 

integration of space, air, and ground networks; new ground terminals; new security protocols; and multiple users, including the military services, the intelligence community, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

The committee is concerned that the technical, cost, and schedule 

risks for the AWS/TCA program appear to be very high. The committee is concerned that: (1) key AWS/TCA technologies, including 

multiple access laser communications terminals and information 

assurance, are immature; (2) the system engineering to provide the 

basis for a successful architecture has not yet been adequately addressed; (3) the coordination among multiple agencies and schedules and the technical maturity of many elements of the AWS/TCA 

system-of-systems and will be difficult; (4) the size and weight of 

the spacecraft have not been determined, but may exceed the capacity of current launch vehicles; (5) the budget request would 

nearly quadruple AWS/TCA funding, a level that may be difficult 

to execute; and (6) the scheduled first launch in 2009 may leave insufficient time to address these challenges. 

The committee believes that AWS/TCA should proceed at an aggressive but more measured pace that recognizes these challenges 

and manages risk in a prudent manner. Consequently, the committee recommends $389.3 million in PE 63845F for the advanced 

wideband satellite communications system and transformational 

communications architecture, a decrease of $50.0 million. 

Electronic warfare development 

The budget request included $74.0 million in PE 64270F for electronic warfare development programs in the Air Force, but included no funding for either the continued development of the Precision Location and Identification (PLAID) Program or the Loitering Electronic Warfare Killer (LEWK). 

PLAID is entering production as the ALR–69 radar warning receiver. It will improve survivability of Air Force aircraft by increasing aircrew situational awareness, providing accurate ground emitter location and unambiguous identification. Its installation in F–

16 and C–130 aircraft will rectify the effectiveness and suitability 

shortfalls of the current radar warning receivers. Continued development of PLAID is included on the Air Force unfunded priority 

list. The committee recommends an increase of $13.8 million in PE 

64270F for the continued development of PLAID. 

LEWK was approved as a joint service advance concept technology demonstration in fiscal year 2001. LEWK is an unmanned 

combat air vehicle, which, when it detects a threat radar, will itself 

attack the radar, contributing to the suppression of enemy air defenses. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for 

LEWK, for a total authorization of $93.8 million in PE 64270F. 

206

Passive Attack Weapon 

The budget request included $8.4 million in PE 64602F for armament and ordnance development, but included no funding for the 

Passive Attack Weapon. 

The Passive Attack Weapon is a kinetic energy weapon system 

designed to defeat targets of special interest, particularly chemical 

and biological storage facilities. The weapon dispenses non-explosive penetrators to destroy the target while limiting collateral damage and environmental impact. The committee believes that the 

Passive Attack Weapon could provide an important capability in 

the effort to hold critical targets at risk. 

The committee understands that additional funds are required to 

complete engineering and manufacturing development and to initiate low rate initial production of the passive attack weapon. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in PE 64602F for continued development of the Passive Attack 

Weapon. 

Space test program 

The budget request included $42.9 million in PE 65864F for the 

space test program. This program supports the development and 

launch of space experiments. The committee notes that many of 

these experiments may be delayed because they are launched on 

the space shuttle, which has been grounded for an indeterminate 

period of time as a result of the Columbia accident. Consequently, 

the committee recommends $39.6 million in PE 65864F, a decrease 

of $3.3 million. 

F–15C/D aircraft radar upgrade 

The budget request included $112.1 million in PE 27134F for the 

operational system development of the F–15 series of aircraft. The 

request included no funding for non-recurring development of a 

radar to replace the current F–15C/D aircraft radar, the mechanically-scanned APG–63 (V)1. There are 18 F–15 aircraft with an advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, which provides 

capability against cruise missiles. The F–15C/D aircraft are scheduled to remain in the inventory in considerable numbers beyond 

fiscal year 2020, and cruise missile defense is a likely mission the 

aircraft will have to perform for homeland defense. Additionally, an 

AESA radar would provide significant reliability and maintainability enhancements to the F–15 C/D aircraft. The committee is 

aware that there is ongoing development work in the private sector 

for an F–15C/D AESA radar upgrade, and recommends an increase 

of $16.5 million in PE 27134F to continue development of an F–

15C/D AESA radar. 

Patriot advanced capability–3 spiral development 

The budget request included $174.5 million in PE 64865A for 

continued development of the Patriot Advanced Capability–3 

(PAC–3) air and missile defense interceptor system, $44.5 million 

in PE 23801A for PAC–3 modifications, and $276.3 million in PE 

63869A for development of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). The budget request also included $212.6 million in 

Missile Procurement, Army, for Patriot modifications. 

207

The PAC–3 system is intended to provide effective defenses for 

forward deployed forces and small areas against hostile aircraft, 

cruise missiles, and short and medium range ballistic missiles. 

PAC–3 is currently being deployed and, consistent with Administration policy, funding for and execution of PAC–3 procurement is 

being transferred from the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to the 

Army. The administration also proposed to transfer follow-on PAC–

3 development from MDA to the Army. 

The MEADS program is an international effort of the United 

States, Germany, and Italy. MEADS is also intended to provide effective defenses for forward deployed forces and small areas 

against hostile aircraft, cruise missiles, and short and medium 

range ballistic missiles. MEADS is intended to be lighter and more 

mobile than PAC–3 to meet the need for a mobile air and missile 

defense system capable of defending maneuver forces, while providing 360 degree radar coverage and a thoroughly integrated command and control system. MEADS is scheduled to replace PAC–3 

starting in fiscal year 2012. The committee strongly supports international cooperative efforts to develop effective missile defenses, including the MEADS program. 

At the same time, the committee is aware that PAC–3 and 

MEADS share the same mission and that efforts continue to improve the PAC–3 system. PAC–3 development and modifications 

are also intended to extend its capabilities, and make the system 

lighter, more mobile, and more deployable. These efforts appear to 

parallel key aspects of the MEADS program. The committee is concerned that the parallel pursuit of PAC–3 spiral development and 

the MEADS development program does not represent a coherent 

approach to the further development of terminal phase ballistic 

missile defense. 

For example, the committee notes that the Army fiscal year 2004 

budget request included three separate launcher efforts, one for 

PAC–3, one capable of launching both the PAC–3 missile and the 

Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile, and a 

MEADS launcher that will only launch the PAC–3 missile. The 

MEADS program also funded a ‘‘certified missile round’’ for $17.2 

million in fiscal year 2003. However, MEADS uses the PAC–3 missile. The committee notes that these redundancies offer ample evidence that efficiencies can be achieved by better coordinating the 

two programs. 

The committee has concluded that greater terminal missile defense capability can be introduced into the field faster by developing a plan to use technologies developed by the MEADS program 

in successive PAC–3 spiral improvements. This approach would obviate the need to replace PAC–3 with MEADS. PAC–3 would take 

advantage of sequential MEADS developments in PAC–3 spirals 

and would eventually evolve into a system with all the attributes 

the MEADS program is intended to field. 

This approach is particularly important given the shortfalls in 

PAC–3 development identified by the Army. The Army unfunded 

priority list includes $55.5 million for evolutionary PAC–3 development and another $4.0 million to reduce the size and weight of the 

PAC–3 antenna mast, and the Army identifies about another 

208

$100.0 million in needed improvements for PAC–3 for which funding was not requested in fiscal year 2004. 

Consequently, the committee supports a restructuring of the 

MEADS and PAC–3 development programs, integrating the two efforts to support PAC–3 spiral development. The committee believes 

that a restructured program should remain an international cooperative effort. While such restructuring would likely cause some 

disruption to currently planned MEADS technology development 

efforts, the committee concludes that the prospective benefits of 

such a restructuring outweigh the potential disadvantages. 

The committee also concludes that this spiral development effort 

would be best managed by the Missile Defense Agency. MDA’s goal 

of developing a single integrated missile defense system, with a 

seamless tool kit of missile interceptors, sensors, and battle management systems will require extensive integration of all elements 

of the system. The committee notes that such coordination is best 

managed centrally, and that devolution of continuing research and 

development on deployed systems to the services will undermine 

that goal. The committee also notes that the effective management 

of the restructured PAC–3 spiral development program will require 

continuity in program leadership and oversight. 

The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary to restructure the 

PAC–3 development program and the MEADS program into a coordinated PAC–3 spiral development program and to engage the 

MEADS international partners in this restructuring. To support 

this goal, the committee recommends the following: (1) no funding for PE 64865A, a decrease of $174.5 million; 

(2) no funding for PE 63869A, a decrease of $276.3 million; 

(3) $415.8 million in PE 64865C, an increase of $415.8 million; and 

(4) $48.5 million in PE 23801A, an increase of $4.0 million 

for the light antenna mast group; and (5) $223.6 million in Missile Procurement Army, an increase of $11.0 million to meet unfunded PAC–3 requirements identified by the Army. 

The committee directs that of the amount authorized for appropriation in PE 64865C, $20.0 million shall be available to meet 

high priority unfunded PAC–3 evolutionary development efforts 

identified by the Army. The committee recommends $221.3 million 

to support MEADS legacy program efforts, which the committee expects would be tailored to support PAC–3 spiral development. The 

committee notes that this MEADS funding level would represent a 

$45.1 million increase compared to fiscal year 2003. 

Global positioning system jammer detection and location 

system 

The budget request included $10.5 million in PE 27247F for Air 

Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities, but no funding 

for the Global Positioning System Jammer Detection and Location 

System (JLOC). 

The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a navigational satellite 

system that is increasingly central to U.S. warfighting capabilities. 

GPS provides signals for accurate navigation and provides the technical basis for many of the precision guided weapons in the U.S. 

209

inventory. GPS satellites, however, transmit very low power signals 

that are susceptible to jamming. The Department of Defense recognizes the high priority need to protect GPS signals from jamming. 

The JLOC effort is developing a sensor, database, and predictive 

tool that will enhance the ability to detect, locate, identify, and 

track jamming threats to GPS, and thus enhance situational 

awareness, mission tasking and mission planning. Early assessments have proven the feasibility of the JLOC system and prior 

year funding will produce an end-to-end demonstration. The committee is aware that additional funds are required to improve the 

prototype sensor, integrate the sensor on additional platforms, 

modify and enhance the JLOC master station and database, conduct additional testing, and begin transitioning the system for 

operational use. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million 

in PE 27247F for JLOC. 

Space control test bed 

The budget request included $10.5 million in PE 27247F for Air 

Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities, but no funding 

for the space control test bed. 

U.S. national security space policy includes a requirement to develop, operate, and maintain space control capabilities to ensure 

freedom of action in space and to deny freedom of action in space 

to adversaries. One element important to achieving this goal is the 

ability to assess and integrate new space control systems, concepts, 

technologies, methods and training in operationally realistic environments. The committee notes that a viable space control test bed 

could help provide such operationally realistic environments by 

linking test and operational facilities, collecting and analyzing test 

and training data, improving system assessment tools and simulations, and developing warfighting exercises. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

27247F for the development of a space control test bed. 

Eagle Vision 

The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 27277F for research and development of the Air Force Chief of Staff (CSAF) Innovation Program and $3.6 million in Missile Procurement, Air 

Force, line 44, for intelligence command and control. A key component of the CSAF Innovation Program is Eagle Vision, a family of 

systems that provide commercial imagery to operational commanders. Eagle Vision has been deployed to the Persian Gulf in 

support of forces engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

The committee notes that the President is preparing a national 

policy supporting government use of commercial remote sensing capabilities and that the Director of Central Intelligence has strongly 

endorsed the expanded use of commercial imagery to meet U.S. 

military and intelligence needs. In response, the National Imagery 

and Mapping Agency is requesting funding to acquire commercial 

imagery and is supporting the development of next generation commercial imagery satellites. The committee believes that enhancing 

the warfighters’ tools to use this imagery in a timely and effective 

manner is important to maximize its military utility. 

210

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million 

in PE 27277F to provide improved capability to collect and process 

new high resolution commercial imagery, to sustain and maintain 

current Eagle Vision systems, and for operational fielding of Eagle 

Vision improvements near completion. 

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile 

The budget request included $31.2 million in PE 27325F for the 

continued development of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile 

(JASSM). JASSM is a long range, conventional, autonomous, airto-surface, precision guided cruise missile. The JASSM is currently 

going through testing and is in low rate initial production. An extended range (ER) variant of the JASSM, known as JASSM-ER, is 

in development. The JASSM–ER will provide greater standoff for 

the launch aircraft. This standoff is important, especially for the 

B–1 bomber aircraft: the B–1 defensive systems upgrade program 

was cancelled in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends an 

increase of $17.0 million in PE 27325F to accelerate the development of JASSM–ER. 

Cybersecurity Research 

The budget request included $37.7 million in PE 33140F for the 

Information Systems Security Program. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on computer system vulnerabilities and cyberthreats, including the transition of 

technologies for operational use. 

Civil reserve space service 

The budget request included $18.6 million in PE 35110F for research and development related to the Air Force Satellite Control 

Network (AFSCN), but no funding for the civil reserve space service (CRSS). 

The AFSCN provides tracking, telemetry, and control for U.S. 

military satellites. The committee notes that by fiscal year 2006, 

AFSCN will operate at 96 percent capacity in the eastern hemisphere, a level that will start to jeopardize the ability of the Air 

Force to meet both routine and contingency requirements. The 

CRSS effort is intended to demonstrate the feasibility of augmenting AFSCN capabilities with commercial satellite control antennas. The committee is aware that the early experiments have 

shown that commercial antennas, while not yet able to meet a full 

range of military satellite control requirements, could free AFSCN 

capacity to help meet critical warfighter needs. The National Security Space Architect has recommended investigation of commercial 

services as a means to reduce future AFSCN support and modernization costs. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $23.6 million in PE 

35110F, an increase of $5.0 million, to continue research into the 

technical feasibility of CRSS. 

Ballistic missile range safety technology 

The budget request included $9.7 million in PE 65860F for the 

rocket systems launch program, but no funding for ballistic missile 

range safety technology (BMRST). 

211

The committee recognizes that new ballistic missile range safety 

technology (BMRST) holds significant promise to improve down 

range reentry support, increase launch support capability, lower 

range support costs, and improve range safety. BMRST is based on 

Global Positioning System signals and an inertial navigation system to track space launch vehicles. Because it is mobile, the system 

can be used to support launches from the Eastern and Western 

launch ranges (located at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, respectively), as well as others with varying trajectories, such as missile defense launches. The significance of this effort is highlighted by the Air Force termination of several other 

launch range modernization initiatives, including flight safety, centralized control and automation, communications, weather systems, 

and range surveillance systems in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

Three BMRST units have been developed and one is undergoing 

certification testing. The committee recommends $25.2 million in 

PE 65860F, an increase of $15.5 million for BMRST, to expand system capability, support mid-course tracking and range certification, 

and conduct additional testing requirements to address issues 

raised in early certification testing. 

U–2 aircraft SENIOR YEAR electro-optical reconnaissance 

system focal planes 

The budget request included $52.5 million in PE 35202F, for the 

Dragon U–2 program, but included no funding for repair or replacement of SENIOR YEAR electro-optical reconnaissance system 

(SYERS–2) focal planes. The SYERS–2 sensor is a very capable intelligence collection sensor that provides regional combatant commanders with much of their imagery collection needs. When the 

sensor was developed, it was funded with several spares to replace 

the focal planes of the sensor, as age and operational tempo caused 

deteriorations in performance. The number of spares has dwindled 

and new investment in this long-lead time requirement is critical 

to maintaining the SYERS–2 capability. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 35202F, to establish the 

capability to produce, test, and deliver SYERS–2 focal plane assemblies. 

U–2 signals intelligence risk mitigation 

The budget request included $52.5 million in PE 35202F for the 

Dragon U–2 program, but included no funding for developmental 

work to integrate existing sensors onto upgraded U–2 aircraft platforms. Planned upgrades to U–2 airframes have created compatibility and integration issues with regard to current generation sensors. Developmental work is required to make current sensors forward compatible with Block 10 U–2 aircraft. This program is a 

high priority unfunded requirement of the Secretary of the Air 

Force. 

The committee recommends an increase of $33.0 million in PE 

35202F to reduce the risk associated with integrating various sensors onto Block 10 U–2 aircraft. 

212

Global Hawk lithium battery demonstration 

The budget request included $398.6 million in PE 35205F for Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The committee recommends an 

increase of $3.5 million for qualification of a light weight lithiumion aviation battery for the Global Hawk platform. 

Distributed common ground systems 

The budget request included $27.1 million in PE 35208F, for distributed common ground systems, but included no funding for Distributed Common Ground/Surface System (DCGS) Block 20, the 

next generation system to integrate collection from multiple intelligence platforms into a single system for deployed forces. 

The Air Force has been pursuing a spiral development approach 

for DCGS. The so-called ‘‘Increment 1’’ for the program built on legacy, proprietary systems to add capabilities and begin the migration to a system based on an open architecture. The Air Force’s 

goal for DCGS Block 10 is to field a common exploitation infrastructure with an open architecture. The Air Force plan for DCGS 

Block 20 includes further enhancements providing: (1) collaborative 

support over broad geographic areas; (2) fusion and exploitation of 

multiple types of intelligence products; and (3) connectivity with 

additional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, including national assets. 

The services and the intelligence community have been plagued 

for many years by individually developed systems that have hampered overall ISR integration. The committee understands that the 

senior leadership of the Army, Navy, and Air Force have agreed 

that the services should consolidate their efforts behind the current 

Air Force competition for the latest iteration of the DCGS program, 

called ‘‘DCGS Block 10.2.’’ The committee believes that this represents a positive step in solving a long standing problem and directs the Department of Defense to ensure that the services’ efforts 

are focused on a migration path to the open architecture and capabilities prescribed for DCGS Block 20. 

Because DCGS Block 20 appears to offer genuine progress in the 

integrating and expanding use of service and national ISR capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

35208F, to accelerate development and fielding of DCGS Block 20. 

Aging aircraft 

The budget request included $54.0 million in PE 78611F for Support Systems Development. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 78611F for technologies to address 

issues related to aging aircraft. 

Defense-Wide

213


Insert graphic folio 265 SR46.116
214


Insert graphic folio 266 SR46.117
215


Insert graphic folio 267 SR46.118
216


Insert graphic folio 268 SR46.119
217


Insert graphic folio 269 SR46.120
218


Insert graphic folio 270 SR46.121
219


Insert graphic folio 271 SR46.122
220


Insert graphic folio 272 SR46.123
221


Insert graphic folio 273 SR46.124
222


Insert graphic folio 274 SR46.125
223


Insert graphic folio 275 SR46.126
224


Insert graphic folio 276 SR46.127
225

Defense Research Sciences 

The budget request included $151.0 million in PE 61101E for Defense Research Sciences. The committee recommends an increase of 

$9.0 million in PE 61101E for university based basic research in 

this account: $5.0 million for nano- and micro-electromechanical 

systems; and $4.0 million for neural engineering research for autonomous control. 

Nanophotonic systems fabrication 

The budget request included $151.0 million in PE 61101E for Defense Research Sciences. The committee recommends an increase of 

$2.0 million in PE 61101E for research on the fabrication of novel 

nanophotonic systems. 

Semiconductor research programs 

The budget request included $151.0 million in PE 61101E for 

basic research at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA). The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million 

in PE 61101E to continue the Government Industry Cosponsorship 

of University Research (GICUR) program. Of this amount, the committee recommends that $1.0 million be used to support the 

GICUR Undergraduate Research Assistantship Program, and directs that this funding be targeted towards increasing the participation of U.S. citizens in semiconductor research programs. 

The committee notes that the budget request included no funding 

for the GICUR program. This program has successfully partnered 

industry with DOD in investing in basic research to develop the 

next generation of semiconductor microelectronics technologies. 

These technologies advance the capabilities of nearly every defense 

weapon system, including radars, missile seekers, and information 

and communications networks. The program also supported several 

university-based microelectronics research centers that helped 

maintain the United States’ global advantage in semiconductor 

technology and train the next generation of electronics engineers. 

The committee is concerned about the serious national security 

implications of the decline of the domestic high-end semiconductor 

chip manufacturing sector, and the potential subsequent loss of domestic semiconductor research and design capabilities. The migration of these capabilities overseas could potentially hamper the 

ability of the Department of Defense to obtain high-end semiconductor integrated circuits from domestic sources. 

The committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology to submit a report detailing Department of Defense plans to ensure the retention of domestic semiconductor chip manufacturing capabilities, as well as research and design capability. This report should be submitted by September 30, 

2004. The committee notes that it may be possible to address some 

of these issues by increasing funds for research and development, 

supporting cooperative government-industry research programs, 

adjusting U.S. trade policies, and developing joint production agreements and other innovative partnership arrangements with the 

semiconductor industry. 

226

University Research Initiative 

The budget request included no funding for PE 61103D8Z, University Research Initiative. In the fiscal year 2004 budget request, 

this program was devolved to the military services, however, the 

committee has reconstituted the program, as referred to elsewhere 

in this committee report. The committee recommends an increase 

of $16.5 million in PE 61103D8Z: $6.0 million for university based 

research in advanced carbon nanotechnology to support the 

warfighter; $3.5 million for basic research in photonics and microsystems technology; $5.0 million for development and testing of advanced remote sensing software; and $2.0 million to develop integrated systems analysis capabilities for bioterrorism response exercises. 

Cell and tissue culture and bacterial growth core research 

The budget request included $6.3 million in PE 61384BP for 

chemical and biological defense basic research, including research 

in the life sciences in support of new and improved detection technologies for biological agents and toxins. The committee recognizes 

the importance of core research in the areas of cell and tissue culture and bacterial growth. Recognized follow-on application of this 

research includes vaccine development, biosensor production and 

biological pharmaceuticals development. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million for cell and tissue culture 

and bacterial growth core research in PE 61384BP. 

Bacteriophage amplification 

The budget request included $35.8 million in PE 61384BP for 

chemical and biological defense basic research, including efforts to 

expand knowledge in the relevant fields for chemical and biological 

defense. The committee recognizes the importance of improving the 

sensitivity, portability, and effectiveness of current biological agent 

detectors, including those technologies that will analyze for bacteria in food, water, body fluids and soil. To advance this research, 

the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for 

bacteriophage amplification to improve the analysis of whole cell 

bacteria in PE 61384BP. 

Medical Free Electron Laser 

The budget request included $9.5 million in PE 62227D8Z for the 

medical free electron laser program. The committee recommends an 

increase of $9.0 million in PE 62227D8Z. The committee notes elsewhere in this committee report that the Department of Defense’s 

devolvement of this program to the National Institutes of Health 

in fiscal year 2003 produced disastrous results. While the program 

was returned to the Department in fiscal year 2004, the budget request was decreased by approximately 50 percent. The committee 

expects the Department to fully fund the medical free electron 

laser program in future years at levels that existed prior to 

devolvement. 

227

Computer research projects 

The budget request included $404.9 million in PE 62301E for 

Computing Systems and Communications Technology. The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in PE 62301E. 

Acoustic wave sensor technology 

The budget request included no funding in PE 62384BP for 

acoustic wave sensor technology. The committee supports efforts of 

the Defense Department to leverage advances in surface acoustic 

wave technology for biological agent detector applications. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to PE 

62384BP for such purposes. 

Bioinformatics 

The budget request included $106.5 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense program applied research, including efforts to improve chemical and biological defense equipment 

and material. The committee continues to support Defense Department research in the field of bioinformatics. Molecular-level biological data such as pathogen deoxyribonucleic acid is essential to combat bioweapons and infectious diseases. The committee understands that the requirement to process extremely large life science 

data sets, to conduct bio-system and genomic information analysis, 

and to provide advanced information on descriptive capabilities of 

pathogens to end-users in the military present significant challenges. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.5 

million in PE 62384BP for bioinformatics research. 

Food security technologies 

The budget request included $106.5 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense program applied research, including efforts to conduct real-time sensing and immediate biological 

countermeasures, but no funding for food security technologies. The 

committee notes that the food supply of armed forces can be a vulnerability unless adequate protective measures are established. 

The committee supports initiatives to address this vulnerability, including the equipping of research facilities with necessary hardware and instrumentation. Therefore, the committee recommends 

an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62384BP for research and development of food security technologies to defend against chemical and 

biological contamination. 

Mustard gas antidote 

The budget request included $17.9 million in PE 62384BP for applied research related to the development and application of pharmaceuticals for prevention and treatment of the toxic effects of 

nerve, blister, respiratory, and blood agents. The committee is 

aware of research being conducted by the Department of Defense 

for a mustard gas antidote using signal transduction inhibition 

antioxidant liposomes (STIMAL). The committee notes that 

STIMAL research has demonstrated the ability to substantially reduce or eliminate the affects of a range of chemical and biological 

weapons. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 

million in PE 62384BP for mustard gas antidote research. 

228

Nerve agent decontamination technology 

The budget request included $65.9 million in PE 62384BP for applied research in chemical-biological defense technologies, including 

decontamination technologies. The committee supports the work of 

the Department of Defense to develop decontamination agents that 

are less toxic and increasingly ‘‘environmentally friendly,’’ such as 

photo-catalytic decontamination solutions. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 62384BP to develop a 

rapid decontamination system utilizing photo-catalytic technology.

Sensor technologies 

The budget request included $106.5 million in PE 62384BP for 

chemical and biological defense program applied research, including conduct of applied research in the area of real-time sensor networks. The committee supports efforts by the Department of Defense to enhance real-time detector sensors and related technologies. The committee notes that of the many challenges of sensor technologies, those related to deployment of sensors over a 

large geographic area are particularly difficult. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62384BP to 

develop a prototype sensor network that can be deployed over a 

large geographic region. 

Water quality sensors 

The budget request included no funding in PE 62384BP for water 

quality sensors. The committee notes the military utility of the 

real-time monitoring of water quality, including biological and pollutant agents in drinking water. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 62384BP for the development of a 

hand-held water quality sensing device for such purposes. 

Tactical technology 

The budget request included $250.6 million in PE 62702E for applied research on tactical technology. The committee recommends 

a decrease of $11.0 million in PE 62702E for mission specific processing, water rocket technology and the Varuna program. 

Biology research at the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency 

The budget request included $465.5 million in PE 62712E for 

Materials and Electronics Technology. The committee recommends 

a decrease of $20.0 million in PE 62712E for research on biological 

materials and systems. 

Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute 

The budget request includes $9.2 million in PE 62787D8Z for applied research in medical technologies at the Armed Forces 

Radiobiology Institute (AFRRI). The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 62787D8Z to support the radiation biology research activities of AFRRI. 

The committee commends the efforts of AFRRI to conduct world 

class research in radiation biology to support Department of Defense (DOD) operational missions and homeland defense activities. 

The committee notes that AFRRI research is directed towards reVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
229

sponding to nuclear accidents or terrorist incidents, by developing 

the medical practices and technologies used in radiation casualty 

management. The committee notes that a terrorist nuclear incident 

in a major metropolitan center could result in millions of casualties 

and would overwhelm the ability of the government and medical 

infrastructure to respond. Despite this threat and the world-class 

research and training performed by AFRRI for DOD since 1961, 

this program was transferred to the National Institutes of Health 

(NIH) in fiscal year 2003, where the program’s budget was zeroed. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report at the time of submission of the fiscal year 2005 budget request detailing plans for the role of AFRRI in responding to a terrorist nuclear incident. The report should analyze the adequacy of 

AFRRI’s staff, resources, and facilities to handle the inevitable 

surge in research and medical support activities following such an 

event, the organizational structures that link AFRRI’s expertise 

with the homeland defense activities of DOD, research and technology development goals of DOD and AFRRI that will improve national response capabilities for such an event, and the impact of the 

lack of funding for the AFRRI program in fiscal year 2003 budget 

request. The report should also consider any lessons learned by the 

surge in activities at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of 

Infectious Diseases following the recent terrorist anthrax attacks. 

Explosive demilitarization technology 

The budget request included no funding in PE 63104D8Z for explosive demilitarization technology programs. The budget request 

included $16.3 million in PE 63103A for explosive demilitarization 

technology programs. The budget request reflects the decision by 

the Department of Defense to devolve explosive demilitarization 

technology programs to the military services in fiscal year 2004. 

As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee disagrees 

with the recommendation of the Department to devolve certain research and development programs, such as explosive demilitarization technology programs, to the services. Therefore, the committee 

recommends that explosive demilitarization technology programs 

be reconstituted as the Explosive Demilitarization Technology program, PE 63104D8Z, and that $16.3 million in PE 63104A be 

transferred to PE 63104D8Z. 

In addition, the committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 63104D8Z for explosive demilitarization technology programs. Of this amount, $4.0 million would be used for demilitarization technology, to include a prototype production capability that 

will eliminate the usage of open-burn/open-detonation for disposing 

of tactical missiles; $3.0 million to provide technical support and 

research in the photocatalytic decommissioning process; and, $2.5 

million to enhance and expand the application of the actodemil 

process. 

Blast mitigation program 

The budget request included $60.5 million in PE 0603122D8Z for 

Combating Terrorism Technical Support. The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 0603122D8Z for the 

blast mitigation program to pursue research and development of 

230

technologies to validate and enhance existing and new analytical 

tools that will be available to the armed services, homeland defense 

officials, state and local preparedness groups, and the structural 

engineering community. The committee recognizes the importance 

of understanding the response of buildings, structures, and housing 

to explosives and other weapons of mass destruction to improve the 

protection of our nation’s infrastructure. 

Portable radiation search tool 

The budget request included $76.3 million in PE 63160BR for 

counterproliferation advanced development technologies, including 

efforts to demonstrate integrated nuclear warfare protection system 

technologies. The committee notes that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency included testing of a portable radiation search tool 

(PRST) in the congressionally-directed Unconventional Nuclear 

Warfare Defense pilot program. The PRST, a gamma ray and neutron detector based on fiber optic technology, demonstrated the capability to detect radiological weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the PRST was certified by the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA) for exceeding requirements during IAEA’s Illicit 

Trafficking Radiation Assessment Program. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63160BR for 

continued development of the PRST. 

Advanced Aerospace Systems 

The budget request included $323.7 million in PE 63285E for 

technology development of advanced aerospace systems. The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in PE 63285E. This 

reduction reflects a concern over a lack of coordination among the 

Department of Defense’s space research programs. 

Anthrax and plague oral vaccine research and development 

The budget request included $49.9 million for preclinical development of safe and effective prophylaxes and therapies for pre- and 

post-exposure to biological threat agents, including development of 

oral vaccines. The committee supports efforts to exploit advanced 

vaccine technology to develop a single-dose oral vaccine that can 

protect against multiple biological warfare agents, such as anthrax 

and plague. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$6.0 million for continuing development of an oral vaccine in PE 

63384BP. 

SensorNet 

The budget request included $103.7 million in PE 63384BP for 

chemical and biological defense program advanced technology development. The committee is aware of the Department of Defense 

initiative, SensorNet, to utilize public cell phone infrastructure for 

real-time detection and assessment of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats. The committee notes that a pilot program to test an integrated and interoperable system involving a 

military installation and a surrounding civilian community would 

provide the data necessary for program evaluation. The committee 

recommends $5.0 million in PE 63384BP for a SensorNet pilot program. 

231

Topically applied vectored vaccines 

The budget request included $49.9 million in PE 63384BP for 

preclinical development of safe and effective prophylaxes and 

therapies for pre- and post-exposure to biological threat agents, but 

included no funding for topically applied vector vaccines. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 

63384BP to continue efforts initiated by the Navy on topically applied vectored vaccines. 

Logistics technology demonstrations 

The budget request included $22.4 million in PE 63712S for 

logistical research and development technical demonstrations. The 

committee notes the importance of this research and development 

in providing possible solutions for the readiness and sustainment 

issues facing the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee 

recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE 63712S for logistics 

technology demonstrations: $9.0 million to develop a multi-state 

manufacturing extension partnership to assist the Department in 

the identification of requirements for product delivery times; and 

$7.0 million to develop and maintain a centralized repository for diminishing manufacturing source information. 

Vehicle fuel cell program 

The budget request included $22.4 million in PE 63712S for Generic Logistics Research and Development Technology Demonstrations. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63712S to continue the vehicle fuel cell program, including research and development on reforming technologies that will allow 

use of JP–8 fuel in emerging fuel cell propulsion technologies. 

High Altitude Airship 

The budget request included $213.4 million in PE 63750D8Z for 

Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD). The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63750D8Z 

for the acceleration of the High Altitude Airship ACTD program. 

The High Altitude Airship will provide long duration capability, 

wide area surveillance, large payload capacity and communication 

relay functions. The committee commends the Department of Defense for its investment in innovative platforms, such as the High 

Altitude Airship, that offer transformational capabilities. 

All optical transparent switching systems 

The budget request included $242.7 million in PE 63760E for applied research in command, control, and communications research. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63760E for research in all optical transparent switching systems. 

The committee recommends DARPA more fully interact with other 

services and defense agencies, particularly defense intelligence 

agencies, to leverage the research and technology development opportunities in high-speed, high-data rate, encrypted networks. 

Sensor and guidance technology 

The budget request included $342.9 million in PE 63762E for 

Sensor and Guidance Technology. The committee recommends a deVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
232

crease of $25.0 million in PE 63762E for sensor and guidance technology. Of this amount, $10.0 million would be reduced from the 

Lightfoot radar project and advanced exploitation system technologies. 

Organic micro unmanned aerial vehicles 

The budget request included $82.4 million in PE 63764E for 

Land Warfare Technology. The committee recommends an increase 

of $7.5 million in PE 63764E for the acceleration of the organic air 

vehicle (OAV) family of vehicles. This scalable platform offers autonomous operations, long endurance on station, and hover or 

perching capabilities. The OAV is a critical component of the unmanned systems within Future Combat System. 

Tactical unmanned ground vehicles 

The budget request included $11.5 million in PE 63709D8Z for 

the Joint Robotics Program. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63709D8Z for the development and 

demonstration of semi-autonomous capabilities of unmanned 

ground systems. The committee notes that the autonomous nature 

of unmanned ground vehicles is a particularly challenging aspect 

of the platform and supports increased research in this important 

technology development area. 

Arrow 

The budget request included $64.8 million in PE 63881C for the 

continued research and development of the U.S.-Israel Arrow ballistic missile defense program, but no funding for procurement of 

the Arrow system for deployment in Israel. 

The committee continues to support Israeli efforts to defend itself 

from ballistic missile threats posed by its regional adversaries and 

recognizes that those threats will continue to evolve over time. The 

Arrow system is a key component of Israel’s missile defense efforts. 

The committee notes that the importance of missile defense interoperability was highlighted during the recent conflict in Iraq when 

the Patriot air and missile defense system was deployed to Israel 

to supplement the Arrow system. To support improved Arrow system performance, more robust testing, and enhanced interoperability with U.S. missile defense systems, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63881C, for a total authorization of $74.8 million. 

The committee also supports U.S. co-production of the Arrow, 

which will allow Israel to deploy this system in a more timely manner. The committee notes that the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, recently approved by Congress 

includes $9.0 billion in loan guarantees and $1.0 billion in foreign 

military financing to assist Israel in meeting the cost of defending 

itself from regional threats. The committee believes that these 

sources of funding, in addition to the foreign assistance provided to 

Israel annually by the United States, should allow Israel the flexibility to meet more effectively the full range of its defense needs, 

including defense against ballistic missile attack. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense provided 

two thirds of the funding for the development of the Arrow system 

233

and continues to provide funding for Arrow production, and that 

the Arrow system embodies U.S. developed technologies. The committee notes that any sale of the Arrow ballistic missile defense 

system to third parties should take place only after approval by the 

U.S. Government, pursuant to the requirements of existing law. 

Aegis ballistic missile defense 

The budget request contained $3.6 billion in PE 63882C for midcourse ballistic missile defense, of which $726.2 million was for 

Aegis ballistic missile defense. The committee notes that the request within this program element for Aegis ballistic missile defense program management has more than tripled since fiscal year 

2002, and has increased by $11.7 million as compared to fiscal year 

2003, although program management personnel levels remained 

stable. The committee recommends $714.5 million in PE 63882C 

for Aegis ballistic missile defense, a decrease of $11.7 million. 

Ground-based midcourse defense 

The budget request included $3.6 billion in PE 63882C for the 

ballistic missile defense (BMD) midcourse defense segment, of 

which $2.8 billion is for ground-based midcourse defense. 

The committee supports the President’s decision to field an initial set of missile defense capabilities, including a total of twenty 

interceptors at Fort Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base by the 

end of fiscal year 2005. The committee recognizes that this is an 

ambitious schedule, which is driven by the immediacy of missile 

threats to the United States that were confirmed by the Director 

of Central Intelligence, who testified to the Committee on Armed 

Services of the Senate that North Korea has both nuclear devices 

and the current capability of reaching the United States with a ballistic missile. 

Although the director of the Missile Defense Agency has testified 

that the funding requested for ground-based midcourse defense is 

adequate to develop and field the system on schedule, the committee notes that MDA assesses the technical and schedule risk as 

medium and the cost risk of the program as high. The committee 

notes that an additional intercept test, an integrated ground test, 

a second in-flight interceptor communication system data terminal, 

and a second mission computer for the sea-based X-band radar 

would be useful to reduce risk and enhance operational availability 

and capability. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $3.7 billion in PE 63882C, 

an increase of $100.0 million for an additional intercept test in fiscal year 2004 and other activities to reduce technical, schedule, and 

cost risk and enhance the test and operational capabilities of the 

ground-based midcourse defense system. The committee directs the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide a report to the 

Armed Services Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives by November 1, 2003, on the ground-based midcourse defense test plan. The report should identify changes to the plan submitted with the fiscal year 2003 budget, the rationale for those 

changes, an explanation of the test planning process, and the goals 

of each GMD flight test as of the date of the report. 

234

Airborne infrared system 

The budget request included $438.2 million in PE 63884C for 

ballistic missile defense sensors, but no funding for the airborne infrared system (AIRS). 

AIRS is a system of six infrared and visible sensors, a surveillance radar, and adjunct data processing and storage. Early 

versions of the system are mounted on aircraft (the High Altitude 

Observatory, or HALO, and HALO II), but with incremental and 

evolutionary development, could be deployed on a variety of platforms, including the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle and potentially, the High Altitude Airship being developed by the Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA). HALO and HALO II have already provided 

valuable data on infrared signatures of ballistic missiles. The committee believes that an improved system, if and when deployed, 

could meet important operational and technical intelligence capabilities in support of ballistic missile defense requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63884C for AIRS research and development. This funding will allow MDA to proceed with engineering and concept studies for a full scale operational prototype sensor suite suitable for 

installation on either a manned or unmanned aerial platform. 

E–2 infrared search and track 

The budget request included $438.2 million in PE 63884C for 

ballistic missile defense sensors, but no funding for infrared search 

and track technology for the Navy’s E–2 tactical warning and command and control aircraft. 

The Navy has conducted testing of a turreted infrared search and 

track (IRST) system on the Navy’s E–2’s tactical warning and command and control aircraft that successfully demonstrated the potential for such a system to receive cues, and then detect and track 

short and medium range ballistic missiles. A more capable system, 

that includes fixed infrared arrays and a turret, shows high potential for a robust capability to detect and track these missile threats 

early in flight through mid-course trajectory and to provide accurate impact point prediction. The committee notes that this project 

is best funded through the BMD sensors program element. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.75 million in PE 63884C for flight testing and continued development of 

the E–2 IRST project. The committee directs the Director of MDA 

to assess this sensor technology as a component of the BMD sensor 

architecture. 

Family of radars 

The budget request included $438.2 million in PE 63884C for 

ballistic missile defense (BMD) sensors. 

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has initiated an effort to validate the concepts of forward based radars, sensor layering and netting, and the use of such radars to observe ballistic missiles early 

in flight to provide precise track information for use by other elements of the BMD system. The committee is aware that MDA considered several alternatives for the first generation of radars to be 

forward based. These included several variants of the Theater High 

Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) radar and the High Power DisVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
235

criminator, a smaller X-band radar suitable for deployment on 

Aegis cruisers. MDA concluded that a modified THAAD radar is 

the alternative that provides maximum capability in the most cost 

effective and timely manner. MDA awarded a $350.0 million contract for modified and marinized THAAD radars, the first being 

available for test in 2005 and operationally available in 2006. 

The committee understands the potential advantages of land-basing forward based radars, including routine availability. However, 

the committee is concerned that the U.S. military will not always 

know with good fidelity where missile threats will develop, nor 

whether basing rights in foreign nations would be available. Sea 

basing for these radars could provide significant flexibility to meet 

the missile defense requirements against threat missiles of all 

ranges and in multiple theaters. The committee notes that sea-basing of forward based sensors is particularly significant in light of 

the President’s decision in December 2002, to field an initial set of 

missile defense capabilities. That decision includes deployment of 

up to 20 Standard Missile III interceptors on Aegis cruisers by 

2005. 

The committee understands that the marinized THAAD radar 

variant could be deployed on a variety of sea-borne platforms. In 

part because MDA has not selected a basing mode, the current contract does not include any activities to integrate this radar on a 

ship. The committee understands that early design activities to 

achieve such an integration could begin in fiscal year 2004, and integration and deployment on a ship could be achieved by 2006. Selection of a sea-based platform and the start of this design work 

in fiscal year 2004 would be important to achieving this schedule 

and supporting early sea-based missile defense capabilities. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in PE 63884C to initiate design efforts to integrate the marinized 

THAAD radar with a sea-based platform by 2006. The committee 

urges MDA and the Navy to commit to such a platform in a timely 

manner. The committee directs the Director of MDA, in consultation with the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, to develop 

an appropriate deployment plan and concept of operations to ensure that sea-based forward based radars can achieve maximum 

capability to support both theater and long-range missile defense 

missions, and to report to the congressional defense committees on 

the plan and concept of operations no later than February 15, 2004. 

Russian American observation satellite program 

The budget request included $438.2 million in PE 63884C for 

ballistic missile defense sensors, of which $29.6 million was for the 

Russian American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) program. Of the 

amount requested for RAMOS, $11.4 million is intended to fund 

hardware development in the Russian Federation. 

The committee continues to support cooperative missile defense 

efforts with the Russian Federation. However, the committee notes 

that no formal government-to-government agreement on the 

RAMOS program yet exists despite years of negotiation. In the absence of such an agreement, the Russian Federation hardware development was supported at a level of $6.0 million in fiscal year 

2003. 

236

The committee recommends $29.6 million in PE 63884C for the 

RAMOS program, the requested amount. The committee directs 

that, of that amount, no more than $24.6 million may be available 

for obligation or expenditure until a government-to-government 

agreement on the RAMOS program is concluded. The committee intends this restriction to provide an appropriate incentive to the 

Russian Federation to reach an agreement. 

Space tracking and surveillance system 

The budget request included $300.2 million in PE 63884C for the 

space tracking and surveillance system (STSS), of which $65.7 million was for program management. The committee remains strongly supportive of the STSS effort, which is intended to develop 

space-based infrared sensors capable of detecting, tracking, and potentially discriminating ballistic missile warheads in flight. However, the committee notes an unjustified growth in program management cost since fiscal year 2003. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.5 million in PE 63884C for STSS. 

Ballistic missile defense system interceptors 

The budget request included $301.1 million in PE 63886C for 

ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) interceptors research and 

development. The program is intended to develop an interceptor 

missile for boost phase or mid-course intercept of ballistic missiles 

that can be ground- or sea-based. It will also develop boost phase 

kinetic energy interceptor kill vehicles for land-, sea-, and spacebased systems. The program is structured to mature ground-based 

technologies first, and evolve those technologies over time for seaand space-basing. 

The committee believes that boost phase defenses will be important in the overall ballistic missile defense architecture and supports continuing efforts in this area. Further efforts to develop a 

common multi-use interceptor could also result in efficiencies 

across a number of systems. However, the committee is aware that 

the operational concepts for kinetic energy boost phase intercept 

systems from land and sea are extraordinarily challenging in some 

key respects and that the architecture of a space based boost system is unclear. The committee also notes that: (1) the budget request represents a six-fold increase in funding for the interceptor 

missile; (2) no path to migrate the technology to sea-basing has 

been established; and (3) political factors related to land-based 

siting and budget implications of new sea-based platforms are not 

clearly understood. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $231.1 million in PE 

63886C for BMDS interceptors, a decrease of $70.0 million. The 

committee notes that the funding recommended will be sufficient to 

proceed with a robust program. 

Advanced Research Center 

The budget request contained $484.0 million in PE 63890C for 

ballistic missile defense system core activities. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the Advanced Research 

Center. 

237

Ballistic missile defense lethality testing 

The budget request included a total of $484.0 million in PE 

63890C for ballistic missile defense system core activities, which 

provides resources to define and integrate the BMD system. Of this 

amount, $21.2 million was requested for lethality testing and analysis, an amount more than triple the amount authorized for this 

purpose in fiscal year 2003. The committee notes that this increase 

is excessive, and recommends a decrease of $5.0 million for the corporate lethality program. 

Joint robotics 

The budget request included $13.6 million in PE 64709D8Z for 

the Joint Robotics program. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 64709D8Z for the development of small 

unmanned ground vehicles to perform counter-intelligence and 

counter-terrorist operations. 

See and avoid technologies 

The budget request included $24.6 million in PE 65116D8Z for 

support to command, control, communications and intelligence. The 

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 65116D8Z 

for development of see and avoid technologies, specifically as applicable to unmanned aerial vehicles. 

Information systems security research 

The budget request included $476.7 million in PE 33140G for the 

Information Systems Security Program. The committee notes that 

the Nation’s military and commercial information systems continue 

to be extremely vulnerable to attack. While funding for defense information systems security has increased in recent years, the 

threat to defense information systems from other nations, terrorist 

groups, and private individuals continues to grow. The committee 

recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 33140G, to facilitate 

research and collaboration between industry, government, and academia to share lessons learned and improve cooperation to solve 

common defense information systems security challenges. 

Broadcast-Request Imagery Technology Experiment 

The budget request included $161.9 million in PE 35102BQ for 

the Defense Imagery and Mapping Program, but did not include 

funding for the Broadcast-Request Imagery Technology Experiment 

(BRITE). BRITE is a unique capability to disseminate timely, tailored imagery products, including frames of streaming video from 

unmanned reconnaissance systems, to forward deployed tactical 

military forces via existing communications architectures. BRITE 

was developed by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) at the 

request of U.S. Special Operations Command, and then 

transitioned to the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) 

for sustainment. BRITE has been used extensively by special operations forces and others in both Operations Enduring Freedom and 

Iraqi Freedom. 

The clear utility of this program led the committee to add additional funding in each of the past two fiscal years to ensure BRITE 

remains available to tactical users. Despite the urging of the ConVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
238

gress, NIMA failed to include funding for BRITE in its fiscal year 

2004 budget request. The committee understands that NIMA has 

many funding challenges and that priorities must be established, 

but is disappointed that NIMA does not recognize the need to sustain this important program. 

The committee continues its strong support for the BRITE pro- gram and recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 35102BQ 

to continue development of this unique capability and to sustain 

the modest infrastructure and functionality that enables isolated, 

tactical users to benefit from the BRITE program. The committee 

expects NIMA to fund this system in future budget submissions. 

Tasking, processing, exploitation and dissemination for the 

future imagery architecture 

The budget request included $161.9 million in PE 35102BQ, but 

included limited funding for development of the tasking, processing, exploitation and dissemination (TPED) system to support 

the next generation of national imagery assets, the Future Imagery 

Architecture (FIA). Although the Department has been developing 

FIA for several years, the committee continues to have concerns 

about whether the community has devoted sufficient investment in 

the TPED architecture that must be developed to take full advantage of FIA capabilities. Since its creation in 1997, the National 

Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) has had many competing 

priorities in modernizing its capabilities and preparing for the future. These competing priorities have led NIMA to defer a significant portion of the planned funding for FIA TPED. The committee 

believes that NIMA should apply additional funding to ensure that 

development of the TPED architecture, especially the portion that 

will support regional combatant commanders and tactical users, 

will keep pace with the overall development and fielding of FIA. The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million in 

RDT&E, Defense-wide, PE 35102BQ, to accelerate development of 

the FIA TPED components that will support tactical and operational users. 

Laser additive manufacturing initiatives 

The budget request included $16.2 million in PE 78011S for manufacturing technology programs. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 78011S to develop laser additive manufacturing technologies to produce high performance military components. 

Multiband multimission radios 

The budget request included no funding for Special Operations 

Communications Advanced Development for upgrading the multiband multimission radio. The committee has supported accelerated 

fielding of this lightweight communications system that has proven 

indispensable in the global war on terrorism and in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom. U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) was only recently alerted to a communications security obsolescence requirement, requiring replacement of communications security chips on 

all fielded radios. Development and replacement of these chips is 

important to ensure deployed special operations forces have secure, 

239

lightweight, versatile communications in the field, and is one of the 

highest unfunded priorities for Commander, SOCOM. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for PE 1160404BB 

for Special Operations Communications Advanced Development, 

Project S700. 

Items of Special Interest 

Apache Longbow 

The committee strongly supports the Army’s decision to include 

the Apache Longbow as a fully interoperable part of the Objective 

Force within the unit of employment (UE). In the case of the 10-

year-old Apache Longbow system, which is planned for another 

quarter century of use, the proposed block III multiyear procurement is an appropriate spiral development to restore needed power 

margins, lower operations and support costs and, most important, 

incorporate an open architecture-based digital backbone with the 

external interfaces for connecting with the Army’s network-centric 

structure for massing effects and fires. The committee notes that 

the block III concept was endorsed in an acquisition decision 

memorandum approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

Once the Army makes a decision regarding the scope and nature 

of an Apache Block III program, the committee encourages the 

Army to submit a reprogramming request if any non-recurring engineering is needed in fiscal year 2004, to ensure that the block III 

upgrades start production in fiscal year 2006. The committee understands that a fiscal year 2006 start will maximize program savings and meet the Objective Force unit of employment first unit 

equipped date. 

Ballistic protective garments 

The committee is aware that in the recently concluded Iraq conflict, countless lives were saved by the use of protective fiber outer 

garments, to include ballistic protective vests. From the weight and 

flexibility perspectives, the vests used by our soldiers in Iraq were 

a vast improvement over the body armor used in the 1991 Gulf 

War. Current research holds the promise to further enhance ballistic protection using lightweight materials that will reduce the 

soldier’s load. The committee understands the value of the ballisticresistant materials research being done at universities, small businesses, and defense labs all over the nation to support this military 

need. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue supporting this type of research in universities, industry, and 

defense labs to continue this critical technology development so as 

to field novel ballistic resistant clothing in the next five years. 

Chemical and biological test facilities 

The committee understands that the development of chemical 

and biological defense equipment and medical countermeasures requires adequate test and evaluation (T&E) facilities. The committee is interested in the degree to which these facilities support 

the chemical and biological defense program. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for NuVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
240

clear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs (ATSD(NCB)) and 

the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to report 

on the status of the test and evaluation facilities for chemical and 

biological defense programs. The report should include the following: an analysis of the capacity and versatility of the T&E infrastructure to meet the requirements of current and planned chemical and biological defense research and development programs, including facilities for testing equipment with live agents and 

simulants and for animal testing; and, an identification of any actions needed to meet testing requirements. The report should be 

completed jointly by ATSD(NCB) and DOT&E and shall be included in the ‘‘Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program: Annual Report to Congress’’ submitted for 2004. 

Counterproliferation Support Program 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) established the Counterproliferation Support Program (CPSP) in August 1994 to address shortfalls in counterproliferation operational 

capabilities. These shortfalls were identified in the congressionallymandated ‘‘Report on Nonproliferation and Counterproliferation 

Activities and Programs.’’ Specifically, the CPSP leverages DOD acquisition programs to meet the counterproliferation priorities of the 

combatant commanders. 

The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2000, submitted in 

February 1999, requested that funding for the CPSP be transferred 

from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to the Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). The budget request included the 

funding transfer in order to align CPSP funding with the CPSP 

management responsibilities that DOD assigned to DTRA on October 1, 1998. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) authorized the transfer of CPSP 

funding from OSD to DTRA. 

The committee understands that the DOD is reviewing the CPSP 

and is considering options to further enhance counterproliferation 

efforts. The committee supports the DOD review of the CPSP and 

directs the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, 

Chemical, and Biological Defense to provide the committee with 

periodic updates on the status of the review. 

Cruise missile defense 

The committee is aware of increasing concern about threats from 

cruise missiles to U.S. land and sea forces and the U.S. coast line. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 

to the congressional defense committees, no later than February 

15, 2004, on the U.S. military’s ability to address current cruise 

missile threats and plans to address future cruise missile threats. 

DD(X) destroyer 

The DD(X) will be a multi-mission surface combatant tailored for 

land attack and maritime dominance. The DD(X) program will also 

provide a baseline for spiral development of technology and engineering to support a range of future surface ships such as the future cruiser, CG(X), and the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The Future Years Defense Program includes funding to build the first 

241

DD(X) using research, development, test, and evaluation funding in 

fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The preliminary design review for 

DD(X) is currently scheduled in January, 2004. 

The DD(X) program evolved from the DD–21 program, which was 

cancelled by the Navy. The committee is aware of debate within 

the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy concerning the size of the DD(X), and that all of the key performance 

parameters in the requirements documentation for the ship are 

under review. Key performance parameters that would directly affect the size of the ship would include the number and type of 

guns, the volume of the weapons magazines, and the number of 

missile cells. At a hearing of the Seapower Subcommittee of the 

Senate Armed Services Committee in April, 2003, the Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition 

testified that it was important to take the time necessary to ensure 

that the requirement was right. 

The committee concurs that it is important to ensure that the requirement for the next family of surface combatants is based on 

sound analysis. The committee has supported the Marine Corps’ requirement for the rate, volume, and precision of fires provided by 

naval gunfire support, and directs the Navy to ensure that Marine 

Corps’ requirements are taken into account in its re-evaluation of 

DD(X) requirements. 

Infrared search and track 

The Navy has been developing infrared search and track (IRST) 

technology for shipboard application for more than a decade. Horizon search, for which an IRST system would be optimized, is an 

area of relative weakness for active radar. 

Shipboard tests of such an IRST system have demonstrated high 

potential for improving a ship’s ability to detect anti-ship cruise 

missiles in the presence of environmental and geographical conditions that degrade radar system performance. 

In prior years, the committee had expressed concern that the 

Navy schedule and funding for the IRST development effort would 

fail to field any capability in the fleet for the foreseeable future. 

Earlier this year, the Navy cancelled the IRST program that was 

being developed within the Ship Self-Defense Program. The Navy 

still believes that the surface fleet needs the additional capability 

that could be provided by sensors operating in parts of the electromagnetic spectrum other than that used by radars. In particular, 

Navy officials indicated a preference for continuing science and 

technology development of other infrared staring sensors that have 

the potential of providing acceptable performance without incurring 

the drawbacks of the extra topside weight associated with rotating 

infrared sensor systems. 

The committee believes that the Navy should focus its efforts on 

technologies and systems engineering efforts that are more likely 

to yield near-term results for the fleet. 

The Navy should fully evaluate hardware solutions that rely on 

technologies that could have wider applications within the military 

services or commercially before launching another hardware development effort. For example, the sensors developed for the Joint 

Strike Fighter program may have some potential application for 

242

shipboard systems. New developments may ultimately be required, 

but an affordable solution with sufficient capability within a total 

systems context is far preferable to a solution that may ultimately 

prove unaffordable. 

The Navy should take steps to ensure that follow-on IRST development efforts take full advantage of the activities that were funded under the recently canceled program, and reflect whatever lessons that may have been learned from that experience. 

The Navy should employ available sensors to continue working 

on signal processing software algorithm development. In particular, 

the Navy still needs to complete a significant effort in improving 

the ability of an IRST system to reject false alarms. The Navy can 

and should continue to make progress on the software development 

activities that will support any sensor suite while sorting through 

the hardware issues. 

The committee expects the Navy to keep the congressional defense committees fully informed of its plans for maturing and fielding IRST technologies. 

National Aerospace Initiative 

The committee agrees with the National Aerospace Initiative 

(NAI) goals and the three supporting pillars of this program: high 

speed hypersonics; access to space; and space technology. The committee is concerned, however, that the NAI program is based on an 

artificial schedule rather than realistic assessments of the technological developments and capabilities necessary to achieve the goals 

of the program. The success of NAI appears to rely upon the successful technology demonstrations within current and future programs rather than the supporting revolutionary scientific and technological discoveries that will be necessary to meet the ambitious 

goals of the Initiative. The committee remains concerned about 

whether there are adequate investments in the basic and applied 

research, which are necessary for the technologies needed to reach 

the goals of NAI. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of 

Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) to submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees by September 1, 2003, outlining the technology roadmap and capability requirements, including basic research activities, necessary to achieve the NAI goals. 

The report should include current and future investments in the 

enabling technologies necessary to reach the goals of NAI. 

Networking technologies 

The committee notes the increasing importance of commercial 

and military networks for all military operations. Networking technologies and architectures developed and used by the Department 

of Defense (DOD) must be high bandwidth, robust, and secure in 

order to support future mission applications and requirements. To 

that end, the committee notes that the DOD should invest in a robust portfolio of technologies to provide maximum flexibility in the 

development of future information systems. The committee directs 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense of Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence to provide an assessment of the relative 

merits of asynchronous transfer mode (ATM), Internet protocol 

(IP), and other networking architectures in terms of DOD mission 

243

needs, quality of service, cost, encryption capabilities, and compatibility with commercial systems. The assessment should report on 

DOD current and planned investments in research and technology 

development for future networking architectures. 

Patriot advanced capability–3 testing 

The committee notes that the Patriot Advanced Capability–3 

(PAC–3) missile defense system has never been tested against a 

Scud missile even though such missiles are currently available in 

the United States for such testing. The committee also understands 

that there are no plans to conduct a test of the PAC–3 against a 

Scud target. The committee believes that realistic live-fire testing 

against actual threats, when practical, is important to ensure the 

effectiveness of weapon systems. Therefore, the committee directs 

the Missile Defense Agency and the Army to plan and budget for 

a test of the PAC–3 system against a Scud target before the end 

of fiscal year 2005. The committee encourages the Missile Defense 

Agency to incorporate this test into the current plans for PAC–3 

testing. 

Potential use of hydrogen fuel 

The committee directs the Defense Logistics Agency to examine 

and report to the committee no later than one year after the date 

of enactment of this Act on the potential use of hydrogen as a defense logistics fuel. The report should include an examination of potential applications of hydrogen by the military as a transportation 

fuel and for power generation; potential sources of hydrogen fuel 

for military use domestically and overseas; potential reductions in 

the cost and footprint of deployment for military operations that 

use hydrogen fuel and fuel cell technology; and potential reductions 

in air emissions from military operations that use hydrogen fuel 

and fuel cell technology. 

Space based radar and missile defense 

The committee is aware of studies done within the Department 

of Defense that suggest that Space Based Radar (SBR) may have 

some inherent capability to detect, track, and discriminate ballistic 

missile warheads in flight. The committee understands that the 

primary missions of SBR are moving target indication and synthetic aperture imaging, but, in light of the high priority of ballistic 

missile defense, believes that an assessment of the potential contributions of SBR to missile defense is appropriate. The committee, 

therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense, through the Defense 

Science Board and in consultation with the Missile Defense Agency, 

to provide such an assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives no later than February 15, 2004. The committee would expect such a review to include: (1) an assessment of the impact of adding a missile defense 

mission on the ability of SBR satellites to conduct their primary 

missions; (2) how different SBR architectures and technical approaches might affect the ability of the satellites to achieve their 

primary missions and to contribute to missile defense; (3) an assessment of the value of potential SBR capabilities in the context 

of the family of sensors being developed by the Missile Defense 

244

Agency; and (4) a recommendation concerning any future actions 

that might be desirable related to SBR contributions to missile defense. 

Space Based Radar architecture 

The budget request included $274.1 million in PE 63858F for the 

Space Based Radar (SBR) program. This program is designed to 

transform surveillance by providing persistent, all-weather detection, tracking, and imagery of time-critical targets. 

The committee supports this effort and is aware that the Air 

Force is conducting an analysis of alternatives to identify an architecture for the SBR program. The committee understands that 

there are different proposals for an SBR architecture, including 

satellite constellations having Low-Earth Orbits (LEO), MediumEarth Orbits (MEO), and mixed constellations having satellites 

with LEO and MEO orbits. The committee supports continued review of a wide variety of SBR architectures. The committee also 

notes that a spiral development approach to the SBR architecture, 

where the mix of satellite types and orbits change over time as 

technology matures, may be the appropriate approach. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees by March 30, 

2004, and a follow-on report by March 20, 2005, on the various options for the SBR architecture and spiral developments. These reports should include, when available, a description of the initial architecture planned for SBR, the rationale for choosing the initial 

architecture and spiral development planned for the system, and 

an assessment of the cost effectiveness of alternative architecture 

and spiral alternatives that were evaluated. 

Space based infrared system 

The committee supports the continuing effort to develop the 

Space Based Infrared System, which will replace the Defense Satellite Program and provide significantly improved early warning, 

missile defense, battlespace characterization, and technical intelligence capabilities. The committee is aware of the significant efforts taken by the contractor and the Secretary of the Air Force to 

restructure the program in the wake of serious technical problems, 

schedule delays, and cost increases. This restructure was approved 

by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and 

Logistics and the committee understands that the program was 

sound. 

Consequently, the committee is deeply concerned that, in the 

wake of an apparently successful effort to restructure the program, 

the fiscal year 2004 budget request reflects another Air Force restructuring of the program. This latest restructure will delay the 

acquisition of the third, fourth and fifth geosynchronous satellites 

by two years and leave a three year gap between the launch of the 

second and third of these satellites. The committee is concerned 

that this restructure is unwise on multiple grounds: (1) it will increase cost because production lines will have to close and reopen, 

and subcontractors will have to be requalified; (2) technical risk 

will increase because of the loss of key personnel and the subcontractor base; and (3) operational risk will increase because of the 

245

age of the current satellite constellation and the risk of launch failure in the early replacement satellites. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to develop 

a plan to reduce the production gap in the SBIRS program from 

two years to one year. The committee further directs the Secretary 

to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives no later than December 

15, 2003, that describes this plan; compares the program technical, 

schedule, and cost risk associated with this plan to the risks of a 

two year delay; compares the operational risk of a one year delay 

compared to a two year delay; describes steps to mitigate the impact of a one year production gap; and, if the fiscal year 2005 budget request does not include full funding for the plan, provides a detailed rationale for that decision. 

Space system vulnerability 

The committee notes that the 2001 report of the Commission to 

Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization emphasized the growing reliance of the U.S. civil economy and 

the U.S. military on space systems that are potentially very vulnerable. According to the commission, U.S. space systems are vulnerable to disruption or attack from a variety of existing and emerging 

threats, including attack on ground stations, denial and deception, 

jamming, small anti-satellites, and nuclear detonations in space. 

Testimony by the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to the 

committee indicates that the United States is aware that some nations are planning and developing the means to attack U.S. space 

capabilities. 

The commission report also notes that the U.S. ability to determine if a satellite anomaly is due to an attack, a hardware failure, 

or other causes is limited. Further, the report stated that indicators 

of threats to U.S. space systems ‘‘* * * have been neither sufficiently persuasive nor gripping to energize the United States to 

take appropriate defensive action.’’ The commander of U.S. Strategic Command confirmed in testimony to the Strategic Forces Subcommittee that vulnerability of U.S. space systems remains a serious concern. 

The committee is encouraged that the issue of the vulnerability 

of space systems is starting to receive high level attention. Nascent 

efforts are underway to address the need for collection and distribution of intelligence on threats to space systems, to establish a 

coordinated approach to protect satellites and space systems from 

those threats, and the need for continuity of operations in the event 

of an attack. The committee strongly approves of these efforts and 

encourages the Department of Defense, in conjunction with the intelligence community when appropriate, to develop a coherent path 

forward. The Under Secretary of the Air Force can address system 

needs in this context as the executive agent for Department of Defense space programs. However, the committee notes that no one 

in the Department of Defense has overarching responsibility for developing space policy. Such policy will be important to guide these 

efforts. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Director of Central Intelligence, to provide a report, in 

246

classified and unclassified form, to the congressional defense committees no later than February 15, 2004, on system level, operational, and intelligence efforts to address vulnerabilities in space 

systems and to make any relevant recommendations. 

Spacelift range system 

The Air Force maintains the spacelift range system (SLRS), that 

consists of east and west coast ranges. The Eastern Range includes 

Patrick Air Force Base, Cape Canaveral, and downrange sites. The 

Western Range includes Vandenberg Air Force Base and 

downrange sites. The SLRS provides tracking, telemetry, communications, flight analysis, surveillance, and other support functions 

to national security, civil, and commercial space launches, ballistic 

missile test and evaluation, aeronautical and guided weapons tests, 

and space surveillance. 

In the early 1990s, the Air Force established five range modernization requirements to ensure the ranges would remain safe 

and viable: (1) preserve and enhance range safety; (2) provide more 

reliable and responsive operations; (3) standardize and automate 

ranges; (4) reduce life cycle costs by 20 percent; and (5) normalize 

sustainment and logistics. Phase I of the modernization effort was 

started in 1993 and was completed in 1998. Phase IIA was started 

in 1995 and was to have been completed in 2006. That effort, however, was delayed several years, and the fiscal year 2004 budget request would terminate these range modernization efforts in fiscal 

year 2005. Phase IIB was to have started in 2000 but was replaced 

with the Space Lift Range System (SLRS) contract. The SLRS contract was awarded in fiscal year 2000 and was to continue modernization activities and support proactive recapitalization projects 

to sustain the range systems. 

In the fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Air Force requested 

a reduction of $342.3 million from fiscal years 2004–2007 the budgets for launch range research and development and procurement. 

These reductions would lead to the cancellation of many of the 

modernization projects and result in a sustainment and recapitalization only approach. 

The committee is concerned that this approach will be very detrimental to U.S. space capabilities in the long run. As the United 

States continues to increase its reliance on space assets, failure to 

modernize the ranges from which these assets are launched could 

significantly reduce the ability of the United States to exploit space 

based assets in the future. Moreover, many operational and technical problems at the ranges are likely to continue or worsen. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study on the current conditions of the spacelift ranges and the 

modernization requirements to meet all projected national security 

launch requirements. This study should include all aspects of the 

spacelift range infrastructure, including downrange sites, to meet 

anticipated launch requirements for the next 15 years. The Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the study and include all recommendations for modernization that will be needed to meet the demands of our transformed 

forces, as well as other national security space requirements. The 

247

committee directs the Secretary to submit the report no later than 

February 15, 2004. 

(249)

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Explanation of tables 

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance 

for the funding authorized in title III of this Act. The tables also 

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal 

year 2004 budget request for operation and maintenance programs 

and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth 

in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as 

set forth in budget justification documents of the Department of 

Defense) without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in the report, funding changes to 

the budget request are made without prejudice.

250


Insert graphic folio 306 SR46.128
251


Insert graphic folio 307 SR46.129
252


Insert graphic folio 308 SR46.130
253


Insert graphic folio 309 SR46.131
254


Insert graphic folio 310 SR46.132
255


Insert graphic folio 311 SR46.133
256


Insert graphic folio 312 SR46.134
257


Insert graphic folio 313 SR46.135
258


Insert graphic folio 314 SR46.136
259


Insert graphic folio 315 SR46.137
260


Insert graphic folio 316 SR46.138
261


Insert graphic folio 317 SR46.139
262


Insert graphic folio 318 SR46.140
263


Insert graphic folio 319 SR46.141
264


Insert graphic folio 320 SR46.142
265


Insert graphic folio 321 SR46.143
266


Insert graphic folio 322 SR46.144
267


Insert graphic folio 323 SR46.145
268


Insert graphic folio 324 SR46.146
269


Insert graphic folio 325 SR46.147
270


Insert graphic folio 326 SR46.148
271


Insert graphic folio 327 SR46.149
272


Insert graphic folio 328 SR46.150
273


Insert graphic folio 329 SR46.151
274


Insert graphic folio 330 SR46.152
275


Insert graphic folio 331 SR46.153
276


Insert graphic folio 332 SR46.154
277


Insert graphic folio 333 SR46.155
278


Insert graphic folio 334 SR46.156
279


Insert graphic folio 335 SR46.157
280


Insert graphic folio 336 SR46.158
281


Insert graphic folio 337 SR46.159
282


Insert graphic folio 338 SR46.160
283


Insert graphic folio 389 SR46.161
284


Insert graphic folio 340 SR46.162
285

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$65.3 million from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund 

for fiscal year 2004. 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Armed Forces Emergency Services (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 million for the American Red Cross to support its Armed 

Forces Emergency Services program. The committee recognizes 

that the emergency communications services provided by the American Red Cross have provided an important link between the men 

and women of the armed forces and their families in times of personal emergency. However, the committee notes that in 1994, the 

Department of Defense and the American Red Cross agreed upon 

a goal of ending direct financial assistance to the Red Cross from 

the Department. Substantial ‘‘bridge funding’’ was authorized in 

1995, 1996, and 1997 to facilitate achievement of this goal. The 

committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the President of the American Red Cross, to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees by March 1, 2004, delineating 

the reasons why the agreement of 1994 between their organizations, as reflected in section 383 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, has not achieved its stated goal. 

Commercial imagery industrial base (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that: 

(1) at least ninety percent of the funds authorized for commercial 

imagery be available for the acquisition of commercial space imagery or to support the development of next generation commercial 

imagery satellites; and (2) the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Director of Central Intelligence, submit a report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives by March 1, 2004, on how the Secretary will implement the President’s policy on commercial remote sensing. 

The committee remains strongly supportive of the acquisition of 

commercial imagery to help meet the low and medium resolution 

imagery and geospatial intelligence needs of the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. The committee notes that directing funds for commercial imagery in fiscal year 2004 budget request to acquisition of commercial space imagery will help sustain 

the required commercial imagery industrial base, and will encourage the development of second generation commercial imagery satellites key to meeting future needs. 

286

Subtitle C—Environmental Provisions 

General definitions applicable to facilities and operations 

(sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 101 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the definitions 

of military munitions, operational range, range, and range activities in relation to Department of Defense (DOD) facilities and operations. Currently, these terms are narrowly defined in relation to 

the Secretary of Defense inventory of unexploded ordnance under 

section 311 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107). This proposal would ensure 

broader application of these definitions to the overall management 

of DOD facilities and operations. 

Military readiness and conservation of protected species 

(sec. 322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would preclude designation of critical habitat on Department of Defense lands that are 

subject to an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan 

(INRMP) prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 

670a) if the Secretary of Interior determines that such a plan addresses special management considerations or protection of endangered or threatened species. The provision would allow for a balance between military training requirements and protection of endangered or threatened species as pertains to pending or future 

critical habitat designations. The provision does not retroactively 

eliminate or change critical habitat designations that are already 

in place, as of the date of enactment of this provision.

Consistent with current practice, the committee would expect the 

Secretary of Interior to use established criteria to determine if an 

INRMP provides special management considerations or protection, 

such as: (1) a current, complete plan that provides sufficient conservation benefit to the species; (2) a plan that provides assurances 

that the conservation management strategies will be implemented; 

and (3) a plan that provides assurances that the conservation management strategies will be effective. 

In recent hearings before the Subcommittee on Readiness and 

Management Support of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, testimony provided by the Vice Chiefs of the military services 

and an official of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) highlighted 

the fact that the use of INRMPs is preferred over existing statutory 

exclusions or exemptions because the plans better protect endangered species; application of an exclusion or exemption increases 

the risk of species survival. This provision would codify determinations rendered by both the Bush and Clinton Administrations that 

there is no need to designate critical habitat on a military installation where an INRMP safeguards endangered species and habitats. 

This provision would give the FWS and the military departments 

management flexibility in addressing about 150 military installations or sites that are susceptible to critical habitat designation. In 

some instances, critical habitat designations are pending (Guam) or 

have been approved (Pacific Missile Range Facility, in Kauai, Hawaii) even though the species are not currently present on the miliVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
287

tary lands. A critical habitat designation on military land poses a 

problem because it shifts the core mission focus away from training 

and readiness to the protection of endangered species and their 

habitats. 

Recent court decisions make it necessary to provide congressional 

direction that ensures management flexibility on military lands. At 

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and Camp Pendleton, the FWS 

excluded both military installations from substantial critical habitat designations based on a determination that habitat concerns 

may be addressed through completed INRMPs, among other factors. The Federal District Court disagreed with this approach. As 

a result, the FWS is now in the process of revisiting the proposed 

critical habitat designations at these installations. The DOD remains concerned that absent legislative relief, environmental litigation may result in the designation of substantial areas of these installations as critical habitat. 

The need for flexibility was emphasized in the hearing on March 

13, 2003, before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management 

Support of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate. General William L. Nyland, Assistant Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, testified that: ‘‘The initial results of the Camp Pendleton 

Quantification Study [of Encroachment Impacts] were surprising. 

The three combat arms elements [artillery battery, light armored 

reconnaissance platoon, and the mortar man] were able to accomplish only 69 percent of established standards for non-firing field 

training. The combat engineer[s] * * * were able to accomplish 77 

percent of established standards for non-firing field training. In the 

study, endangered species was the largest contributing encroachment factor. Endangered species and their habitat, for example, 

significantly constrain individual Marines and Marine units from 

digging fighting positions, gun emplacements, vehicle defilade, and 

for combat engineers earthmoving and vehicle recovery.’’ In the 

same hearing, General John M. Keane, Vice Chief of the Army testified that: ‘‘Designations of critical habitat on Army installations 

adds management costs and reduces the availability of land on 

which to train.’’ According to General Keane, ‘‘Maneuver land and 

live-fire ranges are an essential element of [the] training process—

without them, our Soldiers cannot develop the confidence and the 

skill demonstrated during Operation ANACONDA. We must retain 

those resources that allow our forces to maintain the level of readiness the American people have come to expect, and deserve.’’

Absent the proposed legislative clarification, critical habitat could 

be designated on thousands of acres of valuable military training 

lands. Such designations would further erode the quality of military training, resulting in a direct impact on readiness. 

Arctic and Western Pacific Environmental Technology Cooperation Program (sec. 323) 

The Committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a cooperative environmental technology program with countries in the Arctic and Western Pacific regions. The Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, may provide cooperative assistance on activities that contribute to the demonstration of environmental technology in the 

288

Arctic and Pacific regions, with certain limitations and exceptions. 

The primary focus of the program would be technology projects and 

activities related to radiological contamination. Consistent with 

this focus, the provision limits the availability of program funds to 

no more than 10 percent for non-radiological matters. The provision 

would also require the Secretary to submit an annual report on the 

program that would include a discussion of the activities, the funding, the life-cycle costs of any projects, the participants, and any 

contributions from other agencies or countries. 

Participation in wetland mitigation banks in connection 

with military construction projects (sec. 324) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give the secretaries of the military departments the authority under chapter 

159 of title 10, United States Code, to participate in wetland mitigation banking programs or consolidated user sites (‘‘in-lieu-fee’’ programs). The military departments would participate under the 

same terms and conditions as other participants in the mitigation 

bank program. Currently, there is no authority for the military departments to participate in these programs. 

Typically, mitigation banks are large areas of constructed, restored, or preserved off-site wetlands that have been set aside for 

the express purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for adverse impacts to on-site wetlands. The owner of a mitigation bank 

is authorized to sell the wetland values or credits to landowners 

who need to substitute such wetlands for those lost to development 

when avoidance or on-site mitigation is not feasible. The provision 

would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to purchase credits from an approved mitigation banking program or consolidated user site. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) requires 

mitigation to replace aquatic resource functions and values of wetlands adversely impacted by activities, such as construction. The 

wetland mitigation banking programs have been described under 

the 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Army Corps of 

Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 1995 

Federal Guidance on the Establishment, Use, and Operation of 

Mitigation Banks. In November 2000, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) also issued final policy guidance on ‘‘in-lieu-fee’’ arrangements used to provide compensation for adverse impacts to wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, FWS, and NMFS all 

support the use of and recognize the need for alternatives to onsite mitigation. 

Extension of authority to use Environmental Restoration 

Account funds for relocation of a contaminated facility 

(sec. 325) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for another three years the authority of the Secretary of Defense or secretaries of the military departments to use funds available in the environmental restoration accounts, pursuant to section 2703 of title 

10, United States Code, to permanently relocate facilities. The auVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
289

thorization remains contingent upon a secretary’s written determination that such permanent relocation would be part of a response action that: (1) has the support of the affected community; 

(2) has the approval of relevant regulatory agencies; and (3) is the 

most cost effective response action available. The committee maintains the expectation that this authority would be exercised judiciously and that funds would only be used for legitimate environmental restoration priorities. 

Applicability of certain procedural and administrative requirements to restoration advisory boards (sec. 326) 

The committee recommends a provision that would exempt the 

Department of Defense Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) from 

the Federal Register notice requirements of section 10(a)(2), title 5, 

United States Code, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 

The provision would also eliminate any restrictions on the number 

of RABs operating at any one time. All other provisions of FACA 

would continue to apply. Given the large number and the purpose 

of RABs, the Secretary of Defense determined that strict compliance with these requirements of FACA is unduly burdensome and 

costly. In effect, the provision would facilitate the Secretary’s full 

and efficient utilization of about 330 Restoration Advisory Boards 

as a means of integrating community and regulatory input on environmental cleanup activities at military installations throughout 

the United States. 

Expansion of authorities on use of vessels stricken from 

Naval Vessel Register for experimental purposes (sec. 

327) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 7306a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to retain proceeds from the sale of material and 

equipment stripped from vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel 

Register. Specifically, contractors or designated sales agents approved by the Secretary of the Navy would be allowed to sell the 

material stripped from these vessels. The excess funds would be 

used to pay for environmental remediation of Navy vessels designated as targets for fleet training exercises (SINKEX). Absent 

such authority, stripped materials and equipment would be removed, stored, and transported to the Defense Reutilization and 

Marketing Service for possible sale, a potentially less cost effective 

result. The use of on-site contractors for sale of stripped materials 

and equipment allows the Secretary of the Navy to capitalize on 

the efficiencies of an integrated stripping and remediation process. 

Finally, this provision would clarify that experimental use of vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel Register includes SINKEX activities. 

Transfer of vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel Register 

for use as artificial reefs (sec. 328) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to transfer vessels stricken from the Naval 

Vessel Register to a state, commonwealth, possession of the United 

States, municipal corporation, or political subdivision for use as an 

290

artificial reef. Existing authority specifically excludes battleships, 

cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, and submarines 

from the definition of property subject to disposal (40 U.S.C. 

102(9)(B)). This provision would allow the Secretary of the Navy to 

take advantage of the full spectrum of ship disposal options for all 

vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel Register, consistent with the 

Senate report accompanying S. 1416 (S. Rept. 107–62). 

This provision would give the Navy authority similar to that provided to the Maritime Administration (MARAD) under section 3504 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

(Public Law 107–314). The Navy and MARAD are already working 

together to develop an integrated process for use of vessels for artificial reefs in compliance with section 2102 of title 33, United 

States Code. This provision would encourage these efforts. Coastal 

communities can benefit from these efforts because sunken vessels 

build reefs that prevent beach erosion and support marine life, 

commercial and sport fishing, and recreational diving. 

Salvage facilities (sec. 329) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

authority of the Secretary of the Navy to provide salvage facilities 

and to assert claims for salvage services related to environmental 

response activities. The provision would amend sections 7361 and 

7363 of title 10, United States Code, for this purpose. 

The Salvage Facilities Act was enacted fifty years ago to allow 

for the preservation and recovery of stricken vessels. At that time, 

environmental response and pollution prevention were not considered legitimate elements of salvage activities. Marine salvage 

evolved over the years to embrace these issues of concern. Article 

14 of the 1989 International Convention on Salvage reflects this 

change. This provision would align sections 7361 and 7363 of title 

10, United States Code, with international law. 

Task force on resolution of conflict between military training and endangered species protection at Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona (sec. 330) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a task force to assess various 

means of enabling full use of the live ordnance delivery areas at 

Barry M. Goldwater Range while also protecting endangered species that are present at the Range. The task force would be composed of the following: (1) the Air Force range officer (chair); (2) the 

range officer for Goldwater Range; Commander of Luke AFB, Arizona; (3) the Commander of Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona; (4) the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; (5) the Manager of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona; (6) a 

representative of Department of Game and Fish of the State of Arizona; (7) a representative of a wildlife interest group of the State 

of Arizona; and (8) a representative of an environmental interest 

group in the State of Arizona. The task force would be required to 

determine or assess the following: (1) the effects of the presence of 

endangered species on military training activities in the live ordnance delivery areas at Goldwater Range and in any other areas 

of the range that are adversely effected by the presence of endanVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
291

gered species; (2) the various means of addressing any significant 

adverse impacts on military training activities on Goldwater Range 

that are identified by the task force; and (3) the benefits and costs 

associated with the implementation of each possible solution identified by the task force. The provision would also require the task 

force to report to Congress not later than February 28, 2005. 

In recent hearings before the Subcommittee on Readiness and 

Management Support of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, testimony provided by the Vice Chiefs of the military services 

highlighted the fact that the presence of threatened and endangered species on military installations presents a testing and training challenge for the Department of Defense. There are about 190 

military installations or sites that are impacted by the presence of 

endangered or threatened species. Once an endangered or threatened species has been listed, the Secretary of Interior must provide 

for the conservation of such species. (16 U.S.C. 1533). Such statutory requirements result in restrictions on military testing and 

training activities that may eventually serve to erode readiness. 

The Goldwater Range is one of several ranges within the DOD 

where the ability to test and train has been impacted by the presence of endangered species. At the same time the number of 

Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope population has dropped to a critical 

level at the Range. As a result, the committee has concluded that 

it is appropriate to direct the Secretary of Defense to establish a 

task force to assess the problem. 

Public health assessment of exposure to perchlorate (sec. 

331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide for an independent study of the epidemiological and review of the endocrinological effects of perchlorate. The independent perchlorate study and review would be 

conducted through the Centers for Disease Control, the National 

Institutes of Health, or another federal entity with experience in 

environmental toxicology. 

Ammonium perchlorate is manufactured for use as the oxidizer 

in the solid propellants for rockets, missiles, and fireworks. Perchlorates are also used in commercial applications such as automobile airbags and road flares. Perchlorate has been found in 

ground and surface water in about 18 states and is especially pervasive in the western United States. 

Proposed perchlorate standards may expose the U.S. Government, federal contractors, and other producers and users of perchlorate to hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs. Given 

the health concerns and the potential Department of Defense liability, the committee believes an independent, peer-reviewed study 

and review to be appropriate and necessary. To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure expeditious completion of the required study and review. 

292

Subtitle D—Reimbursement Authorities 

Reimbursement of reserve component military personnel 

accounts for personnel costs of special operations reserve 

component personnel engaged in landmines clearance 

(sec. 341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 401(c) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the use of 

designated operations and maintenance funds to reimburse pay 

and allowances of reserve components members of Special Operations Command who are called to active duty to participate in humanitarian landmine clearance operations. This provision limits 

the Department of Defense to the expenditure of $5.0 million annually for this purpose. 

Reimbursement of reserve component accounts for costs of 

intelligence activities support provided by reserve component personnel (sec. 342) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Chapter 1003 of title 10, United States Code by adding a new section 

to authorize the use of operations and maintenance funds of military departments, combatant commands, and defense agencies to 

reimburse pay, allowances and other expenses when National 

Guard or Reserve intelligence personnel are called to active duty 

to provide intelligence or counterintelligence support to such military departments, commands or agencies. 

Reimbursement rate for airlift services provided to the Department of State (sec. 343) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to charge the Department of State the same 

reimbursement rate for airlift services as charged to other Department of Defense components. These airlift services would only be 

for the transport of armored vehicles necessary to provide a safe 

environment for the Secretary of State when traveling and only 

when such vehicles are not available in the foreign country to 

which the Secretary of State is traveling. 

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents Education 

Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 351) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$30.0 million for continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) 

assistance program to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of service members and DOD civilian employees. 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 352) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 million for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance program to local educational agencies that benefit dependents 

with severe disabilities. 

293

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Sale of Defense Information Systems Agency services to contractors performing the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet 

contract (sec. 361) 

The committee recommends a provision that would enable the 

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to sell working-capital 

funded services to contractors that are working on the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) contract. This would allow NMCI contractors to directly reimburse DISA for use of Defense Information 

Systems Network (DISN) wide area network services. The committee believes that this arrangement will improve the efficiency of 

and provide cost savings to the NMCI program. 

Use of the Defense Modernization Account for life cycle cost 

reduction initiatives (sec. 362) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization for the Defense Modernization Account (DMA) and 

amend the existing authority to allow the Department to program 

funds into this account to provide start-up funds for projects to improve the life cycle cost of new or existing systems. The savings resulting from such initiatives would then be used, in part, to reimburse the DMA. 

The term ‘‘life cycle cost’’ represents the total cost of a system, 

including development, procurement, and testing, as well as subsequent operations, maintenance, and disposal costs. Existing Department of Defense directives require that the acquisition of major 

systems be managed to minimize life cycle costs. The committee 

fully expects this requirement to be retained in the revision of 

these regulations that is currently under way. This provision would 

complement that requirement by facilitating targeted investments 

to reduce the life cycle costs of new and existing systems. 

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations governing the use of the DMA for life cycle cost 

reduction initiatives. These regulations would address procedures 

for the submission of proposals for life cycle cost reduction initiatives, the competitive evaluation of such proposals, and the reimbursement of the DMA out of savings from such proposals. 

Exemption of certain firefighting service contracts from 

prohibition on contracts for performance of firefighting 

functions (sec. 363) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to enter into contracts for up to one year for 

the performance of firefighting functions to fill positions vacated by 

deployed military firefighters. 

Technical amendment relating to termination of Sacramento Army Depot, Sacramento, California (sec. 364) 

The Committee recommends a technical amendment to repeal an 

obsolete provision of law related to a closed military facility. 

294

Exception to competition requirement for workloads previously performed by depot-level activities (sec. 365) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2469 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that section 

2469 does not apply to current depot-level maintenance and repair 

workload performed under a public-private partnership pursuant to 

section 2474(b). While section 2474 authorizes the establishment of 

public-private partnerships to perform work, section 2469, by requiring a public-private competition, would essentially limit the 

performance of current workloads that exceed $3.0 million to either 

a depot or a contractor. This provision would amend section 2469 

to enable effective consideration of partnerships for current workload above $3.0 million. 

Support for transfers of decommissioned vessels and shipboard equipment (sec. 366) 

The committee recommends a provision that would enable the 

Navy to provide assistance to certain foreign, state, and municipal 

governments, organizations, and other entities in support of certain 

ship and shipboard equipment transfers. The provision would only 

apply to transfers made in accordance with sections 2572, 7306, 

7307, or 7545 of title 10, United States Code. The provision would 

also authorize the Navy to be reimbursed for such assistance. 

The Navy maintains decommissioned naval vessels at government facilities operated by a part of the Navy Inactive Ships Management Office (NISMO). Periodically, the Navy is asked to provide 

services incidental to the transfer of inactive ships or of material 

from inactive ships by donation or by other authority. This provision would allow reimbursement for these services to be received 

and retained in Navy accounts. 

Aircraft for performance of aerial refueling mission (sec. 

367) 

The budget request and the Future Years Defense Program include plans for the Air Force to retire 68 KC–135E aerial refueling 

aircraft. The rationale presented for retiring these aircraft is that 

the cost to continue maintaining them is increasing. What this rationale does not address is the overall requirement for aerial refueling, nor does it address the approach that the Air Force will take 

to meet this requirement, should the remaining tanker fleet be unable to meet requirements. 

The committee is aware that the Air Force established a set of 

criteria for deciding which KC–135E’s were proposed for retirement: (1) mission design series and year group; (2) proximity to 

programmed depot maintenance; (3) incorporation status of structural modifications; (4) incorporation of other modifications; (5) 

number of flight hours; (6) type of environment where aircraft had 

been stationed; and (7) condition of remaining fuel tank topcoat. 

The committee understands that the number of aircraft the Air 

Force wants to retire is based on input from the Air Mobility Command and the lowering of the numbers of KC–135 aircraft at Air 

National Guard squadrons from 12 to eight. The committee realizes 

that a limited number of these aircraft may be too difficult to maintain, but does not believe the Air Force should retire 68 aircraft 

295

until an overall approach to the modernization and recapitalization 

of the aerial refueling fleet is better understood. 

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the 

Air Force from retiring more than 12 KC–135Es in fiscal year 2004. 

The provision also would require an independent analysis of alternatives for meeting aerial refueling requirements to be conducted 

by an independent entity, such as a federally funded research and 

development center. The provision directs the analysis to be delivered to Congress by March 1, 2004. This analysis of alternatives 

should consider all possible alternatives for modernization and/or 

recapitalization of the aerial refueling fleet, to include, at a minimum, those recommended in the tanker requirements study for 

fiscal year 2005: (1) re-engining of the KC–135Es; (2) extending aircraft service life; (3) acquiring commercial-off-the-shelf aircraft; (4) 

developing a new tanker; (5) relying on multi-mission aircraft; (6) 

operating a high-low mix of aircraft; (7) pursuing a phased approach; (8) pursuing full replacement; (9) leasing; and (10) considering future requirements. Air Force briefings had indicated this 

analysis of alternatives would start in fiscal year 2001, but in testimony before the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee in April 2003, the Assistant Secretary of the Air 

Force for Acquisition testified that there was no plan to conduct a 

formal analysis of alternatives. The committee believes it would be 

unwise to retire so many aerial refueling aircraft without a re-evaluation of the requirement and an analysis of alternatives to meet 

that requirement. 

Stability of certain existing military troop dining facilities 

contracts (sec. 368) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the continuation and completion of existing contracts (including 

any options) awarded to the blind and severely disabled for the operation of military troop dining facilities, military mess halls, and 

other similar military dining facilities. The provision recommended 

by the committee would not address either: (1) laws applicable to 

any follow-on or successor contracts to these existing contracts; or 

(2) laws applicable to contracts for the operation of military dining 

facilities not currently operated by the blind and severely disabled. 

Repeal of calendar year limitations on use of commissary 

stores by certain Reserves and others (sec. 369) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the 

annual limitation on use of commissary stores by certain reservists. 

Budget Items 

Extended Cold Weather Clothing System 

The budget request included no funding for the Extended Cold 

Weather Clothing System (ECWCS) for the Army, active or reserve 

components, or the Air National Guard. The committee supports 

initiatives by the services to increase the survivability and comfort 

of military personnel in all weather conditions. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase for ECWCS in the following operation and maintenance accounts: $5.0 million for the Army; $7.0 

296

million for the Army Reserve; $5.0 million for the Army National 

Guard; and $2.0 million for the Air National Guard. 

Field battery charging technology

The budget request included $12.6 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army for operating forces, but included no funding 

for field battery charging equipment. The committee notes a continuing increase in the Army requirement to support field electronics such as global positioning systems, man-portable computers, and communications equipment. Without adequate battery 

support, the electronic equipment which serves as a force multiplier for deployed forces can restrict operations and limit mobility. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million 

in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for field battery charging 

technology, including photovoltaic arrays using copper indium 

gallium deselenide technology. 

Quadruple shipping containers 

The budget request included no funding for quadruple shipping 

containers in Operation and Maintenance, Army. The committee 

recommends an increase of $4.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for quadruple shipping containers. Quadruple shipping container technology leverages a unique construction design to 

maximize shipping flexibility. The mobilization for Operation Iraqi 

Freedom demonstrated the utility of quadruple containers to meet 

equipment lift requirements. 

Department of Defense foreign language training 

The budget request included $600,000 for the Defense Language 

Institute in Operation and Maintenance, Army, Budget Authority 

(BA) 03, specifically for Satellite Communications Language training activities (SCOLA). SCOLA is a unique satellite-based language 

training activity that provides television programming in a variety 

of languages from around the world. Language students and seasoned linguists have found this augmentation to their normal language training to be helpful. SCOLA is developing an internetbased streaming video capability which will greatly increase the 

availability of this training medium to military linguists, virtually 

anywhere they can obtain an internet connection. In addition, 

SCOLA plans to develop a digital archive that will allow users anywhere to review and sort language training information, on demand. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, BA 03 for SCOLA, to be used by all 

military service language training activities, including those of U.S. 

Special Operations Command. 

Recruiting and advertising costs 

The budget request included over $1.10 billion for recruiting and 

advertising. Testimony received from service personnel chiefs and 

Reserve chiefs indicated that retention levels are at historic highs 

and that recruiting efforts have been very successful. The committee believes that service recruiting goals can be achieved at less 

expense in the areas of advertising and support costs than the 

297

services have requested. Accordingly, the committee recommends a 

decrease of $43.0 million in operations and maintenance funding 

for recruiting and advertising costs, divided as follows: 

Army—$13.0 million; 

Army Reserve—$8.0 million; 

Army National Guard—$7.0 million; 

Navy—$5.0 million; 

Navy Reserve—$1.5 million; 

Marine Corps—$2.0 million; 

Marine Corps Reserve—$0.5 million; 

Air Force—$5.0 million; 

Air Force Reserve—$0.5 million; 

Air National Guard—$0.5 million. 

Flight School XXI 

The budget request included $499.4 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army, for the Army’s Flight School XXI program. 

The committee strongly supports the Army’s plan to create a more 

strategically responsive, agile, and versatile aviation force. In addition, the committee recognizes that Flight School XXI is an integral 

component of the Army’s overarching transformation plan. There- fore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for 

the Flight School XXI program. 

Corrosion prevention and control 

The budget request included no funding in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for corrosion prevention and control. The committee 

recommends an increase of $8.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army, in support of the Army’s Corrosion Prevention and 

Control Program. The committee recognizes advancements in Army 

corrosion prevention efforts and supports the Army’s initiatives to 

address continuing challenges. 

M1A1 Abrams tank transmission upgrade 

Of the amount authorized for land systems depot maintenance, 

the committee authorizes up to $15.0 million of Operation and 

Maintenance, Army, for M1A1 tank transmission upgrades, and directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than February 3, 2004, on future plans to sustain the operational readiness of tank transmissions for the remaining fleet. 

Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams 

The budget request included no funding for the establishment of 

Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (WMD–CSTs). 

The committee authorizes $88.4 million to establish 12 teams in 

fiscal year 2004. The committee directs that the $88.4 million be 

allocated as follows: National Guard Personnel Army, $18.3 million; National Guard Personnel Air Force, $3.9 million; Operation 

and Maintenance Army National Guard, $16.0; Procurement Army, 

$25.9 million; Operations and Maintenance Army, $23.3; Chemical 

Biological Defense Program, $1.0 million. 

Currently, 32 teams are certified and operational. Section 1403 

of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 

298

year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) directed the Secretary of Defense 

to establish 23 additional WMD–CSTs for a total of 55 teams, and 

to ensure that there is at least one team established in each State 

and Territory. This additional funding will result in a total of 44 

WMD–CSTs by the end of fiscal year 2004. The committee understands that the Department of Defense is capable of standing up 

only 12 teams in fiscal year 2004. The committee expects the Department to include funding for the remaining 11 teams in its fiscal year 2005 budget request. 

Operations in Southwest Asia 

The budget request included $1.4 billion in the operation and 

maintenance (O&M) and military personnel (MILPERS) accounts of 

the services and Defense agencies to cover the incremental costs of 

conducting Operation Northern Watch (ONW) and Operation 

Southern Watch (OSW) to enforce no fly zones over Northern and 

Southern Iraq, and Operation Desert Spring (ODS) to assist in the 

defense of Kuwait. 

These operations have continued uninterrupted for over a decade. 

For the last two years, the Department has requested funding for 

the costs of these operations in the O&M and MILPERS accounts 

of the military services. These operations were funded through 

these accounts, instead of through a contingency fund or supplemental appropriations, because of their long-term nature. 

The committee notes that on April 15, 2003, the Department of 

Defense announced changes to its operations in Southwest Asia. 

According to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, ONW ended as of April 15, 2003, and military 

units involved in ONW were being redeployed to other locations. 

They also announced that military units were no longer conducting 

‘‘no fly zone’’ operations over Southern Iraq. Units that had previously been conducting operations in Southwest Asia were now 

participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). 

The Department has stated that the incremental costs of OIF 

would be funded through supplemental appropriations. The committee, therefore, recommends a decrease of $1.4 billion in the 

O&M and MILPERS accounts of the services and Defense agencies 

for the costs of ONW, OSW, and ODS, since these funds are no 

longer needed for the purposes for which they were requested. The 

O&M and MILPERS accounts of the services and Defense agencies 

shall be reduced by the following amounts:

O&M MILPERS 

Army ......................................................................................................................................... ¥$200.4 ¥$74.2 

Navy ......................................................................................................................................... ¥75.8 ¥1.2 

Navy Reserve ........................................................................................................................... 0.0 ¥0.8 

Marine Corps ........................................................................................................................... ¥0.3 ¥0.5 

Air Force ................................................................................................................................... ¥707.6 ¥235.4 

Defense-wide ........................................................................................................................... ¥80.1 0.0 

Working Capital Funds 

The budget request included $1.7 billion in discretionary spending for defense working capital funds. To ensure proper management of the funds, the committee recommends reducing excess cash 

balances within the services accounts by $313.5 million, as follows: 

299

Army, $107.0 million; Navy, $92.5 million; and Air Force, $114.0 

million. 

While the Navy’s fiscal year 2004 budget request will not result 

in excess cash balances in fiscal year 2004, the Navy does plan to 

use working capital fund balances to buy out the Puget Sound 

Naval Shipyard (PSNSY) from operating under a working capital 

fund. However, when the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard pilot program was initiated, direct appropriations were used to remove 

those facilities from operating under a working capital fund. The 

committee is troubled both by the planned transition of the PSNSY 

out of the Navy’s working capital fund and by the funding mechanism that is proposed for this purpose. 

The transfer of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard out of the 

Working Capital Fund, to direct, or mission, funding has not been 

adequately studied. The Navy has not updated its report of the 

Pearl Harbor experiment in two years. The committee is concerned 

that removing the PSNSY will put an undue burden on the remaining shipyards funded through the working capital fund. Before 

changing the funding source for the PSNSY, the committee directs 

that the Navy conduct a study on the lessons learned and the costs 

and benefits of mission funding the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. 

The report should also discuss the possible effects on the remaining 

public shipyards if these shipyards remain inside the working capital fund or are taken out of the Working Capital Fund. The committee recommends a decrease of $92.5 million in the Navy Working Capital Fund, the amount of the working capital fund buy-out 

costs for the PSNSY contained in the budget request. 

Civilian personnel pay in excess of requirements 

Analysis performed by the Government Accounting Office based 

on the services’ end strength data for civilian personnel as of January 31, 2003, projects that the Army’s civilian personnel costs are 

overstated for fiscal year 2004. Therefore, the committee recommends reducing the Army operation and maintenance account 

by $12.4 million. 

Condition-based maintenance photonic sensors 

The budget request included $7.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, for ship operations, including organizational level 

maintenance on gas turbine engines. The committee supports the 

development of technology that supports the Navy’s condition-based 

maintenance program for marine gas turbine engines. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million in Operation 

and Maintenance, Navy, for the development of photonic sensor 

systems for gas turbine engines. 

Lead paint removal 

The budget request included $5.0 million in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy, account for the removal of lead-contaminated 

paint from 26 very low frequency (VLF) radio towers at the Naval 

Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station, Atlantic 

Detachment. This project, which began in fiscal year 1997, is 50 

percent complete. The Navy has programmed funding to finish the 

remainder of the project by fiscal year 2007. 

300

The committee strongly supports the Navy’s continuing project to 

remove contaminated paint from the radio towers. The committee 

is concerned, however, with the Navy’s current level of progress on 

this project. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$3.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, to expedite the 

removal of contaminated paint from VLF radio towers. 

Navy excess carryover 

The committee is aware that several Navy Working Capital Fund 

activities currently exceed the carryover ceiling as determined 

under current methodologies established by the Department. The 

budget request includes $43.5 million in these activities that exceed 

the carryover ceilings as set by the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $43.5 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, to reflect the funds in the Navy 

Working Capital Fund activities that cannot be expended during 

fiscal year 2004. 

Naval Station Roosevelt Roads 

The budget request included $3.7 billion for Navy base operations support, including the costs of base operations at Naval Station Roosevelt Roads (NSRR). The committee notes that NSRR has 

an annual operating budget of $58.0 million. The committee recommends a decrease of $29.0 million for NSRR due to downsizing 

of the base. 

On April 10, 2003, the Department of the Navy announced significant changes to NSRR as a result of the end of training at 

Vieques. According to the Navy, Vieques-based training functions 

have been relocated to continental United States (CONUS)-based 

training areas. As a result, the overhead structure at NSRR is 

‘‘* * * significantly oversized for the remaining missions and must 

be reduced.’’ The Navy, therefore, is implementing a plan to disestablish or reassign military administrative and operational units 

currently located at NSRR that were previously connected with 

training at Vieques. 

The committee strongly supports the Navy’s plan to conform assigned units at NSRR with mission requirements of the base. The 

Navy plan will reduce the number of military operational and administrative units at NSRR by 60 percent and decrease the number 

of personnel assigned to NSRR by 65 percent over an eighteen 

month period. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$29.0 million, a 50 percent reduction to the annual budget, for base 

operations support at NSRR. 

Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force Family of Incident Response Systems 

The budget request included no funds in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, for the Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) Family of Incident Response Systems (FIRS). 

The committee notes that FIRS provides CBIRF with the technologies needed to conduct reconnaissance, decontamination, force 

protection, medical, command-control-communication-computers-intelligence, urban search and rescue, and general support missions. 

301

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million 

in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, for CBIRF FIRS. 

Initial issue 

The budget request included $588.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps, for operational forces, including initial 

issue of personal clothing and equipment. The request, however, included no funding for the All Purpose Environmental Clothing System (APECS). According to the Marine Corps, APECS is of high 

military value as it provides Marines with the proper modernized 

clothing protection to perform and survive in various environments 

at maximum efficiency. The Marine Corps unfunded programs list 

identified a shortfall of $51.3 million for initial issue items. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, for initial issue, to include 

the APECS. 

Corrosion prevention and control 

The budget request included $5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, for corrosion prevention and control. The 

committee notes that Marine Corps equipment is subjected to extreme conditions due to the operating locations of the Marine 

forces. The result is an increase in the degree of rust and corrosion 

than would otherwise normally be expected. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps, for the Marine Corps to continue a robust and comprehensive Corrosion Prevention and Control Program. 

Missile maintenance 

The budget request included $27.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force, but included no funding to support the 

AIM–9X missile. The committee notes that lack of funding will result in erosion of the availability rate of the AIM–9X. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an increase of $4.9 million in Operation 

and Maintenance, Air Force, to support maintenance requirements 

of the AIM–9X. 

Manufacturing Technical Assistance and Production Program 

The budget request included $3.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, for logistics operations, but included no funding 

for the Manufacturing Technical Assistance and Production Program. The committee recognizes the challenges that small and disadvantaged businesses must overcome when conducting business 

with the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, for the Manufacturing Technical Assistance and 

Production Program (MTAPP) to further develop productive relationships between the small business community and the Department of Defense. 

302

Air Force Supply Management Activity Group Working Capital Fund and Depot Maintenance 

The committee is concerned with the current trend in the Air 

Force Supply Management Activity Group Working Capital Fund 

(SMAG WCF) of building excess balances. Working capital funds 

should be managed towards achieving a zero operating balance. 

However, the fiscal year 2004 budget request reflects accumulated 

operating balances that continue to grow through fiscal year 2005 

($404.7 million in fiscal year 2003, $668.7 million in fiscal year 

2004, and $856.6 million in fiscal year 2005). Therefore, the committee recommends reducing excess balances in the SMAG WCF by 

$250.0 million. 

The committee is also concerned that the Air Force reports a 

backlog of $516.0 million in fiscal year 2004 for depot maintenance. 

At the level of funding in the budget request, the Air Force reports 

that backlogs in depot maintenance for critical weapon systems 

(such as the KC–135, F–15, and B–52) will grow. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an increase of $250.0 million for Air Force 

depot maintenance activities. 

Train and equip program 

The budget request for the Defense Security and Cooperation 

Agency (DSCA) included $200.0 million for a program that would 

allow the Department of Defense to provide military assistance or 

support to unspecified foreign nations assisting U.S. military operations or other activities to combat global terrorism. Such assistance could include the provision of equipment, supplies, services, 

and funding. Use of these funds would require the concurrence of 

the Secretary of State. The committee recommends a decrease of 

$200.0 million in DSCA for this purpose. The committee notes that 

assistance of the type requested here should more appropriately be 

provided through the regular foreign assistance accounts. The committee notes that, for emergent requirements to support cooperative activities with foreign nations in combating global terrorism, 

the Department has existing authorities that it can utilize, such as 

sections 2341 and 2342 of title 10, United States Code, which were 

used recently to provide assistance to Pakistan. 

Information assurance scholarship program 

The budget request included $7.0 million in PE 33140D8Z, Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide for the information assurance scholarship program. This program was established by section 

922 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001. 

The committee strongly supports this program and is encouraged 

that the Department has established a strong foundation of participating schools and is receiving significant interest from prospective 

students. The need to develop and sustain a strong, professional 

corps of information assurance professionals within the Department of Defense remains an essential goal. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

33140D8Z, Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide for the information assurance scholarship program, to increase the number 

303

of scholarships and grants that the Department will be able to 

award in fiscal year 2004. 

Transportation Working Capital Fund 

The U.S. Transportation Command charges the military services 

for transporting goods and personnel through a working capital 

fund arrangement where customers are billed for services to cover 

costs. Customer rates are adjusted a year in advance—including 

surcharges for administration and overhead costs—with the goal of 

breaking even. 

Since September 11, 2001, the Global War on Terrorism has 

placed high demands on the Department’s transportation system, 

resulting in large positive operating balances in the Transportation 

Working Capital Fund (TWCF). In fiscal year 2002, the excess balances were $680.0 million. Ongoing operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom will again result in large positive operating 

balances in the TWCF for fiscal year 2003, with revenues expected 

to surpass those in fiscal year 2002. Therefore, the committee recommends reducing excess balances in the TWCF by $600.0 million. 

Equipment Storage Site initial operations 

The budget request included $1.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve, for operating forces, but included no funding for the Equipment Storage Site program. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve, to support initial operations of Army Reserve 

Equipment Storage Sites. The committee notes the equipment storage requirements of the Army Reserve and the Equipment Storage 

Site program which is intended to address those requirements. The 

committee supports leveraging existing Army Reserve Strategic 

Storage Site facilities that provide a minimum of 1.3 million square 

feet of controlled humidity protection for the Equipment Storage 

Site program. 

Cannon bore cleaning 

The budget request included $1.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, for operating forces, including 

funds to purchase cleaning solvents for cannon bores. The committee notes the challenges of the Army National Guard related to 

artillery, tank, and mortar tube maintenance. The committee 

strongly supports Army National Guard cannon bore cleaning initiatives that will reduce maintenance requirements, while extending cannon bore life and preserving weapon accuracy. The committee also notes efforts by the Army National Guard to minimize 

the environmental impact that may result from cannon bore cleaning. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard for cannon bore cleaning systems using water and environmentally 

‘‘friendly’’ detergents. 

Test support program 

The budget request included $2.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (ANG), for test support. The committee supports the contributions of the Air National Guard to deVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00323 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
304

fense system testing. The committee notes that the Air National 

Guard has performed this function for over thirty years. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air National Guard, to support the evaluation of defense systems. 

The committee also directs the Director of the Air National 

Guard and the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 

to report jointly to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2004, on the role of the ANG in supporting defense systems testing and the plan to provide long-term core sustainment 

funds for defense systems test support. 

Funding for Formerly Used Defense Sites 

The budget request included $213.0 million for cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). The committee recommends an 

increase of $40.0 million for FUDS cleanup. 

The Army is the executive agent for cleanup of FUDS; the Army 

Corps of Engineers manages and executes actual remediation activities. The committee notes that there are over 9,000 properties 

identified for inclusion in the FUDS program, hundreds of which 

could be categorized as former ranges. Historically, the FUDS program has experienced significant funding shortfalls, making it difficult to execute much needed remediation projects at these sites. 

In an effort to address this problem, Congress included additional 

funds for FUDS remediation in every fiscal year since 2000. These 

funding increases merely helped to address a portion of the funding 

shortfalls. Once again, the fiscal year 2004 budget request failed to 

address this funding problem. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army to address the lack of funding support for FUDS 

within the DOD and the Army. This is particularly important given 

Congress’ ongoing review of environmental encroachment issues related to the management and cleanup of operational ranges. 

Specifically, the committee is aware that the Avtex Fibers Facility in Virginia, requires $10.0 million to complete environmental 

cleanup and demolition of buildings over the next two years. The 

committee recognizes the importance of this work and expects the 

Army Corps of Engineers to provide adequate funding to complete 

cleanup requirements at the Avtex site and other FUDS sites in a 

timely manner. 

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund 

The committee has fully funded the administration request for 

support of ongoing DoD operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations are no longer contingency events, and such contingency 

lines are funded in the regular appropriations accounts, as requested by the administration. Contingency operations that arose 

in the past year are covered in emergency supplemental requests, 

and are not funded through the Overseas Contingency Operations 

Transfer Fund (OCOTF) account. As ongoing operations are accounted for in both the normal budget process and the emergency 

supplemental, a contingency operations transfer fund is not needed 

and the committee recommends a reduction of $50.0 million from 

the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. 

305

Other Legislation 

The budget request included $45.0 million for a legislative provision that the Department of Defense did not send to the Congress. 

Therefore, the committee recommends reducing the budget request 

by that amount. 

Items of Special Interest 

Arlington National Cemetery information and planning system 

Arlington National Cemetery is the nation’s principal national 

shrine where public honor and recognition are accorded those men 

and women who served in the U.S. Armed Forces. The committee 

notes that families, friends, and individuals from around the world 

travel to Arlington National Cemetery to honor their loved ones 

and their comrades-in-arms. The cemetery annually conducts more 

than 6,000 funeral services and approximately 3,000 non-funeral 

services, which honor all veterans and their families. Because the 

cemetery currently uses antiquated, labor-intensive management 

tools to manage myriad activities, the caretakers are presented 

with numerous challenges. 

The committee understands that the budget request for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for fiscal year 2004 includes $500,000 

to develop an information and planning system that will optimize 

visitors’ experience at the cemetery and improve employee productivity. The committee notes that an additional $5.0 million will be 

necessary to install and operate this system. Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs to 

fully fund the Arlington National Cemetery information and planning system. 

Chemical depot airspace security 

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense requested, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established, temporary flight restrictions above the 

chemical weapons stockpile depots, including Newport, Indiana. 

The committee has learned that a number of airspace violations 

have occurred in the restricted airspace above some of the depots. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to work with 

the FAA to enhance airspace security above the chemical depots. 

The committee also encourages the Department to consider any additional steps needed to avert airspace violations, possibly including enhanced surveillance or more stringent airspace restrictions. 

Comprehensive management of Department of Defense 

ranges 

The Department of Defense (DOD) manages large areas of the 

land, air, and sea for weapons system testing and for military 

training. Demand for military range space is increasing due to 

weapon system capabilities, technology-enabled dispersion of forces 

and non-contiguous operations, increasing focus on joint operations, 

and the adverse impacts of environmental encroachment issues. 

These demands present numerous challenges for the DOD. 

306

The committee is aware of the challenges associated with the use 

of military test and training ranges, and the need to optimize the 

use of existing assets. 

The committee commends the efforts of the DOD and local range 

commanders to overcome testing and training range challenges. On 

January 10, 2003, the DOD issued Directive 3200.15, which articulates DOD policy to promote the sustainment of test and training 

ranges. The Defense Test and Training Steering Group continues 

to expand cooperation among the testing and training communities. 

Range commanders have forged alliances and informal relationships to leverage range funding and range utilization. 

The committee is interested in the results of the DOD initiatives 

to overcome testing and training range challenges. The committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of the optimal 

use of test and training ranges DOD-wide. The study should be 

submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than 

November 1, 2004, and should include an evaluation of the following: (1) the current and projected requirement for the land, air, 

and sea space in support of testing and training requirements; (2) 

the funding and organizational management structures that support range use, including their advantages and disadvantages; (3) 

alternative management structures; and (4) recommendations for 

specific regulatory and legislative changes to optimize range capability and use. 

Depot, arsenal and ammunition workforce revitalization 

The committee has long been concerned with issues of workforce 

revitalization in key areas of national defense, particularly in the 

production and maintenance of key military weapon systems and 

munitions. The House report to accompany the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (H. Rept. 106–616) directed 

the Army to establish a program to hire and train new workers at 

its depots. The committee strongly supports these efforts and recommends that they be expanded to include other critical aspects of 

defense production, such as Army arsenals and ammunition plants. 

The committee directs the Army to include arsenal and ammunition plants in its apprenticeship programs in order to address the 

need to revitalize the highly-skilled arsenal and munitions workforce. 

Environmental cleanup for former Navy property on 

Vieques 

The committee is aware that the Secretary of the Navy has now 

terminated Navy training activities and transferred property on 

Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, to the Department of Interior (DOI) 

and the Municipality of Vieques. The former Naval Ammunition 

Support Detachment (NASD) on the western side of Vieques was 

transferred or conveyed to the Secretary of Interior, the Municipality of Vieques, and the Puerto Rican Conservation Trust in April 

2001 (Public Law 106–398). As required by Congress, the cleanup 

of those portions of NASD conveyed to the Municipality of Vieques 

and the Puerto Rican Conservation Trust are subject to environmental cleanup requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the proVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00326 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
307

cedures outlined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (Public 

Law 106–398). 

The committee notes that cleanup designs are developed through 

the CERCLA process based upon relative risk to human health and 

the environment and future land use. The committee expects that 

the CERCLA process at Vieques will involve the DOI, EPA, Puerto 

Rico, and the public. The committee is aware that the function of 

the existing CERCLA process is to assess contamination, to design 

remedies, and to implement remedies in a transparent, orderly 

fashion. The committee expects that, as part of the CERCLA process, EPA and the Navy, with the assistance of DOI, will produce 

a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) that will determine how the 

NCP will be implemented on Vieques. The committee is aware that 

implementation and funding of cleanups are prioritized by relative 

risk, with the highest priority based on risk to human health. Consistent with this practice, the committee expects that Vieques will 

be subject to the same prioritization methodology. 

Former Navy lands transferred on the eastern side of Vieques 

must be managed by DOI as part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, pursuant to section 1049 of the Nation Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107). In addition, 

the former live impact area must be managed as a wilderness area 

and the public must be excluded. (Public Law 106–398; Public Law 

107–107). Over the next few years, DOI will develop Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Vieques National Wildlife Refuge, as 

is done with all other refuges, that will outline its concept for managing the refuge. The committee recognizes that until that process 

is complete, it will be difficult to reach final decisions on cleanup. 

Although some baseline surveys have been completed, it is the committee’s expectation that the Navy would carry out additional study 

of potential contamination of some areas. 

Vieques Island has been subject to much congressional focus over 

the last several years and this committee intends to remain focused 

on the progress of cleanup and future use of the former Navy lands 

on Vieques. As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Navy to report to the congressional defense committees on the status of cleanup related actions for Vieques Island, to include agreements, remedies, priorities, and milestones, as these actions are 

completed. That report may be provided through the Annual Report to Congress on the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (10 U.S.C. 2706). The committee expects that such actions 

would be developed through a process that involves, as appropriate, 

DOI, EPA, and Puerto Rico. The committee notes that there may 

be annual updates that would be provided as each aspect of the 

CERCLA process unfolds. The committee further expects the Secretary of the Navy to expeditiously complete all environmental 

cleanup actions on Vieques Island, based on available funds, overall priorities, and applicable laws. 

Guaranteed fixed price remediation contracts 

The committee is aware that the Army has awarded a total of 

nine Guaranteed Fixed Price Remediation (GFPR) contracts in the 

amount of $80.0 million, seven contracts at Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) installations for $40.5 million and two contracts at 

308

active installations for $39.8 million. The Army estimates that 

these nine GFPR contracts yielded a savings of about $13.0 million, 

as compared to other contracting methodologies. GFPR contracts 

include a statement of objectives with a performance-based end result of regulatory site closure for one fixed price. This approach 

aligns contractor incentives with achieving fast and efficient environmental remediation, avoids cost escalation and over-runs, and 

mobilizes innovative approaches and technologies. 

The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army to 

continue exploring appropriate uses of GFPR contracts for contaminated sites, particularly at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) 

where environmental cleanup efforts have been underfunded. The 

Army is the executive agent for the FUDS Program, and the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers manages and executes environmental 

cleanup activities at these sites. 

Specifically, the committee is aware of the important ongoing environmental cleanup activities at the former Lowry Bombing and 

Gunnery Range in Arapahoe County, Colorado, and that it is necessary to complete these actions to ensure protection of public 

health and safety. The committee encourages the Army to utilize 

the full spectrum of environmental cleanup methodologies at Lowry 

Bombing and Gunnery Range, to include cost effective GFPR contracts. Moreover, the committee expects the Department of Defense, the Army, and the Army Corps of Engineers to provide sufficient resources and funding to support cost effective and expeditious cleanup activities at the Lowry Bombing and Gunnery Range 

and other FUDS sites. 

Mail delivery to troops stationed in the Middle East 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a review of the delivery of mail to troops in the 

Middle East. Specifically, the study should: (1) determine delivery 

times, reliability, and losses for mail and parcels to and from troops 

stationed in the Middle East; (2) identify and analyze mail and parcel delivery service efficiency issues during Operations Desert 

Shield/Desert Storm, compared to such services which occurred 

during Operation Iraqi Freedom; and (3) identify cost efficiencies 

and benefits of alternative delivery systems or modifications to existing delivery systems to improve the delivery times of mail and 

parcels. 

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report 

to the congressional defense committees on the General Accounting 

Office’s findings and recommendations. 

Sea Swap 

‘‘Sea Swap’’ is a concept of operations for deploying Navy surface 

combatants, where the surface combatant is deployed from homeport for a period of time in excess of the historical six-month deployment period. Several different crews to operate the combatant 

are rotated from homeport to the deployed location of the combatant during the Sea Swap deployment. According to the Navy, Sea 

Swap is intended to maximize the on-station time of the surface 

combatant. 

309

The United States Ship Fletcher (DDG 992) is the test ship for 

the Sea Swap deployment concept. The United States Ship Fletcher

deployed in August 2002, from Naval Station Pearl Harbor. The 

crew of the United States Ship Fletcher rotated in Western Australia in January 2003. The United States Ship Fletcher is scheduled to return to San Diego on December 23, 2003, after completing 

508 days on deployment. 

According to the testimony of the Chief of Naval Operations 

(CNO), the Navy intends ‘‘* * * to continue to examine pilot programs in optimal manning and rotational crewing,’’ such as Sea 

Swap. The return of the United States Ship Fletcher to homeport 

in December 2003 will allow the Navy the opportunity to fully analyze all data from the deployment and develop lessons learned from 

the experience. 

The committee is interested in the lessons learned from the 

United States Ship Fletcher deployment and the CNO’s continuing 

examination of the Sea Swap deployment concept. The committee 

directs the CNO to provide periodic updates to the congressional 

defense committees on the status of Sea Swap, including the lessons learned from the deployment of the United States Ship Fletcher. 

Summer training for cadets and midshipmen 

The committee understands that there are numerous requirements for professional training placed on cadets and midshipmen 

assigned to the United States Military Academy, United States 

Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy. The 

committee believes that such training, to include any training procured by contract, should be fully consistent with the missions and 

curricula of these institutions, after careful consideration of the 

value added by this training to the necessary development of commissioned officers and its merit in assuring accomplishment of the 

service academies’ mission. The committee believes that any course 

of instruction procured by contract should be done so competitively 

and in full compliance with federal acquisition regulations. 

Support for the Joint National Training Capability 

The committee strongly supports the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) efforts to quickly develop and demonstrate a Joint National 

Training Capability (JNTC) to enhance joint warfighting preparedness. One of the foundations of the JNTC concept is connectivity 

between numerous existing training sites, a requirement that is 

being pursued by Joint Forces Command (JFCOM). At the same 

time, the military services are improving connectivity between 

training sites to support service-specific training, such as the Air 

Force’s Distributed Mission Training and the Navy’s Training Resource Strategy. The committee commends both JFCOM and the 

military services for their efforts to improve training, and encourages the military services to rely, to the greatest degree possible, 

on JNTC infrastructure to support their training needs.

The committee understands that, as Joint Forces Command 

seeks to meet bandwidth needs, they are working with the Defense 

Information Services Agency (DISA) as the preferred provider. 

DISA is pursuing additional bandwidth for numerous purposes beVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
310

yond training, to include intelligence sharing and improved support 

for research and engineering efforts. The committee directs DISA 

to leverage ongoing efforts to the greatest degree possible in order 

to provide necessary support to the JNTC. 

The committee also understands that the Department has been 

developing joint simulation systems in a large, joint research and 

development program to meet service and joint training requirements. This program has been suspended pending an analysis of 

alternatives that should inform decisions on a technology development plan that supports JNTC needs, as well as larger joint and 

service training requirements. 

The committee recognizes that a functional joint simulation system is essential to fully realize the goals and potential of the JNTC 

program. The committee urges the Department to ensure that the 

simulation systems development programs are structured to meet 

current and future joint training and experimentation requirements. These programs should also be managed and funded in a 

manner that is consistent with the technical challenges, development and deployment schedule, and joint military needs associated 

with them. 

Accordingly, the committee directs that the Department report 

on the results of the analysis of alternatives and provide a joint 

program and funding plan for establishment of a new development 

and acquisition program within 90 days of the conclusion of the ongoing analysis of alternatives. 

Visual language translators 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for utilizing visual language translators for military field operations. The 

committee notes that visual language translators enable service 

members to greatly improve communications by eliminating language barriers. These devices are currently being used by service 

personnel in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee supports the 

use of visual language translators and urges the Department of Defense to expand the use of this important tool. 

War reserve stocks of Meals Ready to Eat 

The committee understands that recent operations have greatly 

reduced the Department of Defense’s stocks of Meals Ready to Eat 

(MRE). The committee directs the Defense Logistics Agency to review the adequacy of current and planned inventory levels to meet 

war plan requirements, and to recommend any necessary funding 

adjustments to the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) 

(USD(C)). 

(311)

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active duty end strengths for fiscal year 2004, as shown below:

Fiscal year—

2003 authorization 2004 request 2004 recommendation 

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

Navy ............................................................................................................ 375,700 373,800 373,800

Marine Corps ............................................................................................... 175,000 175,000 175,000

Air Force ...................................................................................................... 359,000 359,300 359,300

Increased maximum percentage of general and flag officers 

on active duty authorized to be serving in grades above 

brigadier general and rear admiral (lower half) (sec. 

402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 525 of title 10, United States Code, to increase from 50 percent 

to 55 percent the number of active-duty general and flag officers 

who may serve in grades above O–7. 

Extension of certain authorities relating to management of 

numbers of general and flag officers in certain grades 

(sec. 403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend: (1) 

authority for the process by which the Secretary of Defense and 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff fill vacant senior joint fourstar general and flag officer positions; (2) the exemption of the senior joint four-star general and flag officers appointed by that process from the general and flag officer limits that apply to the military services; and (3) the process by which the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff designates and fills 12 general and flag officer 

positions on the joint staff and 10 reserve component general and 

flag positions on the staff of the commanders of the unified and 

specified combatant commands. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2004, as shown below:

312

Fiscal year—

2003 authorization 2004 request 2004 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ......................................... 350,000 350,000 350,000

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

The Naval Reserve ...................................................................................... 87,800 85,900 85,900

The Marine Corps Reserve .......................................................................... 39,558 39,600 39,600

The Air National Guard of the United States ............................................. 106,600 107,000 107,000

The Air Force Reserve ................................................................................. 75,600 75,800 75,800

The Coast Guard Reserve ........................................................................... 9,000 10,000 10,000

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 

reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2004, as shown 

below:

Fiscal year—

2003 authoriza- tion 2004 request 2004 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ......................................... 24,562 25,386 25,599

The Army Reserve ....................................................................................... 14,070 14,374 14,374

The Naval Reserve ...................................................................................... 14,572 14,384 14,384

The Marine Corps Reserve .......................................................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261

The Air National Guard of the United States ............................................. 11,727 12,140 12,191

The Air Force Reserve ................................................................................. 1,498 1,660 1,660

The committee recommends an increase of 213 in the Army National Guard and 51 in the Air National Guard to support the activation of 12 additional Weapons of Mass Destruction—Civil Support Teams during fiscal year 2004. 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

minimum level of dual status technician end strengths for fiscal 

year 2004, as shown below:

Fiscal year—

2003 authorization 2004 request 2004 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ......................................... 24,102 24,589 24,589

The Army Reserve ....................................................................................... 6,599 6,699 6,699

The Air National Guard of the United States ............................................. 22,495 22,806 22,806

The Air Force Reserve ................................................................................. 9,911 9,991 9,991

Fiscal year 2004 limitations on non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that 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, 2004, as shown below:

313

Fiscal year—

2003 authorization 2004 request 2004 recommendation 

The Army National Guard of the United States ......................................... 1,600 1,600 1,600

The Army Reserve ....................................................................................... 995 895 895

The Air National Guard of the United States ............................................. 350 350 350

The Air Force Reserve ................................................................................. 90 90 90

Subtitle C—Other Matters Relating to Personnel Strengths 

Revision of personnel strength authorization and accounting process (sec. 421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

change to the method used by the Department of Defense to measure the strength for active duty and reserve component personnel 

from strength at the end of the fiscal year to average strength 

throughout the year. 

Exclusion of recalled retired members from certain strength 

limitations during period of war or national emergency 

(sec. 422) 

The committee recommends a provision that would exclude retirees recalled to active duty from annual personnel end strength and 

grade strength limitations during a period of war or national emergency in which members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under sections 12301 

or 12302 of title 10, United States Code. 

Subtitle D—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations for military personnel (sec. 

431) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

total of $99.2 billion for military personnel, an increase of $286.0 

million over the budget request. This includes $428.0 million for increases in the family separation allowance and special pay for duty 

subject to hostile fire or imminent danger, $38.0 million for a minimum 3.7 percent pay raise for all eligible personnel, $45.0 million 

for assignment incentive pay for duty in Korea, $11.0 million for 

an increase in the death benefit, and $22.0 million for increases in 

Army and Air National Guard full-time support personnel to implement additional weapons of mass destruction-civil support teams. 

The provision would also authorize reductions of $46.0 million from 

the services’ personnel accounts for selective reenlistment bonuses 

and $312.0 million for personnel costs related to Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch. 

(315)

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Retention of health professions officers to fulfill active duty 

service obligations following failure of selection for promotion (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require officers serving in the health professions who are not selected for promotion, but who have not completed their obligated active duty 

service, to complete their active duty service obligation unless the 

secretary of the military department concerned determines that 

completion of that service obligation would not be in the best interest of the military department. 

Eligibility for appointment as Chief of Army Veterinary 

Corps (sec. 502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 3084 of title 10, United States Code, to require that the Chief 

of the Veterinary Corps of the Army be appointed from among officers of the Veterinary Corps of the Army. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Policy 

Expanded authority for use of Ready Reserve in response to 

terrorism (sec. 511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

language of section 12304(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the use of reserves for all terrorist attacks or threatened 

terrorist attacks in the United States that result, or could result, 

in loss of life or property. 

Streamlined process for continuing officers on the reserve 

active-status list (sec. 512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the 

requirement for selection boards under sections 14101 and 14701 

of title 10, United States Code, to continue reserve component officers on the reserve active-status list. 

National Guard officers on active duty in command of National Guard units (sec. 513) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 325 of title 32, United States Code, to allow officers of the 

Army or Air National Guard, called to active duty for the purpose 

of commanding a unit composed of both active duty and reserve 

component personnel, to retain and exercise their Army or Air National Guard state commissions if authorized by the President and 

the governor. Such National Guard officers would have the authorVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00335 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
316

ity to command subordinate active duty personnel by virtue of their 

own active duty status and also retain the authority to command 

National Guard personnel in a nonfederal status. 

Subtitle C—Revision of Retirement Authorities 

Permanent authority to reduce three-year time-in-grade requirement for retirement in grade for officers in grades 

above major and lieutenant commander (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1370 of title 10, United States Code, to make permanent the 

authority to reduce the three-year time-in-grade requirement for 

retirement in grade for officers in grades above major and lieutenant commander. 

Subtitle D—Education and Training 

Increased flexibility for management of senior level education and post-education assignments (sec. 531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 663 of title 10, United States Code, by repealing the requirement that the principal course of instruction offered at the Joint 

Forces Staff College as Phase II joint professional military education must be at least three months in duration. Additionally, the 

provision would repeal requirements related to mandatory assignment to joint duty of officers completing joint professional military 

education. Although greater flexibility for officer assignments 

would result from this provision, the committee expects that a significant number of graduates from joint professional military education schools would be assigned to joint duty upon graduation. 

Expanded educational assistance authority for cadets and 

midshipmen receiving ROTC scholarships (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

secretaries of the military departments additional flexibility to use 

Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship funds 

to pay for room, board, and other expenses required by cadets and 

midshipmen for classes. This provision would ensure that Senior 

ROTC scholarship funds are more responsive to students’ individual financial needs by allowing an alternative use of these funds 

when tuition costs are covered in whole or in part by other sources. 

Eligibility and cost reimbursement requirements for personnel to receive instruction at the Naval Postgraduate 

School (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit assignment of enlisted members of the armed forces, who have completed undergraduate studies and been awarded a baccalaureate 

degree, to the Naval Postgraduate School for the purpose of fulltime instruction in the field of information assurance. Additionally, 

this provision would authorize senior enlisted members of the 

armed forces to attend certain executive level seminars conducted 

at the Naval Postgraduate School. 

317

Actions to address sexual misconduct at the service academies (sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

service secretaries, under guidance provided by the Department of 

Defense, to direct the superintendents of their respective service 

academies to prescribe a policy on sexual misconduct applicable to 

the personnel of their academy. Additionally, the provision would 

direct the Secretary of Defense, through the service secretaries and 

service academy superintendents, to conduct annual assessments, 

including surveys of academy personnel, to determine the effectiveness of academy policies, training, and procedures on sexual misconduct. The Secretary of Defense would be directed to submit annual reports to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives for five years on sexual misconduct involving academy personnel. 

Subtitle E—Decorations, Awards, and Commendations 

Subtitle F—Military Justice 

Extended limitation period for prosecution of child abuse 

cases in courts-martial (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 43 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. 

843) to apply a modified version of the federal criminal statute of 

limitations found in section 3283 of title 18, United States Code, 

which applies to offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse of 

a child under 18, to trial by a court-martial of a person for such 

offenses under the UCMJ. The modification would limit the application of the extended limitation period to cases involving children 

under the age of 16 years, the limit for such offenses under the 

substantive criminal provisions of the UCMJ. The extended limitation period would permit trial by court-martial if sworn charges 

and specifications were received before the child reached the age of 

25 years. This would replace the present five-year statute of limitations for this category of offenses. 

Clarification of blood alcohol content limit for the offense 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice of drunken 

operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

blood alcohol content limit for the offense of drunken operation of 

a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel under Article 111 of the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 911). The provision would make explicit that a blood alcohol content equal to the applicable state 

limit, or the 0.10 limit set out in Article 111, whichever is applicable, would constitute an offense under Article 111. 

Subtitle G—Other Matters 

High-tempo personnel management and allowance (sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 991 of title 10, United States Code, and section 436 of title 37, 

United States Code, with respect to management of deployments of 

318

members and payment of a high-tempo allowance. In the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, the Congress initially required high deployment tracking systems and additional 

compensation for eligible members. The Department of Defense 

submitted a report, pursuant to congressional direction, and has 

recommended legislative changes that are consistent with the goals 

of tracking deployments of individual service members and compensating those individuals who experience unusually high deployment 

tempo. This provision would require payment of up to $1000 each 

month during which a member has been: (1) deployed for at least 

401 days out of the preceding 730 days; (2) deployed continuously 

for more than 191 days; or (3) in the case of a Reservist, called or 

ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days, if such 

period begins within one year after the date on which the member 

was released from previous service on active duty for a period of 

more than 30 days under a call or order to active duty. The committee urges the Department to promptly implement this hightempo allowance upon enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. 

Alternate initial military service obligation for persons 

accessed under direct entry program (sec. 562) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a direct entry program for persons 

with critical military skills. The requirements of section 651(a) of 

title 10, United States Code, pertaining to the duration of initial 

military service obligation, would not apply to persons who enter 

the armed forces for an initial period of active duty under this program. Upon implementing this program, the Secretary of Defense 

must report to the congressional defense committees on the critical 

military skills designated for inclusion under this program. This 

program would commence on October 1, 2003, and end on September 30, 2005. 

Policy on concurrent deployment to combat zones of both 

military spouses of military families with minor children (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe the policy of the Department of 

Defense on concurrent deployment to a combat zone of both 

spouses of a dual-military family with one or more minor children 

within 180 days of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. 

Enhancement of voting rights of members of the uniformed 

services (sec. 564) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1973ff–1 of title 42, United States Code, by prescribing standards to be used by state officials in validating ballots submitted in 

elections for federal office by absent uniformed services voters. Additionally, the provision would establish procedures to facilitate 

voting by recently separated military members. 

319

Items of Special Interest 

Assisting non-citizen service members 

The committee recognizes the contribution to national security of 

the many non-citizen service members in the armed forces and particularly the ultimate sacrifice made by those non-citizen service 

members who lost their lives during Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

the global war on terrorism. The committee strongly supports the 

decision by the President, retroactive to September 11, 2001, to exempt military members from the requirement to have served three 

years on active duty before applying for citizenship during the period of the war against terrorists. The committee urges the Department of Defense and the military services to review its policies to 

determine if any additional measures can be taken to assist and expedite the naturalization of qualified service members and their 

families. Specifically, the Department of Defense is directed to examine the feasibility of allowing military personnel to receive official orders and utilize government transportation and lodging in 

order to carry out naturalization requirements. 

Computer-based assistance for survivors of military decedents 

The committee strongly supports the efforts of the military services in continuing to improve casualty assistance services for the 

families of military members who die while in the military service 

of their nation. One aspect of casualty assistance that requires further emphasis and innovative leadership by the Department of Defense is providing a means to assure prompt, accurate, and detailed 

information specific to individual decedents about survivor benefits 

and how those benefits may change over time. The committee urges 

the Department to consider contracting for or rapidly developing a 

reliable computer-based service of this nature, including calculators 

and links to helpful web sites. This service should be available on 

line to survivors, the casualty assistance officers who are assigned 

to advise them, leaders in the chain of command, and, ideally, to 

all military members to assist them in understanding how benefits, 

such as Serviceman’s Group Life Insurance, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, and the Survivor Benefit Plan, among others, operate. 

Education for service members in preventing identity theft 

The committee is pleased at the ongoing efforts by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services to provide training for military members in financial responsibility. The committee 

is aware that service members can be particularly vulnerable to 

identity theft and recommends that the DOD and military services 

include instruction on this problem in their financial responsibility 

courses. Additionally, the committee urges the Department to review its policy of using social security numbers as individual members’ service numbers in view of the potential for abuse. 

Family surveys 

The operational demands on the men and women of the armed 

forces and their families, and the extraordinary value of the service 

320

they render require the Department of Defense and the military 

services to employ various means to identify potential sources of 

dissatisfaction that might adversely affect retention in both the active and reserve components. The committee believes that surveys 

of military members and their spouses have particular value in this 

regard and looks forward to receiving the results of surveys being 

conducted by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, the Air 

Force Community Assessment, and the Marine Corps’ quality of 

life assessment conducted in 2002. The committee urges the military services to continue their efforts in this regard aimed at improving the attractiveness of military careers for active duty, reserve, and Guard military families. 

Impact of reserve mobilization on state and local first responder units 

The committee is aware that the heavy reliance on reservists and 

National Guardsmen during Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Noble Eagle, and Operation Iraqi Freedom has had a significant impact on individual members and their employers across the 

country. The committee expresses its gratitude and admiration for 

those employers who have supported their reserve component employees. The unique demands of the global war on terrorism for reserve component personnel with expertise in physical security, 

force protection, and law enforcement have resulted in the mobilization of many Reservists and Guardsmen who are employed as 

first responders. Concerns have been expressed that mobilization of 

such Reservists and Guardsmen could have an adverse impact on 

the state and local communities that rely upon them. 

In testimony responding to these concerns, representatives of the 

Department of Defense have noted that administrative procedures 

do exist in the Department for employers to request exemption 

from mobilization for key employees based on the public safety requirements of individual communities. The committee urges the 

Department to use the valuable services of the National Committee 

for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve and other means 

to disseminate information about the availability of this procedure. 

The committee understands that the Department does not currently have sufficient information in its possession to determine the 

extent of this problem. In part this is due to the fact that many 

state and local first responders, particularly firefighters, are volunteers. The committee is pleased that the Department has undertaken a comprehensive survey in order to determine the occupations of those who serve in the Reserves and their volunteer activities, insofar as they are related to first responder status. The committee urges the Department to identify concentrations of reservists and National Guardsmen who serve in first responder roles 

and to determine the effects of mobilization on the communities 

served by these first responders. 

Increased reliance on warrant officers 

The committee expects the military services to make increased 

and better use of warrant officers. The committee notes that the 

Army has long depended on the use of warrant officers, but the 

321

Navy’s use of such officers is limited, and the Air Force does not 

have a cadre of warrant officers. 

The Congressional Budget Office submitted a paper in February 

2002 entitled, ‘‘The Warrant Officer Ranks: Adding Flexibility to 

Military Personnel Management.’’ This study underscored the potential for increasing the number of warrant officers, who currently 

account for just over one percent of active duty personnel, to alleviate concerns about the ability of the enlisted force to recruit wellqualified individuals, to ensure the best performers in the enlisted 

force have career opportunities commensurate with their abilities, 

and to retain personnel in technical occupations for active duty careers that may extend past 30 years of total service. The committee 

urges the Navy to increase its use of warrant officers and the Air 

Force to consider creating a cadre of warrant officers to address the 

foregoing concerns and to assist in meeting the demand for highly 

skilled technical area expertise, including pilots for unmanned aerial vehicles. 

Joint training of Department of Defense personnel in the 

Code of Conduct 

The experience of the men and women of the armed forces in the 

recent conflict in Iraq and the realities of the global war on terrorism increasingly underscore the danger of U.S. service members 

being held as prisoners of war, as detainees by hostile governments, or as hostages. 

The committee is aware that the military services train their personnel in the Code of Conduct for Members of the United States 

Armed Forces and that through this training the services strive to 

prepare every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine for the possibility 

of being taken prisoner by hostile forces. The committee also understands that Commander, Joint Forces Command, is responsible for 

setting training standards for military personnel who may confront 

captivity. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by March 1, 2004 on the training standards required for Department of Defense personnel who are assigned duties in their 

areas of operational responsibility and how the training to meet 

those standards is provided by the military services and the Joint 

Forces Command. The committee requests that the report also include information about the percentage of forces currently meeting 

the training standards and a discussion of how the Department of 

Defense plans to enhance the ability of U.S. service members to fulfill their duties under the Code of Conduct. 

Panel to review sexual misconduct allegations at the United 

States Air Force Academy 

Section 501 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, established a panel of civilian experts to review 

sexual misconduct allegations at the United States Air Force Academy. The panel is required to study the policies, management and 

organizational practices, and cultural elements of the United States 

Air Force Academy that were conducive to allowing sexual misconduct (including sexual assaults and rape) at the United States 

Air Force Academy. The panel is required to submit a report on the 

322

study to the Secretary of Defense and to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

The committee encourages the panel to include in its report an 

assessment of responsibility and accountability for the policies, 

management and organizational practices, and cultural elements of 

the Air Force Academy that were conducive to allowing sexual misconduct at the Academy. 

Pre-enlistment screening of applicants for military service 

The committee is aware that the services have experimented 

with different screening programs to predict potential success of 

candidates for enlistment. Because historical data show that about 

one-third of enlistees for military service fail to complete their initial term of service, the committee is interested in ensuring that 

successful pre-screening programs are shared with all the services 

and are used to reduce first-term attrition wherever feasible. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report by January 31, 2004, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives on the screening programs that 

have been tested by the military services. The report should include an evaluation of whether each program test provided meaningful information about recruits’ propensity to complete their basic 

training and initial terms of enlistment. 

Report on implementation of recommendations of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence 

The Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence has submitted its 

final report to the Secretary of Defense. In its three annual reports, 

the Task Force made nearly 200 recommendations to improve prevention of and response to domestic violence in the military. The 

Department of Defense has agreed with the majority of the Task 

Force’s recommendations included in two interim reports. The Secretary of Defense is required to submit to the committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives an evaluation of the final report within 90 days of receipt. The committee 

looks forward to receiving this evaluation. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to implement 

appropriate recommendations of the Task Force as soon as practicable. The Secretary of Defense is directed to submit a report to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on the implementation of the Task Force recommendations. This report should be submitted no later than one 

year after the Secretary submits the Department of Defense evaluation on the final report of the Task Force. The report shall include a description of the recommendations that were implemented 

and a description of the recommendations that were not implemented, including a statement of the reason for not implementing 

the recommendation. 

(323)

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL 

BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2004 (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

across the board military pay raise of 3.7 percent, consistent with 

the standard set forth in section 602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2000 (Public Law 106–65), which requires that 

pay increases through fiscal year 2006 for all members equate to 

the Employment Cost Index plus 0.5 percent. The provision would 

authorize an additional targeted pay raise for certain experienced 

mid-career personnel that would have the effect of raising the average pay raise to 4.15 percent. 

Revised annual pay adjustment process (sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, to require an annual adjustment of basic pay for members of the uniformed services that 

would provide all eligible members with an increase in the monthly 

basic pay that is the equivalent percentage (rounded to the nearest 

one-tenth of one percent) of the annual increase in the Employment 

Cost Index (ECI). The provision would maintain the existing requirement in law that annual pay raises in fiscal years 2004, 2005, 

and 2006 equal the annual increase in ECI plus 0.5 percent. 

Computation of basic pay rate for commissioned officers 

with prior enlisted or warrant officer service (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 203 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize commissioned 

officers who have accrued at least 1,460 points for reserve service 

as a warrant officer, an enlisted member, or as a warrant officer 

and an enlisted member, to receive basic pay at the same rate as 

commissioned officers credited with over four years of active-duty 

service as an enlisted member. 

Pilot program of monthly subsistence allowance for nonscholarship Senior ROTC members committing to continue ROTC participation as sophomores (sec. 604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

non-scholarship cadets and midshipmen in the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) program, who have completed the first 

year of the senior ROTC program, to voluntarily contract to serve 

for the period required by the program and, commencing in the second year of training, receive a monthly subsistence allowance at 

the same level as scholarship cadets and midshipmen. 

324

Basic allowance for housing for each member married to another member without dependents when both spouses 

are on sea duty (sec. 605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow two 

members of the uniformed services in a pay grade below E–6 who 

are married to each other, have no other dependent, and are simultaneously assigned to sea duty to each receive a basic allowance for 

housing. 

Increased rate of family separation allowance (sec. 606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

family separation allowance under section 427 of title 37, United 

States Code, from $100 per month to $250 per month. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, until 

December 31, 2004, the authority to pay the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation 

bonus, the special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain 

high priority units in the Selected Reserve, the Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment 

bonus. 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for certain health care professionals (sec. 612)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 

one year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus, the accession bonus for registered nurses, incentive special 

pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health 

professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the accession 

bonus for dental officers, and to repay education loans for certain 

Selected Reserve health professionals. 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 

nuclear officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, until 

December 31, 2004, the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending their period of active service, the 

nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

One-year extension of other bonus and special pay authorities (sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, until 

December 31, 2004, the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for active members, the retention bonus for members 

with critical military skills, and the accession bonus for new officers in critical military skills. 

325

Special pay for reserve officers holding positions of unusual 

responsibility and of critical nature (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make reserve 

component officers eligible for special pay under section 306 of title 

37, United States Code. 

Assignment incentive pay for service in Korea (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require payment of assignment incentive pay in the amount of $100 per month 

to all military members stationed in the Republic of South Korea. 

The committee continues to be concerned about substandard living 

and working conditions in Korea and recognizes a need for additional incentives for military members ordered to duty in Korea. 

The committee notes the Army’s failure to use the existing authority for assignment incentive pay to respond to congressional expectations expressed in the Senate report accompanying S. 2514 (S. 

Rept. 107–151) and the recommendations by the Commander, 

United States Forces Korea, for improvements in the compensation 

for soldiers stationed in Korea. 

Increased maximum amount of reenlistment bonus for active members (sec. 617) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

increase in the reenlistment bonus. The bonus payable under this 

provision would not exceed $70,000. 

Payment of Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus to members of Selected Reserve who are mobilized (sec. 618) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

members entitled to a bonus under section 308b of title 37, United 

States Code, who are called or ordered to active duty, may be paid 

any amount of such bonus that is payable during the period of active duty without regard to the fact that the member is serving on 

active duty pursuant to such call or order to active duty. 

Increased rate of hostile fire and imminent danger special 

pay (sec. 619) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

rate of special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger under section 310 of title 37, United States Code, from $150 

per month to $225 per month. 

Availability of hostile fire and imminent danger special pay 

for reserve component members on inactive duty (sec. 

620) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

payment of hostile fire and imminent danger pay under section 310 

of title 37, United States Code, to reserve component members performing inactive-duty training under regulations prescribed by the 

Secretary of Defense. The provision would be effective as of September 11, 2001. 

326

Expansion of overseas tour extension incentive program to 

officers (sec. 621)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend benefit eligibility under section 314 of title 37, United States Code, and 

section 705 of title 10, United States Code, to all service members, 

including officers, who extend duty at designated overseas locations. 

Eligibility of warrant officers for accession bonus for new 

officers in critical skills (sec. 622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 324 of title 37, United States Code, to allow members appointed in the grade of warrant officer (W1) to receive the accession 

bonus for new officers in critical skills. 

Incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage (sec. 623) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

service secretaries to offer a lump sum bonus of up to $4000 to eligible enlisted members, in pay grade E–6 with less than 10 years 

of service or pay grade E–5 and below, regardless of years of service, who successfully convert from ratings or occupational specialties designated by the secretary concerned as adequately manned 

or overmanned to one in which there is a designated shortage of 

trained and qualified personnel. Members would have to agree to 

incur a minimum obligated service of four years in the new specialty to be eligible to receive this bonus. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Shipment of privately owned motor vehicle within continental United States (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow service 

members to contract personally for the transportation of a motor 

vehicle in permanent change of station moves within the continental United States instead of relying exclusively on the government to arrange such transport. The amount of the allowance for 

such transportation would not be more than the amount that would 

have been paid if the member or a dependent had driven the vehicle between duty stations. 

Payment or reimbursement of student baggage storage costs 

for dependent children of members stationed overseas 

(sec. 632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 430 of title 37, United States Code, to allow military dependents who are students to store baggage one time per fiscal year at 

government expense at or in the vicinity of their school during 

their annual trip between school and their sponsors’ duty station 

or during a different period in the same fiscal year. 

327

Contracts for full replacement value for loss or damage to 

personal property transported at Government expense 

(sec. 633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to require by contract that household goods 

carriers pay the full replacement value for loss or damage to the 

property of members of the armed forces moved under such a contract. Additionally, in the event a carrier does not settle a claim for 

loss or damage within a reasonable period of time, this provision 

would authorize deduction of an amount equal to the full replacement value from the amount owed by the United States to the carrier under the contract, and remission of the amount so deducted 

to the claimant. 

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits 

Special rule for computation of retired pay base for commanders of combatant commands (sec. 641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

rate of retired pay for combatant commanders to correspond with 

that of the chiefs of service. 

Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for surviving spouses of Reserves not eligible for retirement who die from a cause 

incurred or aggravated while on inactive-duty training 

(sec. 642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan to surviving spouses of reservists not eligible for retirement who die from an injury or illness incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during inactive-duty training. This provision would be effective as of September 10, 2001. 

Increase in death gratuity payable with respect to deceased 

members of the Armed Forces (sec. 643) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

death gratuity from $6000 to $12,000, effective as of September 11, 

2001. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Retention of accumulated leave (sec. 651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to permit eligible military members to retain up to 120 

days of accumulated leave under prescribed conditions. Leave in 

excess of 60 days accumulated would be lost unless it is used by 

the member before the end of the third fiscal year following the end 

of the qualifying service. 

Other Programs 

Selective reenlistment bonuses 

The budget request included over $2.4 billion in funding for special and incentive pays, including increases for selective reenlistVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
328

ment bonuses. The committee is concerned about such increases at 

a time when rates of retention are robust and benefits of service 

increasing overall. The committee believes that service retention 

goals can be achieved with less reliance on the selective reenlistment bonus. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$46.0 million in fiscal year 2004 divided as follows: Army: $14.5 million; 

Navy: $14.5 million; 

Marine Corps: $2.5 million; 

Air Force: $14.5 million. 

(329)

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE 

Medical and dental screening for members of Selected Reserve units alerted for mobilization (sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to provide medical and dental screening and 

care for members of the Selected Reserve who are assigned to a 

unit that has been alerted or notified that members of the unit will 

be mobilized for active duty in support of an operational mission 

or contingency operation during a national emergency or time of 

war. The committee is aware that under current law there is often 

inadequate time to ensure necessary medical and dental evaluation 

and care can be provided until members are actually on active 

duty. 

TRICARE beneficiary counseling and assistance coordinators for reserve component beneficiaries (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to establish TRICARE beneficiary counseling 

and assistance coordinators for reserve and National Guard service 

members and their families. 

The Department of Defense relies heavily on the million plus 

men and women of the reserve and National Guard to expand the 

capabilities of our active duty forces. Recent world events have required greater reliance on our Guard and reserve forces. A recent 

General Accounting Office study determined that nearly 80 percent 

of reservists have health care coverage when not on active duty, 

but transitioning from private sector plans to TRICARE, and back, 

is often disruptive and confusing. Further, reserve and National 

Guard members have less experience with, and knowledge of, the 

TRICARE program than active duty personnel. Reserve and Guard 

beneficiaries need help working through the complex TRICARE 

system. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 directed the Department of Defense to establish TRICARE beneficiary counseling and assistance coordinators that have proven to 

be extremely beneficial to service members, retirees, and family 

members. Coordinators trained in the unique challenges of moving 

into and out of the TRICARE system and specific reserve and National Guard benefit issues would be extremely helpful to reserve 

members and their families. The committee believes that a parallel 

system of beneficiary counseling and assistance coordinators, exclusively for reserve and Guard members and their families, with comprehensive knowledge of reserve issues could greatly improve access to health care for these service members and their families. 

330

Extension of authority to enter into personal services contracts for health care services to be performed at locations outside medical treatment facilities (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 

five years the authority of the Secretary of Defense to enter into 

personal services contracts to carry out health care responsibilities, 

such as the provision of medical examinations at Military Entrance 

Processing Stations, at locations outside medical treatment facilities. This provision would allow the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command to continue to hire Fee-Basis practitioners to 

meet surge requirements. 

Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health 

Care Fund valuations and contributions (sec. 704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish actuarially appropriate cost contributions to the Department of Defense Medicare eligible retiree 

health care fund for each or any of the uniformed services participating separately from the other participating uniformed services 

if the Secretary determines that a more accurate and appropriate 

actuarial valuation would be achieved by doing so. 

Surveys on continued viability of TRICARE standard (sec. 

705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to survey and determine health care provider 

acceptance of the TRICARE Standard benefit by market area, and 

to designate a senior official to take the actions necessary to 

achieve and maintain adequate levels of provider participation in 

the TRICARE Standard program. The provision would direct the 

Comptroller General to review the processes, procedures, analyses, 

and actions taken by the Department of Defense to ensure ready 

access to the TRICARE Standard program. The committee is aware 

of increasing concerns from military health care system beneficiaries about access to the TRICARE Standard benefit. Lack of information about benefits and reimbursement rates are causing confusion for both beneficiaries and providers. Further, the committee 

is concerned that there is no responsible party within the Department of Defense charged with ensuring that there are health care 

providers willing to accept TRICARE Standard beneficiaries. If the 

Department continues to offer a ‘‘triple option’’ health care plan, 

three viable options must be available. 

Elimination of limitation on covered beneficiaries eligible to 

receive health care services from former public health 

service treatment facilities (sec. 706) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the 

current legislative restriction on ‘‘designated providers’’ enrolling 

otherwise eligible beneficiaries who have other health insurance in 

U.S. Family Health Plans. Other TRICARE health plan options administered through managed care support contracts do not have 

the same restrictions. The committee notes that it is important 

that equity exist through the TRICARE program. 

331

Modification of structure and duties of Department of Veterans Affairs—Department of Defense Health Executive 

Committee (sec. 707) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8111(c) of Title 38, United States Code, which provides for establishment of a Department of Defense—Veteran’s Administration 

Health Executive Committee. The provision would: (1) expand the 

scope of the committee to include review of health and other benefit 

issues; (2) eliminate the requirement that the chair of the committee alternate annually between the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Under Secretary of Defense; (3) eliminate the 

requirement that the two departments share equally the costs of 

personnel and administrative support and services; and (4) eliminate the direction to the committee chairman to require the Inspector General of either or both departments to assist in the review 

of the implementation of activities designed to promote the coordination and sharing of health care resources between the departments. 

Items of Special Interest 

Children’s hospitals

The committee has been concerned with reports from health care 

providers and institutions of insufficient reimbursement rates by 

the TRICARE program. This issue is exacerbated when children’s 

hospitals provide care to TRICARE beneficiaries with high-cost, 

complex medical needs where TRICARE reimbursement rates do 

not cover the cost of care provided. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to review 

and consider alignment of the TRICARE payment schedule with 

Medicare’s ‘‘disproportionate share’’ payment adjustment to these 

hospitals. 

Chiropractic health care 

The committee is concerned about effective implementation of the 

chiropractic health care program in the Department of Defense 

(DOD). The committee understands that the Chiropractic Oversight 

Advisory Committee, which was created to provide advice to the 

Secretary of Defense on the development and implementation of 

this program, has not met in over a year. The committee encourages the DOD to continue to seek the advice and expertise of the 

Chiropractic Oversight Advisory Committee as implementation of 

the chiropractic health care program continues throughout the 

military health care system. 

The committee encourages the Department to accelerate the 

number of military treatment facilities that provide chiropractic 

care to active duty service members. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Department provide the chiropractic benefit at no 

fewer than 45 sites by the end of fiscal year 2004. The Department 

should make information readily available to members of the military departments concerning access to chiropractic services. 

Further, every effort should be made by the Department to recognize chiropractors as the health care professionals that they are. 

The committee recommends that chiropractors, given their extenVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00351 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
332

sive medical training, should report to a physician rather than a 

physician’s assistant or other specialty practitioner. 

Force health protection 

Experience with illnesses among veterans of the 1991 Persian 

Gulf War highlighted deficiencies in the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) force health protection capabilities. Thousands of military 

personnel returned from serving their country in the Persian Gulf 

and reported a variety of symptoms for which no cause has been 

determined. Many of their symptoms are similar to those of patients in the general population suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivity. Although 

environmental exposures cannot be ruled out as a cause, many believe that deployment stress and its affect on the central nervous 

system is a likely factor in triggering or intensifying at least some 

of the Gulf War illnesses. 

The committee is pleased with changes the Department has 

made in force health protection based on lessons learned from the 

first Gulf War. These include an assessment of the medical condition of members of the armed forces prior to deployment, better 

records of health care services and events that may affect the 

health of deployed service members, and procedures for follow-up 

medical care based on individual health assessments and review of 

deployment health records. 

The committee encourages the DOD to continue to support programs that lead to early identification of military personnel who 

may be suffering from undiagnosed illnesses and that quickly provide appropriate and supportive intervention. The committee urges 

the Department to continue on-going research into post-deployment 

illnesses and to support promising research into pharmaceutical 

remedies that may help prevent or address this spectrum of illnesses. 

Population based medical research 

The committee recognizes the need that has existed over the past 

decade for a combined Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA) patient population study. Much progress has 

been made in data sharing and joint planning, but a full population 

research capability does not yet exist. The committee urges the 

DOD to collaborate with the VA to demonstrate a joint DOD–VA 

population health research capability. 

(333)

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Temporary emergency procurement authority to facilitate 

the defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack (sec. 

801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by two 

years temporary emergency procurement authority to assist the 

Department of Defense in facilitating the defense against terrorist 

biological or chemical attack. This provision would also expand the 

scope of this authority to include recovery from terrorism and the 

defense against nuclear or radiological attack. 

Special temporary contract close-out authority (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to settle the financial accounts for contracts executed prior to September 30, 1996, that have unreconciled balances 

of less than $100,000. This section would give the Secretary of Defense three fiscal years to execute this authority. 

Settlement of contracts with unreconciled balances often is necessary where a contractor has been overpaid, but neither the contractor nor the Government has any evidence of under or overpayment aside from the fact that the accounts do not reconcile. In 

many circumstances, the time and effort required to determine the 

cause of the out-of-balance condition may be disproportionate to the 

amount of the discrepancy. 

This provision would allow DOD to terminate further reconciliation efforts or collection efforts if, after analysis, the cost of the 

effort is disproportionate to the amount of the discrepancy. 

Defense acquisition program management for use of radio 

frequency spectrum (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision to require the Secretary 

of Defense to revise the acquisition policies relating to the management and use of the radio frequency spectrum and ensure that 

planning for spectrum usage is conducted as early as practicable in 

a program’s development. In order to prevent the significant costs 

associated with redesign and delays due to insufficient spectrum 

planning, acquisition programs would be required to evaluate radio 

frequency usage prior to moving forward in the acquisition process. 

At the request of the committee, the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) reviewed the Department of Defense’s (DOD) spectrum management process. The GAO found that during the early phases of 

acquisition, DOD program managers often failed to obtain, consider, or act on concerns related to the availability of adequate 

334

spectrum to support planned weapon systems. According to GAO, 

a majority of program managers try to address this issue at the 

later stages of a program, after key system development decisions 

have been made. As a result, GAO found that some programs experienced significant delays, reduced operational capabilities, or the 

need for expensive redesign. GAO also found that the DOD policy 

directive (DOD Directive 4650.1) relating to the management and 

use of the radio frequency spectrum has not been updated since 

1987, despite significant changes to the Department’s acquisition 

process and regulations. 

National Security Agency modernization program (sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish formal acquisition management oversight by the Secretary of Defense 

over the National Security Agency’s acquisition process. As the National Security Agency (NSA) began to fully appreciate the rapidly 

changing information and telecommunications environment within 

which it must effectively operate, the need to fundamentally modernize and transform the collection, collection management, and 

processing capabilities of NSA became apparent. While the requirement has been clear, progress toward achieving this fundamental 

reorganization has been slow. 

In its first 50 years as one of the most important, productive elements of the United States intelligence community, NSA found 

that an internal, decentralized development and acquisition process 

served it well, both because of security considerations and because 

few commercial businesses had any expertise or enduring interest 

in the area of signals intelligence until recent years. As the manner 

in which the world communicates and shares information has 

changed over the past decade, however, the advantage of buying 

many new capabilities from commercial experts in telecommunications and information management and quickly upgrading as 

technology evolves, compared to making new capabilities internally, has become obvious. 

Over the past three years, the committee has expressed increasing concern about the acquisition processes NSA is using to guide 

its massive modernization challenge. Concerned that significant 

funding was being consumed by a myriad of programs and projects 

that did not appear to be clearly linked to an overall modernization 

and acquisition strategy, the committee has regularly urged NSA 

to adopt the more disciplined acquisition management processes required within the Department of Defense for major programs. By 

any measure, NSA modernization efforts such as Groundbreaker 

and Trailblazer are major programs. 

Concurrently, the committee has regularly urged the Secretary of 

Defense to apply more acquisition oversight to NSA. Troubled that 

insufficient progress was being made in enforcing discipline on the 

acquisition process, the Congress informed the Secretary of Defense 

and the Director, NSA, in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the 

Committee of Conference accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 that NSA’s modernization effort would be designated a major defense acquisition program 

(MDAP) with milestone decision authority residing with the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

335

(USD (AT&L)) unless significant progress was made in several specific areas by December 1, 2002. 

In a report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees on February 28, 2003, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD (C3I)) 

and the Deputy Director for Central Intelligence for Community 

Management (DDCI (CM)) stated, ‘‘Although NSA has made 

progress in establishing structures and defining processes to enable 

sound acquisition practices, significant refinement and practice are 

needed before results become mature and repeatable.’’ In nine categories requiring improvement, five were rated as ineffective and 

four were rated as immature and inconsistent in application and 

effectiveness. 

Given the importance of NSA’s mission to the overall national security of the United States, the enormity of the modernization effort NSA faces, and the resources being expended, disciplined management practices must be rapidly enacted and matured. However, 

three years into the effort to modernize business practices and 

transform NSA, insufficient progress has been made. 

The committee is convinced that NSA’s senior acquisition executive (SAE) has the experience and ability to substantially improve 

NSA’s business practices. He must be empowered to do that job. 

Currently, major NSA program managers do not report directly to 

the SAE, thus undermining his ability to exercise authority and enforce discipline over the entire acquisition enterprise. The program 

managers are subordinate to their operational lines of authority, 

who are responsible for developing and prioritizing the operational 

requirements. This is contrary to standard acquisition practices in 

the Department of Defense (DOD). This situation creates a conflict 

of interest on funding management between operations and acquisition, prevents the SAE from controlling the necessary resources 

to execute his acquisition authority, and results in uncoordinated 

and potentially unstable program baselines. 

Establishment of USD (AT&L) milestone decision authority over 

NSA’s modernization program will require NSA to establish direct 

lines of acquisition authority and acquisition funding control from 

the SAE to the program managers. Further, it will reinforce the requirement to conform to standard DOD acquisition practices. The 

committee recommends that this milestone decision authority be 

assigned to the USD (AT&L) for a minimum of two years, and may 

not be reassigned to the Director, NSA, before October 1, 2006. At 

the discretion of the USD (AT&L), in consultation with the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the DDCI (CM), milestone 

decision authority may only be reassigned to the Director, NSA 

when, in the judgment of the USD (AT&L), NSA has implemented 

acquisition structures and management practices that are sufficiently mature to ensure a sound, efficient acquisition enterprise. 

The USD (AT&L) shall provide prior notification to the congressional defense and intelligence committees, with full justification, 

before exercising this discretionary authority. 

336

Quality control in procurement of aviation critical safety 

items and related services (sec. 805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

establishment of a policy for quality control in the procurement of 

critical aircraft spare parts. Aviation critical safety items are those 

parts for which the risk of failure is unacceptable because of the 

potential catastrophic results. 

Within the Department of the Navy, approximately two percent 

of aviation spare and repair parts are aviation critical safety items. 

Because of the extreme consequences of failure, rigorous evaluations are conducted on both the item design and potential suppliers’ manufacturing processes to ensure safe and reliable flight 

safety parts can be repeatedly produced. Aviation critical safety 

items are typically evaluated during the development of a system 

to determine the specific circumstances that would cause a failure 

and the effects of such a failure on safety and performance. These 

evaluations help establish design and manufacturing requirements 

and life and operational limits. The process of validating the design 

and manufacturing details of aviation critical safety items, and 

subsequently confirming the manufacturing capability and controls 

of potential sources, is essential to ensure operational safety and 

effectiveness. The process is comparable to requirements established by the Federal Aviation Administration prior to issuing production certification or parts manufacturer approval for civil aircraft parts. 

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) logistics management practices centralize management and acquisition of spare and repair 

parts. As a result, aviation critical safety items are often purchased 

by a DOD organization other than the organization that understands the item’s design intent, criticality, limitations, and manufacturing characteristics. DOD logistics management practices result in the procurement of flight safety critical aircraft parts from 

other than qualified sources, and without the knowledge or approval of the cognizant design control activity. The DOD Inspector 

General has reported that the Department lacks adequate staff to 

perform the audits and certifications required to properly maintain 

Qualified Manufacturer’s Lists and Qualified Products Lists. As a 

result, almost half of the vendor manufacturing lines needing certification have not been properly audited, and some of the certifications were as much as 8 years overdue. The Inspector General 

also reported that inadequate staffing of the Department’s quality 

control programs has resulted in as many as 1.4 million potentially 

nonconforming items in the inventory for the Navy alone. 

The provision recommended by the committee would require the 

Department to ensure that parts essential for flight safety are procured only from sources approved by the design activity and in accordance with technical requirements established by the design activity. 

337

Subtitle B—Procurement of Services 

Expansion and extension of incentive for use of performance-based contracts in procurements of services (sec. 

811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the incentive for the Department of Defense to adopt performance-based 

contracting techniques. The provision would also increase (to $10.0 

million) the threshold for those performance-based contracts for 

services that can be treated as contracts for a commercial item 

under this authority. 

Public-private competitions for the performance of Department of Defense functions (sec. 812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

pilot program to allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to base 

its competitive sourcing decisions for information technology services on best value criteria. The ability for agencies to base contract 

awards on a best value cost/technical tradeoff was a recommendation of the Commercial Activities Panel established by section 832 

of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The pilot program would allow DOD to test best 

value approaches for public-private competitions that consider 

quality, as well as cost, as a selection factor. It would also allow 

DOD to take advantage of the newly revised Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular A–76 when it is finalized, which, for 

example, would allow for best value cost-technical tradeoff source 

selections for information technology functions. 

The committee understands the Department will comply with the 

requirements of section 2305(a)(2) and (3) of title 10 to the maximum extent practicable in any public-private competition conducted pursuant to this pilot program. These provisions require the 

Department to include in a solicitation basic information about the 

significant factors and subfactors to be considered in evaluating 

proposals and the relative weights that will be assigned to these 

factors and subfactors. In addition, the committee expects the Department to take reasonable steps to ensure that both public sector 

and private sector competitors are included in the competitive 

range and are provided reasonable opportunities to revise their 

bids to offer cost-technical trade-offs in the ‘‘final round’’ of a public-private competition under the pilot program. These reasonable 

efforts, however, should not be used to excuse late submissions of 

proposals. 

The provision would also ensure that schedules for the completion of public-private competitions within DOD are based on DOD 

analysis of the availability of sufficient personnel, training, and 

technical resources to conduct such competitions. The Comptroller 

General in his comments on proposed revisions to OMB Circular 

A–76 recommended that the administration set more realistic 

timelines for the length of time it takes to conduct an A–76 cost 

comparison and ensure that agencies provided sufficient resources 

to comply with new A–76 requirements. This provision would ensure that DOD can provide this assurance. The committee expects 

that, if resources are insufficient to adequately conduct A–76 cost 

338

comparisons, DOD will obtain these resources and use the flexible 

acquisition workforce authority provided elsewhere in this bill to 

realign the acquisition workforce. 

Authority to enter into personal services contracts (sec. 813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize elements of the Department of Defense within the Intelligence Community and the U.S. Special Operations Command to enter into 

contracts for personal services if an appropriate official determines 

in writing that the services to be procured are unique and that it 

would not be practicable to obtain such services by other means. 

The committee recognizes the unique circumstances faced by the 

intelligence community and the Special Operations Command, and 

the difficulty these DOD elements may occasionally have in obtaining needed support through more conventional contracting mechanisms. 

Subtitle C—Major Defense Acquisition Programs 

Certain weapons-related prototype projects (sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 

three years the other transaction prototype authority under section 

845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. 

This provision would also include a clarification that other transaction prototype authority can be used for prototype projects related to fielded systems. This would allow non-traditional contractors greater opportunities to participate in modernizing fielded systems with new technologies that improve capability and reduce operating and support costs. 

Finally, this provision would enable the Department of Defense 

to capitalize on successful prototype projects by bringing the prototypes into production under standard procurement contracts. The 

provision would establish a three-year pilot program to ease the 

transition of nontraditional defense contractors from prototype 

transactions to standard procurement contracts. Under the pilot 

program, the Department would be authorized to enter into contracts of $50.0 million or less that would treat items or processes 

developed by nontraditional defense contractors under prototype 

transactions: (1) as commercial items subject to the streamlined 

contracting procedures established in Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and (2) as items or processes that are developed 

with mixed funds for the purpose of negotiating rights in technical 

data under section 2320 of title 10, United States Code. 

Applicability of Clinger-Cohen Act policies and requirements to equipment integral to a weapon or weapon system (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify responsibility within the Department of Defense for applying the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act (as codified in chapter 113 of 

title 40, United States Code) to equipment determined by the Secretary of Defense to be an integral part of a weapon or weapon system. This provision would provide the senior acquisition officials in 

the Department of Defense the flexibility to establish effective inVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
339

formation technology management policies and to alter these policies as necessary to take advantage of rapidly changing information 

technologies in weapons and weapon systems. 

Under this provision, Clinger-Cohen Act requirements for capital 

planning, investment control, and performance and results-based 

management processes and requirements would continue to apply 

to weapons and weapon systems. However, these requirements 

would be administered by a board of senior acquisition officials instead of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Department of 

Defense. The Board would be chaired by the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and would include the three service acquisition executives and the CIO. 

The provision would recognize that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the service acquisition executives with overall responsibility for the acquisition of 

weapons and weapon systems, are best able to develop and implement information technology policies for such weapons and weapon 

systems. The CIO would be included on the Board to ensure that 

the policies implemented by the Board are consistent with the Department’s overall approach to information technology issues. In 

addition to implementing responsibilities under the Clinger-Cohen 

Act, the Board would be responsible for ensuring effective spectrum 

availability, interoperability, information security, evolutionary and 

spiral development, and implementation of software development 

policies and practices for information technology integral to weapon 

systems. 

The General Accounting Office recently informed the committee 

that despite having a long-standing spectrum certification process, 

DOD has failed to follow this process, leading to problems in weapon systems development and operations. The committee expects the 

Board established by this provision to be instrumental in updating 

and revamping the guidance and process for spectrum 

supportability in light of recent changes to relevant DOD acquisition directives. In addition, the Board should ensure that spectrum 

supportability is adequately considered during weapon systems development. 

Applicability of requirement for reports on maturity of technology at initiation of major defense acquisition programs (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical change to a reporting requirement, to conform to changes 

made in the Department of Defense’s acquisition regulations and 

instructions. 

Subtitle D—Domestic Source Requirements 

Exceptions to Berry Amendment for contingency operations 

and other urgent situations (sec. 831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the requirements of section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, to facilitate timely purchases of products needed to support contingency 

operations and for other circumstances of unusual and compelling 

340

urgency when the use of procedures other than competitive procedures have been approved. 

Inapplicability of Berry Amendment to procurements of 

waste and byproducts of cotton and wool fiber for use 

in the production of propellants and explosives (sec. 

832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate domestic source restrictions for gun cotton lintners used in the production of propellants and explosives. 

Waiver authority for domestic source or content requirements (sec. 833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense the authority to waive the application of statutory domestic source requirements and domestic content requirements, provided that: (1) the application of the requirements would 

impede the reciprocal procurement of defense items under a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and another 

country; and (2) the other country does not discriminate against 

items produced in the United States to a greater degree than the 

United States discriminates against items produced in that country. This proposed standard is consistent with the standard previously adopted by the committee for products covered by the domestic content restrictions in section 2534 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Buy American exception for ball bearings and roller bearings used in foreign products (sec. 834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2534(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, which places limitations on the procurement of ball bearings and roller bearings other 

than those produced in the national technology and industrial base, 

by creating an exemption for ball bearings and roller bearings used 

in an end product or component of non-domestic origin. 

For most non-domestic end products or components, the only acceptable source for ball bearings and roller bearings, and replacement ball bearings and roller bearings is the non-domestic original 

equipment manufacturer or its non-domestic supplier. When this 

occurs, DOD must process waivers to allow procurement of the necessary ball bearings and roller bearings. This provision would relieve DOD of this requirement. At the same time, this provision 

would be consistent with the purpose of the domestic source restriction in that it does not seek to replace the domestic ball bearings 

and roller bearings that are normally found in domestic end products or components with non-domestic ball bearings and roller 

bearings. 

Subtitle E—Defense Acquisition and Support Workforce

Flexibility for management of the defense acquisition and 

support workforce (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) to give 

341

the Secretary of Defense greater flexibility in managing the acquisition and support workforce. Specifically, the provision would give 

the Secretary the flexibility to establish different experience, educational, and tenure requirements for acquisition positions; require 

the establishment of a single acquisition corps; and streamline obsolete and outdated provisions of DAWIA. 

Limitation and reinvestment authority relating to reduction 

of the defense acquisition and support workforce (sec. 

842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

moratorium on further cuts in the acquisition workforce for three 

years. The Secretary of Defense would be given the flexibility 

under this provision to realign positions in the acquisition workforce to reinvest in higher priority acquisition positions. 

More than a decade of downsizing has left the Department of Defense (DOD) with a smaller workforce that is rapidly approaching 

retirement. Workload has increased with the acquisition workforce 

today managing contracts valued over $1.7 million per person in 

total acquisition dollars, a 40 percent increase from 1998. The Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) 

testified before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management 

Support that: ‘‘* * * we believe that our workforce is where it 

should be today to manage our workload.’’ Additional workforce reductions would increase the risk identified in a February 2000 report by the DOD Inspector General 

(DOD Acquisition Workforce Reductions: Trends and Impacts), 

which noted the following impacts from acquisition workforce reductions: (1) increased backlog in closing out contracts; (2) increased program costs due to contracted vice in-house technical 

support; (3) insufficient personnel to fill-in for employees on deployment; (4) insufficient staff to manage requirements; (5) reduced 

scrutiny and timeliness in reviewing acquisition actions; (6) difficulty in retaining personnel; (7) skill imbalances; and (8) lost opportunities to develop cost saving initiatives. In addition, the DOD 

Inspector General, in the second Semiannual Report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 2002, states that reductions in personnel and 

funds are adversely affecting the Department’s quality assurance 

programs. 

The Department is implementing a human resource strategic 

planning effort to address acquisition workforce issues. The committee notes that no further cuts should be made until the Department comprehensively addresses critical skills shortfalls in the 

workforce. 

Clarification and revision of authority for demonstration 

project relating to certain acquisition personnel management policies and procedures (sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would strengthen 

the acquisition workforce pilot program established in section 4308 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. In 

particular, the provision would: (1) relax the existing requirement 

that the entire workforce of a participating organization consist of 

members of the acquisition workforce and supporting personnel asVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
342

signed to work directly with the acquisition workforce; (2) increase 

the total number of civilian personnel permitted to participate in 

the pilot program; and (3) ensure that an organization that is properly designated to participate in the pilot program would continue 

to do so, notwithstanding any reorganization, restructuring, realignment, consolidation, or other organizational change. 

Subtitle F—Federal Support for Procurement of Anti-Terrorism Technologies and Services by State and Local Governments 

Federal support for procurement of anti-terrorism technologies and services by state and local governments 

(secs. 851, 852, 853) 

The committee recommends a series of provisions that would require the establishment of a program where state and local governments could buy anti-terrorism technology solutions from Federal 

Government contracts. The executive branch would be authorized 

to apply to these contracts discretionary indemnification authority 

(50 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.; Public Law 85–804) on a case-by-case 

basis, if it is determined necessary. The committee expects that the 

litigation risk for many of these technologies would be managed 

under authorities of subtitle G of the Homeland Security Act of 

2002 (Public Law 107–296). Contractors could be indemnified 

under procedures determined by the President only when necessary 

to ensure that critical technologies developed for the Department of 

Defense and other agencies could be rapidly purchased by state 

and local governments. 

Subtitle G—General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations, and Other Matters 

Limited acquisition authority for commander of United 

States Joint Forces Command (sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give the Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), the authority to acquire systems with research, development, test and evaluation expenditure levels up to $10.0 million or procurement expenditure 

levels up to $50.0 million for the purpose of facilitating joint operations or enhancing interoperability. The successful use of the Special Operations Command acquisition authority below the acquisition category (ACAT) 1 level illustrates the transformation benefits 

of having a joint buyer, close to the user, maintain a streamlined 

acquisition process to deliver low dollar threshold systems rapidly 

to the warfighter. 

The committee is concerned that urgent joint warfighting requirements are not always conceived, developed, and fielded in the 

most expeditious manner. Such long-standing requirements include: a joint, comprehensive blue force tracking capability; a joint, 

interoperable air, sea, and ground combat identification system; 

and a joint simulations and modeling capability essential for evaluating joint warfighting concepts development. Recent military operations have further demonstrated the high risk of fratricide on the 

modern battlefield and re-emphasized the need for comprehensive, 

343

interoperable combat identification and blue force tracking architectures. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense, through 

the Commander, JFCOM, to use this limited acquisition authority 

to address such joint warfighting challenges. As the command responsible for joint experimentation and joint concepts development, 

JFCOM, through this authority, would have the ability to rapidly 

respond to the joint warfighting needs JFCOM identifies, as well 

as to satisfy the requirements of the regional combatant commanders for solutions that otherwise may not be provided by the 

individual services. 

Operational test and evaluation (sec. 862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify certain 

provisions regarding operational test and evaluation in the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. 

First, the provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to appoint a civilian, rather than a commissioned officer, as Director of 

the new Defense Test Resource Management Center (DTRMC). 

Second, the provision would clarify that the Director of Operational 

Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) would remain independent of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, as provided in section 139 of title 10, United States Code, and 

that for this reason the DOT&E budget is not subject to review by 

the DTRMC. Third, the provision would clarify that DOT&E access 

to records and data would include relevant operational records and 

data for systems that are deployed prior to the completion of the 

operational test and evaluation. Access to such records and data, 

however, would be provided only in a time and manner provided 

by the Secretary of Defense and in accordance with operational security and other relevant operational requirements. 

Multiyear task and delivery order contracts (sec. 863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2304a of title 10, United States Code, to limit to five years the 

period of time for which task and delivery order contracts may be 

awarded. The provision also includes a conforming change to repeal 

section 2306c(g) of title 10, United States Code. 

Repeal of requirement for contractor assurances regarding 

the completeness, accuracy, and contractual sufficiency 

of technical data provided by the contractor (sec. 864) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the 

requirement for contractors providing technical data to the government to furnish written assurances that the technical data is complete, accurate, and satisfies the requirements of the contract. 

The committee understands that the elimination of this requirement will only reduce paperwork and will not in any way diminish 

either the contractor’s obligation to provide technical data that 

meets contract requirements or the government’s ability to enforce 

this requirement. The committee expects that the Defense Contract 

Management Agency will continue to monitor contractor technical 

data programs in order to protect government data rights and to 

ensure the government receives timely and accurate information 

344

regarding contractor processes, practice, and controls for developing 

technical data. 

Reestablishment of authority for short-term leases of real or 

personal property across fiscal years (sec. 865) 

The committee recommends a provision that would restore the 

authority of the Department of Defense (DOD) to enter into 12–

month leases at any time during a fiscal year. Since 1997, DOD 

has not been permitted to enter leases for real and personal property that begin in one fiscal year and end in another. Consequently, 

all DOD leases have been written to expire on the last day of a fiscal year, subject to renewal on the first day of the subsequent fiscal 

year. By addressing this problem, the provision would reduce the 

administrative burden on lease administration and reduce the risk 

of Anti-deficiency Act violations. 

Items of Special Interest 

Applicability of the Trade Agreements Act to commercially 

available off-the-shelf items 

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994 (Public 

Law 103–155) and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D and 

E of Public Law 104–106) included significant reforms to make it 

easier for the government to acquire commercial items. 

FASA created a new system for the acquisition of commercial 

items and authorized the waiver of certain statutes identified as 

barriers to government utilization of the efficiencies of the commercial marketplace. Section 4203 of the Clinger-Cohen Act granted 

the Office of Federal Procurement Policy additional authority to 

waive statutes for items specifically defined as ‘‘commercial-off-theshelf items’’ (COTS), a subset of commercial items. The intent of 

this provision was to enable federal agencies to purchase COTS 

products that might not be available in the absence of such waivers. No statutes have been waived for COTS products under this 

authority. 

The committee has been made aware that certain government 

unique requirements under the Trade Agreements Act (Public Law 

96–39) have created additional burdens on information technology 

companies selling COTS products to the government. These requirements may have reduced the number of sources and products 

available to the Department of Defense (DOD) and may have driven up information technology costs. 

In the interest of further streamlining the procurement process, 

the committee requests that the DOD and the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy review whether the Trade Agreements Act 

should be waived under the authority provided in the ClingerCohen Act, and report to Congress by February 1, 2004, on the results of this review. 

Contracting for overseas logistics support 

U.S. forces deployed overseas for peacekeeping or combat missions require a wide range of logistics support. Such support includes the construction and maintenance of temporary housing and 

other facilities, engineering services, transportation, and equipment 

345

maintenance. The demand for logistics support has increased in recent years together with the pace of deployments. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has relied on active units, reserve units, and private contractors to provide support to deployed 

combat units. Contractors played a particularly important role in 

supporting U.S. forces in the Balkans, and contractors could play 

an even greater role in the future as DOD seeks to limit the number of military personnel engaged in functions that could be performed by civilians. 

To better understand the advantages and disadvantages of increasing reliance on contractor support, the committee directs the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to examine alternative approaches to providing logistics support to deployed forces and report to the committee by March 1, 2004, on the results of this analysis. The alternatives to be examined should include the use of active logistics units, reserve units, civilian employees, and contractors, as well as the potential use of contractors whose personnel are 

required to retain a reserve affiliation. The CBO analysis should 

consider both budgetary and non-budgetary factors. CBO shall coordinate its efforts with the ongoing review by the General Accounting Office that seeks to identify the kinds of logistics tasks 

that contractors now perform. 

Department of Defense anti-tamper program 

Critical U.S. technologies may be exposed to the threat of exploitation if they are developed with or sold to foreign governments or 

fall into enemy hands. Exploitation through reverse engineering or 

countermeasure development can result in unintended transfer of 

technological advances, which can degrade U.S. combat effectiveness. In 1999, the Department of Defense established the anti-tamper program to protect selected weapon systems that contain critical program information. The anti-tamper program is intended to 

delay or deter exploitation attempts if the system falls into enemy 

hands. 

The committee directs the General Accounting Office to review 

the Department’s anti-tamper program and determine: (1) the process and status of the Department’s anti-tamper program; (2) how 

the acquisition community implements the anti-tamper program; 

and (3) the challenges, if any, the acquisition community faces 

when implementing the anti-tamper program and the process for 

addressing these challenges. 

National Industrial Security Program 

The Defense Department’s National Industrial Security Program 

oversees government contractors that administer security programs 

to protect classified information in their possession. Through this 

program, over 11,000 contractor facilities have been deemed eligible to receive classified information, with an estimated 11 million 

classified documents in their possession. The program is also responsible for monitoring security agreements when there is foreign 

involvement at a contractor facility. As the defense industry becomes increasingly globalized, it is no longer uncommon for U.S. 

defense contractors to have partnerships and joint ventures with 

346

foreign companies or for foreign companies to acquire or establish 

facilities in the United States. 

The committee directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) to 

review the National Industrial Security Program and the Department of Defense’s oversight of contractors’ programs to protect sensitive information and technology. This review should include an 

assessment of the department’s process for: (1) approving industrial 

security programs for cleared facilities; and (2) monitoring compliance with industrial security requirements. 

The committee also directs the GAO to review the measures the 

department takes to protect sensitive information and technology 

when a contractor is foreign-owned or has foreign business relationships. This review should include an assessment of how the Defense Department determines which type of protective agreement is 

appropriate when foreign involvement exists at a contractor facility 

and the mechanisms used to assure compliance with such agreements. 

Evolutionary acquisition strategies 

In testimony to the committee over the last several years, Department of Defense witnesses stated that the Department is seeking to reduce weapon systems acquisition cycle time by using incremental acquisition strategies. The committee shares the Department’s view that better cost, schedule, and performance outcomes 

can be achieved by using a properly managed evolutionary or 

phased approach in developing weapon systems. At the request of 

this committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has developed 

a model for evolutionary acquisition that includes measures for success, which are defined for critical junctures of the product development process. These measures provide decision makers with the 

knowledge they need about technology, design, and production before they commit to additional time or money investments. 

The committee supports the Department’s efforts to build more 

flexibility into its acquisition process and the policies they have developed to do so. At the same time, the committee recognizes that 

ensuring a consistent and disciplined application of policies and 

regulations will be key to achieving the outcomes desired by the 

Department and the committee. Therefore, the committee directs 

the GAO to assess current acquisition policies and regulations and 

to determine whether: (1) the policies support knowledge-based, evolutionary acquisitions; (2) the regulations enforcing these policies 

provide the necessary controls to ensure the Department’s intent is 

followed; and (3) the policies are responsive to concerns expressed 

by the committee in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. 

Improvement of software acquisition processes 

Existing major defense acquisition programs are heavily reliant 

on computer software. In many cases, poor management of software development is the cause of substantial cost overruns and delayed schedules. Section 804 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003 requires the secretary of each military department and the head of each defense agency that manages a 

major defense acquisition program with a substantial software 

347

component to establish a program to improve its software acquisition processes. 

In a review requested by this committee, the General Accounting 

Office (GAO) recommended that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

institute software process improvement programs. To ensure that 

the DOD and the services are establishing processes that will result in better and more affordable software for major weapon systems, the committee directs the GAO to establish a set of knowledge-based metrics from best software development practices, to 

apply those metrics in evaluating the success of software development improvements on the Department’s major weapon system acquisitions, and to report its findings to the committee by March 1, 

2004. 

Performance contracts 

The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported to the committee 

in December 2002, on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) business 

transformation initiatives. This GAO report identified the Department’s use of performance contracts as a means of improving the 

oversight and operations of defense agencies that provide numerous 

products and services to the military services and other defense 

agencies. Performance contracts are formal agreements entered 

into by a defense agency which delineates improvement goals related to cost, productivity, quality, and responsiveness to customers. According to GAO, the Department’s intent is to strengthen 

performance management and outcomes through the use of performance contracts. The committee directs the GAO to assess the 

effectiveness of performance contracts as management tools, from 

the time of introduction in November 1997, to the present. In particular, GAO should: (1) identify the specific defense agencies that 

use performance contracts; (2) consider whether contract requirements include clearly defined performance objectives and metrics; 

(3) review any changes made over time and lessons learned; and 

(4) evaluate the potential for wider application of such contracts in 

the Department. The committee is also interested in the relationship between the Department’s efforts to implement performance 

contracts and its broader effort to develop Defense-wide performance goals, measures, and outcomes. 

(349)

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION 

AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Department Offices and Agencies 

Clarification of responsibility of military departments to 

support combatant commanders (sec. 901) 

The committee proposes a provision that would clarify the responsibility of the secretaries of the military departments to fulfill 

the current and future operational requirements of the combatant 

commands, subject to the authority, direction and control of the 

Secretary of Defense. Existing law requires the secretaries of the 

military departments to provide such support ‘‘to the maximum extent practicable.’’ Elimination of this phrase would clarify the responsibility of all elements of the Department of Defense to support 

the war fighting function of the combatant commanders. 

Redesignation of National Imagery and Mapping Agency as 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would change the 

name of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to the 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), and introduce, as a 

matter of law, the term ‘‘geospatial intelligence.’’ When NIMA was 

formed in 1997 it combined several components of national and 

military service-related imagery interpretation organizations with 

the Defense Mapping Agency. The name, ‘‘National Imagery and 

Mapping Agency,’’ was a natural outgrowth of this process. 

The traditional role of mapping has evolved into a much more sophisticated and highly technical discipline, including collection and 

analysis of sophisticated geodetic data and statistical data. This activity provides insight into not only where things are on the earth, 

but what that location means. This has given rise to the term 

‘‘geospatial information.’’

The introduction of the term ‘‘geospatial intelligence,’’ which encompasses the analysis and visual representation of characteristics 

of the earth and activity on its surface, will better describe and 

represent the unified activities of the NGA. 

Standards of conduct for members of the Defense Policy 

Board and the Defense Science Board (sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to promulgate standards of conduct for the 

members of the Defense Policy Board and the Defense Science 

Board. These standards are to be promulgated not later than 30 

days after the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004, and are to be reported to the Armed Services 

Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives immediately upon promulgation. 

350

Subtitle B—Space Activities 

Coordination of space science and technology activities of 

the Department of Defense (sec. 911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Under Secretary of the Air Force appropriate oversight of space 

science and technology (S&T) projects. The provision would require 

the Under Secretary, in consultation with the Director of Defense 

Research and Engineering, to develop a space S&T strategy, and 

allow the Department S&T entities to proceed with space S&T 

projects only with the concurrence of the Under Secretary of the 

Air Force. The provision would also require the Under Secretary to 

submit a report on the strategy to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 

March 15, 2004, and a review of the strategy and coordination by 

the Comptroller General. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense is justified 

in increasing its investment in space science and technology, but is 

concerned that these efforts are not adequately coordinated. The 

committee notes that, according to the Air Force, a half dozen processes are currently used to coordinate space related S&T projects. 

According to testimony by the Under Secretary of the Air Force to 

the Strategic Forces subcommittee, ‘‘We must improve our S&T 

planning to ensure we: (1) encourage an operational pull that conveys to the S&T community a clear vision of the capabilities we 

need for the future; (2) address the full spectrum of future needs 

in a balanced and well-thought out manner; and (3) determine 

ways to demonstrate and spin-off promising technologies to programs.’’ The committee notes that the Under Secretary of the Air 

Force is the official responsible for coordinating all Department of 

Defense space programs, and consequently has the proper perspective to ensure the effective coordination of S&T efforts that support 

future space system requirements. 

Space personnel cadre (sec. 912) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a human capital resources strategy 

for personnel of the Department of Defense with space expertise 

that would ensure that the space career fields for the military services are integrated to the maximum extent possible. The provision 

would also require the Secretary to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives 

on the strategy, an assessment of the progress in integrating the 

space career fields of the military services, and an assessment of 

the adequacy of the Air Force space career field. Finally, the provision would require a review and assessment by the General Accounting Office. 

The 2001 report of Commission to Assess U.S. National Security 

Space Management and Organization expressed concern about ‘‘a 

lack of focused career development in the space community’’ and 

contended that ‘‘[t]he Department of Defense is not yet on course 

to develop the space cadre the nation needs.’’ Consequently, Congress approved section 912 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) requiring the Air 

351

Force to establish a space career field that included development 

of space systems; concepts of operations and doctrine; and space operations. 

However, in a February 2003, review of the Department of Defense implementation of the Commission’s recommendations, the 

U.S. Comptroller General was critical of the military services’ lack 

of progress in establishing space cadre plans. The Comptroller General noted that the Department of Defense lacks a strategic approach to the task of building and maintaining a cadre of space 

professionals. While the Air Force, Army, and Navy are developing 

space cadre plans, the committee believes an integrated, strategic 

approach will improve coordination between the services, and 

thereby help provide a common expertise, eliminate redundancies 

or overlaps in training and education, and minimize any critical 

gaps that may exist in those areas. 

The committee is aware that the Air Force has developed a space 

career field plan pursuant to section 912 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107). 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide of 

copy of this plan to Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives no later than July 15, 2003. 

Policy regarding assured access to space for United States 

national security payloads (sec. 913) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish as 

the policy of the United States that the President undertake actions appropriate to ensure that United States has the capacity to 

launch national security payloads when such payloads are needed 

in space. These steps would include resources and policy guidance 

to sustain two launch vehicles or families of launch vehicles capable of delivering national security payloads to space and a robust 

space launch infrastructure. 

The committee continues to believe that assuring access to space 

for national security payloads is a vital national security interest, 

and that maintaining the necessary infrastructure and industrial 

base to do so must be a high priority of the Department of Defense. 

This view was strongly endorsed in testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces by the Under Secretary of the Air 

Force and the Commander of Strategic Command. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense 

sought, through the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) 

program, to sustain two launch providers for the Department. The 

EELV program led to the development of two new families of space 

launch vehicles, capable of launching a full range of national security payloads. Sustaining two vendors provides the Department 

with the benefits of competition and a hedge against significant 

technical problems in either of the EELV variants. The committee 

notes that the rationale for sustaining two vendors remains compelling. 

The committee is aware, however, that the commercial launch 

market, the health of which served as the economic basis for sustaining two launch vendors, has collapsed. The contraction of the 

commercial market impacts the Department’s ability to assure access to space for national security payloads. In light of this cirVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
352

cumstance, the committee believes that establishing a policy that 

supports assured access is a necessary first step to sustaining the 

required industrial base and launch infrastructure.

Pilot program to provide space surveillance network services to entities outside the United States government 

(sec. 914) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a three year pilot program to establish procedures for the Department of Defense to provide satellite tracking services to commercial entities, state and local governments, and foreign governments, and to be reimbursed for those 

services by commercial entities and foreign governments. Analysis 

of satellite data could be included in such transactions if the Secretary determined that to be in the national security interests of 

the United States. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense receives requests from non-federal entities for space surveillance information, including space track and object identification. This provision would provide authority to establish regular procedures to 

satisfy these requests and for commercial and foreign government 

entities to reimburse the Department of Defense for services, information, and analysis provided. 

Content of biennial global positioning system report (sec. 

915) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify an existing reporting requirement on the operational status and effectiveness of the Global Positioning System (GPS). 

The committee remains convinced of the significance of GPS to 

the U.S. military and U.S. economy and of ensuring that GPS services remain available and effective. The committee also remains 

strongly supportive of GPS as the international standard for radionavigation. However, GPS faces several challenges in the near- to 

mid-term. These include potential disruption from jamming, competition for spectrum, and the potential for competition from the 

European Galileo system. In view of these challenges, the committee acknowledges that regular reporting to Congress on GPS remains timely and important. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Combatant Commander Initiative Fund (sec. 921) 

The primary purpose of the combatant commander initiative 

fund (CCIF) is to support unforeseen contingency requirements 

critical to the combatant commanders’ joint warfighting readiness 

and national security interests. In two of the last three years, the 

$7.0 million ceiling on funds used for procurement items with unit 

costs in excess of $15,000 was reached. Additionally, the $2.0 million ceiling on authority to provide military education and training 

was reached. 

The committee believes that the environment in which today’s 

combatant commander operates is vastly different from that which 

existed when these statutory limitations were established. In order 

353

to enable the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to meet unforeseen 

contingency requirements of the combatant commanders, the committee recommends a provision that amends section 166(a) of title 

10, United States Code, by establishing an additional category of 

joint warfighting capabilities to the list of authorized activities for 

which these funds can be expended. Additionally, the provision 

amends the limitations contained in title 10: allowing up to $15.0 

million for procurement of items with a unit cost in excess of 

$15,000; allowing up to $10.0 million to pay for expenses of foreign 

countries participating in joint exercises; and, allowing up to $10.0 

million to provide military training and education to military and 

related civilians of foreign countries. 

The budget request included $25.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the CCIF. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the CCIF, to be used only 

by Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command to rapidly develop and 

acquire inherently joint capabilities that have the potential to significantly improve the joint warfighting capabilities of combatant 

commanders. 

Authority for the Marine Corps University to award the degree of master of operational studies (sec. 922) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 7102 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the President 

of the Marine Corps University to confer the degree of master of 

operational studies upon graduates of the School of Advanced 

Warfighting of the Command and Staff College. 

Report on changing roles of United States Special Operations Command (sec. 923) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to prepare a report on implementation of direction by the Secretary to the U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM) to assume an expanded role in the global war on terrorism, and to restructure SOCOM so it will be able to function as 

a supported combatant commander for planning and executing operations, as well as its current role as a supporting combatant commander. 

In January 2003, the Secretary of Defense directed SOCOM to 

assume greater responsibility for conducting the global war on terrorism. The Secretary directed the SOCOM Commander to develop 

a counterterrorism plan, to restructure the SOCOM staff to include 

a fully capable contingency planning staff, and to augment SOCOM 

component commands at the headquarters of geographic combatant 

commanders. The department requested $6.7 billion for fiscal year 

2004 for SOCOM, an increase of approximately thirty-four percent. 

This would fund a personnel increase of 1,890 individuals in fiscal 

year 2004, including headquarters planning staff positions, two 

SEAL teams, a special operations helicopter aviation battalion, and 

additional Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations elements. 

Most of the $1.1 billion in procurement would be used to replace 

aircraft lost in the global war on terrorism and to acquire MH–47 

helicopters for the new battalion. 

354

Special Operations Forces (SOF) are uniquely qualified to conduct counterterrorism missions, and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 that established the command provided authority for the command to function as a supporting, and 

supported command. Until now, the ‘‘supported command’’ authority has only rarely been used. The committee supports the Secretary’s decision to expand SOCOM’s role in the global war on terrorism, to expand SOCOM’s role as a supported command, and to 

request additional funding for the command to develop the required 

capabilities to do so. 

However, the committee needs additional information on how 

this new responsibility will impact upon SOCOM’s nine statutory 

missions, in particular the traditional mission of foreign internal 

defense, and training foreign militaries in general, which provide 

SOF with critical training, and access to countries of interest. In 

addition, the committee is concerned that implementation of this 

new authority occur within the parameters of existing international 

and U.S. law, with full civilian executive and legislative oversight. 

The committee directs the Secretary to provide the congressional 

defense committees with a report that includes information on the 

following: (1) the military strategy to employ SOCOM to fight the 

global war on terrorism and how that contributes to the overall national security strategy with regard to the global war on terrorism; 

(2) the scope of the authority granted to SOCOM to act as a supported command and to prosecute the global war on terrorism; (3) 

the operational and legal parameters within which SOCOM will exercise its authority in foreign countries when taking action against 

foreign and U.S. citizens engaged in terrorist activities; (4) the decision making mechanisms, to include any consultations with the 

Congress involved in authorizing, planning, and conducting individual missions; (5) the mechanism SOCOM will use to coordinate 

with other combatant commands, especially geographic commands; 

(6) future organization plans and resource requirements for conducting the global counterterrorism mission; and, (7) the impact on 

other SOF missions, including foreign internal defense, psychological operations, civil affairs, unconventional warfare, 

counterdrug activities, and humanitarian activities. 

The report, in classified and unclassified versions, shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 

days after enactment of this Act. 

Integration of Defense intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities (sec. 924) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD (I)) to establish 

an Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Council, 

composed of the senior intelligence officers of the military services, 

the directors of the Defense intelligence agencies, and the Director 

for Operations, J3, the Joint Staff, to provide a permanent forum 

for the discussion and arbitration of issues relating to the development and integration of Defense-wide ISR capabilities. The provision also would require the USD (I) to develop a comprehensive 

plan to guide the development, fielding, and integration of Department of Defense (DOD) ISR capabilities over the next 15 years. 

355

The committee has no doubt that the DOD and the larger intelligence community have the most capable ISR system in the world. 

This system has been assembled and evolved, over time, at great 

effort and at great expense. As good as this system is, however, it 

is often plagued by gaps, competition for assets, unavailability at 

the required level, and parallel systems (so-called ‘‘stovepipes’’) that 

do not fully complement one another. Because of the mechanism by 

which requirements have been generated from multiple sources to 

meet a specific need, the Department has continued to develop 

some capabilities without regard to their place within an overarching ISR architecture. Collection managers and intelligence 

users have done a commendable job of formulating ways to make 

systems work together and complement one another, but little has 

been done, in a comprehensive, Defense-wide enterprise manner, to 

require that new intelligence capabilities being developed by the 

military services and the Defense intelligence agencies are conceived as part of a larger system of systems. 

The Congress established the position of USD (I) in the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. A 

clear intent of this action was that the USD (I) would exercise comprehensive oversight of the Defense intelligence enterprise and 

guide the development of new intelligence capabilities, particularly 

within the military services, so as to maximize capability and minimize duplication of effort. The increased urgency of homeland security has made this concept even more important, as the DOD seeks 

the means to enhance its capabilities to fulfill its responsibilities in 

supporting homeland security efforts. 

Traditionally, much effort has been expended on conceiving and 

developing intelligence collection platforms, but development of the 

means to process, analyze, and disseminate the resulting intelligence information has sometimes lagged behind. Providing the 

needed information to the battlefield commander—‘‘the last tactical 

mile’’—in an austere communications environment has been especially challenging. Ensuring that capabilities in all intelligence disciplines are fully integrated with interoperable communications 

and processing systems is absolutely essential. 

The committee has confidence that the USD (I) will confront 

these challenges and bring needed discipline to well-intended efforts across the entire Department. The committee intends to review very carefully any recommendations of the USD (I) on how 

best to structure intelligence funding for the various levels of the 

Department. The report shall be delivered to the congressional defense and intelligence committees no later than September 30, 

2004. 

Establishment of the National Guard of the Northern Mariana Islands (sec. 925) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to cooperate with the Governor of the Northern Mariana Islands to establish the National Guard of the Northern Mariana Islands and integrate into the Army National Guard 

and Air National Guard of the United States the members of the 

National Guard of the Northern Mariana Islands who are granted 

federal recognition under title 32, United States Code. 

(357)

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

Transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the transfer of funds authorized in Division A of this act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Additionally, in recognizing the need to provide 

the Secretary of Defense with the necessary flexibility to manage 

the Department of Defense, the committee includes a provision to 

increase the transfer authority limitation to $3.0 billion. 

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets (sec. 1002) 

The resolution of ratification for the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary and the 

Czech Republic contained a provision (section 3(2)(C)(ii)) that requires a specific authorization for U.S. payments to the commonfunded budgets of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

for each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 1999, in which U.S. 

payments exceed the fiscal year 1998 total. The committee recommends a provision to authorize the U.S. contribution to NATO 

common-funded budgets for fiscal year 2004, including the use of 

unexpended balances from prior years. 

Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 

2003 (sec. 1003) 

This provision would authorize the supplemental appropriations 

for fiscal year 2003 enacted in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108–11). 

Subtitle B—Improvement of Travel Card Management 

Mandatory disbursement of travel allowances directly to 

travel care creditors (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make mandatory the requirements of section 2784a(a) of title 10, United States 

Code, that require direct payment to the issuer of a Department of 

Defense (DOD) travel card for official travel or transportation expenses charged on the travel card by a DOD employee or member. 

The committee is disappointed in the progress made by the Department in fully implementing this provision which is designed to provide better accountability over the use of the travel card. 

358

Determinations of creditworthiness for issuance of Defense 

travel card (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a program for evaluating the 

creditworthiness of individuals prior to the issuance of a Department of Defense travel card. The provision would prohibit the 

issuance of a travel card to an individual determined not credit 

worthy under this program. 

Disciplinary actions and assessing penalties for misuse of 

Defense travel cards (sec. 1013) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe guidelines and procedures for 

making determinations regarding the taking of disciplinary action, 

including the assessment of penalties, against Department of Defense personnel for improper, fraudulent, or abusive use of defense 

travel cards by such personnel. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Elimination and revision of various reporting requirements 

applicable to the Department of Defense (sec. 1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal or 

modify a number of obsolete or superceded reporting requirements 

presently imposed by statute upon the Department of Defense.

Global strike plan (sec. 1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prepare a global strike plan that would be 

updated annually, and to provide an annual report on the roadmap 

through fiscal year 2006 to the congressional defense committees. 

The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), recognizing that the 

international security environment had changed dramatically over 

the past decade, recommended a reduction of deployed strategic nuclear forces from the current level of approximately 6,000 warheads 

to 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012. The 

NPR also determined that, rather than relying exclusively on strategic nuclear forces for deterrence, the nation should rely on a new 

‘‘triad’’ consisting of offensive weapons, defensive systems, and a robust infrastructure to support a full range of defense needs. 

The committee notes that much of the debate concerning the 

NPR has focused on nuclear weapons. However, the committee also 

notes that the NPR sought to devise a strategic construct that 

would reduce reliance on nuclear weapons by providing a broader 

array of military tools to national command authorities and military commanders. These tools are to include advanced conventional 

weapons capable of striking a wider array of targets, active defenses capable of defeating attacks after they have been launched, 

and passive defenses capable of minimizing the effects of attacks. 

The Commander of U.S. Strategic Command repeatedly emphasized in his testimony to the Strategic Forces Subcommittee the importance of this broad array of tools to the ability of Strategic Command to conduct missions in support of national command authorities. In this context, he stated his intent ‘‘* * * to provide a wide 

359

range of advanced options to the President in responding to timecritical, high threat, global challenges and, thereby, raise even 

higher the nuclear threshold.’’ He also noted the need to explore 

new conventional and nuclear technologies and cited several ongoing studies by the Department of Defense to examine future systems to meet strategic needs. 

The committee concurs that further analysis of future systems 

needs is required and that integrating this broader array of capabilities will require significant coordination within the Department. 

The committee believes that a comprehensive effort to link planning and programs for advanced conventional munitions, nuclear 

concepts, and advanced strike platforms in a coordinated global 

strike roadmap would be important to achieving a coherent force 

structure in the future. Such a roadmap would help fulfill the NPR 

goals of providing a full range of military alternatives to military 

and political leaders and further reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. 

Report on the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom (sec. 

1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive report on the conduct of Operation Iraqi 

Freedom not later than March 31, 2004. The provision would require the Secretary to emphasize the accomplishments and the 

shortcomings noted during preparations, conduct, and in the aftermath of military operations and to highlight any lessons learned. 

Report on mobilization of the Reserves (sec. 1024) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, not later than 90 days after enactment of this 

Act, to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives a report on the mobilization of 

reserve component forces during fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The 

report would include numbers and specialties of Reserves mobilized, the known effects on the reserve components, and any 

changes in the armed forces envisioned as a result of these effects. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Blue forces tracking initiative (sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to coordinate developmental activities aimed 

at fielding a capability to maintain information on the location of 

U.S. and allied forces, sometimes called ‘‘blue forces tracking.’’ The 

provision would further direct the Commander, U.S. Joint Forces 

Command (JFCOM), to conduct a blue forces tracking joint experiment in fiscal year 2004. The goal of the experiment would be to 

demonstrate and evaluate available technologies, and to recommend an achievable solution for Defense-wide fielding. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the results of the 

blue forces tracking experiment with a plan for how the Department would proceed with the development, acquisition and fielding 

360

of a functional, near real time blue forces tracking system. The 

committee urges the Commander, JFCOM, to combine this experiment with the ongoing advanced concept technology demonstration 

called ‘‘Joint Blue Forces Situational Awareness (JBFSA).’’ The committee is concerned that, despite significant lessons 

learned in military operations over the past 13 years and despite 

the availability of relevant technologies, the Department has made 

insufficient progress in developing a military service-wide, near 

real-time, blue forces monitoring or tracking capability. Different 

groups within the Department are using a variety of interim and 

ad hoc solutions, but these solutions employ technologies that create interoperability problems, suffer from limited coverage, and, in 

some cases, consume considerable space-based communications 

bandwidth. 

With casualties attributable to friendly fire continuing to be a 

significant portion of overall casualties in recent conflicts, the urgency of developing and fielding a comprehensive, joint system for 

all military services is clear. Although the Department has designated the U.S. Army as the lead service for developing a blue 

forces tracking capability, the committee is concerned that the effort lacks urgency and is not fully endorsed by the other services, 

or the U.S. Special Operations Command. The Department has 

been spending resources in a fragmented manner on a series of advanced concept technology demonstrations, service-preferred systems, and special operations systems. Without better coordination 

of the ongoing developmental activities, the committee is concerned 

that the Department will not achieve a solution to the problem of 

friendly fire incidents. 

The committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

all funding for blue forces tracking development within the Department of Defense is scrutinized by the Commander, JFCOM, until 

such time as a Defense-wide standard and strategy for acquisition 

of blue forces tracking capability is determined. 

Loan, donation, or exchange of obsolete or surplus property 

(sec. 1032) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize, for 

fiscal years 2004 and 2005, the Secretaries of the military departments to exchange obsolete or surplus property with an individual, 

organization, institution, agency, or nation if the exchange would 

directly benefit the historical collection of the armed forces. 

Acceptance of gifts and donations for Asia-Pacific Center 

for Security Studies (sec. 1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 

authority of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies to accept 

gifts from domestic sources as well as foreign sources. 

Provision of living quarters for certain students working at 

National Security Agency Laboratory (sec. 1034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the National Security Agency (NSA) to provide, and if necessary, subsidize, living quarters for cooperative education (co-op) program 

and summer intern program students working in NSA research 

361

laboratories. There is a shortage of affordable, short-term housing 

in the Fort Meade, Maryland area. The availability of affordable, 

short-term housing will ensure that NSA continues to attract the 

most qualified students for its co-op and intern programs. 

Over the years, NSA has been able to eventually hire and retain 

over 80 percent of the graduates that have participated in its student programs. Competition for these highly skilled, highly qualified students is significant. NSA needs to be able to continue to attract students of this level of competence. Such students should not 

be deterred from seeking a valuable and mutually beneficial student-employee opportunity with NSA because of the unavailability 

of affordable, short-term housing. 

Protection of operational files of the National Security 

Agency (sec. 1035) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to withhold from public disclosure the operational files of the National Security Agency. This provision would 

authorize the protection of such files from public disclosure, under 

the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise, to the same extent 

as provided for the operational files of the Central Intelligence 

Agency under section 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 

U.S.C. 431). 

Transfer of administration of National Security Education 

Program to Director of Central Intelligence (sec. 1036) 

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer responsibility for the National Security Education Program (NSEP), 

a scholarship, fellowship, and grant program established in 1991, 

from the Department of Defense to the Director of Central Intelligence. The Director of Central Intelligence administers similar 

student fellowship and grant programs and has expressed interest 

in administering this program. The committee believes the transfer 

of this program to the Director of Central Intelligence will enhance 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the NSEP. 

Report on use of unmanned aerial vehicles for support of 

homeland security missions (sec. 1037) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to provide a report no later than April 1, 2004, on the 

potential use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for homeland 

security. The report would be produced in consultation with all relevant federal agencies. 

The committee has long supported the expanded use of UAVs by 

the U.S. military and notes reports from soldiers in the field regarding the usefulness of UAVs as ‘‘eyes in the skies’’ in the global 

war on terrorism. The committee notes that UAVs have potential 

application in the area of homeland security. Long-endurance, 

land-based UAVs could be used to monitor remote areas along our 

northern and southern borders; to assist the Coast Guard in its efforts to patrol our country’s 95,000 miles of waterways and aid in 

its drug interdiction mission; to support NORTHCOM’s mission to 

defend our national battlespace; to monitor the safety and integrity 

of critical infrastructure within the United States; and to track 

362

transportation of hazardous cargo. In addition, the report should 

evaluate the ability of UAV manufacturers to produce at higher 

rates, if necessary, to meet any increased demands for UAVs for 

homeland security and homeland defense missions. 

The committee recognizes that there are important issues of safety, privacy and civil liberties, as well as overlapping jurisdictional 

issues that must be carefully considered prior to operating UAVs 

over U.S. territory in support of homeland security missions, and 

therefore the provision would require that the report include a discussion of these issues. 

Conveyance of surplus T–37 aircraft to Air Force Aviation 

Heritage Foundation, Incorporated (sec. 1038) 

The committee recommends a provision to authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey a surplus T–37 aircraft to the Air 

Force Aviation Heritage Foundation of Georgia. This authority is 

discretionary and the conveyance of an aircraft authorized by this 

provision would be made at no cost to the United States. 

Budget Items 

Information technology investments to support effective financial management 

The committee recommends a general reduction of $200.0 million 

in information technology development modernization for functional area applications in: 

Other Procurement, Army—$22.4 million; 

Other Procurement, Navy—$20.9 million; 

Other Procurement, Air Force—$13.5 million; 

Other Procurement, Defense-Wide—$8.9 million; 

Research and Development, Army—$18.2 million; 

Research and Development, Navy—$15.2 million; 

Research and Development, Air Force—$11.5 million; 

Research and Development, Defense-Wide—$10.5 million; 

Defense Health Programs—$14.0 million; 

Defense Working Capital Fund Operations—$60.2 million; 

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide—$4.7 million. 

This reduction is based on the delay in developing the Department of Defense’s financial systems architecture and the lack of 

progress in provided adequate justification for new business information systems investments, and was calculated in the same manner as the reduction taken in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003. 

The committee expects the Department to achieve these reductions by: (1) implementing the requirements of section 1004 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003; (2) restricting the development of Department of Defense business systems until the Department has completed its proposed architecture 

and transition plan and is in a position to ensure that business system expenditures will be consistent with that architecture and 

plan; and (3) restricting spending on those programs that do not 

meet the capital planning and investment control criteria of the 

Clinger-Cohen Act (40 U.S.C. 1412 and 1422). 

363

Two years ago, the Department of Defense (DOD) initiated an 

ambitious effort to address shortcomings in the Department’s financial management systems, operations, and controls. The Department planned to develop a comprehensive enterprise architecture and a transition plan for implementing the proposed architecture by April 2003. The proposed architecture would then be implemented over a period of four years or more. The committee continues to strongly support the Department’s efforts to address 

shortcomings in its financial systems on a comprehensive basis. 

Unfortunately, the General Accounting Office recently reported 

to the committee that DOD ‘‘* * * had yet to provide a clear definition of the intended purpose of the April 30, 2003, architecture 

***’’ and determined that ‘‘* * * the architecture will not fully 

satisfy the requirements contained within Section 1004 of Public 

Law 107–314.’’

The inability of the Department to develop a comprehensive architecture calls into question the need for proposed levels of expenditures for new investment in business information systems. 

Until the proposed architecture has been fully developed, increased 

spending on such systems could be wasteful. Last year, the Comptroller General of the United States testified before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support that the Department should limit the additional business systems development 

that the Department undertakes until a new enterprise architecture has been approved. The DOD Comptroller agreed with the 

Comptroller General’s recommendation. 

Section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 was designed to help enforce spending limitations by requiring that any defense financial information system improvement 

expenditure over $1.0 million be approved in advance by the DOD 

Comptroller. The GAO has indicated that DOD has done very little 

in limiting spending on business systems development until the 

proposed architecture and transition plan have been completed. In 

a February 2003 report to the committee, GAO stated:

DOD has yet to establish the necessary departmental investment governance structure and process controls needed to adequately align ongoing investments with its architectural goals and direction. Instead, DOD continues to 

allow its component organizations to make their own parochial investment decisions, following different approaches 

and criteria. This stovepiped decision-making process has 

contributed to the department’s current complex, errorprone environment of over 1,700 systems. In particular, 

DOD has not established and applied common investment 

criteria to its ongoing IT system projects using a hierarchy 

of investment review and funding decision-making bodies, 

each composed of representatives from across the department. DOD also has not yet conducted a comprehensive review of its ongoing IT investments to ensure that they are 

consistent with its architecture development efforts. Until 

it takes these steps, DOD will likely continue to lack effective control over the billions of dollars it is currently 

spending on IT projects.

364

The Associate Director for E-Government and Information Technology at the Office of Management and Budget recently testified 

before the House Government Reform Committee that about 771 

projects included in the FY04 budget request with a total cost of 

$20.9 billion are ‘‘at risk’’ and will not be allowed to move forward 

by OMB until agencies present a successful business case. The 

committee is concerned that a number of DOD systems may not 

have an effective business justification and urges the Secretary of 

Defense to ensure that sufficient economic justification is provided 

prior to investing in business systems at DOD. 

DOD’s budget request included more than $5.2 billion for business systems development and modernization. This is in addition 

to the over $18.0 billion spent to operate and maintain the existing 

business information systems infrastructure. The amount planned 

to be spent on systems development and modernization includes 

funding for a large number of programs that may require fundamental restructuring depending on the outcome of the Department’s current financial management review and the system architecture that the Department develops. 

Refined Petroleum Products, Marginal Expense Transfer Account 

The administration requested the establishment of a Refined Petroleum Products Marginal Expense Transfer Account to cover the 

difference between the funds the Department of Defense budgets 

for the purchase of refined petroleum products and the actual market prices the Department pays for fuel (i.e. the additional marginal expense). Under this proposal, an indefinite appropriation 

would be available for the Department to cover those additional 

marginal expenses. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this transfer account would cost $675.0 million in fiscal 

year 2004. That amount has been included in the fiscal year 2004 

budget resolution for this purpose. 

The committee does not support the establishment of a Refined 

Petroleum Products Marginal Expense Transfer Account. A marginal expense transfer account may have unintended consequences. 

The committee believes that fuel costs should continue to be funded 

through the Defense Working Capital Fund. 

Items of Special Interest 

Terrorist threat integration center 

The committee is concerned that the information developed by 

the various components of the intelligence community and the information developed by the disparate elements of the local, state, 

and federal law enforcement community is not quickly and efficiently shared in order to respond to significant terrorist threats to 

the United States. The President has directed the establishment of 

a terrorist threat integration center (TTIC) to correct this problem, 

but exactly how this organization will operate remains unclear. Because of the large responsibilities of the Department of Defense 

(DOD) within the intelligence community and the Department’s important role in homeland defense, the Department will be involved 

in the organization and operation of the TTIC. 

365

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)), in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Homeland Defense, to provide a report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees that details: the mission 

of the TTIC; the DOD commitment to the TTIC in terms of personnel, equipment, infrastructure and related support; the funding 

that will be required to meet DOD’s responsibilities to the TTIC; 

and the relationship of the TTIC to U.S. Northern Command. In 

addition, the committee requests the assessment of the USD(I) as 

to the impact of this commitment to the TTIC on the overall defense intelligence mission, and a review of any issues associated 

with foreign intelligence activities supporting domestic law enforcement, as well as any issues associated with active duty military 

personnel supporting civil law enforcement activities. This report 

shall be delivered to the congressional defense and intelligence 

committees no later than December 1, 2003. 

(367)

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL POLICY 

Authority to employ civilian faculty members at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (sec. 

1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1595 of title 10, United States Code, to add the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) as a covered 

institution of the Department of Defense at which the Secretary of 

Defense may employ civilians as professors, instructors, and lecturers, and may prescribe their compensation. The action is taken 

pursuant to a recommendation of the congressionally established 

Board of Visitors for WHINSEC. 

Pay authority for critical positions (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give the Department of Defense (DOD) critical pay authority for up to 40 administrative, technical, or professional positions. This authority 

would be identical to the authority given the Internal Revenue 

Service in 1998 to attract critical personnel to manage and support 

the modernization of IRS computer systems. DOD has embarked on 

a similar endeavor to reform its financial management computer 

systems. The committee anticipates that DOD will use this authority to attract an experienced program manager to run the Department’s financial systems modernization, as well as for attracting 

people for other critical programs that require individuals with an 

extremely high level of managerial and technical experience. 

Extension, expansion, and revision of authority for experimental personnel program for scientific and technical 

personnel (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 

expand the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

Experimental Personnel Program. The committee recognizes the 

successful utilization of the experimental personnel program by 

DARPA and recommends extending the program for that reason. In 

addition, the provision would increase by ten the positions available to DARPA under this authority. 

The committee supports the agility and flexibility of DARPA 

management and personnel policies. In addition, the committee 

notes the effectiveness of the Director of DARPA in recruiting scientists and technologists from cutting edge disciplines who are motivated to make a contribution to the nation by working on 

‘‘DARPA-hard’’ problems. These individuals provide a valuable contribution to the national security and economic vitality of the 

United States. 

368

Transfer of personnel investigative functions and related 

personnel of the Department of Defense (sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the consent of the Director of the Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM), to transfer the personnel security investigations functions that are performed by the Defense Security Service of the Department of Defense to the OPM. 

The committee notes that this change would make OPM the central provider of these services for the Federal Government. The 

committee also recommends that those personnel security investigation activities currently performed by the Defense Security 

Service be acquired from OPM on a reimbursable basis. The proposed transfer of personnel assets would ensure that skilled investigators currently performing these functions would be available to 

address the critical need for these services in a centrally managed 

and administered entity. 

Items of Special Interest 

Laboratory Personnel Demonstration Projects 

The committee has strongly supported the Department of Defense’s efforts to provide flexibility to the defense laboratories in 

order to allow these laboratories to attract and retain the finest 

technical talent. The committee urges the Department to continue 

to work to ensure that the defense laboratories are of the highest 

quality and can continue to support and accelerate the transformation of our armed forces. 

The committee commends the recent efforts undertaken by the 

Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics (USD, AT&L) to revitalize the innovation and functions of the defense laboratories. In particular, the committee recognizes the commitment and dedication of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Laboratories and Basic Sciences (DUSD(LABS)) 

in engaging and communicating with laboratory directors on personnel issues that impact the defense laboratory system. The committee further notes that the Office of the USD, AT&L has initiated the Laboratory Quality Improvement Program, allowing for an 

extensive review of the defense laboratories and the various issues 

facing them. The committee also notes that two recent reports, the 

DUSD(LABS)’s ‘‘DOD Laboratory Scientist and Engineer Workforce: Framework of Human Resource Features for the Alternative 

Personnel System’’ and the Naval Research Advisory Council’s ‘‘Science and Technology Community in Crisis’’ provide an excellent 

overview and interesting recommendations on laboratory issues. 

(369)

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS 

Authority to use funds for payment of costs of attendance of 

foreign visitors under regional defense counterterrorism 

fellowship program (sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make permanent the Regional Defense Counterterrorism Fellowship (RDCTF) 

Program established under section 8125 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. Under current law, the program will 

expire upon expenditure of the $17.9 million originally appropriated to establish the program. 

The Secretary of Defense has determined that the RDCTF program has been useful in increasing cooperation with partner nations in the global war on terrorism. Moreover, the program has 

provided valuable training to enable coalition partners in the global 

war on terrorism to improve their training programs in 

counterterrorism tactics, techniques, and procedures. Institutionalizing the RDCTF program will enable the Department to offer this 

training opportunity to a broader audience of counterterrorism officials and enable the Department to engage in long-term planning 

for the educational assistance of friendly nations and allies in the 

global war on terrorism. The provision limits the annual expenditure of funds for this purpose to no more than $20.0 million. 

The committee expects the Department to ensure that the program conforms to the spirit of statutory guidelines governing the 

administration of related programs. The provision requires the Secretary to formulate formal guidelines within appropriate Department regulations for administration of the RDCTF program, not 

later than December 1, 2003, and notify the congressional defense 

committees when the formal guidelines are promulgated. Additionally, the provision requires the Secretary to submit an annual report to the congressional defense committees that summarizes 

counterterrorism training activities conducted under the auspices 

of the RDCTF program, as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of the program in increasing cooperation with other nations in 

the global war on terrorism. This report will be submitted not later 

than 60 days after the end of each fiscal year, beginning with the 

conclusion of fiscal year 2004. 

Availability of funds to recognize superior noncombat 

achievements or performance of members of friendly 

foreign forces and other foreign nationals (sec. 1202)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, to expressly authorize the 

Department of Defense to expend operations and maintenance 

funds to recognize superior noncombat achievements or performance by members of foreign forces and other foreign nationals that 

370

significantly enhance or support the national security strategy of 

the United States. 

Currently, the Department’s authority to expend appropriated 

funds to recognize superior achievements for foreign nationals is 

limited. Military decorations may be awarded to certain foreign 

military officials and representational gifts may be given to certain 

foreign dignitaries. However, the Secretary and subordinate military commanders are inhibited in their ability to provide meaningful recognition to foreign nationals, military and civilian, who provide valuable service to the United States. This authority will provide the Secretary a valuable tool in establishing goodwill that may 

improve security relationships with many friendly nations in the 

future. 

Check cashing and exchange transactions for foreign personnel in alliance or coalition forces (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

disbursing official of the U.S. Government to allow military personnel from allied nations to cash checks and certain negotiable instruments and exchange foreign currency, provided these individuals are participating in military training activities with U.S. Military Forces. This authority would be subject to the approval of the 

senior U.S. military commander assigned to the joint operation or 

mission and would only be exercised when the government of the 

foreign nation has guaranteed payment for any deficiency resulting 

from the use of this authority. 

Clarification and extension of authority to provide assistance for international nonproliferation activities (sec. 

1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would recognize the 

U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission 

(UNMOVIC) as the successor organization of the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM), and extend the authority of the Department 

of Defense to continue to provide support for critical weapons inspections and monitoring in Iraq for an additional year. Even 

though the regime of Saddam Hussein has been removed from Iraq, 

the United States and its coalition partners will continue to conduct extensive inspection of suspected weapons development and 

storage sites and conducting verification and monitoring activities 

for many months. The expertise and experience of UNMOVIC may 

be useful in these activities. Extension of this authority for one 

year is a prudent step to give the Secretary of Defense and the 

Commander, U.S. Central Command access to all relevant bodies 

of experience and information with regard to weapons of mass destruction activities in Iraq. 

Reimbursement costs relating to national security controls 

on satellite export licensing (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1514 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1999 to clarify that only costs directly related to monitoring the 

launch of a satellite in a foreign country shall be reimbursed by 

contractors to the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee is 

371

concerned that the Department may currently be requiring reimbursement by contractors for items and overhead that are only tangentially related to monitoring specific launches. These costs may 

be more suitably funded through direct appropriations. This provision would require the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct 

a study of the Department’s costs for monitoring launches of satellites in a foreign country and report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by April 

1, 2004, on findings and recommendations of the GAO. 

Annual report on the NATO Prague capabilities commitment and the NATO response force (sec. 1206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

to submit a report on implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) Prague Capabilities Commitment and development of the NATO Response Force. The report would be submitted no later than January 31 of each year. The committee notes 

its recommendation to repeal the requirement of the Department 

of Defense to report annually on the NATO Defense Capabilities 

Initiative. 

Expansion and extension of authority to provide additional 

support for counter-drug activities (sec. 1207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority contained in Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–84), for support to Columbia, and would renew authority for support to Peru 

that expired at the end of fiscal year 2002, starting in fiscal year 

2003 through the end of fiscal year 2006. Additionally, the provision would authorize the same support, through the end of fiscal 

year 2006, for seven additional countries, including: Afghanistan; 

Bolivia; Ecuador; Pakistan; Tajikistan; Turkmenistan; and 

Uzbekistan. Because of the expanded number of nations being supported, the provision would increase the amount of funding that 

could be utilized for support of these nine nations to $40.0 million 

in any fiscal year. 

Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as amended, authorized the Department of Defense to provide specific types of counter-drug support, not to exceed $20.0 million during fiscal years 1999 through 

2002, to the Government of Peru, and to the Government of Colombia during fiscal years 1999 through 2006. This program has proven valuable and effective in disrupting illegal drug trafficking in 

Colombia and Peru. While Colombia continues to receive counterdrug support through this and other authorities, the original authority to provide this non-lethal support to Peru expired at the 

end of fiscal year 2002. 

The establishment of a friendly government in Afghanistan, committed to reducing drug trafficking, is an encouraging development. 

Opium cultivation in Afghanistan represents a large portion of the 

world’s opiates production, and Afghanistan has long been a haven 

to smugglers and drug traffickers. Recent United States military 

cooperation with nations in the area surrounding Afghanistan and 

372

their desire for improved relations with the United States offers a 

unique opportunity to further disrupt drug trafficking in the South 

Asia and Middle Eastern region. 

The committee supports these efforts to make progress in disrupting the flow of illegal drugs. However, the committee wants to 

ensure that the funds authorized to be expended for these purposes 

are used prudently. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to provide a comprehensive report on how these counterdrug funds are expended in each of these nine countries, not later 

than 60 days following the conclusion of each fiscal year for which 

this program is authorized. 

Use of funds for unified counterdrug and counterterrorism 

campaign in Colombia (sec. 1208) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for 

two additional years, the expanded authority to use Department of 

Defense counterdrug funds to support a unified campaign against 

narcotics cultivation and trafficking, and against terrorist organizations in Colombia. 

Section 8145 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2003 (Public Law 107–248) gave the Department of Defense expanded authority for the use of counterdrug funds to conduct unified counterdrug and counterterrorism activities in Colombia in fiscal year 2003. This expanded authority will expire on September 

30, 2003, in the absence of an extension of authority by the Congress. 

The committee is encouraged by reports from the U.S. Ambassador to Colombia, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander, 

U.S. Southern Command about progress being made in eradicating 

drug cultivation and in combating the narco-terrorist groups that 

have terrorized much of rural Colombia for years, financed largely 

by money from drug trafficking. The Colombian government and 

the Colombian military appear to have reacted positively to the financial and military assistance provided by the United States and 

are making tangible progress in lowering drug production and in 

re-establishing control over large portions of the country. The leadership of President Uribe appears to have produced positive momentum in this long, unfortunate struggle. Much remains to be 

done, however, and the three major terrorist groups remain clear 

and present dangers to peace and security. The effort must be sustained until the terrorists have been defeated. 

(373)

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH 

STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs 

and funds (sec. 1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds as 

those authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and 

authorize the CTR funds to be available for obligation for three fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $450.0 million, the amount included in the budget request, for the 

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This provision would 

also authorize specific amounts for each CTR program element, require notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2004 funds, and provide 

limited authority to vary individual amounts of specific CTR program elements. 

Annual certifications on use of facilities being constructed 

for Cooperative Threat Reduction Program projects or 

activities (sec. 1303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees with an annual certification that all Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program construction projects and activities will be 

used for their intended purpose by the country of concern and that 

the country has demonstrated a commitment to do so. The period 

of time covered by the certification would be the previous fiscal 

year. The provision would apply to construction projects and activities that are ongoing, as well as any that begin after the date of 

enactment of this Act. The first certification would be due on the 

first Monday in February 2004, and would cover fiscal year 2003. 

The certification should be submitted with the CTR annual report. 

The committee is concerned that the CTR program management 

and oversight of CTR funded construction projects is weak, leading 

to construction expenditures in Russia that provide no national security benefit. Specifically, as described in the Department of Defense Inspectors General’s report, Cooperative Threat Reduction: 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Liquid Propellant 

Diposition Project, dated September 20, 2002, one CTR construction project involved the expenditure of over $100.0 million for a 

new operational facility to neutralize liquid fuel taken from CTR 

funded dismantled Russian missiles. After the facility was completed and ready to begin neutralizing fuel, the Russian Government informed the U.S. Government that the facility would not be 

374

needed because the fuel that had been intended to be neutralized 

had, since 1996, been diverted to and used by the Russian commercial space launch program. Because this facility used unique technology and had a single purpose, the CTR Program could not use 

the facility or its components for any other purpose. 

The committee is troubled by the failure of the Russian Government to inform CTR management that the facility was no longer 

needed. Further, the failure of CTR management to engage the 

Russian Government on a regular basis to obtain assurances that 

the project was still required exacerbated the situation. It is the 

committee’s expectation that this provision will help to avoid such 

a situation in the future. 

Authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction funds outside the Former Soviet Union (sec. 1304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

President to obligate and expend Cooperative Threat Reduction 

(CTR) funds for a fiscal year and any CTR funds that remain available for obligation from any previous fiscal year for projects in 

countries beyond the states of the Former Soviet Union (FSU). 

These funds would be available only for proliferation threat reduction projects and activities that would assist the United States in 

the resolution of critical emerging proliferation threats or permit 

the United States to take advantage of available opportunities to 

achieve long-standing nonproliferation goals. Not more than $50.0 

million may be obligated in any fiscal year for these projects or activities. All requirements for prior notification and limitations applicable to the obligation and expenditure of existing CTR funds 

apply to the CTR projects and activities permitted by this new authority. 

If this provision is exercised, the committee expects the Department of Defense to undertake projects and activities that are consistent with ongoing projects and activities in the CTR program. 

This provision would not permit the Department to provide cash directly to any CTR recipient country for any CTR project or activity. 

One-year extension of inapplicability of certain conditions 

on use of funds for chemical weapons destruction (sec. 

1305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by one 

year the President’s authority to waive certain conditions with respect to the chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch’ye, 

Russia. 

(375)

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense. It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military family 

housing and military construction for the reserve components, the 

defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) Security Investment program. It also provides authorization for the base closure account that funds environmental cleanup 

and other activities associated with the implementation of previous 

base closure rounds. 

The following tables provide the project-level authorizations for 

the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this 

Act and summarize that funding by account. The tables also note 

as ‘‘Budget Amend’’ the projects contained in a fiscal year 2004 

amended budget request submitted by the administration on May 

1, 2003 to realign certain military construction and family housing 

projects. 

The administration originally requested authorization of appropriations for military construction and housing programs totaling 

$8,965,181,000. The committee transferred $119,815,000 in authorization requested by the administration in the Chemical Agents 

and Munitions Destruction program Defense-wide account to the 

Military Construction, Defense-wide account. 

The administration’s budget amendment proposed a transfer of 

$25,500,000 from the Procurement, Defense-wide, Special Operations Command account into the military construction, Defensewide account. The committee did not make this transfer. 

The amended budget request included the use of $153,373,000 in 

fiscal year 2003 military construction authorization for rescinded 

projects. A list of these projects are located in a budget item entitled ‘‘Military Construction at Overseas Locations’’ located elsewhere in this division. The committee acknowledges this authorization as a separate entry at the end of the table. 

The amended administration’s request for authorization of appropriations for military construction and family housing construction 

is $8,990,681,000.

376


Insert graphic folio 454 SR46.163
377


Insert graphic folio 455 SR46.164
378


Insert graphic folio 456 SR46.165
379


Insert graphic folio 457 SR46.166
380


Insert graphic folio 458 SR46.167
381


Insert graphic folio 459 SR46.168
382


Insert graphic folio 460 SR46.169
383


Insert graphic folio 461 SR46.170
384


Insert graphic folio 462 SR46.171
385


Insert graphic folio 463 SR46.172
386


Insert graphic folio 464 SR46.173
387


Insert graphic folio 465 SR46.174
388


Insert graphic folio 466 SR46.175
389


Insert graphic folio 467 SR46.176
390


Insert graphic folio 468 SR46.177
391


Insert graphic folio 469 SR46.178
392


Insert graphic folio 470 SR46.179
393


Insert graphic folio 471 SR46.180
394


Insert graphic folio 472 SR46.181
395


Insert graphic folio 473 SR46.182
396


Insert graphic folio 474 SR46.183
397

Military construction at overseas locations 

On May 1, 2003, the Department of Defense submitted an 

amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget request that would implement the first stage of adjustments to the global positioning of 

U.S. forces and their supporting infrastructure. The amended budget request includes changes to the Bob Stump National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 by realigning project authorizations within the Republic of Korea to new locations without 

changes to the authorization of appropriations. The amended budget request would also rescind the fiscal year 2003 authorizations 

for projects in Germany, Iceland, and Korea and reduced the authorization of appropriations for world-wide unspecified housing 

improvement accounts as follows:

[In thousands of dollars] 

Authorization Location Amount 

Recisions: 

Child Development Center ....................... Bamberg, Germany .............................................................. 7,000.0 

Barracks Complex .................................... Bamberg, Germany .............................................................. 10,200.0 

Upgrade Access Control ........................... Coleman Barracks, Germany ............................................... 1,350.0 

Modified Record Fire Range ..................... Darmstadt, Germany ............................................................ 3,500.0 

Barracks Complex .................................... Mannheim, Germany ............................................................ 42,000.0 

Central Wash Facility ............................... Schweinfurt, Germany .......................................................... 2,000.0 

Elementary School Addition ..................... Spangdahlem, Germany ....................................................... 997.0

Combined Dining Facility ......................... Keflavik, Iceland .................................................................. 14,679.0 

Replace Family Housing ........................... Yongsan, Korea .................................................................... 3,100.0 

Reductions: 

Army Housing Construction Improvements.World-wide Unspecified ....................................................... 49,200.0 

Air Force Housing Construction Improvements.World-wide Unspecified ....................................................... 19,347.0

Total ..................................................... .............................................................................................. 153,373.0 

The amended budget request would also withdraw requests for 

fiscal year 2004 project authorizations for numerous projects in 

Germany and proposed realignment of locations for project requests 

in Korea. The amended budget request included new projects both 

inside and outside the United States, as well as increased worldwide unspecified housing construction improvement accounts. 

This committee reviewed the budget amendment with the understanding that the Department is currently reevaluating current 

plans and developing a comprehensive and integrated presence and 

basing strategy for overseas locations in response to numerous congressional requests. The committee recommends the acceptance of 

line items in the amended budget request that would authorize additional projects in the United States from savings that result from 

withdrawn overseas project authorization requests. All additional 

projects that are the result of realignments are noted in the budget 

table. 

In light of the uncertainty of the Department’s future overseas 

force structure and basing strategy, the committee recommends 

that additional project authorizations totaling $173.1 million in 

Germany, Italy, and Turkey be withheld for fiscal year 2004. 

(399)

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

Summary 

The Army requested authorization of appropriations of $1,536.0 

million for military construction and $1,399.9 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2004. This request was amended on May 1, 

2003 by the administration due to revised overseas requirements. 

The Army’s amended budget request included $1,602.1 million for 

FY04 military construction and $1,452.2 million for FY04 family 

housing. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

$1,539.4 million for military construction and $1,441.0 million for 

family housing for fiscal year 2004. Within this total, the committee recommends decreases to housing operations accounts as a 

result of savings from housing privatization. The budget amendment resulted in a net decrease to the world-wide unspecified housing construction improvement account as follows:

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Project Amount 

Reductions by Project to Housing Improvement 

Account

Ansbach, Germany ...................................................... Family Housing Improvement .................................... 18,973.0 

Mannheim, Germany ................................................... Family Housing Improvement .................................... 16,500.0 

Weibaden, Germany .................................................... Family Housing Improvement .................................... 14,400.0

Decrease ........................................................ .................................................................................... 49,873.0

Additions by Project to Housing Improvement 

Account 

Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah .................................. Family Housing Replacement .................................... 8,100.0

Increase ......................................................... .................................................................................... 8,100.0

Decrease total ............................................... .................................................................................... 41,773.0 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

This provision contains the list of authorized Army construction 

projects for fiscal year 2004. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

This provision would authorize new construction and planning 

and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 

2004. It would also authorize funds for facilities that support famVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00419 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
400

ily housing, including housing management offices and housing 

maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) 

This provision would authorize improvements to existing Army 

family housing units for fiscal year 2004. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) 

This provision would authorize specific appropriations for each 

line item contained in the Army’s military construction and family 

housing budget for fiscal year 2004. This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount the Army may spend on military construction projects. 

Termination of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2003 projects (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2101 and 2104 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (division B of Public Law 107–314) to rescind project authority from five installations in Germany and one in Korea, resulting in a total decrease of $118.4 million. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2003 projects (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2101 and 2104 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (division B of Public Law 107–314) to transfer project 

authority from three separate installations in Korea to Camp Humphreys, Korea, to increase the total authorization for Camp Humphreys, Korea, to $107.8 million. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2002 projects (sec. 2107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2101 and 2104 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107–107) as further amended 

by section 2105 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 

2003 (division B of Public Law 107–314) to increase the funding 

authorization for barracks projects at Fort Richardson, Alaska by 

a total of $2.0 million. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2001 projects (sec. 2108) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2101 and 2104 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (division B of Pub. L. 106–1398) as further amended by 

section 2105 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2002 

(division B of Pub. L. 107–107) to increase the funding authorization for a project to construct a saddle road at the Pohakoula 

Training Facility, Hawaii by a total of $10.0 million. 

(401)

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

Summary 

The Navy requested authorization of appropriations of $1,132.9 million for military construction and $1,037.0 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2004. The administration submitted an 

amended budget request on May 1, 2003 due to revised overseas 

requirements. The Navy requested an amended authorization of 

appropriations for $1,147.5 million for FY04 military construction. 

The Navy’s request for family housing did not change. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $1,182.6 million for military construction and $997.4 million for 

family housing for fiscal year 2004. 

The authorization for family housing includes decreases to operations accounts as a result of savings from housing privatization. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction 

projects for fiscal year 2004. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2004. It 

would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

This section would authorize improvements to existing Navy and 

Marine Corps family housing units for fiscal year 2004. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item in the Navy’s military construction and family housing budget 

for fiscal year 2004. This section also provides an overall limit on 

the amount the Navy may spend on military construction projects. 

Termination of authority to carry out a certain fiscal year 

2003 project (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2201 and 2204 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (division B of Public Law 107–314) to rescind a project authorization of $14.7 million for a dining facility at Keflavik, Iceland. 

(403)

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE 

Summary 

The Air Force requested authorization of appropriations of 

$772.8 million for military construction and $1,530.1 million for 

family housing for fiscal year 2004. This request was amended on 

May 1, 2003 by the administration due to revised overseas requirements. The Air Force’s amended budget request included $830.7 

million for FY04 military construction and $1,491.5 million for 

FY04 family housing. 

The committee recommends authorization of $1,035.5 million for 

military construction and $1,469.8 million for family housing for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The authorization for family housing includes decreases to operations accounts as a result of savings from housing privatization 

and a decrease to the housing construction improvement account 

based on the Department of Defense’s amended budget request, 

which deleted a project to improve family housing at Spangdahlem, 

Germany for $21.1 million. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

This section contains the list of authorized Air Force construction 

projects for fiscal year 2004. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 

2004. It would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices and housing 

maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

This section would authorize improvements to existing Air Force 

family housing units for fiscal year 2004. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item in the Air Force’s budget for fiscal year 2004. This section 

would also provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force 

may spend on military construction projects. 

404

Modification of fiscal year 2003 authority relating to improvement of military family housing units (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2301 and 2304 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (division B of Public Law 107–314) to decrease authorization for the family housing construction world-wide unspecified 

account by $19.3 million for a housing improvement project at 

Spangdahlem, Germany. 

(405)

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES 

Summary 

The defense agencies requested authorization of appropriations of 

$597.2 million for military construction and $49.8 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2004. This request was amended on May 1, 

2003 by the administration due to revised overseas requirements. 

The defense agencies amended budget request included $623.7 million for FY04 military construction. The defense agencies budget 

request for FY04 family housing did not change. 

The committee recommends authorization of $733.9 million for 

military construction and $49.8 million for family housing in fiscal 

year 2004. 

The committee supports the decision of the Department to request funding for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction 

program in a defense-wide account. However, military construction 

projects supporting the demilitarization program have in past years 

been authorized in Division B to maintain consistent oversight of 

construction activities. Therefore, the committee recommends a 

transfer of $119.8 million from the Chemical Agents and Munitions 

Destruction Program in Title III to Title XXIV and the authorization of appropriations necessary to continue chemical agent and 

munitions destruction program military construction projects at 

three locations. 

Authorized defense agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

This section contains the list of authorized defense agency construction projects for fiscal year 2004. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Family housing (sec. 2402) 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Department of Defense for 

fiscal year 2004. It would also authorize funds for facilities that 

support family housing, including housing management offices and 

housing maintenance and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2403) 

This provision would authorize improvements to existing defense 

agency family housing units for fiscal year 2004. 

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2404) 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out energy conservation projects. 

406

Authorization of appropriations, defense agencies (sec. 

2405) 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each defense agency military construction program for fiscal year 2004. 

This provision also would provide an overall limit on the amount 

that may be spent on such military construction projects. 

Termination of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2003 projects (sec. 2406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2401 and 2404 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (division B of Public Law 107–314) to rescind project authority from one installation in Germany, resulting in a total decrease of $997,000. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2003 projects (sec. 2407) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2101 and 2104 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (division B of Public Law 107–314) to transfer project 

authority for a Department of Defense Dependents Schools from 

Seoul, Korea, to Camp Humphreys, Korea. 

(407)

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION 

SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriation of $169.3 million for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2004. The 

committee recommends an authorization of appropriations of 

$169.3 million for fiscal year 2004. 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

This provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make 

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the 

amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this title and the 

amount of recoupment due to the United States for construction 

previously financed by the United States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

This provision would authorize appropriations of $169.3 million 

for the United States’ contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 

2004. 

(409)

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested a military construction authorization of appropriation of $369.5 million for fiscal year 2004 

for National Guard and Reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorizations of appropriations for fiscal year 2004 of 

657.6 million to be distributed as follows:

Millions 

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $276.8

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 208.5

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 74.5

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 53.9

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 34.1

Total ........................................................................................................ 647.8

Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

This provision would authorize appropriations for military construction for the National Guard and Reserve by service components for fiscal year 2004. The state list contained in this report 

is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

(411)

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2701) 

This provision would provide that authorizations for military construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family 

housing projects, contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and National Guard and Reserve 

military construction projects would expire on October 1, 2006, or 

the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2007, whichever is later. This expiration 

would not apply to authorizations for projects for which appropriated funds have been obligated before the later of October 1, 

2006, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funding for 

military construction for fiscal year 2007. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2001 

projects (sec. 2702) 

This section would extend the authorizations for certain fiscal 

year 2001 military construction projects until October 1, 2004, or 

the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2005, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2000 

projects (sec. 2703) 

This provision would extend the authorizations for certain fiscal 

year 2000 military construction projects until October 1, 2004, or 

the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2005, whichever is later. 

Effective date (sec. 2704) 

This provision would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, 

XXV, and XXVI of this Act shall take effect on October 1, 2003, or 

the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later. 

(413)

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Modification of general definitions relating to military construction (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2801 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify definitions for 

military construction and military installations. Under this provision, military construction would include any temporary or permanent construction, development, conversion, or extension of any 

kind carried out with respect to a military installation. The scope 

and duration of the operational requirement necessitating military 

construction does not affect the definition. This provision would 

also clarify the definition of military installations. 

The committee believes that these clarifications are necessary to 

respond to interpretations by the Department of Defense that current statutes allow military construction projects over $750,000 to 

be funded from operations and maintenance accounts without specific authorization or notification to Congress if: 

(1) the military construction project meets an urgent military 

operational requirement of a temporary nature; 

(2) the construction will not be carried out at a military installation as previously defined under section 2801 of title 10, 

United States Code, or at a location where the United States 

is reasonably expected to have a long-term interest or presence; 

(3) the United States has no intent to use the construction 

after the operational requirement has been satisfied; and 

(4) the nature of the construction is the minimum necessary 

to meet the temporary operational need. 

The committee is aware of, and fully supports, operational flexibility and the ability of commanders to satisfy urgent requirements 

in support of contingency operations. Existing authorizations exist 

specifically to facilitate these activities without prior notification to 

Congress. If these authorizations do not provide the necessary flexibility, the Department should seek to amend existing law. 

For military construction carried out in fiscal years 2002 and 

2003 under the Department’s interpretation to support contingency 

operations, the Secretary of Defense shall provide a report by December 30, 2003 to the congressional defense committees with detailed information on each project executed under the aforementioned interpretations. The report shall include the country, project 

title, amount, date awarded, fund source, and a brief justification 

of the requirement. 

414

Increase in number of family housing units in Italy authorized for lease by the Navy (sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2828(e) of title 10, United States Code, to increase, from 2,000 

to 2,800, the number of family housing units the Secretary of the 

Navy may lease in Italy for which the maximum annual lease cost 

per unit is $25,000. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, as executive 

agent for housing in Italy, to coordinate with the Commander, 

United States European Command, to ensure that total housing requirements meet the Department’s force protection guidelines and 

support overseas force structure and basing plans. 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Increase in threshold for reports to Congress on real property transactions (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2662 of title 10, United States Code, by raising from $500,000 

to $750,000 the threshold in real property transactions which requires notification to the congressional defense committees. 

Acceptance of in-kind consideration for easements (sec. 

2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2668 and section 2669 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the secretaries of the military departments to accept inkind payments in connection with modification of existing and the 

granting of new easements for rights-of-way and utilities. This provision would implement the same processes for the acceptance of 

in-kind considerations, as directed in section 2667, subsection (c) of 

title 10, United States Code, pertaining to the lease of property. 

Expansion to military unaccompanied housing of authority 

to transfer property at military installations to be closed 

in exchange for military housing (sec. 2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 

(part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–501; section 2687 of title 

10, United States Code) to expand the authority to allow for the 

transfer of property in exchange for unaccompanied housing. Current law authorizes the secretaries of the military departments to 

transfer property at a military installation, closed or pending closure, in exchange for military family housing at other installations 

not closed or pending closure. 

This provision would grant the same authority to military unaccompanied housing thereby accelerating initiatives to improve the 

conditions and to correct the shortage of unaccompanied housing 

units. 

415

Exemption from screening and use requirements under 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act for Department of Defense property in emergency support of 

homeland security (sec. 2814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 11411 of title 42, United States Code, to provide an exemption 

for Department of Defense property from the requirement to screen 

excess or surplus property for other uses when the Secretary of Defense determines that such DOD property should be made available 

for use by a State or local government or private entity on a temporary basis to support homeland security. Private entities are limited to non-profit relief organizations and other entities that make 

a commitment to use the property exclusively for homeland security purposes. 

While the committee recognizes the value and benefits of the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, this provision is intended to facilitate expedient and effective contingency responses 

for homeland security activities on a temporary basis. The property 

should return to its previous legal status when the Secretary of Defense determines the property is no longer needed for homeland security.

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances 

Transfer of land at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Tennessee 

(sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to transfer to the State of Tennessee a parcel of real property (right-of-way) for the purpose of realigning and 

upgrading United States Highway 79 running through Fort Campbell from two lanes to four lanes. In exchange, the Secretary would 

receive approximately 200 acres of replacement land, resulting in 

no net loss of real estate or training capability at Fort Campbell. 

The provision would also authorize the reimbursement by the State 

of all administration, survey, and other costs incurred by the Secretary into the account from which they originated. 

Land conveyance, Fort Knox, Kentucky (sec. 2822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of 

real property consisting of approximately 93 acres at Fort Knox to 

the Department of Veterans Affairs of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The purpose of the conveyance would be to establish a staterun cemetery for veterans of the armed forces. 

This provision would also direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to reimburse the Army for administrative costs related to the 

conveyance. 

Land conveyance, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, 

Georgia (sec. 2823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to convey through negotiated sale a parcel 

of property consisting of approximately 11 acres to the Preferred 

416

Development Group Corporation. The purpose of the conveyance 

would be for economic development. 

This provision would also authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 

receive reimbursement for costs incurred by surveys, administration and other activities to be deposited into base closure accounts 

for use in accordance with section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. 

Land conveyance, Army and Air Force Exchange Service 

property, Dallas, Texas (sec. 2824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) to sell property at 

1515 Roundtable Drive, Dallas, Texas and to retain the funds within AAFES-controlled accounts. This property was purchased with 

nonappropriated funds derived from AAFES operations. AAFES 

funds are generated from sales of goods and services to military 

members and expended to support the morale, welfare, and recreation of military members. Proceeds from the sale of the property 

should continue to benefit military members. This provision would 

also exempt this land disposal from the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. 

Subtitle D—Review of Overseas Military Facility and Range 

Structure 

Review of overseas military facility structure (secs. 2841–

2848) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

commission to conduct a thorough study of matters related to U.S. 

military facility structure overseas. The Commission on the Review 

of the Overseas Military Structure of the United States would consist of nine members, one of whom would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense and eight of whom would be appointed by the 

congressional leadership. The Commission would be authorized to 

hold hearings and receive information from federal agencies in 

order to assess whether the current U.S. overseas basing structure 

is adequate to execute current missions, and to assess the feasibility of closures, realignments, or establishment of new installations overseas to meet emerging defense requirements. The Commission would not take the place of or preclude in any way the ongoing efforts by the Department of Defense to conduct its own review and to develop a comprehensive and integrated global presence and basing strategy. 

The Commission would submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, as 

well as the Subcommittees on Military Construction of the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives 

on August 30, 2004, containing findings, conclusions, and recommendations for legislation and administrative actions, as well as 

a proposal for an overseas basing strategy to meet current and future requirements. 

This provision would also authorize up to $3.0 million from the 

Department of Defense operations and maintenance account to be 

417

available to the Commission to carry out its specified responsibilities. 

(419)

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations

420


Insert graphic folio 496 SR46.184
421


Insert graphic folio 497 SR46.185
422


Insert graphic folio 498 SR46.186
423


Insert graphic folio 499 SR46.187
424


Insert graphic folio 500 SR46.188
425


Insert graphic folio 501 SR46.189
426


Insert graphic folio 502 SR46.190
427


Insert graphic folio 503 SR46.191
428


Insert graphic folio 504 SR46.192
429


Insert graphic folio 505 SR46.193
430


Insert graphic folio 506 SR46.194
431


Insert graphic folio 507 SR46.195
432


Insert graphic folio 508 SR46.196
433


Insert graphic folio 509 SR46.197
434


Insert graphic folio 510 SR46.198
435


Insert graphic folio 511 SR46.199
436


Insert graphic folio 512 SR46.200
437


Insert graphic folio 513 SR46.201
438


Insert graphic folio 514 SR46.202
439


Insert graphic folio 515 SR46.203
440


Insert graphic folio 516 SR46.204
441


Insert graphic folio 517 SR46.205
442

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a total of $8.9 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal 

year 2004 for the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to carry out programs necessary to national security. 

Weapons activities 

The committee recommends $6.5 billion for weapons activities, a $79.3 million increase above the amount requested for fiscal year 

2004. The committee authorized the following activities: $1.4 billion 

for directed stockpile work; $2.4 billion for campaigns; $1.7 billion 

for readiness in the technical base, an increase of $79.3 million; 

$182.4 million for secure transportation assets; $585.8 million for 

safeguards and security; and $265.1 million for facilities and infrastructure. 

Directed stockpile work 

The committee recommends $1.4 billion for directed stockpile 

work, the amount of the budget request. The directed stockpile account supports work directly related to weapons in the stockpile, 

including day-to-day maintenance as well as research, development, engineering, and certification activities to support planned 

life extension programs. It also includes fabrication and assembly 

of weapons components, advanced concepts, weapons dismantlement and disposal, training, and support equipment. This amount 

includes $21.0 million for advanced concepts of which $15.0 million 

is authorized to continue the feasibility study on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. 

Campaigns 

The committee recommends $2.4 billion for campaigns, the 

amount of the budget request. The campaigns focus on science and 

engineering efforts involving the three weapons laboratories, the 

Nevada Test Site, and the weapons plants. Each campaign is focused on a specific activity to support and maintain the stockpile 

without underground nuclear weapons testing. These efforts maintain and enhance the safety, security, and reliability of the existing 

stockpile. The campaigns are divided into three major categories: 

science campaigns, readiness campaigns, and engineering campaigns. 

The advances in science tools, which make the stockpile stewardship program possible, were discussed in the 2003 Report, Expectations for the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship Program, by the 

Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United 

States Nuclear Stockpile, also known as the Foster Panel. While 

the Panel did offer constructive criticism of how the NNSA can 

make improvements in several areas of the nuclear weapons program, the Panel offered a more favorable view of how development 

in computational and experimental tools is advancing. The Panel 

was ‘‘* * * encouraged to find that the laboratories are doing a 

much better job in defining the contributions that these tools can 

make to directed stockpile work and ongoing warhead refurbishments.’’ Specifically, the Panel found that the laboratories ‘‘* * * 

have made considerable progress in developing more formalized 

443

and systematic methodologies for estimating warhead performance 

margins.’’

Readiness in the technical base 

The committee recommends $1.7 billion in readiness in the technical base and facilities (RTBF), a $79.3 million increase above the 

budget request. This account funds facilities and infrastructure in 

the weapons complex to ensure the operational readiness of the 

complex and includes construction funding for new facilities. 

The $79.3 million increase in RTBF is directed to the Office of 

Operations of Facilities to limit any additional deferred maintenance. The committee is concerned that RTBF’s responsibility to 

meet current and future maintenance requirements is not receiving 

the priority and resources required to avoid expanding the enormous maintenance backlogs which developed throughout the decade of the 1990s. There is additional legislation in this Act to address the committee’s concerns with the RTBF program. 

Secure transportation asset 

The committee recommends $182.4 million for the secure transportation asset, the amount of the budget request. The secure 

transportation asset is responsible for transportation of nuclear 

weapons, weapons materials and components, and other materials 

requiring safe and secure transport. 

The committee is aware that the demand for secure transportation assets will increase to meet both expanding work within the 

stockpile life extension program and the accelerated cleanup work 

in the environmental management program. This places increased 

demand on existing assets, and highlights the need for additional 

assets, and the need to hire, train, and deploy additional security 

personnel. This latter activity takes at least 18 months. At a recent 

hearing before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Dr. Everet 

Beckner, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs at the 

NNSA, testified that NNSA has a plan to deal with these increased 

demands. 

Safeguards and security 

The committee recommends $585.8 million for weapons safeguards and security, the amount of the budget request. The weapons safeguards and security account provides funding for all safeguards and security at all the NNSA complex sites. 

Facilities and infrastructure 

The committee recommends $265.1 million for the facilities and 

infrastructure recapitalization program (FIRP), the amount of the 

budget request. The committee has been impressed with the management of FIRP and encourages NNSA to continue to maintain 

this high level of organization and discipline to revitalize the nation’s nuclear weapons complex. There are additional comments on 

FIRP in this Act as they are related to proposed legislation on 

RTBF. 

444

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program 

The committee recommends $1.3 billion for the Defense Nuclear 

Nonproliferation Program, the amount of the budget request. The 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has management and oversight responsibilities for the nonproliferation programs of the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program. The committee authorized these programs, as follows: $203.8 million for 

nonproliferation and verification research and development; $101.7 

million for nonproliferation and international security; $226.0 million for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation; 

$40.0 million for Russian transition initiatives; $18.0 million for 

highly-enriched uranium transparency implementation; $14.0 million for international nuclear safety and cooperation; $50.0 million 

for elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production; $30.0 million for accelerated materials disposition; and $656.5 million for 

fissile materials disposition. 

The committee notes that the nonproliferation mission of the 

NNSA is important to U.S. National Security. For this reason, the 

committee believes it is important that the NNSA improve its management focus to expend its budget in a timely and efficient manner to ensure that the United States receives the promised national 

security benefit from these programs. In this regard, the committee 

encourages the NNSA to utilize all capabilities available to facilitate more effective management of these programs, in particular by 

developing robust information technology systems that can enable 

the program to better track accomplishments and expenditures. 

Naval Reactors 

The committee recommends $788.4 million for Naval Reactors, 

an increase of $20.0 million above the budget request. The $20.0 

million increase is for the Naval Reactors Facilities and Operations 

budget to be used to decommission older facilities. 

As the committee looks across the atomic energy activities at the 

Department of Energy, the one program that consistently performs 

to a level of excellence is the Naval Reactors program. Naval Reactors has not created a legacy that needs to be cleaned up by Environmental Management. Naval Reactors has not deferred maintenance for decades at a time thereby avoiding enormous maintenance backlogs and emergency recapitalization projects. The Naval 

Reactors program has always made it a priority to include in their 

original design and budget planning for a facility plans as to how 

they will eventually decommission that facility when it is beyond 

its useful life. 

However, the committee is concerned that Naval Reactors has 

not received adequate consideration in the budget process. When 

Naval Reactors program sought to accelerate the decommissioning 

of some facilities, which would have created substantial cost savings, the project did not receive FIRP funding from DOE. 

The committee would urge NNSA, including the Office of Operations and Facilities, to study the management and maintenance 

performance at Naval Reactors. The committee would urge NNSA 

to raise the bar for maintenance and recapitalization expectations 

across NNSA to the standard set by Naval Reactors. 

445

Office of Administrator 

The committee recommends $348.0 million for program direction 

for the National Nuclear Security Administration, the amount of 

the budget request. This account includes program direction funding for all elements of the National Nuclear Security Administration with the exception of the Naval Reactors Program and the Secure Transportation Asset. 

Defense environmental management (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

total of $6.8 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE) in fiscal 

year 2004 for environmental management (EM) activities, the 

amount of the budget request. 

Defense site acceleration completion 

The budget request included funding for the following activities: 

$1.2 billion for 2006 accelerated completions; $2.2 billion for 2012 

accelerated completions; $2.0 billion for 2035 accelerated completions; $300.0 million for safeguards and security; and $64.0 million 

for technology development and deployment. The committee recommends $5.8 billion for Defense site acceleration completion, the 

amount of the budget request. 

The committee supports the new budget format for the EM program. When the EM program first began, and for most of its existence, its efforts have been primarily focused on compliance milestones, not cleanup milestones. Under the accelerated cleanup plan, 

in the same manner as was achieved at Rocky Flats, Mound, and 

Fernald, EM is reducing risk to the environment, workers and the 

community, shortening cleanup schedules, and saving tens of billions of dollars across the EM complex. Now all EM sites have a 

closure date with the last of the cleanup to be completed no later 

than 2035. This schedule reduces the original time lines for closure 

by half or more. Many of these gains have been through innovations and new technologies which were developed by EM. However, 

most of the gains were reached by adding flexibility and incentives 

into the cleanup contracts. The committee encourages EM to continue looking for ways to advance and accelerate cleanup of our 

former defense nuclear facilities. 

Defense environmental services 

The budget request included funding for the following activities: 

$189.7 million for non-closure environmental activities; $61.3 million for community and regulatory support; $452.0 million for the 

federal contribution to the uranium enrichment decontamination 

and decommissioning fund; and $292.1 million for program direction. The committee recommends $995.2 million for Defense environmental services, the amount of the budget request. 

The committee encourages EM to continue to look for ways to reduce as much funding as is possible and practical on defense environmental services so that these resources can, instead, be focused 

on the defense site accelerated completion activities. 

446

Accelerate completion of 2012 and 2035 closure sites 

The committee encourages DOE to use any EM funding, which 

becomes available due to the closure of Rocky Flats, Fernald, 

Mound or any other 2006 closure sites, to help accelerate closure 

of the remaining EM sites. The committee is concerned that there 

are some officials at DOE who are no longer supporting a policy to 

roll over savings realized as EM sites are closed, as was originally 

proposed in 1996 when the first three closure sites were chosen to 

be closed by 2006. The four remaining, major EM sites—Hanford 

Site, Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, 

Oak Ridge Reservation and Savannah River Site—were ensured 

that if they stood by while the first three 2006 closures were completed, then the remaining sites could use those savings to accelerate their own closure. By closing Rocky Flats, Fernald, and 

Mound, there is approximately a combined $1.0 billion per year 

freed up to accelerate completion of the remaining EM sites. 

The budget model used to accelerate closure at Rocky Flats, 

Mound, and Fernald was to use an increase of funding at the beginning to focus on reducing high risk cleanup tasks first. This 

model greatly reduced the overhead costs needed to monitor and 

guard the high risk areas, providing a windfall of funds to accelerate cleanup, and substantially reduce life cycle costs. With an additional $1.0 billion per year available by 2007, following the closure of the first three closure sites, this should provide the momentum needed to substantially accelerate closure of the remaining EM 

sites. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$465.1 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) other defense 

activities, $29.3 million below the budget request, as explained 

below.

Energy Security and Assistance 

The budget request included $4.3 million for Energy Security and 

Assistance. The committee recommends no funds for these activities. These funds are requested for program direction costs for an 

operational component of this office that was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2003. The 

committee notes that funding for this component should be included in the DHS budget. 

Office of Security 

The committee recommends $211.8 million for the Office of Security, the amount of the budget request. The committee notes a 

$27.5 million, or 15 percent, increase for this account compared to 

the level of funding in fiscal year 2003. However, the committee 

also notes that the request is still $42.2 million, or 20 percent, 

below the level of funding in fiscal year 2002. 

Intelligence 

The committee recommends $39.8 million for intelligence, the 

amount of the budget request. 

447

Counterintelligence 

The committee recommends $46.0 million for counterintelligence, 

the amount of the budget request. The committee encourages the 

Office of Counterintelligence to continue to focus on the current 

and emerging challenges in cyber-security. 

Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance 

The committee recommends $22.6 million for the Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance, the amount of the 

budget request. 

Environment safety and health 

The committee recommends $107.7 million for environment, safety and health, the amount of the budget request. 

Worker and community transition 

The committee recommends $15.0 million for worker and community transition, the amount of the budget request. 

National nuclear security administrative support 

The budget request included $25.0 million for national security 

programs administrative support. The committee recommends no 

funds for this purpose. The committee notes that the NNSA program direction adequately supports NNSA. 

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $360.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, $70.0 million 

below the budget request, but $47.0 million above the fiscal year 

2003 appropriated level. The committee is concerned about whether 

the defense nuclear waste disposal program could absorb the entire 

budget request level of $430.0 million in fiscal year 2004, which is 

a $112.0 million increase over the fiscal year 2003 appropriated 

level. However, there is no intention by this reduction to delay or 

otherwise impact the opening of Yucca Mountain. 

Defense energy supply (sec. 3105) 

The committee recommends $110.5 million, the amount of the 

fiscal year 2004 request, for defense energy supply. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Repeal of prohibition on research and development of lowyield nuclear weapons (sec. 3131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1994 and thereby end the prohibition on research and development 

of low-yield nuclear weapons. This provision would also state that 

nothing in the provision should be construed as authorizing the 

testing, acquisition or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon. 

The committee notes the recent testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces by Ambassador Linton Brooks, the 

Acting-Administrator of the NNSA, in which he discussed the reaVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00467 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
448

sons for the administration’s request to repeal the ban on low-yield 

nuclear weapon research. According to Ambassador Brooks, ‘‘Repeal of the restriction simply removes the chilling effect on scientific inquiry that could hamper our ability to maintain and exercise our intellectual capabilities and to respond to needs that one 

day might be articulated by the President.’’ Ambassador Brooks 

further testified, ‘‘We are, in examining these concepts, seeking to 

free ourselves from intellectual prohibitions against exploring the 

full range of technical options to meet potential future needs just 

because some options might imply a hypothetical weapon with a 

yield below an arbitrary value.’’ Ambassador Brooks clarified that 

the repeal of low-yield research restrictions ‘‘* * * falls far short 

of committing the United States to developing, producing, or deploying new, low-yield warheads.’’ Finally, Ambassador Brooks 

stressed that ‘‘* * * such warhead concepts could not proceed to 

full-scale development, much less production and deployment, unless Congress authorizes and appropriates the funds required to do 

this.’’ The committee also refers to a recently released report, Expectations for the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship Program, by the 

Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United 

States Nuclear Stockpile, also known as the Foster Panel. In this 

report, the Panel found the ‘‘* * * proscription on [research and 

development] casts doubt on the permissibility of important areas 

of research, and perpetuates troubling gaps in our knowledge. The 

Executive Branch and Congress should continue to discharge their 

responsibilities by exercising control over Phase III (and Phase 6.3) 

decisions for commencing full-scale development, and at subsequent decision points. This permits necessary oversight and control 

without hamstringing the laboratories’ ability to perform needed 

intellectual work in the interests of national security.’’ The committee encourages the NNSA to challenge their scientists 

and engineers to think, explore, discover, and innovate. By removing the prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, our experts will expand their own understanding 

and capabilities, without artificial restrictions. Broader U.S. defense capabilities increase the credibility of deterrence. 

Readiness posture for resumption by the United States of 

underground nuclear weapons tests (sec. 3132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to achieve, and thereafter maintain, a readiness posture of 18 months for resumption by the United States of 

underground nuclear tests. The Secretary of Energy should achieve 

this readiness posture by October 1, 2006. If through the review 

conducted to comply with section 3142(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the Secretary determines that a different readiness posture is feasible and 

advisable, then the Secretary should achieve, and thereafter maintain, that optimal test readiness posture. 

The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report if the Secretary 

determines a different readiness posture is feasible and advisable. 

Included in this report, the Secretary shall state the new readiness 

posture and explain reasons for the Secretary’s determination. 

449

Nothing in this provision shall affect the reporting requirements 

included in section 3142(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. 

In the 2003 report entitled Expectations for the U.S. Nuclear 

Stockpile Stewardship Program by the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile 

(more commonly known as the Foster Panel), the Panel reflected 

back to the 2001 report which ‘‘* * * emphasized the need for significant improvements in test readiness.’’ The Panel recommended 

a readiness posture of ‘‘three months to a year.’’ In the 2003 report, 

the Panel ‘‘expressed concern that the ‘‘NNSA’s planning assumptions for test readiness are overly conservative, and consequently 

exceptionally long preparation times become a self-fulfilling prophecy.’’ To shorten their test readiness posture, ‘‘[t]he Panel recommends that the NNSA and DOD coordinate through the Nuclear 

Weapons Council on a few specific steps to create a useful testreadiness posture.’’ The Panel provided several specific steps, including identifying the tests that are most likely to be needed, preparing the appropriate test articles and instrumentation, and deploying long-lead items to the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The Panel 

also focused on the benefits for test readiness served by sub-critical 

experiments in a vertical hole at the NTS. The Panel asserted, ‘‘[t]o 

sustain high confidence in test readiness, it is important to have 

a regularly scheduled series of high fidelity sub-critical tests.’’ The 

committee would encourage the NNSA to embrace these views and 

recommendations offered by the Foster Panel. 

Technical base and facilities maintenance and recapitalization activities (sec. 3133)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator for Nuclear Security to add discipline and criteria to 

the operations and facilities program within the readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF) program. The committee is concerned that the maintenance and repair backlogs, which have 

plagued the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

complex for over a decade and that led to the need to establish the 

facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program (FIRP), have 

not yet been corrected. 

Since the creation of FIRP in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2002, funding to eliminate the backlog of deferred maintenance across the NNSA complex has totaled $437.0 

million for the last two years, and $265.0 million is requested for 

fiscal year 2004. However, the budget requests for the operations 

of facilities program, which is responsible for current and future 

maintenance needs, are barely keeping pace with inflation, and the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request is almost $50.0 million below the 

fiscal year 2003 appropriation. This funding level will only continue 

to add to the amount of deferred maintenance, which will result in 

FIRP never reaching its primary mission, the elimination of the 

maintenance backlog in ten years. 

Although the committee is concerned that NNSA is not requesting adequate funding for operations and facilities within RTBF to 

stem the tide of deferred maintenance, it is also the committee’s 

view that other systemic problems need to be addressed. This proVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00469 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
450

vision would require the Administrator of NNSA to complete the 

selection of FIRP projects by September 30, 2004. No additional 

projects could be added to FIRP after that time. 

The FIRP program was originally envisioned and introduced to 

Congress as a ten-year program with a narrow and specific goal of 

eliminating the enormous maintenance backlog, which had accumulated over many years. Accordingly, this provision would sunset 

the FIRP program on September 30, 2011, at the end of the FIRP’s 

tenth year. By including this provision, the committee intends to 

send a clear signal to NNSA that FIRP is only a temporary fix to 

the maintenance backlogs and NNSA must plan to meet current 

and future maintenance requirements in the ordinary course of 

business. 

The committee is concerned that the current facilities and operations program is so intertwined in the larger RTBF program that 

it does not receive the priority or oversight it requires. The committee believes NNSA should set up a program similar to FIRP to 

address current and future maintenance needs. This provision 

would include several requirements to ensure NNSA moves toward 

this type of disciplined structure. 

This provision would require the Administrator to set up the operations and facilities program as a separate program, independent 

of the RTBF. The operations and facilities program would be managed by the Associate Administrator for Facilities and Operations 

or another official within NNSA in a manner similar to the way 

FIRP is set up and managed. 

Additionally, the provision would require the Administrator to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees setting 

forth guidelines on how NNSA’s current and future maintenance 

needs shall be met, including the types of criteria to be used. The 

goal of the guidelines included in the report should be to ensure 

NNSA avoids maintenance backlogs. 

The committee was apprehensive about authorizing such large 

increases to NNSA when the FIRP program began. The concerns 

were that at the end of the ten year period, NNSA would have 

spent billions of dollars without revitalizing their infrastructure. It 

was clear to the committee then and remains clear today that the 

only way to ensure the infrastructure will be revitalized and the 

maintenance backlog eliminated is with dedication and discipline. 

Continuation of processing, treatment, and disposition of 

legacy nuclear materials (sec. 3134) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2001 to prohibit the Department of Energy (DOE), from beginning 

to decommission the F Canyon facility at the Savannah River Site 

(SRS) until the Secretary of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) jointly submit to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 

report setting forth an assessment whether or not all materials 

present in the F Canyon are safely stabilized and future needs for 

fissile materials disposition can be met through H Canyon. Section 

3137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

451

2001 is amended by deleting the requirement that F Canyon be 

maintained in a high state of readiness. 

The committee believes there is no compelling future mission for 

F Canyon. All material remaining in the F Canyon facility has 

been or soon will be safely stabilized. All additional fissile materials that must be processed through a canyon for stabilization or 

disposition purposes can be processed in the newer and more flexible H Canyon facility at SRS. Furthermore, maintaining F Canyon 

in a high state of readiness would require the expenditure of significant funds for surveillance and maintenance, which, in the absence of any need for F Canyon, could better be applied to other 

important risk reduction and cleanup activities. 

The Department and the DNFSB both agree the H Canyon can 

safely process all the material that remains in the F Canyon or 

that the materials can be safely disposed of in another manner. 

The Department and the DNFSB also both agree that there is no 

programmatic requirement for maintaining the F Canyon. 

The provision would eliminate the DNFSB certification requirement, and would require the DOE to submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the DNFSB before commencing 

the decommissioning of F Canyon. The provision would retain the 

requirement that H Canyon be maintained in a high state of readiness. This change would ensure the availability of H Canyon for 

any future canyon processing needs. 

Subtitle C—Proliferation Matters 

Expansion of International Materials Protection, Control, 

and Accounting Program (sec. 3141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Energy to conduct nuclear nonproliferation threat reduction activities and projects outside the states of the former Soviet Union for the International Materials, Protection, Control, and 

Accounting Program. The Secretary of Energy would be required to 

notify the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives 15 days prior to obligating funds for activities in or with respect to countries outside the Former Soviet 

Union. The notification would include the amount to be obligated, 

specific details of the project, and any other federal agencies or private sector entities that may be involved. 

While the committee supports the expansion of the geographic 

scope of this Program and expects that all expansion projects and 

activities will be detailed in the annual report, the committee believes that the original intent behind the creation of the Program 

must remain intact. Because the original mission of the International Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program is 

far from complete, the committee urges the Department to undertake any geographic expansion judiciously to avoid diverting the 

necessary funds and program focus away from completing the Program’s original mission of securing and accounting for weapons usable nuclear materials in the Former Soviet Union. 

452

Semi-annual financial reports on Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program (sec. 3142) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide semi-annual financial reports to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives for the Department of Energy 

(DOE) Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program. The reports are 

due to the committees 30 calendar days after the end of each half 

of the fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 2004. The first report 

would be due April 30, 2004, and would cover the first six months 

of fiscal year 2004. 

The committee believes that the DOE Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program should provide greater transparency regarding the financial management of the Program to improve congressional oversight. Because of the committee’s concern over uncosted, 

or unexpended, balances for this important nonproliferation program, the committee believes semi-annual financial reporting will 

assist the committee with tracking program expenditures to ensure 

that the national security benefit proposed by this nonproliferation 

program can be realized. This information facilitates committee 

monitoring of the expenditure of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Program funds. Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator 

for Nuclear Security to provide semi-annual financial reports detailing the total obligation authority per program, the amounts obligated, unobligated, committed to contracts, and disbursed. 

Report on reduction of excessive uncosted balances for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities (sec. 3143) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

with a plan to reduce the amount of uncosted, or unexpended, balances for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program if, at the 

end of fiscal year 2004, the Program’s uncosted balances exceed 20 

percent. This plan would be due not later than November 30, 2004. 

The purpose of the plan would be to provide the committees with 

the Department of Energy’s (DOE) strategic approach to addressing 

the low expenditures of defense nuclear nonproliferation funds 

from current and previous fiscal years. 

The committee believes the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Program should strive to attain the DOE-wide average of 15 percent uncosted, or unspent levels, per fiscal year. Currently, the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program is averaging uncosted balances of nearly 50 percent of the Program’s total appropriated 

budget. In some instances, such as the Russian Transition Initiatives Program, these balances exceed 70 percent. According to the 

Department, these levels are higher than the Program’s historical 

average of 30 percent due to the additional funds the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program received in the fiscal year 2002 

emergency supplemental, and the Program’s inability to absorb 

these additional funds in a timely manner. The committee believes 

these circumstances will be replicated again, as a result of the fiscal year 2003 emergency supplemental, and the Program will have 

the same uncosted balances situation in the current fiscal year. 

453

The committee believes the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Program must address these expenditure challenges immediately. 

Therefore, the committee directs program management to adopt a 

more aggressive, focused approach to expending these funds without sacrificing accountability, management, and oversight. The 

committee urges the Department to consider innovative methods in 

developing and implementing such an approach and to take action 

immediately. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Modification of authorities on Department of Energy personnel security investigations (sec. 3151) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide the Secretary 

of Energy the authority to refer security investigations to either the 

Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) or the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). Current law requires the FBI to investigate 

all initial personnel security investigations and all reinvestigations 

for DOE federal and contractor employees assigned to a DOE Special Access Program (SAP) or a Personnel Security and Assurance 

Program. 

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the DOE increased its 

security needs at the same time the FBI faced significantly increased demands on its resources. The result has been significant 

delays in completing security investigations needed by DOE to accomplish its mission in a timely fashion. 

This provision would allow the Secretary of Energy to chose either the FBI or the OPM to conduct the investigations. The committee notes that the FBI and the OPM both use contractor personnel to perform their security investigations, and often they use 

the same contractors. They both conduct their investigations in a 

similar manner and scope. 

The committee recommends that the Secretary, in exercising his 

discretion, choose those personnel with access to highly classified 

materials to be investigated by the FBI for their initial security 

clearances or, if those personnel already have their security clearance, any subsequent five-year or periodic re-investigations. The 

committee recommends the Secretary set forth a policy clearly 

identifying which investigations should be conducted by the FBI. 

The committee is also concerned that some security breaches 

could have been prevented if there had been more coordination between the FBI and other security agencies, including the Central 

Intelligence Agency. The committee encourages the Department to 

look for more ways to cross check their security information against 

other agencies as an added security tool, where appropriate. 

Responsibilities of Environmental Management program 

and National Nuclear Security Administration of Department of Energy for environmental cleanup, decontamination and decommissioning, and waste management (sec. 3152) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to establish a policy to clarify the shared or 

454

overlapping responsibilities between the environmental management (EM) program and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The types of roles and responsibilities that need clarification include environmental cleanup, decontamination and decommissioning, and waste management. In each of these cleanup 

categories policy questions remain whether EM will retain these 

tasks permanently, or whether EM will only complete cleanup work 

they are currently assigned and then whether EM—as a Department of Energy program—would thereafter cease to exist. In this 

latter approach, NNSA would then be assigned these responsibilities as part of their operations and budget decisions. 

When asked about the advantages of making NNSA responsible 

for its own cleanup, Jessie Roberson, the Assistant Secretary for 

Environmental Management, recently compared the benefits to 

those found by industry. Before the Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces, Ms. Roberson testified, ‘‘In industry the view is normally 

that if a generator has to make cost-benefit decisions, then they are 

likely to generate less to be more aggressive about pollution prevention. In the past, EM and NNSA have been very intertwined at 

these sites, but I believe that there is a benefit to tying pollution 

prevention principles to the generation of materials directly.’’ While 

Ms. Roberson’s view is compelling, an alternative view may be that 

the EM program already has the cleanup expertise and should continue to conduct the cleanup activities for the NNSA complex. 

The committee is concerned that there is confusion about DOE’s 

policy, now and for the future. Clarification is needed. Accordingly, 

this provision would require the Secretary to include a report declaring DOE’s policy on these matters. The report should be submitted with the administration’s budget request for fiscal year 

2005. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Energy, to prepare a plan to implement the new policy, including any recommendations for legislation to help delineate responsibilities between EM and NNSA. The plan would be presented with the administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2006. 

Update of report on stockpile stewardship criteria (sec. 

3153) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees, by March 1, 2005, on clear and specific criteria for 

judging whether the science-based tools being used by the Department of Energy for determining the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile are performing in a manner that will provide an adequate degree of certainty that the stockpile is safe and 

reliable. This is an update of the report required in section 3158 

of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 1999. 

The report required by this provision was recommended in the 

2003 report by the Foster Panel—the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile—entitled Expectations for the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship Program. The Panel also recommended that the report include 

a list of new tools to be deployed within the production facilities. 

455

Additionally, the Panel recommended that for each tool, the 

‘‘* * * report should identify critical contributions for stockpile 

stewardship and how the tool is to be validated.’’ All of these Panel 

recommendations have been included in this provision. 

Progress reports on energy employees occupational illness 

compensation program (sec. 3154) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Government Affairs, and the Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions in the Senate, and the Committee on 

Government Reform and the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce in the House of Representatives, on the ability of 

NIOSH to obtain, in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, information necessary for the purpose of carrying out radiation dose 

reconstructions under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The report should 

be submitted within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

Subtitle E—Consolidation of General Provisions on 

Department of Energy National Security Programs 

Consolidation and assembly of recurring and general provisions on Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 3161) 

The committee recommends a provision that would combine recurring and general provisions on Department of Energy (DOE) national security programs with a goal of consolidating and organizing these provisions into a single Act intended to comprise the 

principal Act of the recurring and general provisions on these programs. The committee has taken great care to ensure that this effort would not make any substantive changes to the existing laws. 

The provision includes technical and conforming amendments of a 

non-substantive nature. 

Budget Items 

Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development Program

The budget request included $203.8 million for the Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development Program. The 

committee supports the vital technologies developed by this Program to detect and deter weapons of mass destruction proliferation 

and to monitor nuclear explosions world-wide. The committee believes that one of the key missions of this Program should be to 

identify new technologies that can support the Department of Energy’s ongoing nonproliferation programs and the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program activities. In this regard, the committee encourages the Nonproliferation and 

Verification Research and Development Program to use up to $2.0 

million of the funds available to accelerate a technology that will 

identify the isotopic and chemical signatures of concealed materials 

located inside containers or storage sites. 

456

Items of Special Interest 

Academic evaluation of environmental management accelerated cleanup technologies 

The committee notes that the environmental management program technology development and deployment program provides 

technical solutions and alternative technologies to assist with the 

accelerated cleanup of the Department of Energy (DOE) complex. 

Key to this success is moving the technologies that have been developed into the field where they can be fully utilized to accelerate 

cleanup. DOE also seeks to adapt existing technologies for application in DOE cleanup plans. DOE is constantly looking at alternative cleanup options to reduce costs and to accelerate cleanup. In 

carrying out these technology transfer activities DOE has successfully relied on the academic community to help develop fundamental data needed to evaluate new remediation and treatment 

technologies. The academic community has provided unbiased recognized technical experts to assist DOE in evaluating new technologies, resolving technical issues and working with regulators 

and stakeholders to ensure that the new technologies are accepted 

and incorporated into the cleanup plans as quickly as possible. The 

committee urges the Secretary of Energy to continue these beneficial relations with the academic community. 

Consolidation of the Office of Worker and Community Transition and the Office of Legacy Management 

The committee supports the establishment of the Office of Legacy 

Management as proposed by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

budget request for fiscal year 2004. The Office of Legacy Management (LM) will be responsible for assuming long-term environmental stewardship responsibilities after the cleanup work by Environmental Management (EM) is complete. Additionally, LM will 

be responsible for ensuring the EM workforce has quick and easy 

access to their records, and to their pension and medical benefits. 

The committee recommends that the Secretary merge the Office 

of Worker and Community Transition, and its responsibilities as 

set out in Section 3161 of the Defense Authorization Act of 1993, 

into the Office of Legacy Management. The functions of the Office 

of Worker and Community Transition include, but are not limited 

to, mitigating the impacts of changing conditions on the workers 

and communities affected by departmental mission changes. 

The end of the Cold War brought fundamental changes to the 

DOE’s mission. The Department has shifted from nuclear weapons 

production to other missions, such as environmental management 

and the eventual cleanup and closure of sites. The committee notes 

that by consolidating the workforce and community functions of the 

Office of Worker and Community Transition in the Office of Legacy 

Management, one dedicated office, the Department will achieve significant efficiencies and protect the workforce. 

Mr. Mike Owens, Director of the Office of Worker and Community Transition, and designated to become the Director of the Office 

of Legacy Management, testified before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. Mr. Owens said, ‘‘[c]learly many of the things that the 

Worker and Community Transition Office is doing is a very natural 

457

glove fit to have it run by the same Office of Legacy Management. 

They are out there dealing with local communities, which will be 

a big responsibility of Legacy Management. They take the worker 

up to that last split second when he goes off the payroll and Legacy 

Management picks him up and carries him on through retirement. 

So it seems very logical that the two offices be merged together.’’

Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program 

The facilities and infrastructure recapitalization program (FIRP) 

was originally created in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2002 to address a backlog of deferred maintenance 

across the facilities and infrastructure which supports the Defense 

Programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 

The original provision required NNSA to create firm criteria 

against which projects would be judged and priorities established. 

The chosen projects were to place a high priority on worker and 

community health and safety, compliance with environmental requirements, safeguards and security requirements, and ensure the 

mission of defense programs is maintained on a timely basis. The 

original provision also included a mechanism for sites to have their 

priorities integrated into a complex wide priority projects list. The 

priority projects were to be based on their individual merits, not 

any requirement for an equitable distribution of the funds by site. 

Finally, the committee expressed their support for NNSA efforts to 

address the maintenance backlog at NNSA sites, and directed 

NNSA to plan and budget adequately in the future for maintenance. NNSA was to ensure that maintenance costs were included 

in their five year budget plan for new construction, and that all 

new construction was planned to include funds to tear down the facilities they are replacing. 

The committee believes that the NNSA successfully set up the 

FIRP program as envisioned in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The FIRP program has adopted criteria 

with discipline and a vision for eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog. The management of the FIRP program has received 

some criticism from NNSA facilities that FIRP imposes too much 

discipline and a lack of flexibility. The committee asserts that it 

was a lack of discipline and too much flexibility which created the 

maintenance backlog in the first place. The committee encourages 

NNSA and the facilities to work to ensure that the current and future maintenance in the readiness in technical base and facilities 

(RTBF) program receive as much priority and discipline as FIRP. 

RTBF is still deferring maintenance, adding scope to the FIRP program, and placing success of the FIRP program at risk. 

Need for an enhanced schedule for the modern pit facility 

The committee urges that the Department of Energy (DOE) to 

evaluate options for the acceleration of modern pit facility (MPF) 

design and construction. Considerations for a modern pit facility 

should include consolidation of design and environmental review 

activities, the effect of different MPF designs on construction schedules, and the potential compression of proposed construction schedules. The Department should also evaluate the loss of technical expertise in pit production due to the closure of Rocky Flats, and asVerDate Jan 31 2003 04:02 May 16, 2003 Jkt 086990 PO 00000 Frm 00477 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR046.XXX SR046
458

sess options to ensure that the Nation’s experience in this area is 

not further degraded until the MPF becomes operational. Finally, 

the Department should indicate how their plan for keeping the production program agile and how their engineering design will create 

a flexible facility to meet ever changing military requirements in 

a world fraught with emerging threats. 

The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report detailing 

its findings, and the steps it is taking to accelerate the MPF and 

protect its institutional knowledge of production processes, to the 

congressional defense committees together with the fiscal year 

2005 budget request. The report should also include a schedule to 

establish a requirement by pit type by year, and any other requirements. The DOE must have a requirement established to ensure 

that the MPF is appropriately sized. 

The Department’s current schedule does not envision operations 

at the proposed MPF until the year 2020. While the Department 

expects to conduct limited pit production at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the interim, the expected production levels at 

this laboratory will be of limited value in maintaining the Nation’s 

strategic arsenal. As the Department has not had a viable pit production facility since the closure of Rocky Flats in 1989, the committee is concerned with a proposed 2020 operations starting date 

for the new MPF. 

Recruiting and retaining critical skills in the nuclear weapons complex 

The committee has received several expressions of concern about 

the continued ability of the national laboratories and nuclear weapons plants to attract and retain a workforce meeting the Manhattan Project standard of ‘‘the best and the brightest.’’ In response, 

the committee directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a study of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) and its contractor’s efforts to attract and retain new scientific and engineering talent. 

A key factor to maintaining a safe and reliable nuclear weapons 

stockpile is attracting and retaining our nation’s best scientists, engineers and technicians. Since the late 1990s, numerous groups 

have recognized that recruiting and retention is becoming a critical 

problem for the nuclear weapons complex. Specifically, in February 

1999, the Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear 

Weapons Expertise—often called the Chiles Commission—found 

that while the problems of an aging nuclear weapons workforce 

were well recognized, there were ‘‘few initiatives to change in any 

basic way’’ the manner in which the design labs and production 

plants approached recruitment, career management, or retention. 

The Commission recommended that DOE and its contractors develop on a priority basis a detailed and long-term complex-wide 

plan for replenishing the essential scientific, engineering, and technical nuclear weapons workforce. More recently, in fiscal year 2001, 

as part of an effort to improve the critical skills at the Los Alamos 

and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) required the two labs—

through a contract mechanism known as Appendix O—to develop 

459

a consolidated plan for recruiting, training and retaining employees 

with critical skills. 

While planning is important, the committee notes that given the 

vital nature of this long-recognized problem, the national laboratories and nuclear weapons plants should go beyond the planning 

stage and should be heavily involved in implementing programs to 

attract and retain our nation’s best scientific, engineering and technical minds. The committee is concerned that while recent initiatives have been started by the NNSA and the individual facilities, 

it appears that their efforts and coordination remain fragmented. 

In an effort to quantify the various educational grants and outreach programs and establish a recruitment program baseline, the 

committee directs the GAO to include in the study, the following: 

(1) an overview of the NNSA programs and initiatives to attract and retain scientific, engineering and technical skills; 

(2) an inventory and description of the programs developed 

by the national weapons labs and nuclear weapons plants to 

attract and retain scientific, engineering and technical skills, 

including education grants and scholarship programs; 

(3) an assessment of how well these programs are functioning individually and as part of the larger program; 

(4) an identification and assessment of ‘‘best practices’’ in 

other high tech industries that could be used by NNSA and its 

contractors; and 

(5) an identification and assessment of any other alternative 

approaches, such as the forgiveness of educational expenses, 

that could be used to attract and retain new scientific and engineering talent. 

GAO should complete this study within six months of the date of 

enactment of this act and report its findings to the congressional 

defense committees. 

Treatment of construction projects for the environmental 

management program 

The committee supports the Department’s proposed treatment of 

environmental management (EM) program line item projects with 

the expectation that the same level of project management and 

oversight will occur, and that this accommodation will further accelerate the cleanup of legacy waste from the EM sites. 

The committee notes that the EM Program has been very successful in accelerating site closure plans by reducing risk to the environment, workers and communities, which in turn shorten cleanup schedules, and will potentially save tens of billions of dollars 

upon completion. 

In order to introduce additional flexibility and efficiencies, the 

EM budget request for fiscal year 2004 included a proposal that 

would change the way the Department would treat line item construction projects within the EM program. In lieu of requesting all 

projects for authorization and subsequent base table control, in 

some cases the Department proposed treating construction projects 

as subprojects to a larger project and funded as a normal operating 

funded item. In making the EM program itself a project, any line 

item construction project at a particular site becomes a part or portion of a larger project. This arrangement would provide the project 

460

manager with the latitude and discretion to make real time cost 

and schedule tradeoff decisions regarding how best to utilize the 

total dollar and worker resources of that project to optimize both 

cost and schedule. 

The ability to make timely decisions regarding available resources and assets are vitally critical to the EM accelerated cleanup initiative. The committee notes the obvious success of a similar 

arrangement at Rocky Flats some years earlier. Likewise, the committee notes the Department remains committed to providing a 

similar level of detail—in both the President’s budget and in 

project execution—that would be provided if the construction activity were a traditional line item construction project. 

(461)

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY 

BOARD 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends $19.6 million, the amount of the fiscal year 2004 budget request, for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board (DNFSB). 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

By letter dated March 3, 2003, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed legislation ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 

for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 

military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes.’’ The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 1428 to the Committee 

on Armed Services on March 3, 2003. Executive Communication 

1428 is available for review at the committee. Senators Warner and 

Levin introduced this legislative proposal as S. 747, by request, on 

March 31, 2003. 

Committee Action 

The committee ordered reported a comprehensive original bill 

and a series of original bills for Department of Defense, military 

construction and Department of Energy authorizations by voice 

vote. 

The roll call votes on amendments to the bill which were considered during the course of the markup have been made public and 

are available at the committee. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2004. 

462

Changes in Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 

(463)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS CHAMBLISS, CORNYN, 

GRAHAM OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND INHOFE 

While the Committee has produced a good bill that will provide 

a much needed pay raise for the men and women who serve in our 

military, increased benefits for our military families, and critical 

resources to give our military the tools which they need to protect 

and defend our nation, we strongly disagree with the Committee’s 

decision to reduce the production of the F/A–22 aircraft by 2 aircraft and decrease the fiscal year 2004 funding for the F/A–22 by 

$217 million. 

The F/A–22 is our next generation tactical fighter aircraft to replace the aging aircraft currently in our inventory. With its stealth 

design, capability for supersonic cruise without afterburners, exceptional maneuverability, and advanced integrated avionics, the F/A–

22 will give our military the ability to provide 24 hour all weather 

air superiority. The F/A–22’s ability to give our pilots first-look, 

first-shot, first-kill capability will guarantee U.S. air dominance 

well into the 21st century. Further, the F/A–22 will require less 

maintenance support and lower deployment support requirements 

than our current fighters. In the face of sophisticated air defense 

systems, increased advanced fighter aircraft being developed and 

sold around the world, and enhanced air to air and surface to air 

missile threats, the F/A–22 will be one of our most critical military 

assets in the future. 

In the fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Department of Defense, the President recommended $3.727 billion for the procurement of 22 F/A–22 Raptor aircraft. In fiscal year 2003, the Air 

Force plans to purchase 21 F/A–22 aircraft. Reducing the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request will only serve to raise questions about our commitment to the program, unsettle the confidence of the subcontractors and suppliers, ultimately increasing 

the costs to the entire program and making it subject to further 

criticism. 

The Committee is correct in closely monitoring the program and 

attempting to ensure that the taxpayer’s money is used wisely and 

efficiently. However, in extensive testimony before the Airland Subcommittee this year, the Subcommittee heard from the Air Force 

that the program is doing extremely well. Over the past few years, 

the Congress has carefully watched the program and implemented 

milestones to ensure that the aircraft meets the needs of our military. The F/A–22 is one of the most sophisticated and complex systems in the military. Given the complexities, the program has performed exceedingly well, meeting or exceeding technical and operational requirements. The program completed a successful OSD Defense Acquisition Board review in March 2003. With only one exception, all technical challenges which the aircraft has encountered 

have been effectively resolved. 

464

One issue currently being addressed is the avionics stability. The 

F/A–22 avionics suite is some of the most sophisticated and advanced software being developed today. Run-time for the current 

software has improved from 1.3 to 3.2 hours in the past month 

alone. Further software improvements can be expected in the coming months. Additionally in December, 2002, the Department of Defense Acquisition Executive, Secretary Aldridge, certified that the 

avionics hardware and architecture are sound and unrelated to the 

software instability. There is also no retrofit risk associated with 

maturing software. The only retrofit requirement related to avionics for aircraft currently being produced would be a software update. The cost of such an update is minimal and the Air Force does 

similar updates for every aircraft in the inventory on a recurring 

basis. The current avionics problem is isolated to software that is 

being tested now, while the Lot 4 aircraft which the Committee 

chose to reduce will not even deliver until 2006. There is no relationship between the proposed reduction in aircraft and the avionics issues currently being addressed. 

Although it is true the F/A–22 production effort is behind in its 

original schedule, the proposed reduction in funding will further 

hinder that schedule. Aircraft number 4013, scheduled to be delivered in April 2003, experienced foreign object debris damage during 

its last test flight requiring an engine to be replaced and delaying 

delivery of that aircraft. Furthermore, the Air Force has no funding 

obligation or execution issues on the current aircraft being delivered. Aircraft number 4013 was delivered to the Air Force on 8 

May, as the Committee was completing its mark. It is expected 

that aircraft numbers 4014 and 4015 will be delivered by the end 

of May. 

Additionally, the Air Force recently announced that they would 

purchase one additional F/A–22 during the fiscal year 2003. Their 

ability to do this was based on increasing program efficiencies, increased supplier confidence, and hard work by the F/A–22 team. By 

decreasing the funding in FY04, the program’s progress will only 

be hurt and will ultimately result in a per plane cost increase of 

approximately $3 million with a corresponding decrease in the 

number of aircraft delivered by as much as 10 aircraft. 

The F/A–22 program is essential to the future security of the 

United States and to our nation’s ability to defend freedom around 

the Globe. Full funding for this program is important to keep costs 

stable and the program on track. Production stability is vital to 

achieving future program affordability goals. The avionics challenges and any future technical issues will be overcome, but reducing procurement now will damage supplier confidence and increase 

supplier costs, further reducing the number of aircraft the Air 

Force will be able to buy. 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS. 

JOHN CORNYN. 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 

(465)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR REED 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Under the guise of maintaining flexibility and keeping all options 

open, this bill approves and encourages the Bush Administration to 

continue its push to develop, test, deploy and possibly use, nuclear 

weapons. Not since the days of the Cold War, when the United 

States turned to nuclear weapons as its only option to counter the 

superior conventional forces of the Soviet Union, have we even 

thought about nuclear weapons as a usable option. Now, in this 

bill, the pieces of a new nuclear policy are beginning to come together. This new policy represents a dramatic shift in direction 

away from nonproliferation, away from our commitments under the 

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and away from efforts to 

delegitimize nuclear weapons. Today, because we are concerned 

that the current stockpile of over 8,000 nuclear weapons might not 

deter others, because we might be self-deterred from using those 

nuclear weapons, we embark on a path toward new nuclear weapons, to use. 

The progress toward this policy shift in nuclear policy has been 

steady and has occurred largely out of the public view. The December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, a classified document, was advertised as reducing nuclear weapons and as an effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. Unfortunately it did neither. No nuclear 

weapons were slated for destruction under this document, and, 

worse, the line between nuclear and non-nuclear was blurred. The 

new triad adopted by the Bush Administration was not a nuclear 

triad in the traditional sense of land, sea, and air weapons, but 

rather, it was a triad of concepts: offensive strike, defense, and infrastructure. Nuclear and non-nuclear weapons were grouped in 

the strike leg. Nuclear weapons would now be incorporated in 

strike plans and the nuclear weapons infrastructure was to be revitalized. The revitalization was not just to maintain the current 

stockpile of nuclear weapons and not just to maintain a capability 

to manufacture new nuclear weapons, but to be able to design, 

produce, and test new nuclear weapons and to modify existing nuclear weapons for new purposes. 

In this bill, the Armed Services Committee has approved a requirement to develop a plan for global strike capabilities that 

would include new nuclear weapons, money to reduce the time 

needed to conduct a nuclear weapons test and a mandate to do just 

that, and to move more quickly on a facility to build hundreds of 

plutonium pits per year, a key component of nuclear weapons. This 

bill also includes money to modify existing large nuclear weapons 

to be new earth penetrators, money for advanced nuclear weapons 

concepts, and the repeal, as requested by the Bush Administration, 

466

of a ten year old ban on the research and development of low yield 

nuclear weapons. 

This is the wrong direction to take the country. The Cold War 

is over. The United States is the most powerful country in the 

world. We have demonstrated the skill, the precision, and awesome 

capability of our conventional weapons and the brave men and 

women of our armed forces. We need a strong military, we need to 

fight the war on terrorism, and we need to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But we accomplish none of these goals by 

resuming a new nuclear arms race. 

When this bill is considered by the full Senate it is my hope that 

the debate on nuclear weapons will continue and the subtle but 

dramatic shift in nuclear weapons policy will be fully aired. There 

is still time to change this dangerous direction. 

MISSILE DEFENSE

In the area of ballistic missile defense, the committee is recommending some positive changes, such as the restoration of a national missile defense intercept test in 2004 that the Bush Administration recently cancelled and a provision which would require 

the Department of Defense to provide an estimate of the costs to 

procure missile defenses in the future. 

Overall, however, I continue to have serious concerns about the 

Bush Administration’s ballistic missile defense program. President 

Bush has announced his intention to begin fielding a national missile defense system in 2004, despite the fact that the Pentagon’s 

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation concluded in his 

FY2002 Annual Report that the system ‘‘has yet to demonstrate 

significant operational capability.’’ The planned fielding date is 

September 2004, weeks before the Presidential elections, but years 

before the system is scheduled to conduct any realistic operational 

testing to prove that it actually works. So the plan is to field the 

system before we even know if it will work.

As the events of 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 

continuing global operations against terrorism continue to demonstrate, the imminent threats to this country are not from longrange intercontinental ballistic missiles. Rather, they come from 

shadowy networks of terrorists without the means or the desire to 

acquire a long-range missile. This situation will not change by September 2004. Therefore, deployment of an unproven national missile defense by then will not increase our nation’s security. Instead, 

what the deployment is more likely to do is significantly delay the 

time when we may have an operationally effective national missile 

defense capability. 

To add insult to injury, the national missile defense system the 

President has decided to field does not have a radar capable of distinguishing between a warhead and a decoy. While President Clinton had planned to build such a radar, President Bush intends to 

field the system without one. The radar represents the all important ‘‘eyes’’ of the system, and the system to be fielded by President 

Bush is partially blind. After repeatedly and harshly criticizing the 

Clinton Administration’s national missile defense program, the 

Bush Administration has decided to deploy a system far less capable than the system President Clinton had proposed. 

467

The only way to demonstrate that we have an effective national 

missile defense is to conduct realistic intercept tests of the system, 

during which a defensive interceptor actually engages a target 

made to look like an incoming threat missile. As the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Testing stated in his FY2002 Annual Report, 

the national missile defense system has yet to complete intercept 

tests ‘‘against targets with signatures, countermeasures and flight 

dynamics more closely matching the threat.’’ One of the astonishing by-products of the President’s decision to 

field a national missile defense is that the number of scheduled 

intercept tests for the system has plummeted to just over half what 

it had been prior to the deployment decision. Prior to the President’s December 2002 decision to field the system, 20 national missile defense intercept tests had been scheduled to occur between 

mid–2002 and 2007. Following the President’s decision, 9 of these 

20 tests were cancelled. No explanation was given by the Bush Administration for this drastic reduction in test content. Furthermore, 

the scheduled date to complete this new, minimalist test plan is 

now 2009 instead of 2007. The decision to field an unproven system 

has thus been accompanied by a decision to eliminate or delay the 

very testing that must be conducted to show whether the system 

is effective. 

This is all the more astonishing because the Bush Administration sold its ‘‘new’’ missile defense program on the central premise 

of building a sophisticated ‘‘test bed’’ and conducting unprecedented 

levels of rigorous, realistic tests to learn what would work—and 

only then decide what to deploy. These assurances have proven to 

be completely hollow. The Bush Aministration intends to deploy 

missile defenses long before they have been shown to work. 

In addition to cancelling almost half of the planned national missile defense intercept tests, the Bush Administration proposed legislation in the fiscal year 2004 budget request that would have allowed operational testing to be waived for national missile defense. 

Rigorous, realistic operational testing is required by law for all 

major weapons systems to ensure that they work prior to being deployed to our military in the field. The proposal to waive such testing for missile defense displays a disregard for a law which for over 

20 years has been critical to ensuring our military gets equipment 

that will actually work in battle. Thankfully, the committee bill 

does not provide any waivers for operational testing of missile defenses, but the Bush Administration has yet to say when such realistic testing will in fact be done for national missile defense. 

The Bush Administration’s ballistic missile defense program is 

the single largest acquisition program in the entire Department of 

Defense, with a budget request of more than $9 billion in fiscal 

year 2004 alone. For perspective, this amount of funding could buy 

9 DDG–51–class destroyers, 45 F–22 Raptor fighter aircraft, or 

more than 2800 Stryker Armored Vehicles. Despite this huge 

amount of funding, however, the Bush Administration cannot describe what sort of missile defense systems will ultimately be deployed, when they will be deployed, or what types of missile threats 

they will defend against. 

Over the last two years Congress has passed a number of laws 

requiring the Bush Administration to provide basic information on 

468

its plans for missile defense. The Bush Administration has ignored 

many of these laws.

For example, at the beginning of fiscal year 2002 Congress required the Bush Administration to establish cost, schedule, testing 

and performance goals for missile defense and directed the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) to review whether progress was being 

made towards the established goals. By the end of 2002 the Bush 

Administration had still not established any meaningful goals for 

missile defense. Consequently, in November 2002 the Director of 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the GAO wrote to the 

committee to say that since no goals had been established, GAO 

could not complete its review. 

There are still no meaningful cost, schedule, testing or performance goals associated with the vast majority of the missile defense 

funding. This lack of an overall plan for missile defense has resulted in the Bush Administration allocating no funding at all to 

actually procure any missile defense system. Aside from the ‘‘fielding’’ of a few unproven missile defense interceptors starting in 

2004, there are no firm plans to ever deploy any missile defense 

system. The American taxpayers have paid close to $20 billion over the last two years, and will likely pay more than $9 billion more next 

year, all for a missile defense program with no specified end date, 

no identified military requirements, and no identified products. The 

Bush Administration uses buzzwords like ‘‘spiral development’’ and ‘‘evolutionary acquisition’’ to defend this lack of planning. But that 

fact remains that it is not clear when, if ever, the administration’s 

missile defense program will actually produce and deploy a new 

missile defense system that is proven to be effective. 

I have been and remain a strong supporter of theater missile defenses such as the Patriot PAC–3 system deployed in the Iraq war. 

The PAC–3 system was developed under President Clinton and 

operationally tested prior to being fielded. Such systems, once proven by testing, will provide our deployed troops and allies overseas 

with protection from the thousands of short-range theater missiles 

known to be deployed in a number of potential conflict areas. I also 

support prudent research, development and testing of a national 

missile defense to defend the U.S. from the potential of a longrange, intercontinental ballistic missile attack. 

But I cannot support the Bush Administration’s approach to missile defense. Their program seems designed primarily to spend 

huge amounts of money to field unproven systems on a political 

time table. It cuts back on needed testing and contains no plan to 

fund or deploy effective missile defenses. 

JACK REED.

Æ